SBC in San Antonio: Revenge of the Seminary Presidents, OR, SBC Polity Takes a Head Shot

Update: The Associated Baptist Press has a good article about what happened in the passage of the BF&M motion and the reaction of the seminary presidents.

Well, the Empire struck back today. I knew that it would last night when I read the spin emanating from the power structures of the SBC. They were furious that their absolute power had been curtailed a bit by the will of the Convention. It appears that they decided that Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary would fire back this morning. And, boy, did he ever.

Let me tell you what Dr. Mohler did. He said that he approved the motion passed last night that recommended that SBC entities stick to the Baptist Faith & Message as a guide for their doctrinal actions. He agreed that it was a guide. He then, turned the whole thing around and redefined what that meant. He said that, while it was appropriate as a guide, there was a need for seminaries to go beyond it in hiring professors. It was a minumum standard. He brought up examples like abortion and homosexuality from the pre-2000 BF&M. He whipped the crowd into a frenzy, got them yelling and cheering, and told them that the seminaries had to go beyond the BF&M in hiring professors lest our future pastors be subjected to heresy. We don't want that, do we? Our seminaries are now the protectors of the Truth, according to Dr. Mohler, and they will do what they please, thank you very much. Our Trustee boards of our entities will tell Southern Baptists what we believe on secondary and tertiary doctrines not defined by the Baptist Faith & Message. If you don't agree, well, there is a door that you can use.

Basically, our entities will not follow the directive of the Convention on the passage of this motion. And, no one will hold them accountable. We won a legal victory, but in the court of public opinion, Dr. Mohler hit a grand slam. Every Baptist state paper will interpret the motion the way that Dr. Mohler spun it. He was not being truthful about the issues, in my opinion, but was playing both sides of the fence. He reinterpreted the situation for all of us and told us what we believe - it happens to be the same thing that he believes. The implication was that we needed to be happy that he and others like him were there to do that for us. As a friend of mine said, the word hubris comes to mind.

Even though the people spoke and voted, and we have been told to trust our polity by our leaders and establishment bloggers when the issues were in their favor, now that the tables have turned they have changed the rules of engagement. They are redefining the vote to suit them and are telling us that nothing will change. The trustee boards of the SBC will do as they like. Dr. Mohler misrepresented the situation by saying that if our seminaries are not allowed to go beyond the BF&M, then we will all be subjected to heresy. That is simply not true. The BF&M has many articles that can be used to keep an institution orthodox. If not, then it is a worthless document, anyway. But, if you ARE allowed to go beyond the BF&M as you like, then what protection do we have against heresy? NONE. According to Dr. Mohler's rebellion against the will of the SBC, the people and churches of the SBC now have NO PROTECTION against heresy within our Trustee boards from our confession of faith, the Baptist Faith and Message, because our boards can add to it as they like, as long as they do not contradict it. It now means nothing more than a ceremonial piece of paper that is used to make sure that people believe at least that. Further beliefs will be defined by them and are completely arbitrary based upon their will and collective wisdom and understanding of what the "clear Baptist identity" is. But, since this identity is not written down anywhere, we must "trust" our trustees. By the way, if they do anything that you disagree with, you cannot get minutes from the meetings or find out who voted which way. There is no way to recall or vote out a trustee. To fix the situation requires winning presidential elections for the next 7-10 years. We have no protection from any other source within Baptist polity.

Ultimately, these men know how to play the game. The deck is stacked in their favor, and today we were given the game plan: spin, twist, and mismanage the truth. Then, stubbornly refuse to follow the will of the Convention by ignoring or reinterpreting the issue. As I have been saying all along, these men embody the definition of relativists. They change the rules to suit them, especially if any hint of power is being lost. This is truly about power, who holds it, and who wields it. Certain men have held it for a long time, and they are not giving it up. I actually don't really want them to - I just want them to quit beating the rest of us over the head with it.

Baptist polity USED to belong to the people. Technically, it still does. But, we now have an entrenched oligarchy in the SBC that thinks they know better than the people from whom they draw their paychecks. Truth appears dead. A vote is not really a vote. A majority is not really a majority. An SBC entity is biased if they do not give you the results that you desire. So, the answer is to attack, twist, spin, and sometimes lie. This is dirty pool, and the ones playing it, know it. The problem is, they can get away with it because the rank and file Southern Baptist looks up to these men and believes that they are being above board with us. I no longer believe that. My trust is gone and, as I said this morning, the system is broken.

So, obviously you can see that I am frustrated with this whole thing. But, let me say this: God is on His Throne. I never cared about power or control in any of this. All I ever wanted was to see the door held open so that otherwise qualified missionaries might get to the field so that unreached people groups can hear the gospel, believe, and be saved. We need all the help we can get. That is still my desire and the actions of a few men and the intentions of others will never stop that from happening. The gospel still goes forth and these men, though I disagree with them, are active proponents of that saving message. I praise God for that. But, it is clear that their vision of the SBC is one made in their image, following the "clear Baptist identity" as they understand it.

Apology: July 5th, 2007. The comments that I made in the post above were written in the heat of the moment and do not fully represent how I now feel. I wrote this post with a great deal of frustration over what appeared to me to be a double standard for those in leadership and many of my brethren on baptist blogs on the other side of the fence. They seem to trust Baptist polity some days and not others. There were many who were saying that the vote did not mean what it clearly meant. Because Dr. Mohler's report was loud and populist in it's appeal to those who opposed the BF&M motion, I read more into it than what he said. I went back and watched it online and I see where he did not mismanage the truth, lie, or spin. He clearly stated what he believed about the ability of Southern to hire seminary professors. He has that right. The context of his statement appeared to imply more than what he was saying at the time, but in retrospect, I see where he was just saying that seminaries have a right to thoroughly investigate the doctrinal beliefs of their professors. I agree with that. I would disagree with him if he thinks that SBC seminaries should use doctrines that go beyond the BF&M as a litmus test for hiring. He intimated that he would do that on glossolalia, but came short of using the idea of a litmus test. Nevertheless, he is entitled to his opinion and I am entitled to disagree.

Basically, my words in this post were too harsh. I struggled with it when I wrote it, but thought that it was appropriate because I was reporting what I saw and heard. In actuality, I was emotionally swayed by the atmosphere of the room, the roaring crowd, Dr. Mohler's strong presentation, the words of bloggers and others on the other side of the debate who were trying to discount the meaning of the vote, and the significance and weight of the events. I lost my objectivity and read too much into his statement. I listened to what he said but I did not really hear it. I disagree with him strongly on some of his points, but I should have been more tempered in my analysis. I was not, and I apologize.

The only area that I really believe that Dr. Mohler was a bit disingenuous was when he kept referring to the BF&M as a "guide" when the motion said that it was a "sufficient guide." But, to use that as an example of him misrepresenting the truth assumes too much and goes into the realm of judging him beyond his own words. I think that he is too smart a man to not have done that intentionally, but I could have just disagreed with him and left the emotion and accusations out of it.

To sum up, I asserted too much in this post and I crossed a line that I never wanted to. I got too caught up in SBC politics to see straight. The events of the previous month had worn on me and I lost my objectivity. This is why I know that my decision to back out of all of this, apart from an occasional opinion piece on the new SBC Outpost is the right one. It is hard to keep a clear head these days, and this is an example of my failure to do so. While I believe that the thrust of my position is correct and I continue to stand by it, I apologize for the strong language that I used in dealing with Dr. Mohler's comments. I can disagree with his position without assigning motive or falsely accusing him of being untruthful. For that, I am sorry.

Comments

[Les Puryear]

Amen!

Les

[Chris Wilson]

What Dr Mohler said was not spin. He was sepaking the truth about what the motion called for: The BFM will be a guide in hiring professors. NO professor will be hired without affirming the BFM. What else do you want?

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to affirm Sola Scriptura (that's the authority of the Bible alone is our guide, FYI) yet you want to adopt the BFM as the FINAL say about all our doctrine. Those two mindsets are mutually exclusive.

Dr Mohler articulated the only perspective SBCers can have on this issue: the BFM is a confession that is a minimum statement about the core issues of what we believe make us distinct as Southern Baptists which will guide the hiring of seminary professors, and that the the BIBLE will still be his ultimate authority in doctrine and theology.

[Paul Burleson]

Chris,

Quite the opposite. What is said is that the BF@M is fallible and purposefully vague in places. The difference is simply that the Convention has gone on record as saying don't add to it arbitrarily. ALL Baptists are to hold the scriptures as final authority. But what essentials are for Baptist life are addressed by the BF@M. Where it is ambiguous it is to remain so UNLESS the Convention speaks to it's ambiguity.

If an entity [this whole issue is about entities after all] wishes to go beyond the BF@M they have the authority to do so. But it will be beyond the will of the Southern Baptist people speaking the only way they can, collectively, in Convention. If a BOT wants to prevent caveats in vague areas let the Convention speak to that too. No one is elevating the BF@M to a creed this way but actually using it as a Confession of Faith. But the change is the Convention has say as to the essentials and the nuances that can be seen differently.

I repeat, this does NOT keep SBC entities BOTs from going beyond the BF@M or even challenging a trustee/missionary's caveats. It simple gives the Convention a voice instead of a Board of Trustees that often never reports how, who, and what was decided and is presented to the SBC people as a done deal.

Of course, personal, ethical, and even some moral issues will be handled by an entities BOT. Even lesser doctrinal issues can be raised, but, for goodness sake, let's keep the people involved. While the Convention is not a Church, I would want NO LESS for any church I've ever pastored. No one can question the authority of a BOT to make decisions of this nature, but the wisdom of a Bot, were they to do so contrary to the expressed wishes of the people, would be questionable.

I repeat a final time, this KEEPS the BF@M from being a creed that automatically must be signed or thoughtlessly adhered to OR can be enforced in areas that heretofor were purposefully left vague, but at a whim, are decided to be non-baptist so let's add them to our standard. Rather let's ask all Southern Baptists if it is essential or if it is minor. It simply brings it back into the interpretive hands of the people as a deliberative body. This is actually using a Confession of Faith as a legitimate guide for ALL our people with out using compulsion on any. That may, after all, be the Baptist way.

[Jeff Richard Young]

Dear Brother Alan,

I'm sorry I couldn't have any barbeque with you this year. Thanks for keeping us posted.

Love in Christ,

Jeff

[Debbie Kaufman]

Now if you could have only given that message in front of the Convention.