Collin Hansen of Christianity Today has written a piece entitled “Reasonable Cause: Southern Baptists Debate the Role of Their Message in Hiring, Firing” in which he interviewed such men as President Frank Page, Richard Land, and Jerry Vines about the resolution that was passed affirming the Baptist Faith & Message. As you know, there has been a lot of post-Convention talk about this, and rightly so. Just take a look at their responses and see the differences in opinion:
Frank Page:
“The motion will remain open for interpretation. . . . It will be an object of discussion for years to come. By and large, the messengers were saying, ‘Let’s be careful not to become too narrow, too legalistic.'”
Richard Land:
“The bloggers are desperate for a win, because their candidate for first vice president got slam-dunk stomped. They are desperate to spin this motion.”
Jerry Vines:
“Frankly, the motion does nothing. . . .Things will go on just as they have always been.”
What do you think?
I read the article and I think that Richard Land should be vacated from his position. His attitude is not what I want the world seeing from a Southern Baptist “leader.” The most gracious answer was from Frank Page- maybe just the most political- though I am not a fan of his.
I think Jerry Vines was probably right- things will just continue on status quo for now. May God raise up more serious leaders and decrease the politicians directing (not leading) the SBC.
Um, wow.
Frank Page’s answer was just what it should have been, and I think he alone of the three quotes noted rightly interprets the vote. Richard Land basically loses any credibility he has with that statement. And Jerry Vines’ statement shows a burgeoning lack of respect for the people who put him in his position. But the previous commenter is right – Vines’ view is probably the one that will actually come to pass.
We should pray that Frank Page’s view of the motion become the prevailing perspective.
Frank Page comes across as the irenic middle-of-the-roader.
Richard Land comes across as a bully.
Jerry Vines speaks the unfortunate truth. Change will not happen because the powers that be don’t want it and will not stand for it.
This is so sad.
Les
Well, it is hard to avoid how any attempt to address this issue wouldn’t be shrouded with political intent, but I think these varying responses are indicative of the fact that conservatives in the SBC are going in multiple directions.
Les, I think you nailed it.
I am hopeful for the future of the SBC, but I am not looking for the answer or even the impetus for being hopeful anywhere else except for the renewal and reform of the local church.
At least, if anything, these comments reveal who we should avoid more than what we should embrace.
Timmy,
I echo your comment about being “hopeful for the SBC”. I am hopeful for the SBC but maybe not in the same way. I think the small church pastor in the SBC should be helped and that’s the main reason I’m coordinating the “Small Church Conference”in 2008. I’m just about at the point of saying “let the politicians and the megachurch guys have the offices and appointments.” I’m jumping in the trenches with the majority of the SBC, that is, the small churches.
Les
Out of the three quotes:
– Dr. Page probably comes the closest to “getting it”
– Dr. Vines probably comes the closest to reality.
To be honest (and I watched the entire debate via webcast) the motion did carry the hint of desperation and does present a new set of challenges. Look for Drs. Mohler and Akin to stick with the CR leadership on this one.
I don’t disagree with the PPL movement personally, growing up in hard-cessasionalist (sp?) churches I have never really exegeted the subject myself. I just have concerned with how it played out.
Les,
Could you share a little more about the “Small Church Conference?” That sounds like a great idea.
Dr. Vines hit the nail on the head:
“Frankly, the motion does nothing,” said former SBC president Jerry Vines. “Things will go on just as they have always been.”
I have read the motion over and over and I agree with Dr. Mohler’s analysis in that it is “a guide”, but not “the authority.”
Les, I’ve been thinking that it would be beneficial for Southern to have a whole semester of battle-hardened small church pastors speaking in chapel. Most of us will not be megachurch pastors. I believe that is a good thing. Why is it almost exclusively megachurch pastors who are heard in our chapel?
Can you tell us the dates of the Small Churches conference for ’08? I would like to try to block out the time now if possible. Also, could you define a “small church”?
As far as the BFM, I think the key misunderstanding at work here is the definition of what a statement of faith is for. I’ve read very persuasive arguments about why churches should not use the 1689 Second London Confession as their confession of faith, because it contains a number of things, such as an insistence that the Pope is THE Antichrist, that should not be a basis for exclusion from membership. I like Dr. Mohler. I LOVE what he has done for this seminary. My problem is that I cannot understand why at the convention, he seemed to defend the practice of setting SBC institutional policies around non binding resolutions and unwritten rules. He also seemed to express an aversion to amending our statement of faith with every new controversy.
Every one of the early Ecumenical councils was occasioned by some theological crisis. The folks at the council of Constantinople didn’t say, “Nicea was enough”. No statement of faith is made in a vacuum. It is always going to make sense in the light of the theological controversies of its day. That is why I believe it is unhelpful in a way that the PCA holds rigidly to the Westminster Standards, and that has led to the crisis they are now experiencing regarding Paedocommunion.
Dr. Mohler did a good job of delineating what are first order issues, and what are secondary and tertiary issues. I only wish he would apply those delineations consistently. If we have an agency of this convention adopting a personnel policy that is driven by rigid adherence to what most all of us agree is a secondary or tertiary issue, to the exclusion of all others, we have a problem on our hands. In other words, if an issue is important enough for IMB to reject someone from the mission field over it, I think it is important enough for the BFM to speak to it.
I am a cessationist, and I believe that anyone who has any charismatic sympathies has no business in the mission field. It is far too easy for a false teacher to sway someone who believes he can receive a word directly from God independent of the scriptures. I think it is important enough that we should put something in the BFM on it. Given the very genesis of this convention, I don’t understand why something that is not addressed at all in our statement of faith should be a basis for excluding someone from missions. That is why we split from the Northern Baptists, after all.
hmm…
Guillaume,
You said, If we have an agency of this convention adopting a personnel policy that is driven by rigid adherence to what most all of us agree is a secondary or tertiary issue, to the exclusion of all others, we have a problem on our hands. In other words, if an issue is important enough for IMB to reject someone from the mission field over it, I think it is important enough for the BFM to speak to it.
I think you are right in this assessment.
When the IMB makes policies that exceed the BF&M, they can argue that other entities or agencies do the same thing. But to refer to the use of the Abstract versus the arbitrary politcy of PPL/Baptism is not a 1-1 correspondence.
In our class last semester, do you remember when we talked about Boyce and the Abstract in reference to the Toy controversy? There was a fear in revising the confession, namely that revising it would create a precedence for future revision–possibly by liberal and unbiblical leaders. The integrity of the confession is in tact because it has not been revised, and to continually revise the BF&M every time a controversy arises in the SBC would to make the confession in a perpetual revision process.
So when the BF&M revised in ’63 and again in 2000, it laid the ground for future revision. But just when and for what reason is not explicit. So going back to the prior issue: should we or should we not revise the confession? Would it be good for the SBC? Would it weaken the integrity and history of the confession? Those are some thoughts that come to my mind when I think about this.
Regarding whether the BFM should be revised, if the statement is going to reflect common consensus among Southern Baptists, then it would seem the Convention has no need to revise the Confession over the issue of PPL.
The SBC does not have a common consensus regarding PPL. We can argue whether or not agencies and institutions have the right to make theological policies outside of the BFM, but to incorporate a stance on PPL in the BFM would alienate half of the Convention.
All of that being said, one of the distinctives of Baptists is a commitment to Scripture over creeds and confessions. Therefore, I believe anytime consensus or cultural issues have changed, the confession should change. However, consensus means much more than 51%.
Timmy said: So when the BF&M revised in ‘63 and again in 2000, it laid the ground for future revision.
The real problem is what the ’63 and 2000 revisions signified. Each was a repudiation of what had come before it. Any revision to a statement of faith should UPHOLD the previous confessions, and have the purpose of CLARIFYING issues that were not comprehended at the time of the prior confession. I am sympathetic with Boyce’s desire that the school not become Modernist, but will all due respect to the deceased founder of this institution, it is clear from his speech at Furman that he recognized the danger of the German theological contagion, but he was negligent in guarding against it when he wrote the Abstract. Boyce believed, as many people do today, that statements of faith should not be modified over time, but it was not always this way. Was it Chalcedon that modified the Nicene creed to make it overtly trinitarian? That was not a repudiation of what came before, but a confirmation and a clarification of it.
I have a real problem with the way BFM 2000 changed the language from “Bread and Wine” to “Bread and the Fruit of the Vine” where it discusses communion. Apparently refraining from using the biblical word “wine” when discussing the ordinances is a matter of the First Order, and needs to be enshrined in our statement of faith, meanwhile Cessationism is not and does not. I’m not credulous enough to believe that.
Hey guys. the dates for the “Small Church Conference” are March 27-29, 2008. You can find more information on my blog here.
Les
Looks like my link didn’t work. Here’s the link to my blog: http://lesliepuryear.blogspot.com/2007/07/small-church-conference-2008.html
Les
Joseph and Guillaume,
I think the matter of revising confessions is a worthy topic, perhaps requiring a new thread. However, Joseph has a point. Putting an article on PPL at this time seems unwise, especially in light of the LifeWay report a couple of months ago.
However, Guillaume is also right to say that theology is done in context, and with each generation, there needs to be a rightful contending for the truth and faith once for all delivered to the saints. Having a strong confessional background would serve well to provide continuity and undergird orthodoxy when it is challenged. However, when a new heresy arises (usually it is not that new), we go to Scripture for our authority, but we can also appeal to the orthodox Christian teaching firmly held throughout church history. Joseph is right to say that Scripture is our sole authority, but confessions certainly have their place in a secondary level (and I think Joseph, you would agree with me on that).
When we revise a statement or confession, we need to really be careful about what we are doing and whether the “why” is worthy of it. On the other hand, I have talked with several in our generation (such as Joe Thorn) about the need for a contemporary version of our confession in the 21st century which adequately addresses the issues relevant to our context. I am quite sympathetic to that idea.
Les,
Thanks for the link about the conference. I hope to blog on it soon. Will you be speaking at all the sessions?
Maybe somebody can help the dirt to settle out of the mud thereby clearing up a question I have…
If the BF&M was prepared by committee, submitted to the SBC, voted on and approved by the SBC, …
Then why was there a resolution to affirm it? Isn’t that redundant? Or is there fear the resurgence is losing its momentum and a backslide to the dark side is about to occur?
Timmy,
I will go a step farther and say that Dr. Land is being dishonest. As I reported on my blog, he was behind me at the mic and he was in line to speak against the motion. At that time, it was clear that he understood it the same way I do – encouraging adherence to the BFM without going beyond it. I was speaking for the motion – as a blogger.
Further, I wrote several times prior to the election that David Rogers would not likely win. I was not desperate. The 1VP does nothing unless the President actually dies.
Frankly, Dr. Land is the one who is sounding desperate.
Scott,
Your first question is a good one. As has been mentioned, six years ago missionaries were being taken off the mission field for not signing onto the new BF&M (2000). Six years later, missionaries are being taken off the field for believing the BF&M (2000) but not believing more than that. The IMB implemented policies which were not covered in the BF&M (such as private prayer languages); therefore, they exceeded the BF&M. So it appears they were at one time saying that adhering to the confession was essential to being on the mission field with the IMB, and shortly thereafter they were saying that the BF&M is not enough.
So I think in the minds of some people, the BF&M needed to be reaffirmed so that trustees of various entities cannot arbitrarily make decisions not represented by the consensus of the Convention. The rub, however, comes with seminaries such as SBTS and SEBTS who have the Abstract of Principles as their confession. And I believe that the Abstract is as foundational (if not more) as the BF&M. There are some who are wanting to pit the one against the other, saying that they are irreconcilable and one has to be done away with. If that idea is elevated for consideration, I would speak against it.
Do you remember the movie “Back to the Future” and the family portrait where people were all of the sudden disappearing? I think that is what many people in the SBC were thinking was happening when the parameters of cooperation and consensus narrowed beyond the BF&M and our distinctive Baptist identity.
No, I won’t be speaking at all the sessions, you silly guy. 🙂 I’m currently soliciting speakers. When I get them wrangled, I’ll post their names.
Les
Les,
Well, I am sure you would have done a fine job. 😉
I do look forward to hearing more about the conference, and I have a hunch that is will be warmly received by many. May the Lord use this as an encouragement to many ministers in the trenches!
Timmy,
it appears as though the spin being placed on the Garner motion is doing exactly what you say you cannot support. The spin cycle is spitting out the doctrine that no document or action of trustees can go beyond the BF&M without a vote of the convention. I argue for consistency. If that is really what the Garner motion meant the abstracts should come to a vote of the convention. I am not arguing for such and I am not arguing for the BF&M to be a noose around the neck of our trustees that keep them from functioning. It is interesting that while missionaries were being dismissed for not signing, trustees were signing with caveats. You can’t go to the field but you can drive the ship. Do we have a consensus document or a document that you can agree to or not and serve as a trustee?
Les, how do you define a small church?
Gary,
I don’t know all the spin you are talking about. I haven’t read all the blogs or arguments about the Garner motion. I think if the Convention goes to vote on the Abstract of Principles, it will be more a manifestation of chronological snobbery and an attempt of Baptist revisionism than adherence to true Baptist principles. Your mentioning of the caveats reminds me of what Brad Reynolds said last year, that he could sign the Abstract of Principles so long as he could define what they meant. I find that intellectually dishonest and not a service to confessional integrity. The same goes for caveats.