This article, with minor changes, was originally posted at From Law to Grace. You can also find From Law to Grace on Twitter and Facebook.

Sitting at the Baptist Convention of New Mexico’s Evangelism Conference in Albuquerque last week, I was reminded yet again why I describe myself as an “Calvinist Traditionalist,” someone who agrees with Reformed Theology (i.e., the Doctrines of Grace, TULIP, etc.), but who does not always strictly preach or practice in conformity with said doctrines and theology.

Perhaps the clearest example of my own Calvinistic Traditionalism manifests itself when I preach or teach on the very first Bible verse that I learned as a child. I learned it in the King James Version and still recite this particular verse in KJV language to this day, even though I am now an ESV (the Mark of the Reformed) guy. Of course, the passage of Scripture I am talking about is John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

As one of the conference speakers mentioned, John 3:16 was probably the first verse that most Christians of a certain age learned in Sunday School or RA’s and GA’s (oops, I’m dating myself and also letting my Traditionalist side peek out). John 3:16 continues to be a popular choice for signs at sporting events (although I doubt most Americans today really understand the meaning behind the numbers). In Southern Baptist life, John 3:16 is not just a verse, but has also become its own conference. That’s what you call staying power.

Unfortunately, many Southern Baptists (and others to be sure) are confused both as to the meaning of the verse and the power of the verse. Because of its simplicity, too many people become easily confused when it comes to John 3:16. That confusion sometimes leads to disagreements (even though we should be able to disagree agreeably). Those disagreements can sometimes lead to arguments. Those arguments can sometimes lead to fights. Those fights can sometimes lead to splits. However, regardless of what John 3:16 really means, it cannot (and must not) lead to fights among Southern Baptist brothers and sisters. If it does, then the ones doing the fighting — be they Calvinists or Traditionalists — don’t have a clue as to the true meaning behind John 3:16!

As an inconsistent Calvinist with a Traditionalist bent, I admit that I am one of the many who can be easily confused when it comes to John 3:16. Not when I preach it, but when I hear others preach it. Listening to a message on this passage at the BCNM Evangelism Conference, I began to overthink the meaning of John 3:16. My mind began to wonder, “Does God love the world — all people — or only the elect?”  “Can world be both/and — all people in general, but only the elect in particular?”

Maybe you have never thought of these questions. Or, perhaps you have thought of other questions. As my mind wondered (yes, even pastors can daydream in the midst of others’ sermons), I began to think of the simplicity of John 3:16. That the Creator of the Universe loves sinners so much that He sent His one and only Son to demonstrate His great love, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us on the Cross! What a love, what a Savior!

Will every person who has ever lived or will ever live trust Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord? Obviously not. Will everyone in your family or in your community be a “whosoever?” Unfortunately not. Could I parse the words of John 3:16 or Romans 5:8 to limit God’s love only to the elect? If pressed, I’m sure I could, but I really don’t want to.

I suppose as a Calvinistic Traditionalist, I will sometimes struggle with how to handle John 3:16. There will be times when I am uncomfortable with how someone else preaches that verse. However, when it comes to my own preaching, I shall continue to see the simplicity and beauty of John 3:16. And, I shall preach it the way I learned it. After all, tradition isn’t a bad thing, especially when it’s Biblical

Who has better table manners? That question once again comes to the forefront in Southern Baptist life following the release of a recent survey on Lord’s Supper practices among SBC churches conducted by Lifeway, an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention. While some found the survey results to be surprising and still others, including Voices’ own Jared Moore (agreeing with the Kentucky Baptist Convention’s Executive Director, Paul Chitwood), passionately circled the wagons around close/closed communion, my own observation is that these results reveal what many believed to have been the practice among a majority of our churches, notwithstanding the Baptist Faith and Message.

When it comes to the Lord’s Supper, does the Baptist Faith and Message mandate that Southern Baptist churches practice close/closed communion? Before you answer my question, you might want to give it some thought. Just to be fair, it is a trick question. You see, Southern Baptists’ confession of faith — unlike a creed — does not mandate any cooperating church to do anything that it does not want to do. The BF&M is not binding on any church. Of course, the Southern Baptist Convention messengers — meeting in annual session — are free to refuse to seat messengers from a particular church which fails to abide by certain doctrinal beliefs. Churches who have affirmed homosexuality or who have called women to serve as senior pastors would fall into that category (although the SBC Constitution’s language only excludes churches ”which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior”; it is silent on the issue of membership for churches that have called female pastors).

Apart from these areas, I would be surprised if any church was disfellowshipped from the SBC for failing to follow the “letter of the law” when it comes to partaking of the Lord’s Supper. I’m sure to the consternation of many within the leadership class of the Convention (see Baptist Press’ posting of a previously published article on the Lord’s Supper which failed to include a reflection from anyone arguing for the majority position of modified, open communion), the Lifeway survey in question disclosed that a clear majority (57%) of Southern Baptist churches surveyed practice either open or modified open communion.

According to the survey, the majority of churches open the Lord’s Supper or Communion to ”anyone who has put their faith in Jesus Christ” (52%) or “to anyone who wants to participate (5%).” Only 35% of survey respondents limit participation in the Lord’s Supper to ”anyone who has been baptized as a believer.” However, it was not clear from the BP article whether or not “baptism” was defined in a specifically Baptistic way (i.e., “believer’s baptism by immersion”) or whether “baptism” could also include believers who had been baptized by non-immersion modes (i.e., sprinkling or pouring).

The results would seem to be at odds with the plain language of the Baptist Faith & Message on this point:

VII. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.

The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

If one were to abide by a literal reading of the BF&M at this point, there would be little doubt that those churches which allow any believer — regardless of their baptism status — or anyone — regardless of their salvation status — to partake of the Lord’s Supper would be running afoul of Southern Baptists’ adopted confessional statement. For the record, the church I pastor practices a modified, open communion which invites “anyone who is born-again and has placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord” to partake. In fact, we observed the Lord’s Supper this past Sunday at the conclusion of a message in which I shared the results of the Lifeway survey and preached from 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.  Did I violate the language of the Baptist Faith and Message with my practice? Perhaps, although I could try to make a lawyerly argument which would try to get around the language. But, I don’t even have to make that argument.

You see, the Baptist Faith & Message is a man-made, fallible document. While it can be used as a guide, it can never replace the infallible Scriptures as our final authority for faith and for putting our faith into practice. In fact, the Preamble to both the 1963 and 2000 versions of the BF&M clearly states this historic Baptist principle:

(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.

It would appear, at least according to this one Lifeway survey, that a majority of Southern Baptist churches have chosen to ignore the guide provided by the Baptist Faith and Message and have instead chosen to follow the advice of the BF&M Committees (1963 & 2000) by relying upon the sole authority for faith and practice — the Scriptures — in instituting their Lord’s Supper practices. I’m sure there will be those who will try to argue that those churches which practice anything but close/closed communion are in violation of Scripture. That is certainly their prerogative  If they so choose to believe that Scripture teaches that the Lord’s Table is only open to baptized believers (of course, the very first Lord’s Supper might be problematic) and want to practice that at their church, then I would defend their right to do so. I often like to come to the aid of those in the minority so that their rights are not trampled on by the majority.

Even though I believe that Article VII of the BF&M states a clear minority position within the SBC, I would not move to amend what it says. I think that we can generally agree on a confession of faith without trying to dictate to autonomous churches how they should practice the Lord’s Supper. It is only when a minority of SBC churches or when leaders of our Cooperative Program-funded entities try to impose their beliefs about the Lord’s Supper on autonomous Southern Baptist churches or accuse the majority of churches of enabling and/or countenancing unrepentant sin that we will experience problems with cooperation. If that were to happen, then at least one prominent church — with an equally prominent pastor — would need to come under censure, for I’m pretty sure the fence around the Lord’s Supper table was quite low when my son and I took communion there this past February.

What does this survey mean for Southern Baptist faith and practice? In the whole scheme of things, not much. (Serving as a trustee or employee of an SBC entity is another issue, not the subject of this post). Of course, there are always those in our midst — identifying as Southern Baptists — who have no real understanding of cherished Baptist principles such as autonomy of the local church. For every issue, some folks would like to use the Baptist Faith and Message as a creed with which to ensure doctrinal conformity instead of as a confession to encourage cooperation and fellowship. To some of those folks, I would say, “Be careful what you ask for.” If you want to use the BF&M in such a way, then we can always look at the churches — perhaps your churches — which have strayed from the clear language of the article immediately preceding the one on Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In case you’re wondering, it’s the one which limits the Scriptural officers to “pastors and deacons.” I’m all for grace, but I still have a little law — and a little fight — left in me!

The following post, originally published at From Law to Grace on August 7, 2012, has been updated to include additional facts and information pertinent to this case.

After Christians came out in droves to eat some good fried chicken at Chick-fil-A this past week, a Phoenix pastor and his lawyers apparently thought that Christians would also rise up (i.e., donate money) to defend the rights of all Americans to have a Bible study anytime and anywhere — existing zoning, building, fire, and safety codes be d***ed. Both the pastor, Michael Salman and his lawyers, John Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute, are sadly mistaken. And, from all appearances, it seems they want Evangelical Christians of all shapes and sizes to buy into that same mistake, all under the guise of “freedom of religion.”

As my good blogging friend, William Thornton over at SBC Plodder warned when this story first broke last month, don’t get suckered into taking what you hear about this Phoenix pastor at face value. Of course, if you don’t know the facts of the case, but merely rely upon the pastor and his lawyers — through the media (Fox News and Christian news outlets) — to spoon-feed you their version of the facts, then you will become one of those folks that P.T. Barnum talked about. And, you wouldn’t want that, now would you?

The more I learn about Mr. Salman, the more I come to realize that this case has very little to do with the First Amendment, but much to do with a contentious man who seems to rather enjoy the spotlight. Knowing what I know about The Rutherford Institute, I should say I am surprised that they would take up such a case in which the facts — as opposed to the raw emotion — make their client look very unsympathetic. More on that in a moment. For Mr. Whitehead to try to argue that “the same zoning laws used in Arizona to imprison Michael Salman for holding Bible studies will probably be passed across the United States” is hyperbole at its best, especially in light of . This case — as much as Pastor Salman and his defenders and lawyers would have you believe — has absolutely nothing to do with holding “Bible studies” in a private residence. This case has everything to do with the integrity of a pastor who appears, at almost every turn, to go out of his way to not only flout the law, but to do so in a way that could easily be construed to be both obnoxious and self-serving. Not exactly the qualities that you want in a pastor or a neighbor.

Following a comment that was left on my blog on Tuesday afternoon by Nisha Whitehead, one of Mr. Salman’s attorney’s at The Rutherford Institute, I decided should do a bit more research into this case. After reading several articles (here, here, and here), a picture began to form as to who this Pastor Salman might be. Let’s just say that these articles help to paint a more complete picture than the one which many conservative media outlets — including many Christian sources — have tried to paint.

The picture painted is of a man who was convicted in a drive-by shooting earlier in his life; a man who, even after becoming a Christian and a pastor, impersonated a police officer to “scare” a boy who was messing around with a girl from Salman’s church. (He was also convicted of a misdemeanor crime in that little escapade.); a man who once claimed to be a member of the “Embassy of God,” a sect which apparently believed that “Ambassadors from Heaven” did not have to follow the laws of the United States (sorta like diplomatic immunity);a man who appears to have a temper and who doesn’t play well with others, including his current neighbors (one of whom had a restraining order issued against Salman) and at least one former church which ousted him as pastor and had to get a court order to forcibly evict Salman from church property; a man who, when given opportunity after opportunity by the City of Phoenix to rectify the building code violations — fire and safety, NOT ZONING — not only refused to do so, but continued to move forward with building plans knowing that he did not have the permits required by law; a man who apparently was less than honest in what he told neighbors and city officials regarding the permitting process (it was not a “game room” as he claimed on his permit application); a man who comes across as the in-your-face obnoxious know-it-all proud “Christian” who thinks that he is right while everyone else is wrong. In short, the picture painted of Michael Salman is not one that should be hanging next to humble Christian pastors undergoing real persecution in the Middle East and elsewhere around the globe.

Contrary to certain hyperbolic assertions, we do not have a case where city officials are trying to change the law to keep out churches or to shut down existing churches. Could that happen? Yes, but this is not that case. On the contrary, the laws regulating zoning, building, fire and safety in Phoenix are neither new nor are they prohibited ex post facto laws which were hastily enacted to harass an innocent pastor just trying to practice his religion freely. These laws are not, as far as I can tell, being applied in some kind of capricious and inconsistent manner. In fact, it appears that Mr. Salman could legally construct his church building — in his own back yard — as long as he complied with the fire and safety codes that EVERY OTHER CHURCH IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX HAS TO COMPLY WITH.

A federal law, the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act of 2000, protects religious institutions — including churches in Phoenix — from burdensome and draconian zoning laws designed to stifle religious expression. However, this same law does not exempt religious groups from meeting reasonable fire and safety codes proscribed by a city or municipality. Did I like to jump through all the hoops that the City of Alamogordo put our church through when we built a new conference center and education building recently? No. Were there requirements that I thought were stupid? Yes. Did we comply? Absolutely. I have absolutely zero tolerance for folks like Mr. Salman who believe the First Amendment somehow exempts them from the rules that apply to the rest of us.

While I have had my fair share of disagreements with building and zoning officers when I practiced law, I cannot say that what Phoenix has done is an unconstitutional abridgment of Mr. Salman’s free exercise rights. If that were the case, I would be one of the first to be all over it. No, what we have here is not anti-Christian bigotry masquerading as nefarious zoning regulations. Instead, we have a supposedly Christian pastor who has failed to uphold the overarching qualifications for the pastoral office — having character that is “above reproach.” I’m sorry, but given the facts of this case, there appears to be a severe lack of integrity on the part of this pastor. Waving the Bible and claiming a violation of your First Amendment Right to “freedom of religion” simply will not be a strong defense in this case (with all due respect to The Rutherford Institute).

Unfortunately, many Christians will read the headlines such as appeared on Fox News, “Arizona man sent to jail for holding Bible studies in his home,” (here) and will become immediately outraged over what they believe is yet another anti-Christian abuse of government power (although a legal segment on O’Reilly Tuesday concluded that the City of Phoenix was right). However, when you review the facts of this case — which date back to 2006 — you begin to realize that Mr. Salman may not be like the truly innocent pastors who have been thrown in jail in such places as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other repressive countries. Not even close.

Why? Because the facts seem to indicate a man who has not only failed to comply with the laws that he was aware of, but who actually took affirmative steps to break such laws. Not starting in July 2012, but in 2006. According to a Fact Sheet released by the City of Phoenix, Mr. Salman has either been cited or found guilty of multiple code violations (not zoning) dating back to 2007. As of today, no court of law has overturned or vacated Mr. Salman’s misdemeanor violations.

Originally published at From Law to Grace on June 11, 2012

Who would have thunk it. My mom has become a Baptist blog fanatic. A lifelong Southern Baptist who is in her late sixties, my mom began reading my blog several months ago. From there, it did not take her long to find the SBC blogs — as in Voices, Tomorrow and Today. That’s a good thing, because she has not had anything new to read on my blog in the last 3 1/2 weeks. On Saturday she commented that I hadn’t published any new articles as of late.  I told her I had taken a break from blogging (more on that in a minute) and that I would have another post up this week (which turns out to be this post today).

In order to keep up on all things Baptist, my mom regularly reads the major Baptist blogs.  Of course, not wanting to read the “wrong” blogs or a post written by the “wrong” blogger, she asked me whether or not she should be reading certain blogs or posts written by certain bloggers. She began tossing out the names of prominent Baptist bloggers as if she had known these folks her whole life. “Is so-and-so someone I should read?” What mom really was asking me was whether or not I thought these were “good” or “bad” bloggers. She wasn’t asking for a critique of their writing skills, but rather what I thought about a particular person. Without missing a beat, I would either say “yes” or “no.”

Reflecting on that conversation, it was clear that I only gave my hearty endorsement to those bloggers who I tended to agree with and who I liked. Other than giving my seal of approval to my “cuz,” CB Scott (who my mother mentioned by name), I won’t divulge the names of the other bloggers my mom specifically called out and who I chose to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down to. In hindsight, I should not have been so quick to “judge” and dismiss a person’s writing simply because I may have disagreed with some of their views. After all, my blog is titled “From Law to Grace.” Perhaps it would be better to show more grace to other bloggers, especially those with whom I disagree.

Since publishing my last post on May 17, I have had time to get some much-needed rest and to regain a new perspective for my own blogging endeavors. CB Scott, who I affectionately call my “cousin,” noticed my absence from the blog world and emailed to check up on me. I truly appreciate the concern. He has certainly earned the recommendation that I gave to my mom

I can’t speak for any other bloggers, but there are times when I simply hit a wall — physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually — and find myself with no motivation to write a blog post (although Mike Leake’s recent post at Voices, “Ten Tips for Daily Blogging,” is a helpful piece for situations just like mine). As pastor of a large and growing church in the New Mexico desert and as a husband and a father (of three very active boys), I can very easily find myself burning the candle at both ends. I tend to write my blog posts late at night after the family has gone to sleep, but I found myself getting burned out and run down. Instead of trying to keep up with the blog, I decided that I needed a mini-break.

I never know when these sabbaticals will come and how long they will last. Sometimes they are self-imposed and other times the Lord imposes them on me through such things as a ruptured appendix last December or food poisoning during the SBC Convention in Phoenix last summer. I am certainly hoping that there will be nothing similar in New Orleans.

Even though our church’s Vacation Bible School just started last night and I should be extra tired, I find myself rejuvenated and ready to get back in the arena. With today’s post, my brief sabbatical is now over. However, I return to the blogosphere with a slightly different perspective. I think that most Christian bloggers — including those who call themselves Southern Baptists — want to have their voices heard because they desire to make a positive contribution to the dialogue. That continues to be my desire as well.

This goal is oftentimes elusive because we find ourselves engaged in what seem to be continuous and never-ending Baptist battles. When we are in the midst of these blogging battles, it is sometimes hard for us to realize that we are generating more heat than light. However, as I have had the chance to step back from blogging for a season, I have begun what has been a long overdue detoxification for me. Until this past Saturday, I had not read any of the major Baptist blogs in the last three weeks. During that time, I’ve missed some of the more recent battles, including the latest dust-up between the Calvinists and non-Calvinists over the “Traditionalist Statement” signed by several prominent SBC leaders.

Don’t get me wrong. There are certain battles that are worth fighting. However, how we fight these battles is just as important — if not more so — than who comes out victorious. When we lose sight of the fact that the ends do not justify the means, we will have lost an important part of who we are as Christians and as Baptists.

In New Orleans and after, we will continue to have spirited disagreements. That’s the nature of a diverse Convention of churches. That’s also a by-product of the freedom that we enjoy in this country to hold differing opinions on any and all issues. However, the reality is that, as Southern Baptists — Calvinists, New Calvinists, non-Calvinists, anti-Calvinists, Traditionalists, or Calvinistic Traditionalists like me (which is one reason why I can’t sign the Traditionalist Confession even though I have great respect for the drafters and signers) —  we agree on far more than we disagree on.

That’s why I can break bread with a wide variety of Southern Baptists – from Rick Patrick, Hariette Peterson, and CB Scott to Dave Miller, Mark Lamprecht, and Jared Moore to Peter Lumpkins, Tim Rogers, and Bob Hadley. So, whatever side of an issue we might find ourselves on in New Orleans, I look forward to fellowshipping with my brothers and sisters in Christ. And, by fellowshipping, I do mean eating. I am a Baptist preacher after all. See you in the Big Easy!

This post was orginally published on Howell’s blog, From Law to Grace.

Yes Man: a person who agrees with everything that is said; especially: one who endorses or supports without criticism every opinion or proposal of an associate or superior (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Throughout recorded history, we have always had “yes men” (and women too), those people who simply refused to ask any questions — much less the hard questions — of those in leadership.  Given our human nature, that is completely understandable.  After all, who wants to be seen as “difficult” or “divisive?” Those who dare to ask any questions often find themselves not only with less benefits, but also on the outside looking in.  Not an enviable position to be in, to be sure.

Perhaps because of my legal background but, more likely because of my personal upbringing, I have never been accused of being a “yes man.” My dad, who served on the town council and as mayor of my hometown, Lake Placid, FL, always distrusted “yes men.” He saw his fair share in the political arena, but, unfortunately, he also ran across a good number of “yes men” within the church.  These “yes men,” whether or not they held formal positions of power within the church, were good at protecting the pastor from the slightest criticism or questioning.  No one in leadership, even pastors, likes to be criticized.  However, when we surround ourselves with “yes men,” we often end up making unwise decisions because we did not allow the hard questions to be asked, which in hindsight, might have saved us much grief and heartache.

There will always be a long line of “yes men” who will gladly agree with and never question the opinions, beliefs, and even actions of their leaders.  That is simply a reality.  However, every leader — from pastors of churches of all sizes to CEOs of Corporations to Presidents of SBC Entities — can either encourage or discourage the “yes men” mentality.  Unfortunately, our culture, including the culture within the Southern Baptist Convention, seems to be encouraging, rather than discouraging, “yes men.”  Why should this be the case, particularly within a religious organization of churches such as the SBC?

Could the answer to that question lie somewhere in the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention has morphed from a servant-leader model of ministry to a CEO-leader model of ministry?  And, when I say CEO, I’m not talking “Chief Encouragement Officer.” It seems that more and more pastors — regardless of the actual size of their congregations — are “running” their churches more like a business than the body of Christ.  These leaders surround themselves with “yes men” and even a few “yes women.”  If you want to stay in the inner circle, you give unquestioning loyalty to the pastor.  (I’ve even known of a few churches who require some sort of written loyalty oath pledge of allegiance to pastoral authority in order to be eligible to serve in any position within the church.)  If and when you begin to question, your time on the inside (and perhaps even the church — see here) will quickly come to an end.

What’s wrong with this picture?  Quite simply, our unquestioning loyalty should be to Jesus Christ and to the protection and safeguarding of His church, not to a particular person, not even the pastor.  Scripture is clear that we should submit to our leaders and should not bring any “accusation” against the pastors/elders without at least two or three witnesses.  However, we cannot misuse and contort that Biblical principle to mean that any questions — even hard questions — are off-limits.  Leaders, particularly in the GCR-era of “transparency” (the real kind as opposed to what has been practiced by the SBC establishment — here, here, and here), should not hide from questions, but rather should welcome a wide latitude of questions.  After all, leaders who have nothing to hide should not only practice transparency, but should live above reproach.

These same principles should apply to the entities of the Southern Baptist Convention.  The Trustees of each of our entities should not serve out of unquestioning loyalty to the Presidents of these institutions, but rather should serve with unquestioning loyalty to Jesus Christ and to the protection and safeguarding of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention.  The title “Trustee” carries with it a sacred obligation to serve the interests of the churches of the Convention, not the interests of the President of a particular entity, be it the oldest seminary or the youngest seminary.  In fact, Trustees are nominated with this very principle in mind:

“The (Nominating) committee shall recognize the principle that the persons it recommends shall represent the constituency of the Convention, rather than the staff of the entity.” (SBC ByLaws, Section 15E)

Our Trustees would do well to remember that their constituency is the churches that comprise the Southern Baptist Convention.  Churches of all sizes.  Churches with celebrity pastors and churches with pastors that no one really knows.  Churches that send ten messengers to the Annual Convention and churches who don’t send any messengers to the Annual Convention.  Traditional churches and contemporary churches.  Older churches and new church plants.

There was a time in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention when the Trustees of the various entities ignored the will of the majority of churches.  Instead of representing the majority constituency, these Trustees, particularly at our seminaries, acted on behalf of an elite minority of the churches.  When this abuse of power continued unabated, the Conservative Resurgence was born and accountability was eventually restored via the grassroots churches of the Convention.  If the SBC’s leaders — and their “yes men” enablers — continue to act on behalf of an elite minority, don’t be surprised when a second Conservative Resurgence (and the GCR wasn’t it) — led by grassroots pastors and lay folk — emerges to restore accountability to the entities that are supposed to SERVE the churches of the SBC!

“There arises defining moments in our personal lives, our churches, and our
denomination. I believe we are at one of those crossroads.  In the
final analysis we must trust our process, our common goal of bringing the Gospel
to the world, and each other.”

Who was the Southern Baptist statesman who uttered these words and what was the context within which they were said?  None other than Dr. Jim Henry, former Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Orlando and a former two-term President of the SBC, in his endorsement of the GCR.  During his tenure as President of the Convention, Dr. Henry had occasion to visit Southern Seminary and stay in the Seminary’s Guest House.  At the time, my wife and I were the hostess and host of the Guest House.  During our 2 1/2 years in that position, we saw many chapel speakers, prospective professors, trustees, and former, current, and future SBC Presidents stay in one of the four rooms in this two-story colonial home which served as a kind of bed-and-breakfast for really special guests of the Seminary.

I full-well remember Dr. Henry’s visit because my wife and I worked extra hard to make sure that the Guest House was spotless and that Dr. Henry’s had everything he needed to make his short stay as comfortable as possible.  The one thing that we failed to do was to make sure that the Guest House television, which had been sent out for repair, was back in time for Dr. Henry’s first night with us.  That generally wouldn’t have been a problem, but the Atlanta Braves were in the World Series that year and one of the games was on that night.

While other guests may have been perturbed that there was no working television on which to watch the game, Dr. Henry was the epitome of grace.  Even after our mortifying (at least to us) mistake, the next morning in chapel Dr. Henry took the time to publicly thank us for our hospitality.  Not that we were looking for public recognition, but Dr. Henry was the ONLY person to so publicly thank us.  I say all that to say this:  Dr. Henry, in my mind, is one of the real deals.  Whether interacting with him in person or watching his Deacon training material (like our Deacons and I did Monday night), Dr. Henry is one of the SBC’s true statesmen, a Godly man who walks the walk and talks the talk and treats all people with grace, dignity, and respect.

Another statesman is Henry’s fellow Florida Baptist pastor, Bobby Welch, former Senior Pastor of FBC Daytona Beach and also a two-term President of the Southern Baptist Convention.  When I served as an Associate Pastor at FBC Poinciana, FL, we took a group to Daytona Beach for FAITH Training.  While there, I had the opportunity to meet Pastor Bobby.  Later, when I was serving as Pastor of Grundy Baptist Church, a church affiliated with the Baptist General Association of Virginia, Bobby Welch, on his Presidential “Everyone Can” tour, stopped by the Virginia Baptist Mission Board in Richmond to meet with BGAV Executive Director John Upton.  It would have been easy for Pastor Bobby to avoid talking to Dr. Upton, the leader of a state convention that many SBC elites have open disdain for, but he took the time to encourage the churches of the BGAV, churches which continue to support CP and the SBC Missions Offerings with millions of dollars each year.  With his passion for evangelism and his strong support of the Cooperative Program, Bobby Welch is another man who is not afraid to take principled and courageous stands, despite the cost.

There are undoubtedly other senior SBC statesmen who I could name, but both Jim Henry and Bobby Welch exemplify the very best in Southern Baptist leadership, from the local church pastorate to the Presidency of the nation’s largest Protestant body.  If there was ever a time when we needed statesmen-leaders to take to the stage in the life of our Convention, it is now!  Apart from his GCR endorsement prior to the June 2010 Orlando Convention and his interview with Baptist Press in the days leading up to that same Annual Meeting, Jim Henry and Bobby Welch, respectively, have been silent, at least publicly, about the ever-expanding radical changes that threaten to divide the churches of the SBC.

During 2010, both Jim Henry and Bobby Welch saw the Convention at a crossroads.  The GCR crossroads will be minor compared to the crossroads we are headed for in New Orleans.  What sets GCR Part I apart from GCR Part 2 (a.k.a., the Name Change “Study” Task Force)?  Quite simply, the current process has been abused in an unprecedented and unconstitutional way by the ruling elites within the Convention who do not think that the rules apply to them.  Those in power, who have apparently forgotten that they were once part of the rank-and-file, now believe that they can bring about unity by trampling upon the rights of grassroots Southern Baptists.  Perhaps they need to be reminded what Bobby Welch said just last year:

Without a doubt, when churches have that wide, deep and sacrificial level of support overall — they will, of course, respond more favorably and quickly to things that process by way of their base and commitments.  Understanding this fact is exactly why I, for two years, practically lived out in that huge SBC environment via bus, car, plane, foot, etc. That, in turn, created an extraordinary grassroots groundswell for something near and dear to their hearts. It was also directly helpful immediately to their personal calling and task at their local church for reaching and discipling lost souls.  To most on the field, this grassroots path is viewed and appreciated as a very sharp contrast to what they consider to be the so-called “top down – our idea” approach.  The grassroots road is a road less traveled but it is the only path to our only hope — which is “unity of purpose” for the sake of lost souls! (emphasis added)

When our leaders use a “top down — our idea approach” to implement an illegitimate process which will likely result in a recommendation — after only nine months of “study” — to change the name of the SBC, grassroots Southern Baptists will not only distrust the process, but will distrust those who have so irresponsibly forced more radical changes on an already weary people.  We stand at the crossroads once again.  It is far past time for the SBC’s statesmen-leaders to rise up publicly and say to those in power, “Enough is enough!  For the unity of purpose for the sake of lost souls, stop the mad rush towards the radical redefinition of the SBC before the division is too far gone!”  So far, the silence is deafening.  But, the grassroots Southern Baptists are waiting.  Which statesman will speak up before it’s too late?

Originally published at From Law to Grace on September 23, 2011

Its exact origin is uncertain, but spin doctor is often used to describe public relations experts as well as political or corporate representatives (emphasis added) whose job it is to put a ‘positive spin’ on events or situations. (“What is a Spin Doctor?”)

Before most grassroots Southern Baptists (including me) became aware of SBC President Bryant Wright’s un-constitutional end-run around the messengers and churches that he was elected to serve, Twitter was all abuzz Monday night with tweets about the “unofficial” Name Change Task Force that Dr. Wright unilaterally appointed.  In the days following this unprecedented power play, there have been many articles — both pro and con — regarding the name change issue.  One of the first was written by our own Dave Miller, editor of SBC Voices.  In his article, Dave, in responding to Bart Barber’s initial article (here), tries to make the case that what “Bryant Wright is not doing anything wrong or unseemly” as it relates to his unilateral appointment of a Name Change Study Task Force.  I will respectfully, but vehemently disagree, with Dave’s initial analysis, on the propriety and constitutionality of President Wright’s actions.

As I wrote earlier this week, silence is no longer an option for grassroots Southern Baptists who do not buy into the vision for a radical redefinition of the Southern Baptist Convention that establishment elites are trying to impose — from the top down — on the churches of the SBC.  Therefore, it is incumbent upon all grassroots Southern Baptists to understand the language that is being used to spin the debate that has now started.  (For the record, I do not believe that Dave Miller was trying to “spin” in his response to Dr. Barber.  And, spin doctors are not “evil” or “immoral.”  They are passionate advocates of their position.  But, that does not mean that their spin is immune from challenge, no matter what position or title they may hold in the Convention.  Same goes for me if you think that I am spinning.)  In the information age, knowledge is power.  Armed with knowledge of the tactics that were used effectively in the Great Commission Resurgence (which many of us saw too late) and which will continue to be used in the Great Name Change Debate, cooperating conservative Southern Baptists can more effectively stop the power plays that are about to be run up the gut of the Convention.

The name change study proponents have already begun to spin what is clearly an unprecedented and un-constitutional action by the sitting President of the Southern Baptist Convention.  The spin doctors want Southern Baptists to believe that President Wright either had the authority to do what he did or, in the alternative, that the Task Force is only “unofficial” and has no power to bind the Convention.

There are several problems with this particular spin.  First, there is absolutely no language in the Constitution or ByLaws of the Convention which would remotely authorize the President to appoint an ad hoc committee.  In fact, as I was re-reading the ByLaws on Thursday, I came across Section 19, Committee on Committees, which states:

This committee shall nominate all special committees authorized during the sessions of the Convention (emphasis added) not otherwise provided for. All special Convention committees shall transfer, upon their discharge, all official files to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. (SBC ByLaws, Section 19, Committee on Committees)

What does this mean exactly?  First, that all special committees, which would include ad hoc committees or task forces, must be authorized during the sessions of the Convention.  Secondly, unless the authorization also contains language which specifically provides for how the special committee members will be nominated or appointed (in the case of the GCRTF, by the President, which was entirely constitutional), then all such special committee members shall be nominated by the Committee on Committees and approved by the messengers in session.  This was obviously not done.  Therefore, any spin which says that what President Wright did was constitutional is wrong.  There are some who have unknowingly bought into the line of thinking that President Wright was within his constitutional authority to appoint a special committee, even though he himself has referred to it as “unofficial.”  Of course, there are most likely those who are spinning who know full well what the President did was not specifically authorized, but also a clear violation of the ByLaws of the SBC.  As an aside, the GCRTF had no authority to seal their records.  In fact, the ByLaws clearly state that all records of special committees shall be turned over to the Executive Committee, not the SBC Historical Library and Archives.  The EC could decide if, and when, the records would be released.  You would think that SBC parliamentarians would be aware of this, but given the parliamentary shenanigans that occurred in Orlando, we should not be surprised.

Someone on SBC Voices recently asked me whether or not I believed in a strict constructionist interpretation of the SBC Constitution and ByLaws and whether or not I believed that an SBC President was prohibited from doing anything not explicitly authorized in the language of our governing documents.  My short answer was and is YES.  I wouldn’t go so far as to say “anything,” because that is fairly broad.  However, as to the appointment of special committees or task forces, there is no ambiguity, which is perhaps why President Wright is calling this an “unoffical” task force.  I would say that I find it passing strange that some conservative Southern Baptists, who would otherwise be staunchly conservative in their judicial philosophy regarding strict construction, are taking what is a well-known liberal position when it comes to interpreting the Constitution and ByLaws of the SBC.  Consistency no longer becomes such a high priority for some Baptists who appear to have abandoned historic Baptist principles in favor of an “ends justify the means” mentality.

As to the alternative spin which has been proffered to defend the un-constitutional process that was allowed to occur, this spin can be summarily dismissed.  You can call a task force “unofficial” all you want, but this is the most official “unofficial” task force in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention.  What other “unofficial” task force will have the opportunity to present both an interim report and a final report to the Executive Board of the Southern Baptist Convention and possibly to the messengers assembled in New Orleans?  What other “unofficial” task force would be given what amounts to official recognition by the Executive Committee by virtue of not one, but two official votes regarding an “unofficial” Presidential advisory council?  Could any rank-and-file Southern Baptist establish their own “unofficial” task force to study changing the name of the SBC and be allowed to present an interim report to the EC in February 2012 or to the messengers next June?  The answers to these questions are painfully obvious.

To make matters even worse, we have entity Presidents and the Trustee Chairman of the Executive Committee who have agreed to serve on this task force.  A similar task force was rejected by the messengers in session in 2004 and would almost certainly (especially this close to the GCR fiasco) be rejected by the messengers just seven years later.  What does this say about those who are willing to serve on such a task force?  Maybe there are some members who were blissfully unaware of the constitutional problems with a task force unilaterally appointed by the President of the Convention.  However, there are surely some members of the task force who know the SBC Constitution and Bylaws like the back of their hand and realize the un-constitutional nature of this special committee.

I wish I could tell you that the spin will stop, but it will only increase between now and next June in New Orleans.  In the next week, I will continue to analyze the spin coming from name change proponents.  The more information that the grassroots have, the more effective in preventing the radical redefinition of the SBC.  If the CR taught us anything, it was the power of grassroots Southern Baptists to bring the Convention back to its conservative roots before it was too late.  Too bad that some now in power have forgotten from whence they came.  Maybe it’s time to stop the spin and remind them!

Originally posted at From Law to Grace on Friday, August 5, 2011

After spending Thursday night in the cool-weather environs of Ruidoso, NM, nestled in the Sacramento Mountains, the heat of Alamogordo has perhaps got me in a contrary mood.  With limited time on the internet, I’m just now catching up on some of the latest news in the nation and in our Baptist world at large.

I couldn’t help but notice a piece at Associated Baptist Press written by Norman Jameson, “NC Association ousts church with woman pastor.”  As I read the article, I began to think that some Baptists simply lack that which we would all like to receive from one another and most especially from God — GRACE!

A scant two weeks after 28 year-old Bailey Edwards Nelson was called as the Pastor of Flat Rocks Baptist Church in Mt. Airy (the real-life town that was the basis of the fictionalized Mayberry in the Andy Griffith show), NC, Surry Baptist Association — a fellowship of 65 Southern Baptist churches in the area –

voted “overwhelmingly” (about 80%) at a regularly scheduled meeting to disfellowship the church for calling Bailey Edwards Nelson as pastor. Messengers viewed the church’s action as violating scriptural guidelines that they believe reserve the role of pastor to males.

I believe strongly in the autonomy of not only the local church, but the autonomy of the local Association, State Convention, and the Southern Baptist Convention itself.  Surry Baptist Association was within their rights to exercise its autonomy in this situation, but I do question the wisdom and Christian charity of autonomous organizations exercising their autonomy in a heavy-handed way with an apparent lack of Christian charity.

Now, at the risk of losing my conservative SBC credentials, let me state that I believe that the Bible clearly teaches that the office of Senior/Lead Pastor ”is limited to men as qualified by Scripture” (see BF&M2000, Article VI.  The Church).    But, the Bible clearly teaches many, many theological concepts and principles, in addition to practical rules for living.  Some of the more important theological principles have been codified in the latest edition of the Baptist Faith & Message.

However, what has not been codified in the BF&M2000, but which has been on display in the summary and rather quick ouster of Flat Rock Baptist Church from the local Association, is the lack of grace that has been displayed by the majority of churches within the Surry Baptist Association.  Only a week after Pastor Nelson’s first Sunday in the pulpit — on July 10, 2011 — Flat Rock Baptist Church

received a letter from the association’s membership committee citing “concerned pastors” and asking for a meeting to discuss “possible solutions” to the issue they said threatened the fellowship of the association.

These “concerned pastors” were so worried about the grave situation of a woman preaching in one of “their” churches that they had to act within a week of the young lady assuming her pastorate.  Don’t want to let her settle in or even meet her before moving to oust the church.  If I had to guess, these pastors would probably not be as gravely concerned about obese pastors preaching in one of their churches, as long as that overweight pastor was a man, but I digress!

Billy Blakley – Surry Baptist Association’s Director of Missions was quoting as saying that:

pastors in his association wanted to withdraw fellowship from Flat Rock as “peaceably” as possible amid rumors that an angry motion would be made at the associational meeting.

Moving to disfellowship Flat Rocks Baptist Church on July 26, only 16 days after Pastor Nelson assumed her responsibilities at Flat Rocks, is sure a funny way of “peaceably” withdrawing fellowship.  Orwell would be proud.  And, by the way, why would someone make an “angry motion” at the Association’s regularly scheduled meeting?  Are there pastors or lay folks who have a problem with the sin of anger?  A few pastors in the Association who have a problem with gluttony?  Anyone who doesn’t properly observe the Sabbath?

And, therein lies the rub.  Without knowing what Pastor Nelson believes and without the opportunity to dialogue with her and Flat Rocks Baptist Church (one missed meeting does not a dialogue make), the overwhelming majority of those voting in the July 26 meeting chose to allow their adamant (and apparently emotional) opposition to female pastors to inform their decision to summarily disfellowship this church and pastor.

May be that would have happened anyway.  Who knows.  But, in a town that was made famous as Mayberry on the Andy Griffith show, the members of the Surry Baptist Association sure could use a reminder of the BF&M codified Biblical principle that Barney, Opie, Floyd, Aunt Bea, Gomer, and even Otis experienced daily from Sherriff Andy Taylor — GRACE!

Originally published at From Law to Grace

When you hear the words, “Sharia Law,” what immediately comes to mind?  If you said an Islamic legal code that is incompatible with the laws of our nation and states, you would probably be in “good” company, at least in Oklahoma.  Whether or not you would be 100% correct is debatable.

I must admit that when I hear “Sharia Law,” I do not have a positive dispostion toward this Islamic code.  I suspect this is the case with many people, including many Southern Baptists.  Our reticence in allowing Sharia Law to be used AT ALL in the United States may stem from its misuse in foreign lands, countries which simply lack the freedoms that we enjoy here in America.  Our sensibilities — rightly so — are offended when we hear stories of what most Americans would consider cruel and unusual punishment.

To give you a general overview of Sharia Law, it can be divided into two main sections:

1. The acts of worship, or al-ibadat, these include:
   1. Ritual Purification
   2. Prayers
   3. Fasts
   4. Charities
   5. Pilgrimage to Mecca
2. Human interaction, or al-mu’amalat, which includes:
   1. Financial transactions
   2. Endowments
   3. Laws of inheritance
   4. Marriage, divorce, and child care
   5. Foods and drinks (including ritual slaughtering and hunting)
   6. Penal punishments
   7. Warfare and peace
   8. Judicial matters (including witnesses and forms of evidence)

I will not spend much time on the first section — Acts of Worship.  I would hope that most people, including Southern Baptists, would recognize and accept that Muslims have a First Amendment right to worship however they see fit.  Even when we disagree with the tenets of Islam (or any other religion), we should at least be willing to recognize that Muslims have the same religious freedoms that Southern Baptists do in this country.  We may not have to like what others believe or where they build mosques, but the moment we begin to limit others’ religious liberties (barring some clear violation of the law) is the moment when we walk away from not only our Baptist roots but our conservative values.  And, it becomes the moment when we open ourselves up for our own religious liberties to be violated.

But, when we so dislike a religious minority that we begin passing laws which single this minority out for special approbation, then we are dangerously close to violating principles that we should hold dear.  Oklahoma’s “Save Our State” amendment does just that.  Placed on the ballot by the state legislature, 70% of Oklahoma voters approved the amendment on November 2, 2010.

What does Oklahoma need saving from?  Apparently Sharia Law.  What does the actual text of State Question 755, popularly known as the “Save Our State” amendment say:

The Courts provided for in subsection A of this section, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.

From a legal standpoint, there are multiple problems with the way the amendment was written, not least of which it singles out Islamic Sharia Law as the only religious code that cannot be used in the Oklahoma judicial system.  That explains at least one reason why a Federal Judge enjoined the law from going into effect.  In beginning her November 29, 2011 opinion, Chief District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange quoted from a U.S. Supreme Court case:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)

While no religious beliefs or tenets of faith – be they Muslim, Jewish, or Christian — should replace or otherwise conflict with the laws of the states and nation, why should Islamic law — and Islamic law only – be singled out by the Oklahoma legislature for complete and utter rejection within the legal system?  If your answer to that is “Because it’s Islam and Muslims who are affected, not Christians,” then we maybe heading down a slippery slope — however well-intentioned — to a place with unintended consequences.

Are there parts of Sharia Law which are incompatible with the Constitutional framework of the United States and the 50 states?  Yes.  When Sharia conflicts with the laws of our nation or state, should we continue to use the laws of our nation and state to protect the rights and safety of our citizens?  Absolutely.  The laws of the state and nation should always trump Sharia Law (or any other religious laws that groups might live by in their private lives).

But, are we now saying that NO aspect of Sharia Law is compatible with the legal system that we have in place in this country?  Are we willing to say that religious tenets of faith — in this case Sharia Law — simply cannot be used anywhere, anytime, anyplace, even if the specific religious principle does not conflict with the laws of the land?  Before you answer those questions, do you also want to take that same approach with Christian religious principles integrated into contracts and what has come to be known as “Christian mediation?”  Southwestern Seminary and Tarrant Baptist Association might have different answers to that question, but we must be consistent with how we view “religious law” as it relates to our legal jurisprudence.  Apparently Dr. Richard Land, the President of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, also believes the voters of Oklahoma got it right when they exercised their “people power” in democratically rejecting Sharia Law.

Are we no longer willing to accommodate people’s religious preferences and beliefs within our jurisprudence, even when these preferences and beliefs do not conflict with our laws?  It seems that we want our own religious beliefs accommodated, but with Islam, we are simply unwilling to grant them what the Constitution already does.  Maybe we arrive at these views because we (in the sense of Christians) have been in the majority for so long.  We do not see the need to accommodate others’ religious beliefs and practices because, with rare exceptions, we don’t need anyone to accommodate ours.

At least not yet.  There may come a day when Southern Baptist Christians are singled out for special approbation by the government.  That day maybe here sooner than we think.  If we fail to stand up for the rights of religious minorities today — even those folks who we strenuously disagree with — can we really expect anyone to stand up for our rights when we come under attack?

Originally published at From Law to Grace on May 12, 2012.

NO WAY!!!  If conservatives want to see Barack Obama become a one-term President, they will not rally behind former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.  Nominating Mr. Gingrich would all but ensure the re-election of one of the weakest Presidents in our nation’s history.  Now, let me tell you what I really think about Newt Gingrich’s decision to seek the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

Mr. Gingrich may have been the brilliant politician and tactician behind the Contract for America which led to the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in the 1994 elections, but he is not a man who should be placed in the highest office in the land.  In fact, he should not be nominated by the Republican Party nor should he be supported by conservative Evangelicals and/or “Family Values Voters” in the first place.

As a Pastor, I fully believe in redemption, grace, and forgiveness.  God’s forgiveness comes only by grace through faith in what Jesus Christ has done for us through His atoning death on the cross of Calvary.  As Christians, our sins — past, present, and future — are nailed to the cross and we bear them no more!  That is good news!  But, we continue to sin, even after we have been washed clean.  When we do sin, we must confess our sins and practice Biblical repentance (1 John 1:9).  That is not the same as just saying “I’m sorry.”  I’m not sure that Gingrich’s acknowledgment of his past affairs rises to the level of Biblical repentance, but I could be wrong:

“There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate. And what I can tell you is that when I did things that were wrong, I wasn’t trapped in situation ethics, I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them. I found that I felt compelled to seek God’s forgiveness. Not God’s understanding, but God’s forgiveness. I do believe in a forgiving God. And I think most people, deep down in their hearts hope there’s a forgiving God.” (full article here)

If, as House Speaker, Mr. Gingrich was driven by his passion for his country to commit an extra-marital affair, one can only imagine the “passion” that he would have as President.  We’ve already been down that road with Bill Clinton.

I’m certainly glad that Mr. Gingrich “felt compelled to seek God’s forgiveness.” When any of us sins, we should seek God’s mercy and forgiveness. But, just because we have been forgiven (by God and others) does not mean that we somehow magically avoid the consequences of our actions.  I do not believe that Gingrich’s (or any other politician’s) multiple divorces automatically disqualifies him from running for President.  However, committing adultery in both his first two marriages (which may have contributed to the dissolution of those unions) should at least cause conservative Christian voters to refrain from casting a ballot for Mr. Gingrich (notwithstanding Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network’s advice to Evangelicals not to “write him off.”)

Apparently, Newt Gingrich does not believe his marital infidelities disqualify him from seeking the Presidency.  In responding to a question from Chris Wallace on charges that he was hypocritical during the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinski affair (because of his own extra-marital affair at the time), Newt Gingrich nicely compartmentalized his private life from his public life:

“No. I thought to myself if I cannot do what I have to do as a public leader, I would have resigned.” (full article here)

So, here is former Southern Baptist — now Roman Catholic — Newt Gingrich who appears to be saying that his own adultery, while serving as Speaker of the House, did not prevent him from being a public leader.  We can try to redefine leadership all we want, but if conservative Christians (and others) were arguing that Bill Clinton could not lead because of his affair with a young intern, then there is no way to make the argument that a serial adulterer — no matter how conservative — should be allowed to lead our country as President.  To make that argument would be the height of hypocrisy.  Of course, for those who supported Bill Clinton during his impeachment to now make the argument that Gingrich’s private life should somehow disqualify him from the Presidency would likewise be just as hypocritical.

For conservatives — especially Evangelical Christians — to give Mr. Gingrich a pass, they must answer this question, “Would you also be willing to give Bill Clinton or John Edwards a pass?”  Newt Gingrich may be a smart man in the world of politics (although his recent remarks attacking Paul Ryan’s medicare plan may indicate more arrogance than brilliance).  He may espouse views that most conservative Christians could support.  He may even be forgiven of his sins.  But, the Bible tells me that he is a man who lacks sense.  For a man who wants to be the leader of the free world, that is a disqualifying character trait that will be impossible to overcome, no matter how smart he thinks he is:

“He who commits adultery lacks sense; he who does it destroys himself.  He will get wounds and dishonor, and his disgrace will not be wiped away.” (Proverbs 6:32-33 ESV)