Wes Kenney blogs at “Reason for the Hope.”
It has often been said that, thanks to the battles of the last generation in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) to return the convention to a commitment to biblical inerrancy, we can be grateful that theological discussions in the SBC can be conducted on that basis. We do not spend our time debating and arguing the veracity of the creation narrative or whether the teachings of Paul on gender roles and homosexuality are culturally conditioned. We have been set free to have robust theological debate on the basis of a firm reliance on scripture, and our disagreements are family ones among brothers and sisters in Christ. David Dockery has contributed greatly to the family discussion in this presentation of essays, compiled from two conferences held at Union University, where he presides. The topics addressed are the ones we ought to be discussing, not allowing less important issues to sidetrack us. I was privileged to attend the second of these conferences, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to review this important book.
In the preface, Dr. Dockery discusses our heritage, and the challenges it poses for the future. He also points out how postmodern thinking and the loss of our programmatic identity as Southern Baptists pose risks to our future cooperation. It is precisely this loss of a programmatic identity that points to the need for a renewed consensus on which to base our future cooperation. His itemized steps focus primarily on the authority of scripture, but they begin by pointing out the importance of our heritage as Baptists. This neatly provides the rationale for the content that follows.
Dr. Dockery has organized that content into two parts. The first part, “Theological and Historical Perspectives,” is composed of chapters written, as the heading suggests, by theologians and historians. An essay by R. Albert Mohler, Jr. asks if we as Southern Baptists have a future together. He concludes that we do, and in this chapter introduces the concept of “theological triage” (p. 31) as a way of categorizing our disagreements by their ultimate importance as we continue debate. Though itself often the subject of debate, this concept of triage is an important contribution to our ongoing discussion in the SBC.
The outstanding Baptist theologian R. Stanton Norman seeks to answer the question, “What makes a Baptist a Baptist?” He does so with thoroughness, helpfully identifying the “constituent elements of Baptist distinctives,” (p. 44) and ecclesiological distinctives rise to the top as primary. Gregory Wills contributes an essay offering a historical perspective. He begins with the recent controversy surrounding inerrancy, but then goes on to trace the history of Baptists, and again, ecclesiology surfaces as a prominent distinction.
Timothy George follows with a chapter asking, “Is Jesus a Baptist?” The Beeson Divinity School Dean offers three strategies by which our cooperative work can continue. Russell Moore’s chapter, “Learning from Nineteenth-Century Baptists,” is an application of the life and work of T.T. Eaton (1845-1907) to our current situation, offering many helpful insights. Paige Patterson contributes an essay discussing what we can learn from the Anabaptists. James Leo Garrett, Jr. closes Part 1 with a discussion of the beginnings of Baptist belief, beginning with the church fathers and the early creeds and continuing through the Reformation to the English Puritans.
Part Two, “Ministry and Convention Perspectives,” is a wide-ranging discussion of the state of our cooperative union, from the perspective of those serving in all areas of denominational life. These perspectives originate from the Executive Committee to our publishing house to the seminaries, and all the way up to the local church, the top of the ladder in SBC life. Jim Shaddix offers a pastor’s perspective on the future of the traditional church. Michael Day gives a somewhat radical picture of the future of associations and state conventions, suggesting that theological and mission-focused affinity will soon trump geographic proximity in these organizations.
Ed Stetzer and Thom Rainer address the way in which we see our mission, given by our Savior, to take the gospel to every nation. Richard Land discusses the nature of religious liberty, a hallmark of Baptist identity since the Anabaptists, and Nathan Finn outlines those things that should mark our cooperation into the future, primarily a recovery of our identity as Baptists. Part Two begins with an essay by Morris Chapman, past president of the Executive Committee, discussing the nuts-and-bolts of our cooperative, yet independent, work together as Southern Baptists.
The content of these essays, though varied in background and intent, hold together well on the basis of the overall purpose of the book, which is to call us back to a family discussion about who we are as Southern Baptists. Though at times they can seem to veer off topic, as a whole the book accomplishes the purpose set out in the introduction, namely to call us back to a discussion of what it is that sets us apart from our brothers and sisters in Christ who hold to other traditions.
The distinctives that emerge consistently from the essays in this volume are baptism by immersion, a regenerate church membership, and a commitment to the idea of a free church in a free state, with no power vested in either to interfere with the other. These are the ideas that make us Baptists, and this volume is supremely helpful in focusing us on these discussions, to the exclusion of those things that would distract us.
Throughout the excellent essays contained in this collection, one theme continually resurfaces as the definitive distinctive of Southern Baptists: ecclesiology. More than anything else, the way that we approach the function and work of the church sets us apart from the rest of the evangelical world. It is here that our discussions as Southern Baptists ought to be focused, because it is here that our true unity lies. When we seek uniformity on issues not foundational to our identity as Baptists, the result will be bickering, infighting, fracture, and perhaps ultimately the dissolution of our great cooperative union.
As illustration, one need look no further than the cautions put forth by Dr. George in chapter four. In the first strategy he identifies, “Retrieval for the Sake of Renewal,” he argues that we must not ignore our history in seeking to be New Testament Christians, but that all of our history ought to be understood and embraced only as it lines up with the clear teaching of scripture. To that end, he addresses the question, “Are Baptist Calvinists?” His approach to that issue can teach us a great deal as we look at the discussions currently ongoing within our convention of churches.
His answer to the question speaks directly to us in these discussions, and his answer ought to be the end of them, at least as they are now dividing Baptist from Baptist within our confessional denomination. He says, simply, “some are and some are not, and it has been thus among Baptists for nearly 400 years.” (p. 95) This ought to be understood by every Calvinist in the SBC who believes and writes that to be less than fully Calvinistic is to flirt with the heresy of Pelagius. By the same token, it ought to be taken to heart by every “traditionalist” who believes in his heart that the convention, in order to survive, must be purged of all those who hold to all five of the Dordtian responses to the students of Arminius.
In an article first written at my request for another blog, and recently republished in Baptist Press, Paige Patterson addressed the relationship between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention by pointing to the split that occurred between the General and Particular Baptists in eighteenth century England, and the disastrous results for both camps. The General Baptists lost their doctrinal emphasis and headed into universalism, while the Particular Baptists became anti-missionary hyper-Calvinists. The emphasis of each group balanced the other, and without each other, both became irrelevant in fairly short order.
This is a clear warning for the Southern Baptist Convention. Both Calvinists and “traditionalists” need to appreciate the contribution of the other without insisting on uniformity. We are a confessional people, and the confession adopted by our convention is big enough to contain both groups.
What is needed in the SBC today is a vigorous discussion of the topics addressed in this excellent book. Issues of ecclesiology are being minimalized in churches large and small across our convention, and this is where the energy we have for debate must be expended. Our very existence as Baptists is at stake, yet we are being distracted by debates that matter less. In the process, we are in danger of losing the distinctives that make us Baptist.
When I return, reading this book goes high on my list of priorities.
The last paragraph of Wes’s review ought to be the leading story in every state Baptist paper across the country.
I agree. Wes hit a home run there, which is good, because his opinions relative to baseball are really poor.
Wes, Nice post. Let me ask a question if you will: How can ecclesiology be more important than Soteriology? When I am told that a person realized they were saved and did NOT need to ask Jesus to save them or repent to be saved, I am not sure that it really matters how a church operates as a Baptist or other. The plan of salvation should always supersede ecclesiology. If we lose the plan, we lose our churches. I do not ask this to be contentious. I ask simply because Pastors in my own area are preaching the “realized”… Read more »
Tim: It’s a total game changer if this is widespread, but in my opinion, “realize you’re elect” is fringe Calvinist nonsense. I would hope mainstream Calvinists would stand against this wherever it is popping up. But it’s the first I’ve heard of it, so at this point I doubt it is a widespread danger. Like imprecatory prayers, I doubt it will catch on. I read the article you have been writing about, and although I don’t fully agree with the author of the article, I think you have assumed the worst possible slant on everything he wrote, which I don’t… Read more »
Bill Mac,
I would pray that the “realize your elect” is indeed a fringe. On this we agree. As to the article, I am seeing this type of approach leaving parents with many questions and as the article proved, few answers.
I would not say that soteriology (as a whole) is less important than ecclesiology (as a whole). But the most Calvinistic Southern Baptist, the most Arminian Southern Baptist, and the most Other Southern Baptist are people who all agree on the vast preponderance of soteriology. The only points of difference concern the precise nature of election, the nature of the interplay between God and man in conversion, and (for some) the extent of the atonement. All agree in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. With regard to ecclesiology, on the other hand, regenerate church membership as… Read more »
Well, I don’t know who called congregationalism satanic, but I can tell you it was someone who never studied the Greek term Ekklesia, I put six years into Baptist History with specific reference to the ekklesia, and Baptists who forget that the term means every member is an equal to every other member, that all have the same rights and privileges, out themselves crossways of the Lord which is bound to lead to disaster.
James MacDonald’s article “Congregationalism Is From Satan”
Hard to believe a man of God would write something like that. In Acts 19 we have the use of the word Ekklesia in reference to a city government, namely, Ephesus, and J.R. Graves in a bit of his finest work shows that the ekklesia is not to be confused with Oklos, the mob that was acting in a riotous manner. Anyway, members of the Greek City State governments were citizens (males, then) who met to determine city business. They were equals and elected a president (moderator) and followed rules of order in their conduct of the business of the… Read more »
This resonates with me. I said this yesterday on SBCToday: Were I able to wave my hand and make the SBC a completely Calvinistic entity, I would not do it. Not even tempted.
Calvinists and non-Calvinists each have strengths that we need to keep, each has weaknesses that we need to ameliorate. Despite the seeming never ending battles, we need each other.
Hey Wes.
David 🙂
Wes,
See one of the key doctrines that help define us as Southern Baptist is Local Church Autonomy… I found your statement that we Southern Baptist need to focus our energy on a discussion of Ecclesiology quite odd.
Would love to hear your concerns about local church Ecclesiology???
Grace for the Journey,
Greg, I would not dare to speak for Wes…but, I think the concern is faithfulness to the confession we have of congregational forms of government being our biblical model and that of the qualifications for the offices of pastor and deacon, etc. Also, local church autonomy is not a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card for churches within our convention. The old liberals wanted that as well as autonomous personal priesthood to say that they could believe or do anything they wanted and still deserved to be seen as Southern Baptists. If we go that way, the SBC will become so inclusive as to… Read more »
Scott: You said:”Also, local church autonomy is not a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card for churches within our convention. The old liberals wanted that as well as autonomous personal priesthood to say that they could believe or do anything they wanted and still deserved to be seen as Southern Baptists. If we go that way, the SBC will become so inclusive as to lose any significant, convictional voice.” Old liberals you say. You know 1979 is a long time ago and anytime someone like me brings up the negative aspects of the CR ‘non-liberals’ blow a gasket but folks like you love to… Read more »
Scott,
On this again, we agree! 🙂
Tom,
To echo the estimable CB…the SBC has always affirmed Calvinists who operate within a biblically faithful framework. The SBC has never confessionally affirmed any form of liberal theological twistings.
At least at this point I’m merely ‘unnice’. “Mean” descriptor in 5…4…3…
Scott: You said to me:”To echo the estimable CB…the SBC has always affirmed Calvinists who operate within a biblically faithful framework. The SBC has never confessionally affirmed any form of liberal theological twistings.” I really do not think you, CB, and others really know what a “liberal” is you just now that you all are not one. How convenient. It must be nice to know that you are in and others are out. A little theological humility would be very helpful for some of you. I and others that are no longer wanted in the SBC are so thankful that… Read more »
Tom, I would try to persuade you if I thought that you were willing to think about this at all. 1. The professor I had at Baylor who said that Jesus probably walked on a sandbar and not on the water…was a liberal. 2. The professor I had at Baylor who said that he couldn’t be sure whether homosexuality was a sin or not until he knew more about the causes of it…was a liberal. 3. The professor I had at Baylor who said that the question of whether Genesis 1-11 are myth or history was not even an open… Read more »
Bart,
I could answer those questions the same way as a student at Golden Gate in the 80’s.
It was a completely different experience as a student at SWBTS in the late 90’s. Very godly, scholarly, churchmen as professors.
I graduated from SWBTS in 1994. In the early ’90s, I had a professor who regularly cursed in class and told us about “flipping the bird” at a fellow motorist. My philosophy professor told us about his sermon titled “God, Our Mother.” Yes, I did also have many wonderful, godly professors, but SWBTS, like most other SBC agencies, needed change.
Bart…
That wouldn’t be a professor with a PhD from Duke would it? I think we may have had the same professor.
He also liked to speak about the differences between “time-space-real” truth (things that actually happened) and “metaphysical” truth (things that didn’t happen as told (i.e the Flood, creation, etc) but contained truth’s about God that do not depend on the reality of the event.
Fortunately I did not pursue a B.A. in Religion there… sad really.
Greg,
The survey I gave above involved several different professors. That one was among them. I got a B.A. there, but not in Religion. I entered the University Scholars program.
I really did benefit quite a bit from my time at Baylor. I learned a lot of English, Greek, and Hebrew there. I went there a conservative. I left something more akin to a Fundamentalist (depending upon how you define it). The experience was formative for me. 😉
The BSSB was run by liberals. HMB-liberals. FMB-liberals. SBTS-liberals MWBTS-Liberals. SEBTS-worst of the bunch. They were the liberals of the liberals. They were so liberal that they did not believe the mirror was inerrant when they saw their own reflections in it. They all claimed they looked like Harry Emerson Fosdick and the mirror’s reflection was just Hebrew tribal myth.
Tom,
Nice to see you are still you! 🙂
TommyBoy,
Liberal theological twistings are theological assertions which undermine the authority, inerrancy, infallibility, perspecuity, and sufficiency of Scripture.
BTW, no one has but God alone has authority and final say on anyone’s eternal destination.
Thank you for your exemplary demeanor.
SolaGratia!
Mr. Gordon:
When you disrespect me it speaks very loudly about you as a “person.” I will say again you really do not know what a “liberal” is. You just think you do.
Tom Parker,
C’mon. You know full well everybody knows what a liberal is.
Liberals are the guys who mess up everything they try to mess with, regardless of what it is with which they are messing.
Anytime I see something messed up, I know a Liberal is behind it somehow.
While I have not read the book nor do I have access to it nor am I likely to do so in view of present pecuniary circumstances, I do respond to the review as it tells me what the writers had to say. In any event, it seems obvious that we have an effort to evade the issue and what is really coming down the pike, namely, the place of the theology of Sovereign Grace and the matter of a Third Great Awakening. I do not think the evasion intent is really evil (it is more likely a problem of… Read more »
Tom Parker,
We do know what a liberal is.
I remember back in the days of the Conservative Resurgence (CR) Judge Paul Pressler explaining this. For those who may not know, Paul Pressler and Paige Patterson were two of the foremost leaders in the CR.
Judge Pressler would say, “In the context of the SBC a liberal is one who believes there are, or there could be, errors in the Bible.”
You may disagree with that, but that was the basic view of conservatives on this issue during the CR.
David R. Brumbelow
And before that group that we called liberals, but who were really more skepticals than liberals, there were the orthodox biblical liberals who never even heard of such thing as something being wrong about the Bible. Go back in the 1700s and do a real study of the Bible believers and their practices then…Someone planned to steal the idea of liberal and make it a trash term for those who had some notions of the freedoms that God’s word brings. All of this a part of an effort to blunt the theology and the blessing of the Great Awakenings, the… Read more »
Third line from the bottom should read: And how could Bible believing Christians have ‘eldresses’ in a day, when the only ones questioning the word of God were the nuts of the enlightenment….”
To ALL,
Nothing like a good liberal discussion to bring perspective to all us Biblicists.
🙂
In this we have a significant foundation for our identity as Southern Baptists. At least our current conundrums are now occurring within theologically solid parameters.
SolaGratia!
I will say again labels such as liberal mean very little. They are tools to marginalize people. They are pejoratives. We all have our own ideas of what a liberal is and what a non-liberal is.
Just as there are many definitions of Calvinist and non-Calvinist.
They are just words to fight over.
Am inclined to agree Tom. What most people don’t know is that the most powerful theology in the world is Biblical theology which enables folks to be balanced, flexible, creative, constant, and magnetic, the best advertisements, subliminal and conscious, that Jesus ever raised up! And the best term is Sovereign Grace, and the most winsome doctrine is Limited Atonement or, better yet, Particular Redemption, because ‘THE POWER IS IN THE BLOOD.” And the amount of souls to be brought in, referred to as “many” by our Lord is seen by John in Rev.7:9 to be a “number no one can… Read more »
James,
Do not agree with Tom. It is not good to agree with Tom. To agree with Tom will cause a man of your age to have heartburn, then you will need to buy a pack of TUMS.
To agree with Tom is a circular activity involving TUMS.
CB: I have a whole bottle of TUMS on the table for Tom (I seldom ever use them…my wife likes them, I think. Anyway she uses them). I use to hand the things out on the city streets of St. Louis (seems like they paid me a dollar an hour to do it but that is more than 54 years ago).
James,
You handed out TUMS in the streets of St.Louis 54 years ago?
Was that during baseball season? Like this season, St. Louis didn’t have much of a team then either.
CB: I use to go see the Cardinals play, front row seats and all. Once saw a game with the Pirates go 14 full innings with Stan the Man getting up and smack a grandslam clear out of the old Busch Park a few blocks off of Grand Avenue in St. Louis. My step-father was a supt (assistant then) of Gaylord Container Corporation’s main plan on Union and Bircher Blvd., and He got tickets all the time from the Cardinals so I got to go a number of times.
James,
If I am not mistaken, some Liberals owned the Cardinals back then. That is what made them have such a bad season. Liberals mess up everything, including baseball.
CB: Anheuser Busch use to own the Cardinals back then. The German Beer maker, August Busch use to play golf with one of the leading fundamentalists Southern Baptists in Missouri, the pastor of Tower Grove Baptist Church when it was the biggest church in the state. His name was Mack Douglass; He wrote a tract against the liberals of that day, especially Elliott and his book, The Message of Genesis. I still have it in my historical collection. He tried to win Busch, but didn’t get very far. Unfortunately, he also pulled some stunts against Bible believing preachers, too. Afraid… Read more »
Watch it CB…Cardinals were in worst shape last year at this time, and last year we won it all! If Mozeliak pulls a second year of magic and nabs a top SP in a trade, the cards could be very dangerous once again in the second half. We already have one of the best offenses in the league.
Lance Berkman is about to start playing again.
No, Tom, people who believe the Bible know exactly what a liberal is and what they believe. Liberals believe that we can’t know for certain that God will not save people of other faiths. Liberals believe that the miracles recorded in the Bible are just fairy tales. Liberals believe that Adam and Eve were not real people. Liberals deny the virgin birth of Christ. Liberals deny inerrancy. Funny thing, moderates believe those things as well. That’s because they’re liberals who don’t have the courage to admit what they believe. Therefore, liberals, moderates, and those who would be willing to cooperate… Read more »
O baloney, Joe. Them skeptics of the Moderates might have had that problem (certainly some of them did), but real liberalism believe the Bible is verbally inspired, inerrant, and infallible, the miracles really happened, that Adam and Eve were real people, and I was called ignorant for believing in the Virgin Birth on two separate occasions by folks who might have thought they were liberals but were not…they were just misguided by the views of the enlightenment of Voltaire, Hume, and Paine, baptized by German Scholarship in the 19th century and English and American piety in the 20th century, hence… Read more »
“””but real liberalism believe the Bible is verbally inspired, inerrant, and infallible, the miracles really happened, that Adam and Eve were real people,”””
Dr. J, am I reading this right? I’ve never read a liberal who believes these things.
The reason you never is the result of little research in baptist and church history. Just think: Roger Williams and Dr. John Clark were the first ones to establish religious liberty in law and practice. The first synagogue in the New World was built in the colony they established, Rhode Island. They were radiclibs. Now that is liberal, and it is liberalism. And Leland was running for the Constitutional Convention, when he withdrew after conferring with James Madison. Without his support Madison could not have been elected. Leland was sure of being elected due to the fact that the was… Read more »
Tom, You are correct. They are just words to fight over and BI’s love to fight. When I was a methodist I was called a “fundamentalist” because I believe in scriptural infallibility and “inerrancy” of scripture in the original autographs. When I became SB, all of a sudden I was at least a moderate or in some minds a liberal. Most SB bloggers are simply jerks that have nothing better to do than pick fights with those whose theology is similiar but not precisely the same as theirs. I rue the day I became SB, I pray daily that some… Read more »
“”””I rue the day I became SB”””
I’m thinking it was not a stellar day for the SB, either.
Too bad you could not just make your point without tossing a grenade in the mix.
What’s stopping you from starting your own denomination? If you don’t allow anybody else to join, you’ll have perfect unity and harmony.
Unfortunately, in my case, even if I’m the only one in the discussion, there seems to still be a debate.
Tom,
I don’t think it is absolutely the case that “liberal” is always a pejorative term. I think it can be an accurate description of a family of theologians including Schweitzer (sp?) et. al.
Liberals had a very defined theology, including the brotherhood of man (universalism) and the higher ethic of love (relativism), and most leaning toward the documentary thesis and other German ideas.
I think when used properly, words like liberalism can be helpful in pointing out differences in theological systems. When used as a pejorative, it becomes less helpful.
third line believes///
Let’s lose the insults please, gentleman and keep this conversation on point if you would. Thanks.
If you just really have to type out another insult, try sending it jeffmusgraveisajerk@hotmail.com and I will handle it from there.
Remember that “You Yankees Fan!” is the one insult that is always acceptable around here, while “Hog Fan” is the highest praise that can be given. “Braves fan” runs close to that, though…
What about “can live without baseball”?
“You Yankees Fan!” isn’t going to be as much fun to use when Dave isn’t around to take offense at it. “Brave fan” just draws my pity as it is less an insult and more a synonym for “folds under pressure.”
And another thing, I like smileys. 🙂
The whole site should be covered with Smileys and SEC Football when Dave returns.
Maybe I can do a Saturday post for discussion on those topics to get us off to a good start. 🙂
“Hog Fan” is only scripturally relevant when speaking of bacon.