Southern Baptists in particular, evangelicals in a broader sense, and all Americans in the whole have become lovers of echo chambers in which every voice joins in perfect unison with our own to reinforce, without question, the ideas we share.
A lady came by the office to express how much she appreciated my ministry and how she had grown under it, but to inform me that God was leading her to another church in town. It was cordial and friendly, but something she said always stuck in my craw a little. “It is nice,” she said, “to hear my theology preached every Sunday.” I was not quite the Calvinist firebrand her new pastor is and she felt more comfortable hearing her theology affirmed week after week.
I am old enough to remember when the SBC Annual Meeting consisted of the Pastors’ Conference, the Annual Meeting, the Evangelists’ meeting on Wednesday afternoon for those who were not sightseeing, a WMU conference and a few seminary luncheons. Now you need an app to keep up with all the special event conferences that take place – many of them niche events for particular groups. There are other conferences throughout the year that draw like-minded folks together.
Southern Baptist pastors are spread out far and wide in Northwest Iowa and so we get together on Tuesday for lunch, when our schedules allow. A good friend who had to drive a fair distance to participate told me that he came from time to time but he was honest about it. “I’m more likely to invest in spending time with like-minded pastors.”
We have become the champions of the echo-chambers. We gather around us people who think like us and agree with us so that they will applaud our ideas. We become more convinced of the rightness of our truth because there are no voices around us who are allowed to speak a contrary thought or utter a contrary opinion.
I do not have a complete list of the names of those who gathered in Dallas to compose the “Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel,” but I would wager my spleen (if I still had a spleen and if I were a betting man) that every single person in that gathering was already in agreement with the John MacArthur position before they gathered. There was no one there giving pushback or explaining the position that evangelicals in favor of biblical social justice have put forward. It was an echo chamber.
In the days after that was published, there were a couple of statements issued as counterproposals to the Dallas statement. I liked them because they expressed my views but they were rushed and were not generally comprehensive or compelling. Some of us discussed the idea of gathering a group of people who would craft a well-written and comprehensive statement on the Gospel and Social Justice that would answer the weaknesses of the Dallas statement.
But such a statement would simply be another product of an echo chamber.
Echo chambers enhance problems, they don’t solve them. The Calvinism conflict in the SBC will never be solved if Calvinists have conferences and talk about how great Calvinism is and how it is the answer to all the world’s problems and then non-Calvinists have conferences about the evils and dangers of Calvinists and talk about how Calvinists are conspiring to take over SBC entities, do away with missions, hamstring evangelism, and end the SBC as we have known it. The conflict will likely never be completely solved – it has been going on since the SBC was formed – but things will only improve as Calvinists and non-Calvinists talk TOGETHER and honestly and partner for the gospel as and stop quarantining one another.
In the same way, this social justice issue will not be solved by statements prepared in and released from echo chambers.
- I read the things people who oppose biblical social justice write and I think, “How can you possibly get that from what we are saying?”
- I realize that those who oppose social justice are often making similar claims, that they are being misunderstood.
As long as we are in our bunkers firing shots at one another from our protected cover this will never get solved.
A Proposal
I have a suggestion which I have not talked to ANYONE about, not even the person I think should moderate the event.
This has become a huge conflict in the SBC and I can’t help but think that a lot of this is because we are talking past each other instead of to each other. So, I propose we figure out a way to talk to each other.
1. We set up a conference inviting 10 of the most visible and vocal names in the SBC on the anti-Social Justice side and 10 of the most visible and vocal names on Social Justice side. They can choose what they want to be called as long as it isn’t pejorative or insulting to the other side. They would, unfortunately, have to pay their own way (unless a benefactor comes along). All details will have to be worked out.
2. We select a non-combatant to be the moderator of the conference. I have an idea for a person to host that, a well-known blogger who doesn’t blog much anymore but has a convention-wide reputation for wisdom and fairness. If a name is coming to your mind, I would guess 8 of 10 of you are thinking of the same person I am.
3. We develop a format to allow both sides to share their concerns and interact.
4. The group would work to produce a JOINT statement detailing areas of agreement and disagreement, areas of understanding and areas in which further work is needed. But the goal would be to get us all out of our echo chambers and into a productive discussion.
5. We would not stream the discussion or open it to the public. If it went well, the discussion could get heated at times. The goal is to have a free discussion not to host a pageant.
I have no idea if we could pull this off but I think it would be a lot more productive than sitting hunkered down in our echo chambers shooting at one another. I have no details – this is an idea without details at this point.
Now, tell me what an idiot I am.
Dave Miller,
“We select a non-combatant to be the moderator of the conference. I have an idea for a person to host that, a well-known blogger who doesn’t blog much anymore but has a convention-wide reputation for wisdom and fairness. If a name is coming to your mind, I would guess 8 of 10 of you are thinking of the same person I am.”
OK, OK Already. I will do it. 😉
I think I’m torn on the “behind-closed-doors” concept. I know that such would allow a much freer, much more open discussion. And I think there would be enormous value in allowing participants to say things that don’t tweet well, let someone push back about the problems with their viewpoint, and then let it sit for 24 hours and then come back and see how both sides may have moderated their view and come to a better understanding.
The other side of me is a bit unwilling to endorse yet another group of “important folks” meeting in secret and then declaring to the rest of us what we should all be doing, generating a statement that we should either support or be considered against social justice AND against the Gospel, if there is actually agreement. I know we’ve shifted to effectively having a Baptist Bishops’ Council that tells us what to do as Southern Baptists, but I can’t bring myself to like the idea.
Now, if you set the format such that, in all honesty, it’s too long, drawn-out, and wordy for anyone to actually bother watching and it’s then effectively behind-closed-doors but not sealed and secret, that’s another matter.
So, you’re not an idiot. And it’s not a bad idea overall.
My fear is that if it is streaming, people will likely perform for the cameras rather than engage in honest conversation. I don’t mean to be cynical, but that is why I said that.
We will take notes and then seal them for 25 years, according to SBC tradition.
And I understand that concern. But if the folks who would be involved can only discuss with integrity if there are no cameras, then are they really the ones that should be leading the discussion anyway?
This is far superior to your previous discussion of the “Dallas” Statement. It sounds like a spectacularly good idea. Thus, lamentably, no one will ever agree to it!! It just makes too much sense.
Dave,
You are not an idiot.
As you know, I proposed this very idea in a comment in the last blog. I got it from Bart Barber.
I think it could be done at the next Convention.
I don’t care who the moderator is because we will never find someone who has no opinion on the matter. We just need someone who is fair. There are lots of guys who could do this.
I think that we also need to start out saying that we are not going to settle the matter. Some people are going to be more inclined to be on one side or the other.
In SBC life, I have one other suggestion. The Trads have made the complaint for years that they do not feel well represented in our agencies and institutions, and they feel this is growing as Calvinists continue to gain prominence.
I personally have seen that the candidates for many positions have been good picks, not because of their unique doctrinal positions (Cal vs. Trad) but because of their professionalism, they are well-spoken, and adhere to the BFM.
So, my last proposal in SBC Life is that we ask every agency and institution, starting now, that we recognize that there are different beliefs about this issue and that churches and Christians are going to differ over this.
If our agencies, Seminaries, LifeWay, ERLC etc. only employ SJWs or Non-SJWs, that is going to exacerbate the tensions in SBC life. I would like to see a commitment from all of these agencies to seek to employ people who have a wide range of belief across the board on this issue (not out of bounds, of course).
So, back to your proposal. I agree. Let’s have more discussion, not less.
But let’s end with conferences and initiatives that are divisive and shame others over this issue.
Oops. I just realized you meant a closed meeting?
No. That will never work.
We just need to speak openly and out loud.
We’ve talked about having an SBC Voices thing at the Annual Meeting. If we did, I’d want it to be an “out of the Echo Chamber” thing. Whatever the topic, different voices.
I’m not sure what you are saying, but my concept is not a discussion free-for-all, but gathering 5 to 10 major voices on each side (5 might be better) and having them hammer something out.
Five would be better (and easier to get done). You should pursue this idea vigorously. How can I help you?
Great idea!!!
A free for all would be awful.
But a friendly debate format such as used to happen on Firing Line would be awesome.
Hammering out a statement would not happen, or even if it did, wouldn’t be followed.
Dave, I appreciate your underlying desire to bring the two “sides” together.
That being said (and I’ll probably get smacked around here for saying this, which will be quite telling), I don’t need a council of personalities to tell me what to believe. We are committee-ing ourselves to death in this convention. I have a Bible that speaks truth resoundingly, line-upon-line, and it informs me exactly what I am to believe, and that with great precision.
Hence, when I read with my own eyes and hear with my own ears declarations that sound far more like our sinful culture than they do the Word of God, I’m going to ask questions and express concern. I will try to give my brothers the benefit of the doubt, but I will ask questions.
And as long as the responses I hear reflect and defend what appears to be nothing more than cultural influence, I’m going to stick with what I read in my Bible. If my impressions of what I am hearing are erroneous, simply use clear, biblical language and theological precision to show me my error.
After all is said and done, I genuinely hope my concerns are unfounded, but I am not yet convinced.
Blessings, brother.
Dave, great idea. I hope it will come to pass.
Looks like this may have already been done – albeit on a smaller scale.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H5hmQL61PrQ&feature=youtu.be
Dave C. You realize this is no longer true. You were at the Convention and this video would be sorely out of date. That is the beauty of this year’s convention, to see how things have changed from years past and that includes Dr. Mohler’s view on this. He would not sign the MacArthur statement and in fact I believe spoke against it.
I, nor you, know nothing of the sort regarding our Mohler changing his view about what is and what is not Intercal to the gospel…
Dr. Mohler has not spoken against the Dallas Statement *text* and I certainly trust he nor other SBC leaders wouldn’t.
Others Opposing it because of personal dislike, hurt feelings and backstory… That may be a different issue for somepeople… and I truly understand that.
But the actual text of the document…never mind – been there before.
I am not looking to argue with you. So I’ll sign off with this:
In fact, I believe I’d rather let Dr. Mohler speak for himself – If he wants to recant his views articulated in this debate he is certainly free and able to do so… In the meantime however, I doubt he’s hired you as a spokesperson – He has repeatedly demonstrated that he is fully capable of speaking for himself after all.
😉
Dave C: Oh I am sure you won’t comment further, because you know where you have erred. It’s interesting that Pulpit and Pen dug up this same video you give from 2012. Coincidence? MMMMMMaybe.
Al Mohler has spoke for himself or written for himself on the #churchtoo movement for example. Grieving that these women had to endure what they endured.
Where were you at the Convention this year? I know you were there? It was wonderful to see the breakout talks that occurred. Al Mohler speaking out soundly and clearly against the treatment of women in the SBC, the rapes etc. and racial injustice. I know you were there and either know this, or hid out in your hotel room for a couple of days.
Al Mohler has spoken out against racial sin the last couple of years. I’ve changed my mind many times both in theology and Christian view on issues like this over the years as I grew and my study of scripture grew. I think that is great. It’s the ones who are wrong and stay wrong regardless I have a problem with. Then try to control everyone else or lie about them.
Utter coincidence. I have absolutely no idea what the pulpit and pen has written or posted on anything whatsoever – because I do not care what they have to say. So Unless someone tells me what they’ve said (and that did not happen here) I will not know.
You’re right about one thing (yay for small accomplishments) Al Mohler has spoken for himself… specifically, he called the Dallas statement “helpful“ in a Baptist press article recently.
I was in the assembly hall for every single business session of the convention … and have numerous Voices witnesses to that effect.
This is the latest that I just now read and heard. This is out of Al Mohler’s mouth today I think https://twitter.com/SBCexplainer/status/1040370645790543873
Yes. Again. Mohler said he didn’t think he would be signing it in a previous form- and did not say why… he also has not indicated (that I know of) that he has concerns with the actual text of the final document.
He went on to say that he felt that he holds respect for “legitimate concerns from those who ought to be involved in the debate.”
That’s a far cry from what you’ve said that the document is “false from the first word to the last.”
It is a good idea. It reminds me of Evangelicals and Catholics Together (only it is Baptists and Baptists Together, where the differences can be just as sharply drawn, and thus the dialogue is just as greatly needed). I am concerned that a closed dialogue might lead to only the participants benefiting. If all participants are major leaders on both sides, and all refer back often to the joint statement, it could have a positive effect on a wider number of people, though, and that would be a VERY good outcome!).
Is there not any middle ground between a secret, non-disclosure enforces GCR type meeting, and a live-streamed one?
…can there be a meeting that is not secret, but is also not a media event? Where any participant is free to afterwards say how it went, what was said, and what they thought about it?
I do realize the difficulty of this, as a participant could easily record the meeting and post it, but it seems we have only 2 extremes.
I agree mostly, but I will say as someone who was strongly on one side a year ago, and now through much prayer and study on the other side, I will say that social media has played a small role in that (faithful men and women graciously giving their points of view).
Al Mohler did not speak against the statement.
Mohler is quoted in Baptist Press as saying the statement could be a helpful part of the discussion among evangelicals regarding social concerns.
I agree with that.
https://twitter.com/MimZWay/status/1038794405128364032 I read this when tweeted by Thabiti and it literally pierced my soul. I have no words…and as Jacki King said it is still going on today which is why I am grateful for hearts like yours Dave. I have witnessed this as a white woman too many years of my life, and not just among blacks but Mexicans and anyone not with white skin.
Dave,
I don’t really ‘frequent’ voices (or any ongoing blog-site) because schedule just doesn’t allow for that much time on the web. However, from time to time (not often), I check two or three blogs to see what the discussion is. For most, I disagree on many levels.
Here is my take on your article: Well written, well intended, and well thought out. Whether I agree with the things you write or not, I always applaud the way you ‘think it out’ before you ‘write it out.’ (little humor )
This suggestion has merit – but I’m afraid, will never see the light of day because, my personal observation is, anytime a reasoned thought is put forward, someone (or a group of ‘someones’) is/are like an alligator with the smell of blood in the water – attack is imminent. Reading blogs, posts, and boards, of all persuasions leads me to the conclusion, that some just like to ‘attack’. Candidly, when I read a thread and see some specific names, I know that I can probably write their response because they are so predictable. So most of the time, I don’t even read their most recent attack. How troubling. The word is “I don’t like”, “I don’t trust”, “I don’t want”, or “I don’t need”. So, I don’t want, like, or need to cooperate with others to accomplish Kingdom word because “I’ve” got it all correct.
Thanks for the good suggestion and thought. How I wished instead of being told all the reasons this ‘won’t work’ that the prevailing attitude might become ‘let’s think about this possibility, determine what we would like to be the result of this effort, and tweak this idea until we can take one step in the right direction.’ Keep pushing.
I’ll check back in days to come to see how this has advanced or been shot down. Grace to You.
I’d suggest going back to the way Southern Baptists once were before cornering the market on branded theology and ways of doing church became the norm, and letting a secondary or tertiary issue like this be something that a local church decided what it would do about it, or where is was going with the issue. There was a time when walking in lock-step conformity wasn’t the goal of the SBC and settling a minor squabble like this wasn’t considered a good use of individual resources and energy.
If Pastor Joe and the First Baptist Church of anywhere have a particular view of social justice, they flesh it out by practicing that view as an independent, autonomous congregation. So if Pastor Jim, at the split-off-the-First Baptist Church, minds his own business and concerns himself with the doctrine he preaches, and his own differing view of social justice, and decides not to berate or criticize Pastor Joe who may disagree with him, and Pastor Joe does his own thing, minds his own business, and doesn’t go after Pastor Jim for his view, they might actually get along. Let each church practice their own version and perspective of Social Justice, and let people make their own choices. If cooperation can’t be attained on agreement to disagree on a secondary or tertiary issue like this, then it can’t be attained.
Dave,
I agree that a forum might be helpful. Good idea.
Imo, 10 and 10 making 20 – is way too many.
3 and 3 might allow for more back and forth and dialogue in a live forum format…
Although, I think (Maybe), I understand why you’d suggest 10 biblically faithful and sincere Christians instead of a lower number, as I imagine, given the nuances to this subject – particularly if discussion goes beyond principle to practice and nomenclature, there might be a need to have that many ?
Good luck with your idea, thanks for putting it forward.
Dave Miller,
Also, not for trouble-making – but your idea might get more willing participants who disagree with components, nomenclature, and/or practice articulated by the “social justice” side of the debate – if you called them something other than “anti social justice folks”.
In fact, speaking for myself. While, I find myself in nuanced disagreement with the editorial board here at Voices and with others who have opined – I still am pro justice. I desire and work for justice personally and call the members of my church to do so as well. While, You guys seem to have embraced “social justice” the “other side” has not settled on name…..so maybe just call us “biblical justice advocates”. 🙂 OK that last part was said jovially…
Maybe just solicit people who we know lean in certain ways regarding the topic.
(While I posted in another comment that your forum is a good idea and I wish you well with it – and I do – I am a wee bit skeptical of the statement formulation idea….reason being….remember the Calvinism advisory counsel….that not only did not bring unity (which was a stated goal)….even some of the signers actively betrayed that objective. (I can think of two on the non cal side and at one on the cal side who betrayed it rather quickly and continually.)
Also if a joint statement is the result you want from this group – then I definitely understand why you’d suggest 20 biblical faithful sincere Christians….in order for it to have “authority” for a lack of a better term at the moment – there should be more than just a few fellas and ladies..its gotta be a larger number.
I like the idea Dave.
Dave, always enjoy your writings, I am a missionary in Uganda, and I just read the complete statement . The author of the statement basically says the same thing as you…lets dialog! I think your idea is great, please make sure we have folks of all colors and gender at the table.
I hope the author of the statement is not saying the same thing as Dave. I would disagree the two are saying the same thing.
I’m for it. Of course, it’s a travesty if the lines aren’t open already. But I fear it’s the case that the communication actually takes place on Twitter.
A problem I see is that there’s already a good deal of “teamness” here. I don’t think Charles Spurgeon, John Perkins, Dwight McKissick, and Kyle Howard are saying quite the same things about Social Justice — or, at least, I think some of those things might be worth sharpening if they’re to remain orthodox. Unfortunately, there’s a good deal of pressure for the teams to hold together, and a reluctance to admit “our side’s” got any radicalism.
As for echo chambers, that’s true. This week’s hubbub over the justice of giving has got me scratching my head. What Dave Ramsey says about giving, certain folks love because it’s common sense. Others would give him the bum’s rush because homespun hucksters have no place in SBC life. But when TGC says it, the positions flip, and it’s socialism vs. opponents of the Church Fathers. We really are struggling to hear the Master’s voice over Paul and Apollos these days.
Johnny Touchet:
Great idea.
And let’s make sure the ethnic and gender selection varies on both sides of the discussion.
Johnny:
I also believe age should be considered. Both sides should have young and old.
Jon:
Good observation.
All who speak of “social justice”, even conservative, biblically faithful brothers, are not saying the same thing as those who have concerns. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they are not.
And it doesn’t break down along the lines of people who are concerned with racism and those who aren’t.
Everyone in this debate is as opposed to racism as everyone else.
The difference appears to be that one group finds income and opportunity disparities between ethnic and gender groups, by the fact of their existence, to be a violation of the Bible’s justice requirements that Christians should remedy..
The other side believes that so long as no active discriminatory policy or action can be shown, that existing disparities between ethnic and gender groups are not violations of the Bible’s requirements for justice.
Louis:
With 45 minutes, I think we could get enough caveats in there that I’d agree. 🙂
I am the lonely person who hopes Baptists feel a social responsibility to send in 15% CP giving, so that there is adequate funding for benevolent and social ministries in the state conventions.
Jon:
That 15% would be great.
It is an irony that churches in the 19th Century started colleges, seminaries, hospitals, orphanages etc. The churches were involved in all sorts of benevolent works.
The 20th Century saw a dramatic turn in what citizens thought government should do vs. what should be done privately. That resulted in a significant shift of wealth from the private to the public sector. And the public sector has picked up a lot of these works that charities used to do.
It is also ironic that many whom I know want to see the church get back in the business of doing some of these charitable works. Problem is – this isn’t the 19th century. The disposable income that people would have to do these things is being sent to Uncle Sam – to do these things. I find it interesting that many of my friends who support an even greater expansion of government largesse are also the ones who complain that Christians don’t do more. They never make the connection that greater taxation results in less disposable income, which results in less money that can be given to ministries etc.