Jonathan Merritt’s recent RNS article, “Southern Baptists Cozy Up to GOP after Pulling Back” entirely misunderstands, I think, the nature of what happened with the Ben Carson matter earlier this year and with the SEND North America conference. At least, as someone who had some involvement in the former matter, I can say that Merritt’s analysis misses the mark on what I was trying to do. This wasn’t about political parties.
Correcting what one person has written is probably not a good use of anyone’s time, even if that one person is a journalist with a national audience. But Merritt is not alone. His particular misunderstanding is one that I think I perceived in a good bit of the reaction back in the Spring. I have to take seriously the possibility that I did not communicate as well (or as completely) as I should have communicated back then. That possibility motivates me to try, try again.
My motivation when I authored “A Plea at the Premiere of Presidential Politicking” was not a “pulling back” from the GOP. I don’t think the interviews slated for SEND with Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio amount to any sort of a “cozying up” with the GOP. Rather, I was writing about the relationship between our faith and politics
The relationship between faith and politics has long been an interest of mine. In fact, I named my personal blog “Praisegod Barebones” precisely because Barebones, the historical figure, was an interesting preacher-politician in seventeenth-century England. From time to time I have written on the subject matter of church-state issues. Having a good understanding of the relationship between faith and politics is, in my estimation, an important virtue.
The Southern Baptist Convention and the Political Parties
Along the way to developing that understanding of the relationship between faith and politics, one must discover that there is a difference between our relationship with politics on the one hand and our relationship with political parties on the other hand. For too much of our history, instead of a philosophy of faith and politics, Southern Baptists had a philosophy of faith and political parties.
From 1845 to 1979—a full hundred thirty-four years—the Southern Baptist Convention was joined at the hip with the Democratic Party. The Democrats were the party of slavery and white supremacy. When you read about Southern Baptist failures in race relations, every leader responsible for those problems was a Democrat.
Consider the period around the turn of the twentieth century. From 1889 to 1898, the nine-term president of the Southern Baptist Convention was Jonathan Haralson, Sr., a Democrat Associate Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and a former official of the Confederate States of America. Haralson yielded his gavel in 1899 to William J. Northen, Democrat Governor of the State of Georgia. Northen served three years, then passed the gavel to James P. Eagle, Democrat Governor of the State of Arkansas, who served three terms from 1902 until his death in 1905. Next followed Edwin Stephens, a newspaper magnate from Missouri who, although he was not an elected politician, was prominent enough in state politics to gain an appointment as chair of the commission that designed and constructed the Capitol of the State of Missouri. Next came Joshua Levering, national presidential candidate for the Prohibition Party in 1896 (OK, so this politician was not a Democrat, although prohibition enjoyed widespread support among Democrats, so much so that Al Smith could not mobilize enough Democrat support to win the White House in 1928). Not until the 1911 election of E. C. Dargan did a preacher return to the presidential rostrum of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Aside: For those who advocate for more lay-officers in the Southern Baptist Convention, although I am not opposed to that concept at all, it is my knowledge of this epoch of our history that makes me aware of how this potentially-good thing could also go very bad.
This epoch gave us Jim Crow (Governor James Philip Eagle signed the “Separate Coach Law” inaugurating Jim Crow in Arkansas), and Southern Baptists, in lockstep as they were with the Democrats, went right along with it. The startling pre-Conservative-Resurgence embrace of abortion by Southern Baptists can also be traced back to allegiance to the Democratic Party.
If Southern Baptists have been identified with the GOP, it is a recent development and not nearly long tenured enough to have accomplished any sort of historical balance.
But the sad tale of moral depravity that Democrats foisted upon the Southern Baptist Convention ought not to drive us into a rebound monogamous relationship with Republicans. The lesson to be learned is not that we had the wrong partner, but that we had the wrong approach. The church already has a Bridegroom, and monogamy with any political party is, ipso facto, adultery. Avoiding that temptation is made especially difficult and we therefore have to be particularly diligent because of the fact that cooperation with the Democrats is untenable and increasingly unconscionable. The political party that will embrace the carving up of innocent babies for the sale of their organs is not merely politically wrong; it is morally culpable at the most egregious levels. Therefore, we face the difficult test of avoiding blind allegiance to the Republicans even while they know full well that we have nowhere else to go (apart from third-party movements or disengagement). It is a test that I believe we can win, but we will not accidentally win it. We will only win it if we determine to do so and work hard at it.
The Southern Baptist Convention and Politics
Withdrawing from politics, however, is the wrong solution to this sad history. To withdraw from politics is to abandon the pursuit of justice. Furthermore, so long as Southern Baptists will go to the polls, Southern Baptists will be involved in politics. To think that such a solemn responsibility that affects the lives of so many people is a duty about which Christian discipleship has nothing to say is inconceivable.
Instead, Southern Baptists ought to approach politics in such a way as to minimize the temptations and vulnerabilities inherent to the political world while maximizing the effectiveness of Southern Baptists in shaping American politics toward justice and human flourishing.
Those temptations and vulnerabilities include the danger of making theology the handmaiden of politics rather than politics the handmaiden of our theology. No episode illustrates this danger more vividly in my mind than the actions of Liberty University and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association to soften their tone with regard to Mormonism during the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. They include also the temptation of Baptist leaders to become king-makers or to try to “deliver the Southern Baptist vote.” Finally, a wrong approach to politics will often produce a commitment to an anemic civil religion that lacks all of the vitality and transformative magic of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
When we are committed to an idea of politics rather than to a political party or a political candidate, we are in a good position to laud when appropriate and criticize when necessary. Allegiances to parties and candidates require the stifling of laudatory statements toward the opposing team and the abrogation of prophetic criticism when “our guys” get it wrong. A strong theory of political parties; therefore, is often the opponent of a theory of politics. A healthy grasp of the role of politics in the life of a Christian is an antidote to the vulnerabilities I mentioned in the previous paragraph.
The Ben Carson Episode
I reacted negatively to the Ben Carson affair because Ben Carson was a Seventh-Day Adventist being invited into a preaching slot at a Southern Baptist meeting, which seemed to me to be a step in the wrong direction with regard to the first vulnerability I listed above. I also reacted because the invitation of a sole candidate in the incipient presidential election to the exclusion of all others tends toward the king-making vulnerability (although I in no way am asserting that this was Willy Rice’s motivation for the invitation, we sometimes fall into these things inadvertently). The final reason for my negative reaction was my concern that such an invitation displaces content helpful to pastors from the Pastors’ Conference in favor of something more in line with civil religion.
I mentioned several other people who would make excellent replacement speakers. Every other political candidate I mentioned was a Republican. Of the non-politicians I mentioned, if any of them are Democrats, it will come as news to me. I cannot imagine any construal that makes my post any sort of a call for “pulling back” from the GOP. There followed posts by other authors, including the guys over at Baptist 21. I cannot find in those posts any unified effort at political realignment of the SBC with regard to party politics. Nor do I find in any of them a call to disengage from political life as Christians. Rather, I read the other posts as further installments along the lines that I had first indicated: A call for a fresh examination of the particular way that faith and politics interact in our hearts, our churches, and our Convention.
Indeed, in that initial article I tried to articulate an alternative approach that would remain just as involved in politics without running afoul of the vulnerabilities I wanted to avoid.
Let’s let the politicians make their cases independently of our meetings. Let’s focus the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting on prayer and spiritual awakening, as President Ronnie Floyd has so wonderfully asked us to do. Let’s extend our apologies to Dr. Ben Carson and hear Kelvin Cochran in his place. If we need a political rally, let’s have one, separate from our Annual Meeting, and let’s invite ALL of the candidates to come and to make their promises. Let’s consider strongly that we might vote for Dr. Ben Carson (I’ve got his book—a signed copy, no less!—and would vote for him fifty times before I’d vote for Jeb Bush), but let us not change ONE IOTA what we say about and how we relate to Seventh-Day Adventists. Let us make it a believable fiction, at the very least, that what we say about God means more to us than what we say about politics.
Although my paragraph begins with a call to “let the politicians make their cases independently of our meetings,” later you read the caveat, “If we need a political rally, let’s have one, separate from our Annual meeting, and let’s invite ALL of the candidates to come and to make their promises.” If this is a call to disengagement from politics, it is a self-defeating one. No, there’s no pulling back from the GOP here. There’s no disengagement from politics here. Rather, there’s a call for us to keep theology from being the handmaiden of politics, to deal evenhandedly with candidates in any political fora that we host, and to prioritize theological content over political content in our meetings.
SEND North America
I’d rather we hadn’t had political interviews at a missions conference. It’s one thing to say that; it’s another thing to pretend that the Bush/Rubio interviews are an out-and-out reversal of what happened with Ben Carson. What Southern Baptists say about Catholicism will not be changed by the candidacies of these men, because the electorate has already gotten comfortable with the idea of a Roman Catholic President at least as far back as John F. Kennedy. Because the objection is not there, desperate politicians will not be twisting theological pretzels to make some important faith-based case to give the Roman Catholics a fair hearing.
Also, the ERLC applied a fair, across-the-board standard in deciding which candidates to invite. Merritt dismissed and some lampooned or bemoaned the decision to invite Hillary Clinton, but her invitation represented, in my estimation, an important and clear message that this session was nothing approaching an endorsement, and that even (especially?) the candidates least favored by Southern Baptists ought to face Southern Baptist questions about their plans for the nation.
Finally, the format of the event was Question & Answer. There’s a difference, I think, between handing over the microphone to let politicians court the Southern Baptist electorate (they’re not one-at-a-timing, here; they’re MASS communicating) on the one hand and forcing candidates to face questions from Southern Baptists on the other hand. The latter, it seems to me, is a useful thing, even if I might have sought a different occasion to host it. Certainly the public debates sponsored by the TV networks will not feature all of the questions that matter to Southern Baptists, and to have an opportunity to watch candidates fielding our questions can only help, not hurt.
I was encouraged to hear both Bush and Rubio explicitly endorsing a freedom of religious practice rather than the watered-down counterfeit idea of “Freedom of Worship” that the worst presidential administration in the history of our nation on questions of religious liberty has been trying to sell us. Putting candidates on the record about religious liberty, defunding Planned Parenthood, and the like are good things to accomplish.
If you set aside the question of context (that the Q&A took place during the SEND NA conference), this interview meets every criterion I stipulated for a good Southern Baptist event addressing civil politics. Dr. Moore offered an answer as to why these political questions made sense for the missions conference, and it is true that our missions efforts bump up into religious liberty restrictions with some regularity. I’d still be more comfortable with a separate event, but at some point you have to give room to other people to do their jobs a little differently than you would do it if you were them. When you sweep away 80% of the objection that I had to the Ben Carson situation, you bring me down to a point where I can be generally supportive of the event.
Conclusion
And so, I think that Jonathan Merritt has misunderstood the nature of the first controversy, and in doing so, I think he has misinterpreted the nature of the second. Southern Baptists, I hope, remain committed to the causes of prenatal life, religious liberty, and a sexual ethic that runs counter to the Sexual Revolution. For as long as these causes remain important to us, although we may have to move further away from the GOP, we will never be able to move any closer to the Democrats. What we will have to discover is the way that local politics and interpersonal politics, driven by an overarching commitment to the gospel and the winning of souls, can redefine the way that we engage the political process and can bring justice and flourishing to our neighbors, not just for this age, but for the age to come.
Thanks Bart. As you delicately stated (or didn’t – ha), some “misunderstandings” are intentional — that just sells better for some journalists. Other misunderstandings are very legit – because the person may not know the full scope of an issue.
Thanks for taking the time to address the first while at the same time helping those in the latter have a bigger perspective.
Excellent article.
Several outlets are in Merritt’s neighborhood on the matter.
Here’s one, “For Southern Baptists and GOP, Breaking Up Is Hard to Do”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/july-web-only/for-southern-baptists-and-gop-breaking-up-is-hard-to-do.html
And not a few prominent SBs have an eyebrow raised, publicly, others privately, over the rally interviews. It’s done. We will move along.
You said, “If you set aside the question of context (that the Q&A took place during the SEND NA conference), this interview meets every criterion I stipulated for a good Southern Baptist event addressing civil politics.”
The context in this case as in the previous, cannot be set aside and is the element that colors the whole of either. I agree with you in saying that, “I’d rather we hadn’t had political interviews at a missions conference.”
Moore, above all in the SBC, is sensitive to public perception both inside and outside our SBC world. Obviously he concluded that the opportunity was more positive than negative for the ERLC and Southern Baptists.
I was present for Moore’s interviews. They were interesting. I would love to see him ask the other candidates, escpecially Hillary, the same questions.
Better, I got a free copy of his new book.
Merritt is no journalist.
It is clear, Merritt has an agenda he pushes in almost every article.
“The startling pre-Conservative-Resurgence embrace of abortion by Southern Baptists can also be traced back to allegiance to the Democratic Party.”
I am not sure if this is historically accurate. The Democrat Party was not as strongly pro-choice in 1973 as it is now, and the Republican Party was not as pro-life (Nixon was ambiguous and Ford was pro-choice).
Here are the biggest reasons why the SBC was initially pro-choice:
(1) Conservative evangelicals weren’t writing much on ethics in 1950s and 1960s, and SBC professors and elites weren’t reading much of what they wrote anyway.
(2) SBC professors and elites were strongly influenced by mainline protestant scholarship and denominations, which tended to be pro-choice.
(3) The heavy emphasis in the SBC of that era on “the priesthood of the believer,” “soul competency,” and “soul freedom” naturally led to support of “a woman’s right to choose.”
“The heavy emphasis on the SBC of that era on the priesthood of the believer, soul competency and soul freedom naturally led to support of a woman’s right to choose.”
This is the wildest, most unsubstantiatied conjecture I’ve read on a blog post in months.
You may conclude if you wish that these axiomatic baptist principles within historical Southern Baptist life lead all who cherish them in the direction of abortion on demand.
But mind you, I will likewise conclude that the neo-calvinistic surge within today’s SBC has left it soft….and growing softer in the very areas of ethical and social concern you claim are fostered by belief in soul competency.
Merritt’s perspectives are but one set of examples.
Scott, there is no reason you need to be so aggressive in tone. Talk. You could make thus valid point just as well without the demeaning tone.
Because last I checked, stating disagreement in a reasonable manner is neither sinful or contrary to Baptist polity.
If you have sin to confess be more specific.
This was supposed to attach to David’s comment
Scott,
(1) “Priesthood of the believer” and “soul competency” are not historic Baptist principles, but 20th century innovations. “Soul competency” was invented by E. Y. Mullins in the early 20th century. Historically, Baptists believed in the “priesthood of ALL BELIEVERS.” It was 20th century individualism that led to the 20th century emphasis on “the priesthood of THE BELIEVER,” the same individualism that based right to abortion or “right to privacy.
(2) Both James Dunn and Foy Valentine were pro-choice on abortion and both heavily emphasized concepts like “soul freedom,” “soul competency,” and “the priesthood of the believer.”
(3) When has Jonathan Merritt ever claimed to be a Calvinist?
“as Baptists believe in the priesthood of every believer to search the Scriptures, find truth and make moral decisions for themselves, we have differing views on the matter of birth control and the question of when life begins” (Wayne Dehoney, 1976; Dehoney was SBC President 1964-66).
“The complex issue of abortion is reduced to the simple cry of ‘infanticide’ by Mr. (President) Reagan, who would redress ‘a great national wrong’ in the name of civil religion, making it virtually impossible for mothers to make their own decisions in this very private, very religious matter.” James Dunn, 1983. It should be noted that James Dunn constantly emphasized “the priesthood of the believer,” “soul competency,” and “soul freedom.” In fact, Dunn wrote a book entitled “Soul Freedom.”
Well, there are others who support what Jeff has said. This 2002 article
“Polls indicate that most Southern Baptists take a moderate stance toward abortion.40 That is, they identify neither with those who believe abortion should be banned nor with those who believe there should be no legal controls at all. Nearly all agree that there is a moral issue involved in elective abortion; they disagree over what public policy is appropriate or necessary. Most believe abortion is best left to the woman or couple involved, in a social context that allows a responsible decision to be made without undue legal hindrances. That position is based on the principle of the priesthood of the believer, the notion that life begins with birth and breath, and the absence of any prohibition of abortion in Scripture. For many, religious liberty commit- ments are also crucial for public policy protec- tions of the woman’s right to decide. In their view, reproductive freedom is an expression both of responsible sexuality before God and of the separation of church and state. Further, some would add, the fact that “metaphysical speculation” is necessary to arguments that a fetus is a person underscores how deeply the First Amendment is involved on both Establish- ment and Free Exercise grounds.
During the 1970s, the annual convention sup- ported legislation that would have allowed ther- apeutic abortions while it rejected efforts to sup- port a constitutional ban.42 Those Southern Bap- tists who support abortion rights emphasize sal- vation by grace, the freedom of conscience, and the responsibilities of faithful obedience as basic guides when dealing with matters so deeply per- sonal as abortion. W. A. Criswell, a biblical con- servative, supported Roe v. Wade both because it seemed consistent with Biblical views of person- hood that began with birth and breath (Gen. 2:17), and because it protected the health and interests of the woman.43 Numerous Southern Baptist professors, pastors, and other leaders, including almost all professors of Christian ethics at SBC seminaries, also endorsed “A Call to Commitment,” circulated by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in 1977. The “Call,” among other things, asserted that human misery would increase if abortion were made illegal, and that religious liberty and freedom of conscience were at stake.”
The Southern Baptist Tradition by Paul D. Simmons
http://www.advocatehealth.com/documents/faith/Southern_Baptist.pdf
“The heavy emphasis in the SBC of that era on “the priesthood of the believer,” “soul competency,” and “soul freedom” naturally led to support of “a woman’s right to choose.””
It is an extreme extrapolation of cause and effect to conclude that a liberal mind is birthed in “soul competency.” Many Southern Baptists which held to these doctrines in the “era” noted stood their ground – and continue to hold fast – on the moral decline in this country. Conservative Southern Baptists professing these principles have been at the front on opposing evils which have been liberated by America’s legal system, including a woman’s right to choose; which is not a right, but a great wrong, when innocent blood is shed.
Max:
I would say to the complaint of Mullins being a “20 century” interjection into the identifiable collective theology of “Southern Baptists”…..at least we’re not dealing with a theological template from the middle ages.
Also, those who insist on viewing Southern Baptist history from the premise that the CR was both “good” and “necessary” will never admit that soul competency is the greatest contributing factor to the individual resistance of abortion on demand as far as the average Southern Baptist church member is concerned.
This fact will not change despite the conjecture, slights and character assassination leveled against former Southern Baptist leaders and educators who at least had the courage to discuss this issue honestly, biblically, and forthrightly.
“It is an extreme extrapolation of cause and effect to conclude that a liberal mind is birthed in ‘soul competency.'”
No, it is not. E. Y. Mullins invented the idea of “soul competency” while President at Southern Seminary from 1899 to 1928. Pro-choice Paul Simmons who is quoted above began teaching at Southern in 1967. So it took just two generations from “soul competency” being invented to get to the pro-abortion view. “Soul competency” was invented by Mullins at Southern Seminary, and it was the most liberal seminary in the pre-CR days and spread the contagion of liberalism to Southeastern and Midwestern.
It was moderate/liberal Southern Baptists who were always talking about “priesthood of the believer,” “soul competency,” and “soul freedom,” and it was these same moderate/liberal Southern Baptists who were most reluctant to oppose abortion or even were actively pro-choice. Foy Valentine and James Dunn were pro-choice, and they talked about “soul competency” and “the priesthood of the believer” all the time.
The pre-CR SBC resolutions on abortion in the 1970s left lots of wiggle room for abortion: “we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother” (1971). “We also affirm our conviction about the limited role of government in dealing with matters relating to abortion, and support the right of expectant mothers to the full range of medical services and personal counseling for the preservation of life and health” (1976).
After the CR, Southern Baptists began de-emphasizing “priesthood of the believer” and “soul competency,” and this enabled them to finally take a heroic stand against all abortions beginning in 1979.
By 1988, conservative Southern Baptists were sick of the moderate/liberal emphasis on the “priesthood of the believer,” and they voted on this resolution:
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/872/resolution-on-the-priesthood-of-the-believer
“The doctrine of the priesthood of the believer has been used to justify wrongly the attitude that a Christian may believe whatever he so chooses and still be considered a loyal Southern Baptist…”
Soul competency has been the distinctive belief held by Baptists of various flavors. It has nothing to do with liberal, moderate or conservative belief and practice. I’ve heard all the arguments about who did what when within SBC; it is true that some made a dirty word out of soul competency by hiding wrong actions under its banner. Bottom-line for me is that I see it as a New Testament principle, rooted in the nature of both God and man; it also runs throughout the Old Testament in God’s dealings with man. It does not mean that Baptists can believe just anything and be a Christian; God forbid! It is a core Baptist belief that should not be held hostage to SBC’s current theological rift, no matter how one spins SBC’s history or Southern Baptist successes or failings on legal and social positions. That’s the way I see it; I know you view it otherwise.
When E. Y. Mullins wrote, “the church is a community of autonomous individuals under the immediate lordship of Christ held together by a social bond of common interest” (Axioms of Religion, 129), he was departing from both the New Testament and Baptist tradition. It is this kind of thinking that leads to liberalism.
I think the problem here is the differing understandings of what the phrase means. The “priesthood of the believer” was never really the “believer.” It was “believers.” Peter Leithart wrote a few years ago,
“This weekend, Protestants commemorate Luther’s posting of the 95 Theses on the Wittenberg church door, a call to disputation that marks the symbolic starting point for the Reformation. As Luther slashed through the corruptions of late medieval Catholicism, “priesthood of all believers” rapidly became one of the great slogans of the Reformation.
Every Christian is a cleric, Luther proclaimed in one of his earliest treatises, The Freedom of a Christian , and those who “are now boastfully called popes, bishops, and lords” are in reality “ministers, servants, and stewards, who are to serve the rest in the ministry of the word””servants of the servants of God. Whether he knew it or not, Luther was ringing the changes on a patristic teaching that had never wholly been lost during the medieval period.
Unfortunately, the priesthood of the faithful in both its Protestant and Catholic forms has been corroded by fusion with modern individualism. While no denomination sanctions this fusion, strains in popular Protestantism, especially American Protestantism, have taken “priesthood of believers” to mean that every believer has an absolute right of private judgment about morals and doctrine, the liberty to interpret the Bible with complete autonomy.”
I think this shows the confusion. Leithart is correct. This doctrine never meant that each individual is free to interpret the bible with complete autonomy. Does not the preamble to the BF&M refer to “believers” and not “believer?”
That 1988 resolution on this says,
“Be it further RESOLVED, That we affirm that this doctrine in no way gives license to misinterpret, explain away, demythologize, or extrapolate out elements of the supernatural from the Bible; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer in no way contradicts the biblical understanding of the role, responsibility, and authority of the pastor which is seen in the command to the local church in Hebrews 13:17, “Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account;” and
Be finally RESOLVED, That we affirm the truth that elders, or pastors, are called of God to lead the local church (Acts 20:28).”
One of the problems I’ve noticed IMO is the overemphasis on individualism in interpreting the scriptures. I think that is part of what led to these awful earlier positions on murder in the womb.
More from Al Mohler:
““Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches. We honor the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of believers, affirming together both our liberty in Christ and our accountability to each other under the Word of God.”
This language clarifies the meaning of these cherished concepts. Some have interpreted these principles to mean that Baptists can believe (or disbelieve) virtually anything and remain a Baptist. This is nonsense—and it is dangerous. As Herschel Hobbs, chairman of the 1963 committee, often reminded us, there are certain “definite doctrines” all true Baptists must believe. No one has the right to coerce anyone to accept these doctrines. But, at the same time, Baptists have every right to define what Baptists believe.
E. Y. Mullins, chairman of the 1925 committee saw this as well: “There are limits to the religion of Christ beyond which men may not go and claim to be Christian, and there are corresponding Baptist limits. The refusal to define limits may and often does indicate a desire to abolish all limits.”
Soul competency affirms that every soul is required to give an answer to God, and bears a duty to respond to God in faith. Baptists do not believe in faith by proxy. Christian experience must be personal and direct in order to be authentic. Baptists believe in the priesthood of all believers because we understand the church to be an assembly of priests together. No human priest stands between the believer and the Lord Jesus Christ—our Great High Priest.
Sadly, these two precious concepts have been hijacked by some who would make them represent nothing more than autonomous individualism. Indeed, some have claimed that every believer has the right to believe anything he or she wishes, and that any doctrinal belief is as good as any other—regardless of its lack of biblical support.”
The problem is, Southern Baptists have a button: Abortion. Republicans only have to push that button, and we are theirs. They know it, and take advantage of it. We know it and are helpless to stop it. In a race between a declared pro-life and a declared pro-choice candidate, literally none of their other positions matter. I use the word “declared” deliberately, for I am not convinced that many politicians who declare themselves to be pro-life really are.
Bingo Bill Mac: I agree on the “hot button” and its political ramifications.
Bill,
If we had all rallied around that ‘button’ and civilly protested encase, maybe millions would have been spared. I know the little have done is shameful.
encase should be e.n.m.a.s.s.e.
“I’d rather we hadn’t had political interviews at a missions conference.”
Amen.
If we ARE going to have them, at any SBC venue, I want my CP dollars to pay only for the photo ops and campaign stops of pro-life candidates.
Rick, RM will eventually interview and question either Hillary or some of her staff. There may be photos. You think this is inappropriate for the ERLC to do?
When the campaign is over, if she is elected, he can certainly sit down with her, as President, and ask her questions related to the ethics and religious liberty concerns of Southern Baptists.
But while she is a CANDIDATE, I don’t want to give either Hillary or any other pro-choice politician the benefit of media exposure to a crowd of Southern Baptists, in a venue where the lights and cameras and microphones and other incidentals have been paid for by Southern Baptists. That’s not what I want to happen with my CP gifts. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, “I am paying for this microphone.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE
Rick,
I think we would all agree that we do not want our Cooperative Program dollars supporting pro-abortion candidates, but can we not view this from the other direction? I would not be opposed to using our Cooperative Program dollars to put pro-abortion candidates in the hot seat and make them answer hard questions about the massacre of babies that they will likely never face in the mainstream media or at the secular debates.
First, dodgers dodge. What makes you think they will answer the questions from Russell Moore any more clearly than they answer them from Brit Hume? The fact is, they simply won’t.
Second, I am not all that certain that Dr. Moore would pin them down if he could. He is all about convictional kindness. I think he would be looking for common ground and to keep everything nice and civil, so it would play better on CNN. He refused to nail Jeb Bush down regarding the Bloomberg Foundation support of Planned Parenthood while Bush served on their board of directors. I think Hillary’s interview would be similar.
Third, notice how the press deals with these politicians speaking in front of religious groups. Just the fact that they are there seems to imply a sort of tacit endorsement. Hence, we have headlines like, “Bush preaches religious liberty to Southern Baptists,” and “With declining evangelical power, only 2 candidates attend Southern Baptist forum.” Those who show up seem to be “for us” and we seem to be “for them.” I don’t want to confuse anyone or to contribute to any such misunderstanding.
Rick,
You may be correct about Dr. Moore’s tone and willingness to aggressively question more moderate candidates. Personally, I really liked Dr. Land, but Dr. Moore is who we have now to head up the ERLC. It is his job to interact with the political process. If he doesn’t, then we should just dissolve the ERLC.
I also agree with you that having only two candidates was not a good thing. All of the candidates, especially our Southern Baptist candidates, should have been invited.
No issue is more front and center than Planned Parenthood right now and Bush wasn’t asked about his ties as a board member to an organization that gives generously to PP? Sorry, that raises my suspicions. If Hillary had showed up would she have been penned down on it? Bush should have been as well, and was not. His actions contradict his words and he was given a pass. I agree, not the right place for this, and maybe it’s my skeptical side, but I’m suspicious of that as well. With an ERLC conference the very next day that is clearly where this sort of thing would fit. But, there weren’t close to 13,000 people registered for that. Smacks of a PR decision to me. Schedule this during a missions conference to hopefully get publicity for that conference, but that’s not how it worked out. Much media honed in on the presidential aspect never mentioning missions and even conservative stalwarts like Rush Limbaugh paint the SBC in a negative light. As I understand it, the forum was fine. But, the perception of the forum continues to paint us just as Merritt opined, tied to the Republicans hip
We already have a groom.
We have a responsibility to vote.
Both true.
Great post Bart.
Pastor Willy Rice and Dr. Ben Carson,
Many of us in the SBC want to apologize for the fiasco that took place before the SBC Pastors Conference. We’re sorry that you felt rejected and thrown aside, Dr. Carson. We’re sorry, Willy Rice, for the humiliation this must have caused you. Of course, not having political candidates speak at a SB event is not what many of us wanted to happen, anyway. But, we’re sorry for the humiliation and angst this must have caused you. Also, we’re sorry that the SEND Conference chose to have Bush and Rubio as their Presidential Candidates to promote in the SBC. We’re sorry for the hypocrisy displayed by so many in our beloved SBC.
David
PS. To everyone….let’s stop playing politics in the SBC. Let’s preach the Gospel and promote Jesus. Let’s turn this world upside down, by winning people to Jesus….one person at a time.
Vol,
That was very nice of you to apologize for your actions and comments in this discussion.
What did you do wrong that you are apologizing for?
David,
I share your angst over certain politicians getting the opportunity to participate in Southern Baptist events while others were not invited and yet another was invited then awkwardly disinvited. We probably do owe some apologies for the way things have turned out.
On the other hand, I also share Bart’s angst over the way many evangelicals watered down their beliefs about Mormonism during the last election cycle. I further appreciated his warning lest we do the same thing with Seventh Day Adventism in this cycle.
I agree that we should not “play” politics, but I do think we should “work” at politics. Being involved in politics does not preclude preaching the gospel, promoting Jesus, and winning souls. Should we not be faithful in both areas?
I think we absolutely should be involved in influencing the political process, but we must be very careful not to let the political process influence us.
I most certainly believe that we should speak out on moral issues. And, we should vote our consciences, in the political arena. But, I don’t play politics in my pulpit, and I really don’t like the SBC doing it, either. We should be all about Jesus and the Gospel, not about Bush, Rubio, or Carson.
Now, personally, apart from Church, if you want to talk politics, then let’s talk. But, worship services, Pastor’s Conferences, missions conferences, etc., let’s worship Jesus and talk about Him.
So, I agree with you that we shouldn’t neglect our role as a citizen of the country we live in, but we belong to a lot better Kingdom.
David
David,
We are in definite agreement on that last sentence.
Preach it, Vol!
Vol,
I completely agree with your statement here – and I have said the same thing – both times – with the Carson thing and the Bush/Rubio thing.
In case the threading breaks – this is your statement I agree with.
“I most certainly believe that we should speak out on moral issues. And, we should vote our consciences, in the political arena. But, I don’t play politics in my pulpit, and I really don’t like the SBC doing it, either. We should be all about Jesus and the Gospel, not about Bush, Rubio, or Carson.
Now, personally, apart from Church, if you want to talk politics, then let’s talk. But, worship services, Pastor’s Conferences, missions conferences, etc., let’s worship Jesus and talk about Him.
So, I agree with you that we shouldn’t neglect our role as a citizen of the country we live in, but we belong to a lot better Kingdom.”
i agree with vol
I was less opposed to the Ben Carson invitation than most so it’s probably not surprising I wasn’t against the Bush/Rubio interviews. Not that I’m entirely comfortable with it, but I though it could be handled well and could be a really good thing in the end.
Bart’s points seem entirely valid to me and I don’t think he’s being inconsistent, even though he was more opposed to Carson than I was.
I understand where people are coming from on both sides of this debate (then and now). There are so many angles in play and the particular emphasis each one of us puts on those various angles are going to determine our position. I wish we could, for the most part, disagree over this without charging one another with inconsistency, hypocrisy, or faulty motives.
I love Bart, and I think he’s a great guy. He’s a really good Pastor. He’s got a wonderful family, as well. I think he’s wrong on this issue. But, that’s okay.
I also think Dr. Moore is a fine, Christian man, who loves Jesus. I don’t hate Dr. Moore. I love him in Christ. I do disagree with him on many social and political issues. And, I think he was wrong to tag a political thing onto a SB Missions Conference, so that 13,000 could be present, rather than the small crowd that would’ve been at the ERLC Conf. following the next day.
The hypocrisy comment I made was towards so many people condemning Ben Carson speaking, while giving the big thumbs up to Bush and Rubio speaking.
David
I agree with volfan, especially my respect for Dr. Bart. For me the issue is, when we make these decisions we know that they will be misrepresented in the media. Then the question becomes, “is it worth it”? I suspect we will disagree on that since we are good Baptist.
So, you weren’t confessing sin but accusing others of it in a passive aggressive manner?
Dave,
I don’t believe I accused anyone of sin; did I? I do think the whole thing has been wrong. And, I think it’s hypocritical to call one thing “bad,” and call something very similar and almost identical “good.” But, sin is a whole nother level…to sin against God is to disobey the commands of Jesus.
David
Vol,
Since one can’t apologize for another – what you seemed to do with your above apology was passive aggressively announce the need for others to offer apology based on YOUR assessment of others actions AND intents.
By your doing this you further implied that those you accuse of not doing what you think they should do are unwilling to offer apologies – so you did it for them.
Wow, that is a mouthful.
David,
I think one is pretty much absolved of the charge of inconsistency when you can present a paragraph from your original essay in Situation A in which you said, “I wouldn’t have a problem with this if…,” and then Situation B conforms with what you wrote in Situation A. If you can do that, then the two episodes are no longer “very similar and almost identical,” right?
You were making public apologies. Does one apologize for deeds of righteousness?
Dave,
Think about it. There’s a lot of things that we do that we might apologize for, which would NOT be sin against God. I can think of several things right off the top of my head. For instance, your wife tells you to not run over her flowers, when cutting the grass. You run over them. ooops. When walking into the door, a smart man would say, “Sorry, Honey, but I ran over those flowers. I’m sorry.” It wasn’t sin against God to run over the flowers. But, it wasn’t good.
Besides, my apology….written in a comment above… was on behalf of all SB’s towards Willy Rice and Ben Carson. It’s just the way I feel about it. It’s what I feel should happen.
David
So again, it seems you’re superimposing your personal opinion and analysis on to others and saying that others owe apologies for what you perceive to be their intentions.
Dave [vol],
Why did you run over the flowers? Accident? Why the accident, were you not paying attention close enough?
If you asked a simple request from your wife and she disregarded you, how would you like it?
Bottom line: It more than likely was a sin to run over those flowers.
The standard of God is so very high, and we are so deep in self serving that we can easily fail to see our sin.
The point is, in your scenario you are still apologizing for YOUR actions. Here, you are “apologizing” for others’ actions.
If I do something wrong, I’ll apologize for my actions.
There is NOTHING wrong with expressing the opinion that the Pastor’s Conference is not the place for political candidates to preach. There is nothing wrong with expressing the opinion that the SEND conference would be better with or without political interviews (whatever your opinion is).
Bart did nothing wrong when he expressed his opposition to Carson’s appearance. Jon Akin and B21 did nothing wrong when they expressed their opposition. We are Baptist. We have the right to dissent from our leaders. We are not a papacy or a hierarchy. I like Dr. Moore, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything he says or does. I like LifeWay and I think Thom Rainer is fantastic, but I don’t agree with every publishing decision they’ve made.
We are Baptist, not Catholic.
So, David, if you feel you did something wrong, feel free to apologize. But I do not think that I did anything wrong by saying that a political candidate shouldn’t preach at the PC. I’ve talked to Jonathan Akin and I’m quite sure he doesn’t think he needs to repent. Bart doesn’t seem to think he needs to repent. If you have sin to confess, confess it.
But I think we acted honorably and within the tradition of principled dissent that is at the heart of Baptist life and history.
So, thank you, but I will NOT apologize.
This, this, and this!
Great post, Dave Miller.
This response to Jonathan Merritt might be more on point:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/douthat/2015/08/05/there-is-no-pro-life-case-for-planned-parenthood/?_r=0&referrer=
We align with folks who oppose abortion. But sheer coincidence the vast majority of political officeholders who oppose abortion happen to be Republican.
I’m absolutely sure this is purely correlation not causation…surely we can find a way to discover a randomly selected group with a majority of Democratic leaders who coincidentally oppose abortion…
The quote:
““the church is a community of autonomous individuals under the immediate lordship of Christ held together by a social bond of common interest””
has a problem. We are not autonomous and under the lordship of Jesus. If all he meant is that we must give an account of our moral choices, than I agree.
To be under the Lord means we are in community that is deeper than a social bond of common interest. Rather we are united in Christ in an everlasting bond both with Him and with our saved brothers and sisters.
Addition to Mike’s last comment, with which I am in general agreement.
And we are individually free in Christ to chose or reject the tenets (some or all) of any other earthly expression or sub-group of that “community” out of conviction and/or a sense of obedience to Spirit, Scripture and the earthly example of Christ.
No need for a human mediator….No need of Synod or Council. No need for clerical imprimatur.
That’s about as “free” and “autonomous” and “individual” as it gets in my opinion, and also the reason why those reliant upon a human system of checks and balances have a hard time with the Holy Spirit of God being in the driver’s seat … especially when it comes to the hearts and choices of the “unenlightened masses” in the pews and on the service roles in their churches.
A lot of pastors and Christian “leaders” are scratching their heads over Trump right now and his ability to tap into the anger within the collective American psyche over the failure of our political class.
Likewise, there’s an anger within what once was a “soul-driven” rather than soteriology-driven baptist denomination (or at least in those churches I’m familiar with). I’m afraid this “anger” or consternation won’t be easily masked by conferences, treatises and books on culture etc.
Like a double-minded man, a schizophrenic and continually shifting “theological orthodoxy” is unstable in all its ways.
Don’t be surprised, preacher, if you have a hard time convincing some of these Southern Baptist folks of the “error” and “unchristian” nature of their long-held religious traditions and perspectives based on the rhetoric, writings and ramblings of the current SBC regime.
They too, shall pass.
Praise God that individual Christians can approach God directly by the Holy Spirit! The corporate bunch of us has grieved and quenched the Spirit so much by our continual wrangling that He doesn’t hang out in our gatherings much any more.