In the long history of the SBC, we’ve faced many crises. Historians with greater expertise than I have can argue what periods are golden and which are not, but we have had many lamentable times that demonstrate that we exist by the grace of God, not the merit of Southern Baptists. What was the worst of those times?
Was it the time of our founders, when slavery was blindly supported as godly in SBC pulpits? Was it the decades during which SBC churches excluded people of color and cheered segregation and oppression. We wandered the first steps on the path of liberalism until we were called back to a high view of Scripture. Recent revelations have made it clear that many SBC pastors and church leaders have preyed on the sheep instead of shepherding them, and that instead of dealing with issues of sexual abuse, churches and their leaders worked to cover over the sin and enable the abusers. We have been on a decades-long decline in growth and now finally see shrinking numbers. These are all crises in the SBC, but are they our worst crisis?
Not according to Tom Ascol. Recently, Ascol pulled a quote from a review by the Founders documentary “By What Standard,” which identified a “crisis like never before” in the SBC:
“These are things we should be talking about. These are things we must be talking about. The SBC is in a crisis like never before. Sure, one strategy is we can abandon ship & let the SBC sink. But, there’s another viable strategy too–We can take the ship.” https://t.co/OI1pJTV6Cq
— tom ascol (@tomascol) December 19, 2019
Granted these aren’t Ascol’s words, but can we safely assume by the quoted retweet, under his name, that he would agree? Is it fair to say he agrees that we are facing our worst crisis ever? What is worse than our history of slavery, racism, and segregation, our flirtation with liberalism, our coverup of sexual abuse?
The most pressing crisis of SBC history is evidently the one addressed in his so-called “cinedoc” – the passing of resolution 9, and the advance of the social justice movement in the SBC. Is passing resolution 9 really the “crisis like never before?”
In my Baptist college, a professor was teaching that Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed were just all different flags under which God flies his name, but current efforts to end racism in the SBC are a much greater crisis. Our founders were racists and slaveowners, but having a woman preach on Mother’s Day is so much worse. A professor from Southern spoke to us (in the 70s) and told us that Jesus never meant to die, but made some political miscalculations and ended up on the cross, but the fight against sexual abuse in the churches is a much greater threat! Hundreds of SBC leaders were exposed by the Houston Chronicle but the real evil is people like Rachael Denhollander who call attention to the problem. The effort to bring justice to evil situations in this world is a greater crisis than any other in our history, according to this tweet.
Sin is sin. Error is error. We should desire to be as faithful to Christ and his word as we fallen sinners can be. Fidelity is a noble desire. But such fidelity must be grounded in truth. Is the passing of resolution 9 really the crisis it has been labeled as? In the documentary, the resolution was referred to as a “pro-critical race theory resolution”. That is not true. From an honest reading of the resolution, all that is being said is that if you are going to use critical race theory it needs to be done in subjection to Scripture. Perhaps it can be used as an analytical tool in understanding culture—but any findings must be subordinated to the Scriptures.
We could have a discussion about the validity of this proposition but Founders have moved the conversation and exalted it to a crisis. It’s impossible to have a fair conversation in such a climate. But I would argue that even Founders believes the principle behind Resolution 9.
In their documentary, James Lindsay is featured multiple times. Lindsay is an atheist. Everything he says comes from this worldview. And yet they use him to understand critical race theory and the implications of such. Isn’t this precisely what resolution 9 was suggesting? We can learn from unbelievers and even godless ideologies but everything we learn must be subordinate to the Scriptures. If Founders gained insight and instruction from an atheist, why can’t someone else gain insight from secular race theories?
This appears to be agenda-driven, a group desiring that the SBC conform to their will and their interpretations. They assume that their views (and, perhaps, theirs alone) reflect the revealed truth of God. False accusations are abounding against good people who disagree with this agenda. It is stirring up dissension and division in the SBC. I have had several conversations recently with people who shared absolute lies as if they were settled truth – simply because the Founders or one of the “discernment” rags spread those false accusations. You do not accomplish the work of God with lies, but liars are having a heyday in the SBC today.
This tweet offers 2 options.
Option 1. Those who share Tom’s views can abandon ship and walk away. Since this group has cornered all truth, divergence from them is enmity to the gospel, and if they do not get their way in the SBC the ship will sink. The SBC is doomed unless it acquiesces to the Founders’ agenda.
I believe what I believe and articulate it, but to say that if the SBC does not acquiesce to my views it is going to sink? That seems like nuclear arrogance.
Option 2. His second option is to “take the ship.” He has announced his intention to take control of the SBC. His videos and machinations have one purpose – he and the Founders want to take control of the SBC, its entities, and its directions. How can we see “take the ship” as anything but hostile?
So, it seems that the SBC has two choices. We can acquiesce and let the Founders’ vision control the convention. We can allow him to his beliefs on the entire SBC and narrow the parameters of fellowship to exclude those who do not acquiesce. The SBC will be much smaller at that point, but it will be pure and superior and hold its head high. Tom does not seem to be asking for a seat at the table, but for a place at the head of the table.
According to this tweet, the SBC will either sink or the Founders will take the helm.
I would suggest option 3. Let’s realize that Baptists do not have to agree on all things to cooperate in missions and church planting. We can be Calvinist and non-Calvinist and still walk together in unity. We can be concerned about social issues or unconcerned and still preach the true gospel of Jesus Christ. We can hold different views of Resolution 9 without holding different views of Jesus Christ. We do not have to have uniformity and conformity to walk in unity.
Is there a place for Tom Ascol in the SBC? Yes. He has every right to speak his mind and promote his views. But to demand that the entire SBC acquiesce to his views? No. And his suggestion that disagreement with him will sink the SBC ship is both ludicrous and arrogant. He is not the SBC’s savior.
Those of us who disagree with him are not a threat to the gospel. The accusations he and his buddies have lodged against SBC leaders are either false or magnified to a point of deception. Yes, we have a crisis in the SBC. It is a crisis of truth-telling and power-seeking. We are a convention based on cooperation but many now are unwilling to work with anyone who disagrees with them in anything. Many are willing to throw truth under the bus in attacking their brothers and sisters in Christ.
If we want to keep the SBC ship from sinking, this needs to stop.
So, no thank you, I’d rather you not “take the ship.” It is your right to have your say, but it is not your right to bully and silence those who disagree. I would rather the people of the SBC unite around the gospel and cooperate on missions endeavors in spite of disagreements on other issues. There is a better way than you are articulating. My prayer is that the standard for the SBC in the future will be the word of God, not the agenda of Tom Ascol and the Founders.
I do not believe they are the same.
I have stated my views here. You are welcome to respond to them. I didn’t have time to write this and I certainly will not be devoting a lot of time to comments. Sorry.
I think that one of the key issues in the SBC today is that we stand against the Founders ministry and the divisive, false accusations they are lodging and personal attacks they are making against good men and women. It needs to stop.
Also FYI…I was aided in this article by a friend who desired to remain anonymous. Much of the analysis of the film is based on his work. It can be time consuming to engage the Founders. They spend a lot of time on social media and when you disagree or challenge them it feel like you are standing below a crumbling dam. So, I combined my friend’s analysis and my opinion.
I honored his request not to be credited. I understand it.
I have a theory that the militant Calvinists will never be happy. Their guy is running for SBC president. He’s not good enough?
I would like to know how much of the Founders’ agenda Dr. Mohler plans to advance.
.
Based on what I have put together thus far, I think the nomination of Mohler is twofold:
1. To gain the support of the Founders arm and walk back some of the items they object to advancing
2. To ensure that in an election year, there is no concern raised about Trump as the GOP nominee from the SBC.
I have heard both positions stated. They make sense based on Mohler’s positions taken on The Briefing and his friendliness with Ascol and his buddies.
I would also add, Dave for something you didn’t have time to write, this is excellent and balanced. Good job.
My own opinion is it the sbc is indeed in its greatest crisis, it is because of number 2 above.
You’ll never know unless he becomes president
William, nail on the head
Just a couple of words reference Dave Millers statements: AMEN BROTHER, AMEN
I’m not a Southern Baptist. I’m the pastor of a small, rural independent Baptist church. I really don’t have a dog in this fight. But I think there are so many other ways to read Dr Ascol’s quote than the way you’re reading it here. If his analysis of the current state of the SBC is overstated, I’d certainly say that your assessment of his tweet is.
Why does he have to be talking about a power grab of the SBC? Couldn’t he simply be talking about regaining biblical fidelity within the SBC through advancing their concerns and sound, positive teaching? After all, he says his strategy is to “be talking about” “these things.” I don’t know. Simply speaking as an outsider, it seems you’re not being charitable here.
Much of Dave’s reaction here is drawn from ongoing issues and statements made within the SBC family, especially across the last 6 months.
If this were the first quote ever from Dr. Ascol, then this is an uncharitable reading.
It is not the first quote ever.
Doug, it’s not his quote.
Anyone who would see res 9 as anything more than a concern at this point can be recognized by their tin foil hat. The Bible warns against such people.
Allen,
Where does the Bible warn against people who would be concerned about Resolution 9? Please be more specific when using Scripture to support your opinion.
Woody
Where does the Bible warn against people who supported Resolution 9? Non-sequitor.
There are many things that concern most of us. But when we make our personal concerns hills to die on then I believe we have crossed a line. The Bible does warn us about contentious people in many places. Here is one: “Like charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, So is a contentious man to kindle strife. Proverbs 26:21 Concerns should never lead to a contentious spirit because many concerns end up being unfounded. That is all I am trying to say here.
What the Rev. Dr. Calkins says.
Brother Allen, Thank you for clarifying that, I understand where you are coming from now.
Merry Christmas
Woody Whitt
So the resolutions on the confederate flag and racism are just at the concerned level? Not any more than that?
Is the biggest crisis in the SBC….
-the stain of racism that has taken more than 150 years to purge and be healed from? Nope.
-the pandemic of abuse cases that have been revealed in the past 18 months? Nope.
It’s apparently a non-binding resolution that simply says that even a broken clock is right twice a day. That’s going to be our undoing and anyone who doesn’t join us under the power lines is the enemy. ?
Solid post Dave.
Apparently, you lack discernment
If Res 9 is irrelevant then why did the Resolution committee take a proposed resolution, rewrite it to be the opposite of the initial suggestion, then rush it through the meeting?
Is passing Res 9 a herald of the end of the SBC? No. But I am increasingly concerned that some people who should know better are at best indifferent to it, and at worst cooperating with bring the ideas of Critical Theory into SBC life and thinking.
I am not saying there is not an anthill of a problem there, but the Founders are making it Mt. Everest.
I used to criticize C316 for hysteria and conspiracy theories and such. It made it harder to have real discussions about real issues when they were making wild exaggerations.
Tom et al may have a point for discussion but they have wildly exaggerated it to the point that real discussion is nearly impossible.
Because the original resolution was awful and not where messengers actually stand on the issue.
Todds statement IMO represents the best reason why anyone would be opposed to Res 9. I have no issue with Res 9 but also understand the frustration with its process of adoption. In the background was an obvious “tug-of-war” among parties which started with the “awful” draft he mentions. I’d go so far as to call it reckless.
I hate that it happened that way. Trying to put that toothpaste back in the tube in Orlando however would be a mistake of doing the same thing all over again. This is a complex issue. Lots of conversations need to happen.
But “cinedocs” in response don’t help either.
This process happens all the time. The resolutions committee did the job to which they were assigned. If you are frustrated with the process then change the bylaws. Otherwise, don’t blame the process. As it stands, there was plenty of opportunity to achieve your desired outcome. The original submitter could have made a motion to override the committee and bring the original resolution to the floor; he didn’t. Tom could have offered an amendment to the resolution that addressed his concerns; he did and it failed. For that matter, someone could have run a candidate for president would appoint a resolutions committee that has no sympathy for social justice issues. That’s how our process works. At the end of the day the process worked as designed.
Is the resolution as presented flawed? Perhaps. Is it the catastrophe that is being presented by Founders? No.
Seems like what happens all the time is some foul-up of the matter. Sausage making with the end product being spoiled, seems to me.
I’m far more concerned with how we handled the alt-right resolution than I am Res.9. That was a fiasco. This is just people who voted against the resolution being upset that it passed.
Nothing messy or sinister or abnormal here. A resolution was presented to the committee. The committee wrote their own on the same issue and presented it to the messengers. The resolution was debated. The resolution passed. What am I missing?
I think it includes more than those who were upset it passed. It was messy and confusing. We make it a point to put a very smart, diverse, and connected group on the Res Committee and then end up never allowing time to let folks have their say. The idea is that experts and insiders can manage the matter so that the SBC officially says the things that will help. It’s among the last items of business, late Wednesday afternoon. Many, perhaps most, messengers have departed. Discussion is limited. The disclaimer that an SBC resolution is only the expression of opinion of the people present when it is passed doesn’t sell. It’s reported and considered as “the SBC voted” this or that. Not a great system.
Now, the thing is teed-up for Orlando.
William, the discussion is limited because the messengers want it that way. We vote by our feet (not sticking around) and by our adoption of the agenda. Any messenger can make a motion to extend the time for discussion during the scheduled time OR make a motion to amend the order of business at the time of adoption to allow more time for discussion. The messengers as a whole don’t want that. The Convention has gotten shorter and shorter because that’s what the messengers want.
On this particular issue, the messengers heard Tom’s and other’s arguments at the time of the debate and had the whole morning to consider what was written. The opposing arguments were heard and rejected by those in attendance.
I understand the parliamentary aspects of this, and the longstanding practice of rushing through resolutions. This resolution was an odd bird and I judge that there is some buyer’s remorse about it having passed and being on the record forever.
And I appreciate your reminding others here of what actually happened and what was said.
Todd, you’re missing the part where the resolution involves neo-Marxist principles and acting like there is something there we can all use. I’d say that’s a little out of the mainstream. If that isn’t… well, we have an even bigger disagreement than I thought!
Tom made that point from the floor. The messengers rejected his argument.
Honest question here Todd, are you saying the resolution committee is there to re write any and all resolutions how THEY want it worded, even if it is in direct conflict of the original resolution submitted? If so then thats is nothing short of complete censureship and pupettering and just another reason in a list of long reasons going to the Convention is useless. Why present a resolution if they can turn it on it’s head at their wish? The tail is once again wagging the dog
The resolutions committee has always altered, combined, and rewritten resolutions. this is the way.
sorry for double posting
What Todd said.
then they should have just left the PROPOSED resolution stand and then probably fail. If the messengers did not want it then they would have voted against it if that was the case.
Alan, what the Resolutions Committee presents are resolutions that the committee proposes the messengers adopt. It never presents something that the committee doesn’t itself endorse. While all resolutions submitted to the committee are acted on, the resolutions committee has several options with a resolution. It can present it to the messengers as written. It can let it die in committee. It can make minor revisions and present it. It can majorly overhaul it and present it. It can combine it with other resolutions. It can totally scrap it and write a new one. It can basically present anything it wants.
The messengers are free to adopt, amend, or reject any resolution.
An open question to anyone who might have some insight: How people in your congregation or fellow SBC members know about Resolution 9, what percent?.. How many average SBC know about the Founders or Mohler, or care? I will stop there for brevity but the point is this highlights the strong disconnect between the leadership/organization and the grassroots. As Ryan A. stated will the SBC leadership and younger leaders be able to navigate the dangerous shoals of the 2020 election with their heartfelt , sincere opposition to President Trump? Will the SBC members overwhelmingly vote for President Trump or will they pick up on the opposition to Trump by the leaders? Is the elimination of racism and protecting people from sexual and cultural abuse the core concern of SBC members? All of the issues Dave Miller addressed need to be dealt with but what is our foundation? My concern for several years is the widening gulf between the pew sitters who trust the leadership and the leadership who seems to have a low opinion of the majority of the average SBC member. I am a lay person and this is my personal observation based on my local church and my travels. I think the 2020 election might be the spark that leads to a divide that may be unavoidable or perhaps the SBC execs can navigate the course and not be drawn into the fray. I do not think that possible, but I project my personal insights into that statement. You can take the Southern Baptist out of the South but you cannot take the South out of the Southern Baptism, I use the word South as a stand in for fundamentalism.
Steve,
If Trump himself doesn’t cause people to change their minds about him, I doubt the opinions of SBC leadership will sway them. I think the leaders who took a principled stand in 2016 learned their lesson.
Bill Mac, what was the lessoned learned from the principled stand? Have they changed their opinion or just learned they cannot express what they truly believe on an issue of great importance. The alternative to Trump is the party that just took out the end phrase “so help me God” while swearing in witness to a Congressional panel. Leaders should lead if their conscience demands it. Again, the disconnect is growing between the majority of SBC members and the elite leadership who are in the vanguard on a more progressive agenda. Lesson learned , I do not think so.
Steve,
I mean they cannot express what they truly believe.
It is interesting that out of all the things you could fault the Democratic party for, it is for doing away with something Jesus told us never to do anyway.
Do you think it is possible to oppose DJT and not be an elite or a progressive? I’m beginning to think the word elite simply means anyone who doesn’t support the president. Of course, that’s a little more polite than “human scum”, which is what the president called your brothers and sisters who don’t support him.
Bill Mac, that was one of the things I would fault the Democratic Party for and the reason it resonated with me it was current new, it show their agenda. Historically so help me God was a part of tradition and foundational acknowledgement . Jesus did not say In God We Trust should be national motto either. We have lost common sense being PC.
. Of course you can oppose President Trump on policy, governing actions, emphasis on certain pillars of our Republic and world view, that is how politics in a republic democracy works. Abortion, I agree with Trump , religious freedom, I agree with Trump, giving faith based organizations a seat at table, I agree with Trump, foreign policy, agree with Trump, American first economy , agree with Trump, helping minority Americans with economic opportunity , agree with Trump, 2 Amendment agree with Trump, enforcing Congressional approved national laws , agree with Trump, law enforcement and public safety, agree with Trump and more , that is Trump vs. the Democrat Party agenda. If one does not agree with me and supports Democrat Party on these issues that is their right but I would say that also would lead me to id then as a progressive perhaps following the agenda supported by the elites.. Trump personal persona and behavior as abhorrent as many secular Americans but he does represent my viewpoint. President Trump is my national elected, secular leader not a member of my faith or trying to be. No one running for President could pass the checkoff list to be Baptist preacher , if that is your point, except Huckabee when he ran, oh, he was a minister. We are electing a national secular leader not a religious leader, hey I voted for Romney and McCain, regrettably at one time not for their moral and religious viewpoint. Anti Trumpers are anti Trumpers , period.
You listed a lot of things that you agree with Trump on, then you say Anti-Trumpers are anti-Trumpers. Perhaps I will clarify for you why I am an Anti-Trumper: I do not believe that Trump agrees with any of your points on your list. I believe he is utterly self-serving, self-absorbed and is now using raw political power to undermine our democracy. I would not vote for him because of his moral failings but even without the moral failings his positions on all the issues you just mentioned are subject to change day by day. You support an utterly perverse man with no moral nor political compass. Which of course, makes me anti-Trump.
Strider, That is why anti Trumpers are anti Trumper. Trump has tried to act, has acted or announced his intent to accomplish all the issues I listed vs. the Democrat alternative, that is a fact, not an opinion. President Trump is taking on the Republican, Democrat, media and big business establishment with no allies except his supporters, of course he cannot get all his agenda though. You believe the alternative to Trump, the Democrat Party, who support unrestricted abortion upon demand, who show a contempt if not hostility toward people of faith, who have no foundational values on morality except individual freedom have a moral and political compass that is worthy of support? This is only relevant on this discussion as I think this issue will be the catalyst that will affect the SBC big time.
Steve: There is a difference between doing something that Jesus didn’t command (In God We Trust), and doing something he forbids. That’s not being PC.
I know Trumpers have decided that if you don’t support Trump you support the democratic party, but not all of us buy that. In my opinion the president is utterly corrupt, deceitful, and borderline insane. That is not a combination I can get behind. I remain a conservative. Something the current president is not.
This is indeed going to be an issue for the SBC. This issue has done great damage to the SBC and all of evangelicalism. We are losing our witness by our full-throated support of this man, in contradiction to all we have claimed we stand for. It may take decades to get it back, if we ever do.
Well for sure I totally agree with your last sentence. So I will end it here as to not hijack the thread but I believe this issue coupled with the others touched in the article will bring the issues to a head , if and it is a big if, the average SBC member is aware of what is going on in the SBC. Thanks for you comments, I give them consideration and know you are sincere in your thoughts on the matter.
Going back on what I said, just got this in my inbox. I will not respond but I think Dobson explained it far better than I. Hope you can read and respond. I will try to leave it alone as Dobson covers it all for me . Again thank you for the dialogue.
https://drjamesdobson.org/about/latest-news/news-media/2019/12/20/dr.-james-dobson-issued-today-the-following-statement-as-a-private-citizen-to-the-christian-community?Sc=FSCTWhttps://drjamesdobson.org/about/latest-news/news-media/2019/12/20/dr.-james-dobson-issued-today-the-following-statement-as-a-private-citizen-to-the-christian-community?Sc=FSCTW
Dobson’s reply is nonsensical. If the president is impeached and convicted the Vice President becomes president, something anyone who has taken high school social studies knows. While I’m not a fan of Pence, there is no question he would be a better president than the current one. Although I haven’t been speaking specifically about impeachment.
My members know 2 Southern Baptists- Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong.
Dave MIller , probably true but that is the problem , is it not?
If anyone cares to read the actual context of the quote Dr. Ascol shared
https://thingsabove.us/bywhatstandard/
Allen,
Do you think that in the middle of a downgrade believers think they are part of the problem or that there is even a downgrade at all?
If you were driving asleep at the wheel and knew it you would seek to wake up.
OT Jews didn’t repent and turn back to God one day then the next day worship idols. They drifted without grasping they were drifting.
Bumps in the road aren’t the same as tires off the pavement though the jolt may feel similar.
What do you think brother, are we just going over some bumps, or are our tires off the pavement and we’re headed for the ditch?
As you mentioned it’s hard to tell in the midst of it. One doesn’t want to over or under react. But some of the signs certainly seem to be indicating we are heading in the wrong direction.
You said it was the worst crisis in SBC history.
Allen, if you want to take a break from bashing me on social media, I would ask you to answer this:
When (and Tom) speak of “taking the ship” what are people supposed to think? Isn’t it reasonable to interpret “take the ship” as an expression of takeover intent?
Gal 5:15
He made them his words. He can unmake them if he wishes. Both the original statement and the quote were foolish. Gang that can’t shoot straight.
Do you care to demonstrate how the quote was foolish? So you care to interact on this? You can DM me @cuatronelson
My view is that once an interest group like the Calvinists (earlier it was the Trad group) has stated that their goal is to take over, it classifies the SBC as “us” and “them.” Dave hit this pretty hard. It was a strategic mistake by the militant Calvinists. Foolish.
If you want a demonstration then look back at the trailer because of which several board members resigned. I feel confident that the Founders group will provide further demonstration. It seems to be what they do best these days.
I say this having given Tom Ascol my respect over the years.
Who stated that this is a Calvinist takeover? This is disingenuous at best and a lie at worst.
Always eager with the “lie” are we? Ascol can easily disavow any such aspirations, which would negate 37 years of efforts to import and expand Calvinism in SBC institutions and churches.
My theory has always been, and I’ve followed cal shenanigans seriously for about 30 years, that the Cals extremists will eventually alienate most southern baptists. They set their own ceiling and it’s rather low.
Allen, I’ve deleted your most strident recent comments. It’s Christmas Eve. Aren’t you the guy with like a dozen kids? You must ha e better things to do today.
Take a break, enjoy your family, and have a nice Christmas.
Allen, do you feel it necessary to attack the integrity of another person in EVERY comment you ever make?
Two thoughts.
I am not interested in measuring which bad parts of church history are the worst.
Is Resolution 9 and the apparent endorsement of CRT/I the worst thing that ever happened in SBC life? No. Does that matter? No.
The criticism of the SBC for adopting this resolution is coming from many quarters,
It doesn’t matter how much lipstick we put on the pig. Resolution 9 is still a pig.
Mohler knows it. The Tennessee Baptist Convention said so officially. I suspect more state conventions will have said so by this time next year.
As to who gets to sail the SBC ship, I don’t think it matters.
The efforts of the Founders and others has already changed the landscape.
Mohler forced Matt Hall at Southern to write a denunciation of CRT/I.
The other SBC academics who might have been CRT/I proponents are in hiding. This has been a continuation of a process of walking back rhetoric that has been going on for the last year, with a least one seminary having completely redone their website by removing a lot of material that was previously posted.
I personally believe the seeds of potential apostasy have been planted. Whether they produce fruit will take decades to determine.
Let’s hope a correct course can be charted now while the adjustments are not too severe.
Can you name one “proponent” of CRT/I in the SBC? I can’t. The resolution doesn’t endorse it and neither does any Southern Baptist leader I can think of. The resolution is very clear if anyone cares to read it in its entirety and, other than one phrase that could have been more clear, is right where we need to be as a conservative, bible-believing denomination.
Whats wierd then, if there are zero proponents of CRT/I in the SBC, is that the resolution was even proposed much less adopted.
And resolutely defended from amendment.
Todd, if there are no proponents of CRT/I in SBC life, how about you agree now to prepare a resolution condemning CRT/I (it could be identical to the one Tennessee Baptists passed) for submission to the Convention in Orlando?
Such a resolution should pass 100% to 0. Right?
Louis, I think resolution 9 is fine as adopted. I think it’s important to distinguish between the worldview issues behind CRT/I proponents and the social science data that CRT/I has produced. The Tennessee resolution combines those together as one thing and I think that is an error. To say that there is no truth and nothing to learn from secular social science research on issues of race and gender is a denial of common grace.
By way of example. I believe that much of medical research arises out of an evolutionary, naturalistic worldview and that the scientific community is set on promoting that view over against the biblical worldview. Nevertheless, I take the position that there are useful tools that arise our of that naturalistic worldview and so I listen to my non-believing doctor when he suggests a course of treatment. Social science is the same way. Data is data.
Your logic is flawed, Michael. It’s akin to a secular atheist scientist saying (along with numerous caveats and qualifiers) that there are things we can learn in the scientific community from Intelligent Design and then other scientists turning around and accusing that scientist of being a proponent of Biblical Creationism. The mentality is that, because we reject the worldview that gave rise to a theory and the end goal of those that champion that theory, we MUST conclude there is nothing AT ALL to learn from it. If we give even a hint of credibility to any of it, we are a proponent of all of it.
That’s nonsense.
There are a lot of things to learn from, Todd, however they are not included in resolutions from the SBC. If there are no proponents with-in the SBC and CRT is not important to someone within the SBC how in the world did we get to this point? How many other resolutions of “things we can learn from” have been proposed and passed by the SBC that did not have a following in the SBC ? Probably…zero
Personally, I can not believe that CRT is even being talked about by Pastors, preachers and messengers in the SBC at all. To me it is like heart surgeons talking about welding steel… no relation
Alan, CRT/I has been discussed and debated among pastors (the overwhelming majority of messengers are pastors) for some time as we have been discussing, debating, and working out how matters of justice should be addressed by Christians and Baptists particularly. The debate about Baptists and social justice did not begin on June 12. Those on one side of the issue have been speaking of CRT/I and its marxist connections, etc. for a couple years. For those that are engaged on denominational issues for more than two days in June, this issue is not new at all. I’ve been called a “cultural Marxist” more times than I can count for simple things like suggesting we listen to the experiences of our brothers and sisters of color on issues of race, or suggesting that denomination is racialized and that some issues are systemic and not individual, or that the experiences of black women in evangelicalism are different than both those of black men or white women. But then, the “tools” that lead to those insights were learned outside of our camp even as they are consistent with what I read in Scripture. CRT/I and “cultural Marxism” are now bogeymen that some are using to silence discussion about issues of race, gender, and abuse in the SBC at all. Yes, we should reject the worldview and agenda of CRT/I in our culture. But I think it’s ridiculous to reject everything out of hand without considering what might actually be true. It’s even more wrong to reject the biblical impulse to unity across racial/ethnic lines, justice for the oppressed, and protection of the most vuInerable in our society. As for what can be used or gained from CRT/I? I think the guidelines and guardrails in Res 9 are appropriate and sufficient to chew up the meat while spitting out the bones.
I think you’ve missed the entire point here. The argument isn’t soley against resolution 9. That’s just one piece of the growing iceberg of crisis in the SBC.
The growing crisis, including all the current woes surrounding sexual abuse, all stem from an incremental moral, ethical, and spiritual liberality that has invaded many SBC churches. That is the crisis.
I think that Todd makes a good point.
But here are the problems where we stand now.
There is no careful distinctions in the resolution of the type Todd mentions.
That is Mohler’s criticism. The resolution fails to mention the origins of CRT/I and how it is applied is contrary to biblical teaching.
That is what has caused the uproar.
What will calm it is corrective action.
But I don’t see corrective action in the cards because of human emotions. The people who crafted and voted for the resolution would see it as a rebuke.
So as I have said, the people who crafted and voted for the resolution are not going to actively teach CRT/I. They will defend the resolution from official action at a convention. But as Todd asked, who is a proponent of CRT/I. Right now? No one.
That leaves the field open to CRT/I critics. They may not move a convention meeting. But they will keep hammering this, making films, communicating with churches and pastors.
We’ll see how things develop going forward.
Well, l think the lack of consensus among the state conventions has already shown us where resolution 9 stands.
Divided. Just one more mess raised up to divide the church.
That is what critical theory does. It’s creators would admit that.
Well, the question then is, why would we condone using man-made philosophical theories to make points regarding social justice and racism when we have the Word of God?
The church doesn’t need the world’s help to make God’s position clear regarding race and justice. CRT is worldly theory, not God’s truth.
I think it does DE. I am not a separatist however. It was “the world” that recognized we were racist and embraced the Civil Rights movement, in fact Southern Baptists were following the world in that area, they were also racist, many Southern Baptist ministers preached segregation and the inferiority of the black community, some belonged to the KKK.
It was the world that began the #metoo movement which put sexual abuse in the news and all over social media, so I wouldn’t go so far as to say we don’t need the world’s help even in making God’s position clear, history has shown that many Christians are in the wrong. And don’t get me started on Christians and Trump.
And you think the world is the answer to all that evil?
I’m not talking about the pre-war SBC or #metoo. The world has always been good at exposing it’s own evil.
But the world can’t defeat it. Only Christ. Let us dwell richly in the Word of Christ. The words of men can’t fix anything.
I just did a weird thing… I read Resolution 9. It says that while we can learn some things from the world the Bible alone is our authority and then it repudiates CRT and actually uses the word ‘repudiate’. So, here’s my question: What the heck are we talkin’ about?
We are talking about the lack of reading comprehension in the Founders sect.
Or their obsession with opposing ANYTHING that could undermine their power and control.
You pick.
I just reread it. The resolution presents CRT/I as neutral things that have been appropriated on occasion by some bad people who have then used CRT/I improperly.
For better understanding of the concerns. I suggest you reread the resolution and the read Al Mohler’s critique.
You may not agree that there should be any concern, but you would be able to articulate the concerns others have.
When we can do that, it makes discussion productive.
All Truth is God’s Truth.
One of the important lessons of history is that we are often wrong, sincerely so. We are often wrong at the top of our voice. We are most at risk of being wrong when we cantilever the word of God into places it does not speak clearly and then claim the imprimatur of the Almighty for our ideas.
Sadly the world around us has called Christians back from terrible error on race and slavery. It took the world to expose the sin of the church in abuse that was compounded by the shame of denial and coverup and even abuse of the abused.
Believers in Jesus with any sense of history should be humble and open not closed and arrogant. Yes there are things we will never compromise but we need to be sure we are willing to die on the right hills for the right reasons.
The world is not our friend. If the church of Jesus Christ gives credit to the world… Praise to the world… honor to the world…for correcting sin then we’ve dishonored our Lord. True repentance is an act of the Word and the Spirit through faith in Christ, not a lesson learned from the world.
Do we not see the problem here? Scripture says be separated from the world.
I am concerned that the SBC is divided to the point of no return. More and more pastors are pulling away, and more and more churches are pulling back. More and more are saying it’s just not worth the fight, and our churches can fund missions in other ways. The current leadership of the SBC have turned deaf ears to the grassroots churches of the SBC.
You and Clemons need to take an aspirin. This is a bit melodramatic. The SBC has been in a mode where support for the CP, state conventions, and associations has been declining for decades. Churches have long expressed an affinity for keeping their missions money or frittering it away on ad hoc missions, trips, local matters or the like. SBC leadership bears some responsibility for this because it’s their job to persuade churches that our CP, mission efforts and such are the better way to invest their mission dollars. SBCers always have things to complain about. Facts are that the two mission offerings have scarcely been higher, the CP is still strong at just under 5% of all undesignated church offerings, and the seminaries are experiencing growth and increased levels of support, particularly MBTS and SWBTS.
The ERLC has had some difficulty sailing theTrumpian waters these past few years. I don’t know how they can satisfy all SBCers but I’m generally happy with what they have done and are doing.
I think those that are happy are in the minority. Ignorance is bliss, they say. All I know is my local association is upset and my state association is upset… So there are many unhappy people. As one of the other brothers hear so aptly said on one of the other threads., A 65% to 35% vote in church business isn’t a victory, it’s a split.
OK, DE, so what is your local association and state convention going to do? The state convention won’t do much because they undermine their own revenue stream, the CP.
But I appreciate a guy who thinks he knows the emotional state of the entire 15 million member, 50 thousand church, SBC. I do that sometimes myself.
“KNOXVILLE — Tennessee Baptists overwhelmingly adopted a resolution denouncing Critical Race Theory (CRT) and intersectionality during their 145th annual meeting Nov. 19-20, 2019 in Knoxville.”
Quoted from the Baptist and Reflector.
That’s what Tennessee Baptist did after resolution 9 passed. I understand Georgia is considering a similar response.
Notice the word “overwhelmingly.”
I’ll stand on my statement. Many are taking issue with CRT and I.
There are 41 state conventions, DE.
I believe that you are correct D.E. Clemons
Jesse Lott:
YOUR OPENING REMARK IS “SPOT-ON” !!!
I won’t attempt to identify what I consider the main reason for that conclusion for fear of getting “moderated out.” But, that reason is as plain as the wart on my hand. Starting with the advent of the CR and the 2000 Statement of Faith, the attitude fostered by the SBC hierarchy of everybody keeping their mouths shut about their beliefs of the true gospel message, falsely thinking it would result in peace and unity, was the beginning of the end of the SBC.
It may be a slow death, but, the hand writing is on the wall. A check of the vital statistics for the Convention for the last several years will testify to that fact. God is never going to continue to bless an organization in which the denial of the basic tenets of the Christian faith are refuted, even though by a comparatively few members. The old adage that one rotten apple can spoil the entire barrel is certainly true in this case.
I say that sadly as a devoted affiliate of the SBC for 70+ years until I renounced that membership four years ago. However, I am keeping in touch with the “goings-on” of the SBC knowing that my miraculous God may still take matters into his own hands and provide salvation for what for many years was the greatest missionary organization ever formed to fulfill the Great Commission.
Ken,
One bad apple may spoil a bunch,
But,
a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
I agree with you Mr. Lott.
Mohler’s concerns were not significant enough for him to come to the floor and speak against it, or to speak in favor of Tom’s amendment. No resolution is perfect and covers every aspect in precisely the way everyone would like.
Todd:
Don’t you think that Dr. Mohler did not want to appear to be rebuking the Committee’s chairman, who is on the faculty at Southern?
Mohler doesn’t write critical things for fun. I believe when he expresses concerns, those concerns are genuine.
And what to make of Matt Hall’s scathing piece on CRT/I? The written piece followed the release of 2 or 3 earlier videos of Hall affirming some troubling things that are associated with CRT/I.
The written statement was not just a ho hum piece that sprang to mind.
And I am certain Mohler had a hand in that as well.
Those comments add clarity not rebuke — there is no conflict between what Mohler of Hall say concerning CRT/I and what the resolution says. They merely add in detail the context implied in the resolution.
That kind of “clarity” is what the resolution needs.
At least Mohler thinks so.
If you were around prior to 1979 and the conservative resurgence, there’s some deja vu in the Founder’s Ministry’s words and approach to this issue. Here’s a group that thinks a lot of the rest of the SBC is drifting into liberalism (by their definition) and they don’t like the direction things are going.
And there are many who agree with them…
Like our divided nation, I fear the era of cooperation within the church may be over. It’s hard to cooperate when the divide keeps getting wider. Many of the issues dividing the SBC cannot be moderated and many churches are unwilling to accept autonomy as a cure for all. It’s hard to cooperate with a church you think is false just to keep the dollars flowing.
The United Methodist are dealing with the right left spilt now. The tipping point for them is different but the underlying ideology is the same.
A house divided against itself cannot stand. The world thinks Abraham Lincoln came up with that catchy little phrase. The church will never fail. But the SBC as we know it just might.
I’m in favor of taking the ship but if that doesn’t happen I’m in favor of abandoning it. I’m sure that doesn’t gain me many friends here, but that’s the way many feel. I’m not alone in this. If things continue to swing left I believe there will be entire associations and maybe even states bailing out.
Biblical moderates, of which I am not , may find themselves choosing sides soon. And I believe the issue that tips the scales for the SBC will be Complimentarian just as it was in 1979 or so. Autonomy will not save the SBC. So the SBC better come up with another plan if it wants to survive to see 2030.
Complimentarianism wasn’t the issue that tipped the scale for the SBC in 1979, it was divergent views of scriptural inspiration and interpretation. “Inerrancy” was the catch word, but it was much more finely tuned than that, it was inerrancy plus agreement with the specific literal interpretation of the group that led the movement. And in the long run, it turned out to be inerrancy plus literal interpretation plus “we get to name the jobs we want and the money we get,” at least for one faction of the movement.
And that’s really the bottom line. The SBC has, since 1979, become much more “factional” than it was prior to that time. Most of that has resulted from the unanticipated results of two decades of criticism of the previous leadership and institutions of the SBC until they came under conservative control. The Founders Ministries represents one faction, a small one without a lot of support or reach beyond a relatively narrow group of Southern Baptists. Fragmenting and splitting is something the SBC has experienced for decades, long before the conservative resurgence came along. It will continue. But a group like the Founders Ministries won’t ever gain the control of leadership in the SBC.
I wonder if in the history of the convention a single church has changed a single thing based on resolutions coming out of the convention
Some started boycotting Disney because of that resolution (a very wrong headed strategy – win the world by hurting people is never a good evangelism method) and then some stopped when the repeal resolution came out.
I’d say the split that formed the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship would be one example. Landmarkism…maybe another.
Resolutions are often used by pastors to instruct their congregations on particular issues and how to address them biblically. I have used them in this way many times.
Wow.
Never heard of that.
We have never reported on anything that happened at the SBC, Resolution or otherwise.
I am not criticizing you at all for your approach. I have just never seen or heard of it.
You should consider doing so. Resolutions lend credibility to teaching on these kinds of subjects.
We would not do that because of the nature of resolutions. They only express the will of those attending that convention at that time.
We have a doctrinal statement that references the BFM. We do teach on those topics, but we don’t teach the BFM.
Also, each church is different in its history and orientation. We have a fair number in our congregation who are not SBC in their background and orientation. We emphasize missions. We do not emphasize other aspects of the SBC. Some in our congregation follow these things closely. Others are not interested. We do not discuss these things from the pulpit or in discipleship settings. It’s pretty much inside baseball for those who follow.
But again, we would not criticize a congregation for taking a different approach.
Based on a resolution alone? No, I seriously doubt it.
Todd
I’m not sure what drives the Founders, but their rhetoric doesn’t seem that different from what many were saying during the CR. Like then, there are some things that are wrong and others that may just appear to be wrong on the surface. Some in the convention have taken to virtue signalling using the poorly defined terms, phrases, and tactics of Jim Wallis disciples. That’s where I first heard such vague, but virtuous sounding proclamations.
What is racial reconcilliation? One could reasosonably infer from this resolution that CRT might be a useful tool for such reconciliation. I generally think this is an unclear craftily worded attractional statement, but I can easily see how some were triggered by the content.
I truly believe what drives men like the Founders is a love for the Word of God and complete trust in that unalterable truth.
Where do we find truth? In a SBC resolution? In a man-made Social Justice theory? In church polity?
I think I’ll just keep preaching Christ and Him crucified. I believe I’ll just dwell richly in the Word of Christ.
We’re not called to fix the world. We’re called to proclaim the truth.
I’m done with this topic. You folks carry on, If you wish, and I’ll chime in on the next topic that moves me to do so. This discussion disappointed me.
But tommorow I get to preach Jesus and that excites me.
Oh now DE.
There’s a delicate but important balance in a Baptist denomination between “doctrinal purity” and what churches and the annual convention meeting will accept in order to cooperate in missions, theological education and ministry support. If you’ve come to the point of thinking there are too many secondary and tertiary doctrinal points that you can’t accept, or that the convention as a body isn’t lining up with the finer doctrine and practice points of your own congregation and your personal beliefs, then you are probably not a fit for the SBC. When you get to the point of defining your own point of view as being strictly Biblical and that of the convention body as being influenced by worldly perspectives or, as one post points out here, “Jim Wallis terminology,” then the SBC is probably not a good fit for you.
“Your church isn’t called “The Church of Christ,” it’s called the Baptist church so it’s not correct.” Yeah I am being facetious but that’s more or less the message that is being sent here.
Dave
“A crisis of power seeking”…absolutely
Allen, no more of this on Christmas Eve. If necessary, we can take it up after Christmas.
Have a nice Christmas with your family.
[…] Miller’s ‘take the ship’ article will make the top ten before the end of 2019: Tom Ascol plans to “take the (SBC) ship.” We can always count on the Cals to generate page views if not good ideas for cooperative […]