By Dr. Lemke, Provost, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, occupying the McFarland Chair of Theology, Director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry, and Editor of the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

Reflections on the Daviess-McLean Decision

In Part 1, I shared my perceptions (from admittedly incomplete knowledge) about the decision of Daviess-McLean Baptist Association (DMBA) to deny the membership request from Pleasant Valley Community Church (PVCC). The main point was that although theological issues were involved in the decision because of the strongly Calvinistic doctrine of PVCC, the decision appears to have been based more on attitudinal issues by PVCC that the member churches of DMBC felt could be divisive. Here are some brief reflections on my understanding of the significance of the association’s decision to deny membership to PVCC, and the implications of this action for other churches and associations as we move forward.

(1)   The local church is the center of (earthly) authority in Baptist polity. Local church autonomy is a distinctive Baptist belief (as I have discussed). The local churches in Daviess-McLean Baptist Association were perfectly within their rights to deny membership to Pleasant Valley Community Church. This determination was made not by associational officials, but by duly authorized messengers from the member churches of DMBA. They were voting as representatives of their own local church, not as representatives of the association as a whole. At the same time, DMBA has no authority to force PVCC to change their doctrine or practice. PVCC can worship as they choose, believe as they choose, and do church as they choose. The biblical foundation of church autonomy, of course, is the priority given to local churches in the New Testament. However, theologically it reflects that through the priesthood of believers (another Baptist distinctive), each member seeks the will of God, the headship of Jesus Christ, and the leadership of the Holy Spirit, and represents that divine leadership in voting on decisions in the church. This collective reflection of the will of God is much more reliable than putting this decision solely in the hands of a few fallible authoritarian leaders. This is a wonderful and marvelous thing that inflexible top-down hierarchical denominations like Catholics and Presbyterians “desire to look into” (1 Pet. 1:12, KJV).

(2)  Doctrine matters. The Daviess-McLean Baptist Association decision has underscored the fact that doctrine really does matter. Birds of a feather flock together. Churches that are in agreement in faith and practice tend to be more unified and harmonious. In this case, while acknowledging that the theology of PVCC was not heretical, and not going into specific detail about their theological concerns, the association did “recognize that it [PVCC’s theology] is vastly different than the majority of churches within the DMBA,” and thus would be potentially divisive. This decision is a powerful antidote to the strong pluralistic, ecumenical forces in our day that threaten to dull the doctrinal distinctives of evangelical Christians and denominations to be merged into an amorphous lowest common denominator which does not truly represent anyone’s real beliefs.

(3)  Those who want to be accepted should make themselves acceptable. It is befitting for those seeking acceptance from others to try to minimize any possible hindrances to acceptance. It was PVCC seeking membership in DMBA, not vice versa. The onus of responsibility was thus on PVCC to demonstrate their cooperativeness and fit with DMBA and demonstrate their worthiness to join DMBA, not vice versa. Without knowing most of the details of this situation, it is evident from the overwhelming 104-9 vote of DMBA that PVCC did not take common sense steps to connect in positive ways with the association. PVCC did demonstrate that they valued and sought interaction with other faraway groups in such as the Acts 29 Network based in Seattle, Washington than they did fellowship with Southern Baptist churches in their own area. And when interaction did take place between PVCC and the local churches in DMBA, it evidently was not predominantly a positive experience. The Credential Committee’s findings noted that PVCC had not given evidence that it “would be sympathetic with the purpose and work of the body of the DMBA,” and noted that PVCC had practiced “an overall lack of the key elements of cooperation found in patience, humility, kindness, compassion and gentleness.” It clearly appeared to be these perceived uncooperative and somewhat arrogant attitudinal problems that “ultimately” led to the denial of PVCC from DMBA. This was a preventable tragedy, but PVCC (perhaps in part because of the inexperienced leadership and/or a doctrinaire inflexibility) must bear much of the responsibility for their own rejection.

(4)  This DMBA decision has a very limited impact on PVCC.  The main impact of this decision is that messengers from PVCC cannot vote in the annual session of DMBA.  I don’t think that being denied this minor privilege is going to cripple the ministry of PVCC. The DMBA’s decision does not bar PVCC from attending DMBA meetings. It does not delimit PVCC from attending DMBA training events, such as Sunday School training or Vacation Bible School training, if PVCC had any interest in these. It does not prohibit PVCC from membership in the Kentucky Baptist Convention or the SBC. It does not bar PVCC from participating in the evangelistic or missions efforts of DMBA (if PVCC’s theology did not prevent the church from desiring to do so). It does not prohibit PVCC from sending their youth or children to camps sponsored by the DMBA. It does not prevent PVCC from inviting other DMBA pastors to speak in their church for revivals (if PVCC’s doctrine does not prohibit themselves from having revivals) or in other worship services. It does not prevent PVCC from partnering on projects with individual DMBA churches. It does not prohibit PVCC from contributing money to DMBA or its related ministries. If PVCC were genuinely interested in demonstrating their cooperative spirit to DMBA, doing any or all of these things (and doing so in a sweet spirit) would go a long way in changing the perception of the churches in the association that PVCC has an uncooperative spirit. Again, the point is that one should not make more of this decision than the minor impact it has on PVCC.

(5)  Sometimes unity requires division. As I noted in an earlier series of articles about the fault lines that divide Southern Baptists, there is a point at which it does not appear fruitful for two groups to continue walking together.  More unity is found by dividing into two groups rather than continuing irritating each other by constantly arguing and bickering with each other in the same group. I described this as the “in Adam” option – unity through division (that is, taking human fallenness into consideration, divisions like this are inevitable). This was true of Southern Baptists and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and it may yet (and the odds are, it will) cause further such divisions over the issue of Calvinism (as SBC Executive Committee CEO Frank Page noted in a recent SBC Today interview) and/or along other fault lines in Southern Baptist life (as I have noted). For example, if churches like PVCC continue finding more commonality with groups such as Acts 29 or the Founders group prior to and over against local associations – networking with them, going to their meetings, seeking their counsel, etc., as Pastor Edwards’ interview on the Acts 29 website indicates – it is inevitable that these alternative groups like Acts 29 and Founders will functionally become an association to themselves, start breaking down into statewide and regional fellowships, and eventually split into another denomination. If narrow doctrinal agreement is required for fellowship, these sorts of splits are inevitable in the SBC in the interest of unity and harmony.

(6)  True unity requires toleration of a greater range of differences. I believe that the Lord’s ideal for his churches is not that they splinter and divide, but that they “dwell together in unity” (Ps. 133:1). This is what I have called the “in Christ” option – unity through diversity. For such a broader unity to be a reality, it is necessary that believers (and churches) be more tolerant and forgiving of each other. It requires that we must be content to agree on major points and agree to disagree on other points. It means in this case, for example, that PVCC not describe widely accepted Baptist patterns of church governance as “unbiblical.” Had Edwards just said in the interview that PVCC sought to discover the church polity that they felt the Bible affirmed, that would have been fine. But to condemn the polity of others as “unbiblical” does not build unity. Again, the DMBA finding that PVCC demonstrated “an overall lack of the key elements of cooperation found in patience, humility, kindness, compassion and gentleness” indicates that DMBA did not consider PVCC willing to demonstrate the tolerant attitudes demanded of true unity.

Unfortunately, the association’s written findings were rather vague both in regard to the specific doctrinal issues which were problematic and in listing specific examples of the attitudinal issues which they found problematic. However, DMBA’s overwhelming 104-9 vote suggests that PVCC wasn’t even close to being acceptable. This was evidently not a hard decision for the association.

However, to achieve unity in a broader spectrum of churches, we must tolerate a wider range of differences. We must respect the autonomy of each local church, and respect the right of that church to be different in some ways. We must not insist that our perspective is the only biblical perspective on operational issues that are not clearly required in Scripture. We must have some flexibility in doctrinal issues, as long as they are not clearly unbiblical. We must strive to improve our communication and the attitudes we express in working with fellow believers to avoid repeated experiences such as this one in other associations.

By Dr. Lemke, Provost, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, occupying the McFarland Chair of Theology, Director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry, and Editor of the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

News stories from the Western Recorder, from Associated Baptist Press, and Baptist Press reported last week that the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association in Kentucky chose to deny membership to Pleasant Valley Community Church, purportedly in part because of the strong Calvinism affirmed by Pleasant Valley Community Church. In this article, I want to suggest my best guess of the factors which led to this decision. In Part 2 I want to suggest what could be some implications of this decision for other churches and associations in the SBC.

Some Important Caveats

These are some wise dictums which we should normally heed as guidelines for wise living:

Dictum 1: Don’t get enmeshed in other people’s fights.

Dictum 2:  Don’t speak about things about which you have little knowledge, because when you open your mouth you’ll reveal your ignorance.

I’m going to risk cautiously disobeying these wise dictums in order to comment on the denial of the application of Pleasant Valley Community Church to join Daviess-McLean Baptist Association in Kentucky. (I could note that many blog commentators frequently violate both of these dictums). So let me do so with these important caveats:

(a) I do not know anyone on either side associated with this event, nor have I spoken with them personally or communicated with them. The only thing I know comes through published reports and commentaries, and a couple of conversations with persons closer to the situation who have communicated with some of the persons involved. I have not read all of the documents associated with the event. So I am writing based on the limited published information I have seen, along with some hearsay evidence. That’s not very strong evidence in a court of law or in the scholarly world, and as a former journalist I would not publish such unconfirmed opinions as a factual news story. So what I am sharing is just my opinion or speculation based on my best understanding of the limited information I have.

(b) I am not a member of a church in the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association, so I have no real standing in this discussion. This is their decision, not mine. I am simply commenting on the event as an outside observer.

With those important caveats in mind, I will share my perception in this Part 1 of the root causes of this event. As I best understand it, there are two primary contributing causes that led to this event – one more theological in character, and the other more attitudinal in nature. At this point, I am more interested in describing the perceptions involved than the realities involved – that is, I’m attempting to understand what perceptions may have led to this decision.  I have no way of judging the accuracy of those perceptions. Perceptions aren’t always the same as reality, but they do impact reality. Again, I want to be very clear that some of this at least to some degree speculation on my part, based on the available evidence. Then, in Part 2, I’ll suggest some implications of this decision in other associations, and propose a way that might help avoid repeated occurrences of similar events in other associations.

The Theological Aspect

The presenting problem, as it has been described in all the published reports, is the theological problem that the other churches in the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association (DMBA) found the strong Calvinism of Pleasant Valley Community Church to be unpalatable. The brief DMBA statement unfortunately offers an overly abbreviated their discussion of this issue, rather than providing a more detailed discussion. As reported in the Associated Baptist Press story, the Credentials Committee noted that the doctrine of Pleasant Valley Community Church was “Calvinistic in nature,” and “affirms the doctrine of election and grace.” Clearly, this alone would not make the doctrine of Pleasant Valley Community Church unbaptistic. Article V of the Baptist Faith and Message is entitled “God’s Purpose of Grace,” and begins with the words, “Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which God regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end.” So belief in election and grace would make a church’s doctrine baptistic, not unbaptistic. The association would have to go into much greater detail than their statement does (at least, the part of it quoted in published reports) to clarify what they found problematic in PVCC’s doctrine. It would have been especially helpful to us outside observers had the association been more specific about the doctrinal issue involved.

However, from what we can discern about Pleasant Valley Community Church, its doctrine was apparently so obviously and distinctively Calvinistic that a more detailed statement seemed unnecessary to the association for this purpose.  It was sufficient for the Credentials Committee to note that “we do recognize that it [the theology of PVCC] is vastly different than the majority of churches within the DMBA.”  The association voted 104-9 to deny admittance to Pleasant Valley Community Church to DMBA. This wasn’t a close vote. This indicates that the doctrine of PVCC was well known among the ministers in the association, and it was significantly different in some important ways.

It is not surprising that that the overwhelming majority of pastors in this or another association would differ in doctrine from a church that is strongly and exceptionally Calvinist in its doctrine. LifeWay statistics indicate that 90 percent of Southern Baptist pastors are not five point Calvinists. If most associations were minded to deny or remove from membership all Reformed churches, the majority of most associations could do so merely by voting their own doctrinal beliefs. In fact, however, few associations have denied membership to churches over the doctrines of Calvinism, and the pastor who nominated PVCC for membership in DMBA was not a five-point Calvinist. By and large, associations that are made up predominantly of non-Calvinist churches have been accepting of Calvinist churches into their fellowship. So what made PVCC stand out so much from DMBA?

The “Pastor of Preaching and Vision” of Pleasant Valley Community Church, recent Southern Baptist Theological Seminary graduate Jamus Edwards (whose picture reflects a handsome young man), downplayed his church’s distinctive Calvinism to the Western Recorder, telling them that the church does not self-identify as Calvinist because it is not “helpful in most contexts” but rather “distracting and largely misunderstood, precisely like it was in this situation with the DMBA.” However, Edwards’ statement seems a little disingenuous in light of a number of factors. First of all, not only did PVCC refrain from using “Baptist” in their name, but also rather than making the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 their confession, the church has its own 60 page doctrinal confession instead, which is unambiguously Calvinistic. For example, the PVCC confession affirms hard determinism:

“From before the foundation of the world, in order to display His glory, God freely and unchangeably ordained all things that would come to pass. From the casting of the lot, to the bird falling from the sky, to the activities of the nations, to the plans of politicians, to the secret acts of individuals, to what will happen to us tomorrow, to scheduling the very day that we will die, God has written our stories and the stories of the entire universe.”

Also in the PVCC confession, God’s absolute predestination of everything that happens includes “the results of His plan of salvation as set forth in the Gospel of Jesus Christ” in double predestination:

“We believe that God’s election is unconditional — from Old Testament Israel to individual sinners. That is, from before the foundation of the world, God chose in His grace to save for Himself an elect people through Jesus Christ. God’s choice of His elect was in no way affected, or conditioned by, some merit or deed that He foresaw these individuals would possess. Neither (as many argue) did God make His choice based upon those whom He foresaw ‘would’ have chosen Him of their own will and accord.”

Another piece of evidence – PVCC’s strong identification with the Acts 29 Network – undermines Edwards’ claim that PVCC does not self-identify itself with Calvinists. Edwards has an interview in the Acts 29 Network website in which he clearly identifies PVCC with that group (giving special appreciation to the influence of Mark Driscoll on his life). Since the Acts 29 confession requires agreement with Calvinistic theology (note Acts 29 doctrine four, being “Reformed” in its view of salvation) as a prerequisite for participation, it appears that Edwards should have at least qualified his statement somewhat. Indeed, it is evident from the article that PVCC sought the approval of the Acts 29 Network before it sought membership in the DMBC.

Furthermore, Edwards states in the interview that in becoming pastor he “inherited an unbiblical leadership model (church government structure).” [Edwards does not describe specifically what this “unbiblical leadership model” was, but one could imagine that it was a polity common in Baptist churches, and perhaps closer to the polity outlined in the Baptist Faith and Message than PVCC’s elder-led polity]. Edwards continues: “In an effort to transition out of this unbiblical model, we took over a year to teach through 1 Timothy and the biblical model for church government. The Scriptures began to do the work and eventually the church body eagerly accepted the elder-led model.”  However Pastor Edwards reads 1 Timothy 3, the chapter that discusses the qualifications and responsibilities of the two scriptural offices in a New Testament church, it cannot possibly advocate the Presbyterian elder-led model as opposed to Baptist polity – in fact, the word “elder” doesn’t even appear in that chapter! Edwards obviously appears to be reading his Calvinistic theology into Scripture, rather than allowing Scripture to determine his theology.

So, taking all this evidence into account, it appears that Edwards’ claim that the church did not self-identify as a Calvinist fellowship is somewhat inaccurate. In fact, the church took a number of steps to distinguish themselves from other Baptist churches in name and doctrine, and sought to align themselves with Calvinistic groups before seeking membership in the DMBC. This unambiguous Calvinism was evident to the other churches in DMBA.

This is not the first time or the only issue that the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association has chosen not to be in fellowship with a church whose doctrinal views significantly differed from the other churches in the association. As the Associated Baptist Press story mentioned, DMBA voted 242-24 to withdraw fellowship from the Journey Fellowship (formerly named Seven Hills Baptist Church in Owensboro) because they hosted a group which they viewed as accepting or endorsing homosexuality. So the DMBA does not appear to be on a one-issue “witch hunt” about Calvinism, but is interested that the churches in the association be of like faith and practice in the interest of unity. This concern for doctrinal agreement is commendable. In fact, associations in general tend to be rather generous (perhaps overly so at times) in allowing for doctrinal diversity and respecting local congregational autonomy. For example, Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas has been removed from membership from both the Southern Baptist Convention and the Baptist General Convention of Texas because of their open advocacy of a homosexual lifestyle, but last I heard, they are still members in good standing with the Tarrant Baptist Association.

However, returning to the DMBA issue, as we often discover in counseling, it is often the case that the “presenting issue” cited as the problem at the beginning of the conversation turns out to be not the major issue when the problem is explored in greater depth. It becomes evident that there is some other deeper issue which is the most basic problem. While I’m confident that discussions about Calvinist doctrine were an important aspect of these discussions, it seems to me that the doctrinal issue was more of a “presenting issue” than a “real issue.” That leads me to the next section, the Attitudinal Aspect.

The Attitudinal Aspect

As the Baptist Press story on this issue underscored (and this has been confirmed to me by persons familiar with the situation and have talked with some of the persons involved), although it appears that there were doctrinal issues involved in denying membership to PVCC, the issues involving Calvinism did not appear to be the primary problem.  (The Baptist Press story brought out this attitudinal aspect more, while the Associated Baptist Press story underscored the theological aspect of the decision). Indeed, according to published reports, the association’s Credentials Committee said, “Ultimately, we were not satisfied that Pleasant Valley Community Church would be sympathetic with the purpose and work of the body of the DMBA,” and expressed concern about “an overall lack of the key elements of cooperation found in patience, humility, kindness, compassion and gentleness” from PVCC.

The Daviess-McLean Baptist Association committee openly acknowledged in their documents that the Pleasant Valley Community Church’s doctrine was not heretical or aberrant. According to published reports, the Credentials Committee findings stated that “We believe the teaching of Pleasant Valley Community Church to be sound in their doctrine,” and that “We know the doctrine is not heresy.” Clearly, then, the association had no question about the fact that PVCC was not aberrant or heretical in doctrine, but they did “recognize that it is vastly different than the majority of churches within the DMBA.” So, although the “presenting issue” in this case was doctrinal, it would appear that this was not just the doctrinal issue, and in fact, the issue clearly appears to be primarily one of fellowship, not doctrine.  It may be (and this is just my speculation) that the mention of Calvinism in the decision was directed more toward the nexus of negative attitudes and actions sometimes associated with some neo-Calvinists than purely the theological issues per se.

One public relations or image problem being experienced by contemporary neo-Calvinism is that the negative attitudes and actions of a few have come to stereotype the whole. This is not an observation made only by persons on the opposite side of this issue. Calvinists and other non-agenda driven friends such as Ed Stetzer, Joe Thorn (and here), Dave Miller, William Thornton (and here), Howell Scott, and others have expressed concern and even embarrassment about some neo-Calvinists who express these attitudes. As they correctly note, these attitudes give “angry Calvinists” (and their Lord) a bad name. It was a high Calvinist who taught me the term “Calvinazis,” referring to a fringe group of neo-Calvinists who sometimes exemplify strongly negative attitudes and actions at times. They characterize persons of this ilk as sometimes being angry, argumentative, arrogant, belligerent, combative, contemptuous, divisive, and schismatic. By no means are these attitudes represented by all or most neo-Calvinists, and nor am I suggesting that these attitudes were necessarily represented by anyone associated with PVCC. However, it is the nature of such stereotypes that the negative attitudes and actions of a few can color the reputation of the many. In this cyberspace age, a pastor of a small Reformed church plant can have as much or more impact through the evangelical blogosphere as larger church pastors and respected leaders. The extreme actions of a few color the perceptions of the many. Hence there is need for more circumspect neo-Calvinists to attempt to control those within their own fellowship who are more extreme in expressing these negative attitudes and actions (as many of the articles cited above sought to do).

The 104-9 vote by the messengers of local churches in Daviess-McLean Baptist Association to deny admittance to Pleasant Valley Community Church suggests that DMBA had experienced some problems with the attitudinal perspectives expressed by PVCC in a way that made the churches in DMBA reluctant to enter into fellowship with them. This was evidently why, despite acknowledging that PVCC had no doctrinal error, the member churches of the association agreed with the Credentials Committee that “ultimately” there was reason to doubt that “Pleasant Valley Community Church would be sympathetic with the purpose and work of the body of the DMBA,” and that PVCC demonstrated “an overall lack of the key elements of cooperation found in patience, humility, kindness, compassion and gentleness.” It was evidently the offensive attitudes that were exhibited by PVCC (as perceived by the member churches of DMBA), perhaps some of the attitudes stereotypically associated with some neo-Calvinists, which led the DMBA to choose to deny membership to PVCC in DMBA. The churches of DMBA (by overwhelming numbers) evidently valued harmony and unity in the association over the inclusion of a church whose leadership had already given the churches in DMBA a perception that they were lacking in cooperativeness and gentleness of spirit.

Conclusion

Let me say again that my knowledge of this situation is limited and from outside the situation, so it is possible that I may have read the situation incorrectly. But this is the sense I got from reading the published reports and talking with people familiar with the situation. In Part 2 of this article, I will suggest some possible implications of the DMBA decision for future similar situations in other churches and associations in the SBC.

In a recent “SBC Discussion” article for Baptist Press Trevin Wax discussed how Southern Baptists were needed by evangelicals in order to overcome splintering within the evangelical community.  I have many concerns about this approach, but the main concern is a denominational employee suggesting Southern Baptists move into areas many are not willing to go. Lest we forget, Wax is employed with Lifeway, which is an entity charged with producing educational material.

In Wax’s article, Being Southern Baptist among & for Evangelicals, he relied on some phantoms as he presented his facts.  It is the phantoms and facts that I want to address in an effort to offer an objective critique of the article.

PHANTOMS

1. “Many Southern Baptists looked outside the SBC for energy and support in the “battle for the Bible

While I would agree with respect to “energy,” I would argue that “support” is his phantom.  Certainly there were evangelical scholars, such as the ones Wax named, that were very articulate in debating inerrancy, and many of these were in print at the time.  However, the support for this battle did not come from outside of the SBC; it came from within. Grass roots Southern Baptist pastors and laymen were the catalysts. Men like Bob Tenery, who was willing to jeopardize his own ministry and who invested his own money to begin the SBC Advocate, gave the underlying support needed. The SBC Advocate was a periodical that informed pastors and laymen about the issues. Pastors of churches large and small realized if they did not make a move, it was just a matter of time before we were going to have neo-orthodoxy filtering from pulpits to the people in the pew. In some cases, such was already happening. This “support” came from many pastors whose churches could not afford to send them to conventions, yet they came on their own nickel and voted.

This “support” from outside the convention simply cannot be documented. What evangelical invested his/her own funds to see the Southern Baptist Convention turn around? Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell did feature some of the SBC conservative leaders in a program. The biggest endorsement for the conservatives came from Billy Graham. However, Billy Graham retained his church membership at FBC Dallas, which would make him a Southern Baptist not an evangelical outside the SBC orbit. It also might be pointed out that outside support for the Moderates came from people who are today considered by many as evangelicals, such as Bill Moyers.

2. “Good number of institutions and churches that have historically flown under the ‘evangelical’ banner.”

Wax’s phantom here is one that I just do not understand.  His argument about these “evangelical” institutions and churches about to be taken out of evangelicalism simply does not resonate. The fault lines in the evangelical world are there because evangelicalism is so loosely defined. There is no clear confession that evangelical institutions and churches affirm. Thus, to say they “fly under the evangelical banner” really is not completely accurate. One will find that a church’s theological position usually is that of the pastor, except for the SBC. That is the reason we have a clearly defined confession of faith.

3. “Coalitions have formed. . . . This is the time for Southern Baptist leaders to extend the hand of fellowship to like-minded evangelicals, to strengthen the growing number of coalitions.”

Once again we have a phantom floating in the statement. What coalitions have been formed?  Are we talking about Together for the Gospel or Acts 29? If so, these organizations have no formal connection with the SBC. In addition, why should our Southern Baptist leaders extend a hand of fellowship to strengthen a coalition that clearly does not affirm a confession of faith? To form coalitions and then attempt to make ourselves a part of this coalition is, well, proselytizing, which Southern Baptists do not want to do.

4. “There are some who feel that the purity of Southern Baptist identity will be polluted if we join coalitions or encourage other networks.”

Who are these “some?” This is another phantom that is bantered about seemingly in order to put down anyone who disagrees. One thing is certain: It is not about keeping the purity of a Southern Baptist identity as much as it is about remaining scripturally vigilant.  Many evangelical churches do not promote baptism by immersion. Am I concerned that forming coalitions with other evangelical networks will weaken our Southern Baptist identity? Not on your life. Am I concerned that forming coalitions with other evangelical networks will open the door for SBC churches to disavow believer’s baptism by immersion as the only valid scriptural baptism?  Bingo!!!

5. “Others point to a number of traditional Southern Baptist markers of loyalty: giving to the Cooperative Program, style of preaching, church practices, revival services, involvement at the association and state levels, etc.”

We see yet another phantom. First, we need to tease out the “etc.” What are these other “etc.” markers?  Second, it appears that Wax has now offended Conference of Southern Baptist Evangelists (COSBE). COSBE is the one calling on churches in the SBC to use evangelists and to promote revival services. Third, most, if not all, of our seminary presidents might be offended since they are among those calling for expositional preaching as being the preaching style we should be doing (assuming by “style” this is what Wax has in mind).  Dr. Brad Whitt has called attention to church practices concerning church government.  However, he has done this with his basis being that of the BF&M. Thus, he is not hinging his argument on a “traditional Southern Baptist marker of loyalty” but on our own Southern Baptist confessional statement—something Wax affirms and says is needed. Wax also presents a phantom within a phantom. While he makes it appear the things mentioned are merely personal preferences that old traditionalists want to see, it is his list he terms as Southern Baptist markers.

When Wax presents the phantom of Cooperative Program giving, he seems to forget our SBC documents and state convention documents clearly define a cooperating Southern Baptist congregation. Giving to the Cooperative Program is part of what makes a church a Southern Baptist church, both in regard to state conventions and the SBC. If a church were to give money only to the IMB they may be considered a Southern Baptist church but not be considered a cooperating Southern Baptist.  They would be considered a church that gives to the IMB.  The Southern Baptist Convention does not recognize a church as an SBC church unless they receive at least $250 from them.  According to the Southern Baptist Convention Constitution an SBC church is one that “Is in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work. And, (2) Has been a bona fide contributor to the Convention’s work during the fiscal year preceding.” (Bold emphasis mine) Thus, one can say until the cows come home they are a cooperating Southern Baptist church, but until funds are sent in through the Cooperative Program; a church is not a cooperating Southern Baptist congregation.

6. “Conservative evangelicals need strength and support in their efforts to reclaim the center of evangelical identity.”

This final phantom seems to indicate that Wax is more concerned with reclaiming the center of “evangelical identity” than he is Southern Baptist identity.  It is not about an “evangelical identity”; it is about adhering to the inerrancy of the Word of God.  Remember, as go Southern Baptists, so go evangelicals. A case can be made that the reason evangelicals need to reclaim their center is due to Southern Baptists losing theirs. I believe the reason Southern Baptists might be losing their own center is this strange courtship she appears to be entering into with splintering evangelicalism. However, Southern Baptists have remained strong historically by refusing to compromise their doctrines. Why would we now want to water down our doctrines to make them acceptable to others who have lost or are losing their evangelical identity?

FACTS

1. “As the tidal wave looms over the horizon, the Baptist Faith and Message is a bulwark of confessional, biblical identity that unites Southern Baptists.”

Wax is correct with this assessment. The BF&M is a “bulwark of confessional, biblical identity.” We affirm this and we look forward to accepting churches and people that can also affirm this confession. In SBC life, however, it appears that some may want to treat the BF&M as a buffet line at Golden Corral. They seem to pick and choose the parts they agree with and pay much less attention to the parts which don’t fit their theology. If the BF&M is a bulwark, it protects in all areas it covers. One cannot choose to have it as a doctrinal protector in the area of “The Scriptures” but refuse its protection by adding caveats in the area of “The Church.”

2. What is the center of Southern Baptist identity?

This is, for me, the heart of the issue. Referencing oneself as a Southern Baptist is not about wearing a suit and tie, or about the style of music one has in worship services. The center of Southern Baptist identity is found in the written word of God as articulated in the Baptist Faith and Message. Wax is absolutely correct in this approach. But, he has so many phantoms floating around this statement it makes one weary in trying to express concerns.

CONCLUSION

Where does this leave us? While, as a member of a local Southern Baptist church, Wax is free to express his understanding of the denomination/convention working with outside groups; yet as a paid denominational employee, he should tread very carefully when it comes to suggesting that Southern Baptists work with outside groups.

In Wax’s concluding comments he presents two more phantoms. First, no one that I have known has cast aspersions on any church that is willing to partner with evangelicals outside of the Southern Baptist Convention. Second, as Southern Baptists, no one I know is against “other evangelicals.” But, neither should we be willing to lock arms with the CBF in order to plant churches. One may say that Wax never presented the CBF in his article. Correct. However, Wax clearly pointed out that Brian McLaren was considered an evangelical. Thus, Wax’s last phantom is the one of choosing which evangelicals are worthy of our fellowship and which ones are not.

If evangelicals, who believe like Southern Baptists, can affirm the Baptist Faith & Message without caveats, and desire to give to Southern Baptist causes, want to be part of the Southern Baptist Convention, I say; “LET’S LOCK ARM-IN-ARM AND MOVE FORWARD!!” However, if evangelicals desire to come into the Southern Baptist Convention and, as an example, begin telling us public invitations are not scriptural, or infant baptism is something we should accept, or even setting dress codes for the annual SBC meeting, I say; “LET’S LOCK HORNS BECAUSE I WILL NOT BE MOVED!!”

Question #1:    Do you believe that a Southern Baptist Church can trace it’s beginning to the Lord Jesus Christ?  that there’s been a trail of blood?  that a true, SB Church has been in existence from Jesus until now; as the Landmarkists believed?

Robin:  I don’t believe that JM Carroll’s trail of blood is correct in its theory.  I do believe there has been a “free church” tradition witness throughout history, whether or not one can call it a “Baptist” tradition as we see it today I question.  Baptist churches, as we know them today, I believe got their start from Smyth and Helwys, while we have a spiritual connection with the Anabaptist of the reformation.

Matt:   True churches have existed from the time of Christ and will exist until He returns.  I believe my Southern Baptist church to be one of those true churches.   I am not so concerned with the ability to list the particular name of every true church that has ever existed in historical and geographical order back to the church at Jerusalem as the Roman church tries to do with popes back to Peter.

Wes:  If by that do you mean that the baptism of everyone in my church can be traced back through churches authorized to baptize in an unbroken line all the way back to the Apostles, then no, I don’t believe that. I believe that there have always been, since the time of the Apostles, faithful New Testament churches in existence, and I base this belief on Jesus’ promise that He would build His church, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Mt. 16:18).

David:  I agree with the others that the trail of blood idea of J.M. Carroll is not correct.  I do believe that there has always been NT churches in existence thru out history.  I don’t believe that they were Baptist churches, and I know that they weren’t Southern Baptist churches.  But, they were NT churches, which  preached the Gospel. 

Question #2:  Do you believe in closed communion?  that only the members of a local Church should take the LS together, as Landmarkists believe?

Robin:  No.  We practice “close” communion which to our understanding is inviting anyone to the table who has received Jesus as their Lord and Savior and has participated in believers baptism by immersion.   With this, I do believe that communion is a church ordinance and should only be practiced among the gathered local church.

Matt:  Our church follows close communion.  Just as a family gathers together around the meal table, it is the church family that should gather together around the Lord’s table.  If we have others of like faith and practice in attendance, we do not forbid them as I suspect that the believers at Troas did not forbid the Apostle Paul when he met with them on the day they celebrated the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7).  Occasionally we will have guests that will be invited to eat with us at the table.

Wes:  While I am sympathetic to this view based on Paul’s warning against partaking without “discerning the body” (1 Cor. 11:29), I am also in harmony with the Baptist Faith and Message on this point, and have no problem serving in churches which admit anyone who has been scripturally baptized to fellowship around the Lord’s table.

David:  I believe in a modified close communion view.  I do believe that the LS is a Church ordinance.  I do believe that it should be observed by the Church, with others  of like faith being welcomed to participate.  I do believe that baptised Believers should participate in it.  I do not believe in being so rigid that we’d have the LS police making sure that only baptised Believers of like faith are taking the LS with us.  I would not make a big deal out of who should, and who should not be taking it.  But, when I preached on it, and when we begin the LS; I would gently remind everyone about these things.

Question #3: Do you believe that SB Churches are the only true Churches out there in our world today, as Landmarkists believe that Baptist churches are the only true churches?

Robin:  No.

Matt:  By definition a Southern Baptist church is one that gives money to missions through the Southern Baptist Convention.   Giving through the SBC cannot possibly be the measure of a true church as true churches existed long before 1845. 

Wes:  No

David:  No

Question #4: Do you think that only SB’s are going to Heaven?  that they’re the only ones that are really saved? (This is a misconception that I continue to hear from people concerning the BI fellas)

Robin:  That is just simply ridiculous.  Salvation is by grace through faith and is lived out among the saints in a local New Testament Church.  

Matt:   Had the Conservative Resurgence not taken place, I probably would not be a Southern Baptist today, but I would still be a Christian.  Salvation is determined by grace through faith and not by any organization of man.

Wes:  No

David:  I have to agree with Robin that it’s absolutely ridiculous that we’d even have to respond to this kind of a question, yet I keep hearing it from people.   My answer is “NO.”

Question #5: What baptisms would you accept?  In other words, what would be the bare, basic things that would have to be true before you would consider it a true baptism?  that you would accept without asking the person to be baptised? (Landmarkists would accept only Baptist baptisms; baptisms done by another Baptist church)

Robin:  Baptism by a local church, by immersion, as a symbolic representation of union to Christ, death to sin, and resurrection to eternal life, “never to die again.” Romans 6:3-11

Matt:   A member of our church must be baptized by immersion after conversion by a church whose baptism is an ordinance of symbolism and obedience to our Lord’s command and not a means of grace. 

Wes:  I agree with the Baptist Faith and Message, which defines scriptural baptism as “the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the beliefer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.” The BF&M also identifies baptism as a church ordinance. So as long as someone’s baptismal experience fits this definition, and took place under the authority of a local church, then I believe it to be biblical and would encourage my church to accept it as such.

David:  I agree with the Baptist Faith and Message, as well. 

So, hopefully this will clear things up just a little bit about who these “BI” guys are, and what they really believe.  Maybe?  I hope so.

Does this mean that I quit? No.  I will still advocate what I believe is right and best for our convention of churches.  I will still oppose what I believe to be detrimental as well.  It’s just that in so doing, I am willing to stand beside those with whom I disagree as my brothers in Christ. I know this puts me “on-the-outs” with certain segments of our state convention.  That’s fine.  I’m tired of trying to win the day on the method of personal demonization.  Maybe that tactic is employed when one is not certain of his own position.  I am not certain about why others resort to personal attacks or vendetta, but I am choosing to advocate or oppose based on the substance of the issue and not the personality of my opponent.

In the montage of pictures which follow, you see me with many different leaders within our convention.  Many of you will know most of them.  Some others are known to but a few…

Just because I am found within the Baptist Identity camp does not mean I ‘disown’ men like Dr. Alvin Reid or Dr. Ed Stetzer.  I have learned from them and respect their ministries.

Just because I am found within the Calvinist camp does not mean that I ‘disown’ Dr. Ergun Caner or Dr. Peter Lumpkins or Dr. Malcolm Yarnell.  I have been impacted by their ministries and am better for it.

All of the men pictured I respect greatly.  Many of them I am privileged to call friend.  None of them I agree with 100%.  To say that we here at SBC Today wish to have no fellowship or cooperative ministries with others unless they fall into lock-step with us is patently absurd!  To say that my convictions will only allow me certain levels of cooperation with other Christians is spot on.  I will never be able to plant churches with my Presbyterian friends, but you could well find me in attendance with them at a Together for the Gospel conference in the future…or at the next Shepherd’s Conference at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, CA!

I know I have been guilty of making broad-brushed comments about brothers in other ‘camps’ based on the actions of the fringe/radical elements of that group.  Those kind of statements are about as irritating as sweeping generalizations made by advocates of a position which work well in marginalizing any opposition to one’s position.  Statements like I feared might come about in the current discussion in the SBC… *Room fades out to that lovely harp music once again.  We are transported to Louisville, KY.  Eavesdropping on an example of numerous conversations I had while at the annual meeting*

One concern I have is that this whole debate could be maneuvered so that anyone who expresses reservations about or direct opposition to recommendations from the GCR Task Force would be labeled as ‘anti-Great Commission.’…. *Back to today.*

You might say, “That’s crazy!”  No one would ever say that. Really?  How about… “We have worked toward a report that will be eagerly embraced by every Great Commission-driven Southern Baptist”…?  Upon reading this statement from Pastor Ronnie Floyd, the Chair of our GCRTF, I drew the following conclusion:  Since this report WILL be eagerly EMBRACED by every GREAT COMMISSION-DRIVEN Southern Baptist, if I disagree with it in any part, then I will be labeled as not having the driving motivation of my life and ministry to be the Great Commission which our Lord has given to us.

Really??

I am not saying what my response will be to the recommendations of the task force (I could well become its greatest advocate!).  We will only have heard the final report next Monday.  I am hopeful and prayerful that much listening has been done by the task force since the progress report was given.  I am hopeful and prayerful that when we get to Orlando the discussion will be fruitful and that we make progress in renewing our commitment to cooperate as a convention of churches for the sake of the Gospel.

 Now, on the main things, we must agree.  On the main truths of the Bible, we must believe the same.  On those things that are clearly spelled out in the Bible, there must be conformity.  We must all surrender and yield our hearts and minds to the foundational truths of the Christian faith.  We must all believe the fundamentals of the faith.  Things like the virgin birth; the atoning death of Jesus; salvation by grace thru faith; the Trinity of God;  etc.  These are the things that would mean whether we’re even truly a Christian, or not.  If someone denied the foundational truths of Christianity, then I wouldn’t even consider them to be a true Believer.  But, those people that do hold to the main doctrines of the faith, I call my brother, or sister in Christ; even though they may not be Southern Baptist. 

And, as Baptists, we must agree to the doctrinal distinctives which we hold dear; that we believe the Bible clearly teaches; in order to really be considered a Baptist Church.  There are things that we must believe; doctrines that  make us a Baptist Church.  Theology that makes us a Baptist kind of Christian.   Things like Believers baptism by immersion; the Lord’s Supper being a symbolic act; once saved, always saved; congregational polity, or governance; etc.   If a Church can’t even agree to the BFM2K, is it really a Baptist Church?  Is it really a Church that holds to what we consider to be the clear teachings of the Bible?  that holds to the doctrines that would make us consider them a good, sound church?  I would contend that churches must…in the least…hold to the BFM2K, in order to considered a cooperatiing, Southern Baptist Church.

But, on many, many other things, we can disagree on them all day long; and still worship and serve God together.  My friends, there are many, many, finer points of doctrine that we can not see eye to eye on, and it’s okay.  We can just have fun trying to convince the other fella that we’re right!  Lol.  But, these minor things should not cause separation, nor should they cause us to divide.  They should not cause strife, nor should they be the source of contention.  On the finer points of the major doctrines, we should allow for freedom; even while not agreeing with the other person.  Amen?  Amen!

Listen to the podcast using the player below, or subscribe in iTunes by clicking the logo here, or the button in the sidebar. Leave your comments here with suggestions on how we can improve, guest suggestions, or to discuss the issues we raised. On iTunes, take a moment to write a quick review for us, or just click some stars to give us a rating.

Below are links to the items we discussed during the podcast:

Manhattan Declaration

Georgia Baptist Convention action

First of all, my brother, I thank you for your admission of your weakness and frailty.  For repentance from sin and purpose to be renewed in your heart and mind, I am thankful.  I will be watching and praying that you do not fall again into that temptation, that sin which so easily entangles us.  I want to help hold you accountable–not so I can lord anything over you or be ready to once again condemn you, but to encourage you to godliness, holiness, and faithfulness.

Second, I thank you for standing for truth and shunning doctrinal error.  Your uncompromising words regarding the popular novel “The Shack” have been an encouragement to me and are a condemnation to the position my convention’s publication/resource/bookstore entity has taken regarding that book.  I have even been able to use your video presentation on this issue as a challenge and encouragement to my brothers and sisters in my local church family.  Likewise, I appreciate your boldness in talking with others, in a big way, about the reality of God’s word concerning our adversary, the Devil.  There are others out there parading around ‘like Christians,’ men like Carlton Pearson, who would deny the authority of Scripture, the reality of sin, the existence of the Devil, and the need to call people to repentance.  Thank you for expressing courage in standing for the truth.

Third, I thank you for recently preaching the Gospel in a church which I fear rarely hears the truth so plainly taught.  The exclusivity of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection as our one and only hope for salvation must be shouted from the rooftop, shared in the streets, and proclaimed from the pulpits of our churches.  That commission is my heart’s calling and driving desire for my ministry as I seek to teach, equip, and lead God’s people to have that same heart, desire, and ministry.  Keep up the good work! Contend earnestly for our faith! Carry out our Lord’s great commission.

Fourth, I thank you for actively being involved in planting churches.  I am working to grow our church to be a church planting church as well. I pray that one day our church will have had the privilege of planting or helping plant many churches throughout our area and maybe even around the world.

Well, my brother in Christ, we do not see eye-to-eye on everything. We may never see eye-to-eye on everything.  Even my natural brother and I do not always agree on everything, yet he is still and will always be my brother.  So it is with my relationship to you.  At points we are going to have disagreements about how we should live our lives as Christians or about how we should understand our lives together within our churches.  I want you to know that I want to discuss and debate our differences.  I want to have the freedom to call your understanding into question, as I pray I will always be open to having my convictions questioned and challenged.  The Bible tells us that “as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”  You and I both need each other as part of God’s sharpening process.  To be 100% honest, at times our differences may cause us to go separate ways on certain aspects of ministry within our churches and the ability to cooperate in all things.  Please believe me when I say that this will not cause your value as a brother to be diminished in my eyes.  I will still be praying that God will bless your life and your ministry as you faithfully follow Him.

Once again, I thank you my brother, Mark Driscoll, for your willingness to follow Christ, to honor Him, to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  To Him be glory and honor and power through His churches now until the day of His return and for all eternity!

Sola Gratia!

A CAUTION AND REMINDER

Unless wisdom flees from us, Baptists will ever see to it that churches, churches and the New Testament type of preachers, meritorious preachers, are, in the right sense, the constant center of their concern, the first objects of proper honor and credit for denominational accomplishments and acquirements—not Boards, nor Associations, nor even Conventions, not Secretaries. These four instruments or agencies are legitimate, highly proper, and useful, indispensable, but they and their funds all stem from the churches and preacher-pastors. There is no iota of discredit here, of course, for these four agencies, but it must be said that there is an alarming drift in thought and practice, particularly in some quarters, in the direction that responsibility and most credit belong to Boards, Secretaries and Conventions. The writer hastens to say that he sees no such drift in Arkansas. History and experience show that where credit is placed, sooner or later right there control will be placed. Where credit abides control will reside. Boards, Associations, Conventions, and Secretaries are necessary, we repeat, and worthy and deserve a great measure of credit, but major credit and honor should be laid at the doors of the blessed churches with their faithful pastors. That is right and just and it ought to be expressly said in reports and minutes and is said in Arkansas at present. It is not at all sufficient to say “that is understood” or “everybody knows that major credit belongs with the churches.” Safety with Baptists lies in staying close to the churches, in continuous and unfailing recognition of the churches and preachers. They by the grace of God made this day possible. They brought us where we are. They, after the Lord and the Bible, deserve credit for what we are and have today. What is “understood” in this case should be underscored. This book is written with the constraining impulse and conviction that churches and preachers, little churches and little preachers (if there are such) and big churches and big preachers deserve and must have consideration and first honor in any such enterprise. Baptist denominational “directors” will do well to “watch their step.”

-J.S. Rogers

Is there ever an era in our denominational life in which this “caution and reminder” is not timely?

In the article, two young Southern Baptists appeal to nuclear disarmament as the way forward in order for the world to produce peace for itself. They base their appeal on the Sermon on the Mount and the hopes of world peace. Merritt boasts that he is a “member of a rising generation of Christ-followers who engage public policy differently than the generation that came before us.” Question: What exactly was wrong with the public policy of those who came before him?

Promoting his supposed more faithful approach than the former generation, Merritt proceeded to postulate that his generation will “attempt to mirror the ministry of Jesus Christ by promoting compassion and justice and peace, we seek to transcend partisanship, and we welcome the opportunity to partner with people of mutual good will.” I suppose that is in opposition to the former generation who did not seek to mirror the ministry of Christ, in Merritt’s view.

The ABP article proved to be intriguing, but it caused us at SBC Today to wonder what theological foundation this political philosophy would be founded upon. Since the effort of nuclear disarmament is headed by Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, one who none of us at SBC Today were familiar with, we decided to examine exactly who Merritt is advocating our partnering with in cultural engagement.

Tyler Wigg-Stevenson certainly has a world-class education that speaks for itself. He earned his bachelor degree from Swarthmore College, a college of the Quaker tradition. Wigg-Stevenson next set his sites on Yale Divinity School, where he graduated summa cum laude. While at Yale, he had the opportunity to serve Holy Communion at the Marquand Chapel, where his wife would serve as preacher. This made for an interesting foray into the doctrinal background of Marquand Chapel. Perhaps most enlightening is the following extended quote from the chapel’s worship guide.

In Marquand Chapel, it is necessary to be attentive to language. This is a community where there is great diversity in people’s prayer practices, and language is central to Christian prayer. Making sure that as many other worshippers as possible are invited to join in your prayer and praise is vital, so we ask you to be critical in your use of militaristic imagery, metaphors that elide blackness with evil, and phrases that say disability is sinful.

In particular, we ask you to be attentive to your use of gendered language for both God and humankind. Naming God as Lord, Father, Master, King and He is scriptural and a significant part of much Christian worship; but Christian scriptures and traditions also name God in feminine and non-gendered ways. Naming God only with masculine nouns and pronouns can create the sense that divinity is characterized by maleness, and not by femaleness, and this can both limit our knowledge of God and, potentially, negatively affect our view of men andwomen, made in God’s image. Additionally, for similar reasons, please do not refer to all humankind as ‘man’ or ‘mankind’ in chapel.

Wigg-Steveson also demonstrates disregard for his American citizenship. In a video found here, Wigg-Stevenson was asked by an audience member about the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons and his concern in regards to America, Wigg-Stevenson responded in part, “I don’t quite get what is going on– why there is such profound antipathy toward Iran in Washington.”

Elsewhere, Wigg-Stevenson said nuclear weapons touch on a number of Christian moral concerns, including protection of innocent life, care for creation and concern for the poor. He labeled reliance upon weapons of mass destruction as “enacted blasphemy.” Perhaps Wigg-Stevenson should examine the history of Iranian-American relations and see which country he would prefer to be a world power.

It seems Wigg-Stevenson and Merritt have confused political philosophy and personal protectionism due to a liberal theology. Indeed, the Christian is commanded by Christ to turn the other cheek when they are the victim of persecution. But the Lord also places the sword into the hand of the Government for the protection of those very citizens whose blood may be shed in their innocence. Would Wigg-Stevenson and Merritt to have their way, America would destroy all of their nuclear weapons, even as North Korea and Iran complete theirs. Then we would cease to be the land of the free and the home of the brave in order to become the land of the afraid and the home of the slave.

Finally, both Merritt and Wigg-Stevenson are written advocates of the Washington DC based think tank “Third Way.” Their website, www.thirdway.org says of the organization, “Third Way is the leading think tank of the moderate wing of the progressive movement. We work with elected officials, candidates, and advocates to develop and advance the next generation of moderate policy ideas.”

In regard to their stance on cultural issues, they write:

Third Way is developing new progressive approaches to the toughest cultural issues. Highlights include: pioneering a new approach on abortion that is embodied in legislation sponsored by both pro-choice and pro-life House members; drafting a bill to shore up the gun purchase background check system that was signed into law after the murders at Virginia Tech; contributing significantly to the planks of the Democratic platform on guns and abortion and helping to define the approach used by the Obama campaign on many cultural issues; releasing a set of common ground policy ideas with a group of centrist Evangelical leaders on issues like religion in the public square, abortion and gay equality;

Would Merritt and Wigg-Stevenson hope to see the SBC become advocates of Third Way? Wigg-Stevenson, a member of a Southern Baptist church and Merritt, a national spokesman on behalf of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in regard to environmental issues must either admit that they would lead in that direction, or succumb to the accusation of hypocrisy.

Considering the constant appeal for younger generations to have a place at the table, may we as Southern Baptists carefully weigh the results of failing to stand firm on Scriptural principles. Let us pray for God to continue to raise up Elishas to follow our Elijahs; but should those who continue to hold to theological abandonment rise to prominence, our concern will no longer be for maintaining a Baptist identity; we will be too busy searching for our Christian identity.