Are We Going to Build Bridges or Burn Them? (Part 2)

In Part 1 I began this series by listing some of the various types of diversity found within the Southern Baptist Convention. We are a very diverse people demographically, in style and methodology, and even in certain areas of doctrine. Many Southern Baptists see this diversity as a strength, showing the world that even though we differ in many ways we can come together in unity because of Jesus. They espouse building bridges to connect these diverse people and groups in fellowship and cooperation for the sake of missions and evangelism. Other Southern Baptists believe such diversity---in style, methodology, and especially in doctrine---is a threat to our Baptist identity and heritage. They advocate separating from those who differ from them in one or more of these respects, a path that I refer to as bridge burning. In this post I want to focus on three Southern Baptist leaders who support building bridges---Thom Rainer, Morris Chapman, and Bill Curtis.

My use of the bridge metaphor is based on an article written by Lifeway president Thom Rainer after he spoke at the Baptist Identity Conference at Union University. In this article, Rainer mentions a number of the doctrines over which Southern Baptists disagree and basically says we should have fellowship and cooperate with one another in spite of our disagreement on these issues:

I am a part of a denomination that has many tracks but few bridges. And if we don’t start building some bridges quickly, God’s hand of blessing may move beyond us...

I spoke last week at the Baptist Identity Conference at Union University in Jackson, Tenn. From an outsider’s perspective, one might conclude that the crowd was like-minded. After all, it was a gathering of mostly Southern Baptists.

But I knew better. Present were five-point Calvinists and others who would not affirm all five points. Also in attendance were cessationists and non-cessationists, people with differing views of women in ministry, bloggers, and print-media writers. There were some who thought leaving "Baptist" out of a church’s name was wrong; and there were others had already taken the denominational label out of their church’s name. The views on eschatology held by the attendees were many.

It was a diverse group of Southern Baptists indeed.

I spoke to many people before and after my formal presentation. One person commented to me, "Dr. Rainer, I better leave you before people start wondering why we are speaking with each other." Admittedly, his comment was meant to be humorous. But it did have a sting of truth in it. The labels had already been applied. The sides had been chosen. And you had better be careful about the side you chose or the people with whom you associated.

I reject that line of thinking.

As far as I knew, everyone at that conference was my brother or sister in Christ. As far as I knew, everyone was a Bible believer. I refuse to let labels keep me from building bridges...

I understand the risk I am taking by writing these words. But silence is not an option. I must be about building bridges...Though I am a fallible and sinful person, I will seek God’s power to stay true to the following:

1. I stand firm on the inerrant Word of God. I support without reservation the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

2. Though I may disagree with some on secondary and tertiary issues, I will not let those points of disagreement tear down bridges of relationships with brothers and sisters in Christ.

3. I will seek to join with those who will work together on the common causes of missions, evangelism and the health of the local church.

4. I will seek God’s will in prayer before I write or speak a word of disagreement against another brother or sister in Christ or even a non-Christian. I will seek to see the plank in my own eye before pointing out the splinter in another person’s eye. I will follow the truths of Matthew 18 when I feel that I need to confront a brother or sister in Christ.

5. I will spend more time rejoicing in the Lord (Phil 4:4).

6. I will seek God’s power to have a more gentle and Christlike spirit (Phil 4:5).

7. I will pray that the lost and the unchurched world will know me by my Christlike love.

Such is my commitment.

If God so leads, I invite you to join me in building bridges.

Another SBC leader who would like to see more bridge building in the SBC is Executive Committee president Morris Chapman. One several occasions, most recently at the Executive Committee meeting February 19, Chapman has made it clear that, while we must always remain vigilant against those who would seek to undermine or deny the truthfulness and authority of Scripture, the time has come for Southern Baptists to stop fighting and cooperate for the sake of the Kingdom. He issued a clarion call for all Southern Baptist conservatives to come together in his message "The Fundamentals of Cooperating Conservatives," delivered at the 2004 Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis:

We must never cease to be vigilant against heresy. This is always the task of faithful Christians. However, crusades cannot last forever. Again and again we have debated vigorously that the conservative resurgence was theological, not political; that our objective was doctrinal purity, not political control.

If this is true, the crusade phase of the conservative resurgence has passed. The stated goals have been achieved. The battle has been won. Now there are other tasks at hand. We cannot linger at the base camp of biblical authority. We are a people who not only believe the Book; we are compelled to live by the Book. Biblical concepts such as surrender, sacrifice, righteousness, and holiness must consume our hearts and minds. We must plant churches on almost every corner of every block in this nation. And we must take the gospel to the ends of the earth. This is our biblical mandate. This is our commission.

In the spring of 1990 after it was announced I would be nominated for president of the Convention, I pledged to Southern Baptists that I would “enlarge the tent, lengthen the cords, and strengthen the stakes,” those same words stated in Isaiah 54:2

My promise was to all Southern Baptists who believe in the absolute authority of God’s Word. Then as now, there were those who rejected biblical fidelity and have excluded themselves from the historic convictions of Southern Baptists. They have excluded themselves from the pledge I made...

A mistake of some fundamentalist movements in the past has been the belief of the adherents that to be right with doctrine is to be right with the Lord. True righteousness was too easily discarded in favor of a type of dogmatism that was stifling and demoralizing to other Christians. In other words, right doctrine was equated to righteous living. They are not one and the same...

It is the sin of Pharisaism when good people, whose theology and ministry are above reproach, are slandered, discredited, or ostracized simply because they refuse to blindly follow particular political posturing. Innuendos, unfounded rumors, sly winks and nods are as deadly as an assassin’s bullet and usually as ungodly.

Could Southern Baptists fall into the error of Pharisaism? Could we ever, while priding ourselves on orthodox beliefs, be out of fellowship with the Living God and the true saints of God? The threat is real. I am concerned…now that we have affirmed by vigorous endeavor that Southern Baptists are people of the Book, that we will develop a censorious, exclusivistic, intolerant spirit. If this occurs, we will be the poorer for it. It will not only result in narrower participation in denominational life, a shallower pool of wisdom and giftedness in our enterprises, and a shrinking impact upon the world, but we will be in the unenviable position of being right on doctrine but wrong with God.

NAMB trustee chairman Bill Curtis is another prominent SBC leader who understands the importance of building bridges. In an interview with South Carolina pastor Chadwick Ivester, Curtis encourages Southern Baptists to unite together within the boundaries of the BFM 2000 and cooperate for the sake of missions and evangelism [material in brackets is mine]:

As it stands, there seems to be two major groups in the SBC, and they view this situation differently. Group A fears the contemporary worship movement and the increasing number of pastors who are Reformed [or those who have a private prayer language or who believe the Bible does not require total abstinence from alcohol or who believe...]. Group B fears a further "narrowing" of the convention based upon personal preferences and generational methodologies. What you have is two different groups looking at the same issues from totally different sides. And that’s where, for Southern Baptists, a choice must be made: Are we going to make preference issues a test of fellowship within our convention? Or are we going to say, "No, we have a document which serves as a statement of our collective beliefs called the Baptist Faith & Message 2000. We’re going to let that be the document that helps us define who we are. And when there are opposing positions which can exist within the confines of that document, we’re not going to break fellowship over those issues but move ahead together to fulfill our primary mission as a convention—fulfilling the Great Commission." ...

In the long term, however, our ability to sustain that missionary effort will be dependent upon the degree to which we, as a people, can work together. My concern is with the potential fallout from a further narrowing the SBC tent. The choice to limit cooperation even further will affect our capacity to support missionaries and to fulfill the Great Commission as a convention.

Thom Rainer, Morris Chapman, and Bill Curtis speak for many Southern Baptists when they call on us to join together in spite of our differences in style, methodology, and doctrine. They believe that cooperation in missions and evangelism is important enough that we should focus more on those things that unite us (missions & evangelism, the BFM) than on those things that divide us (worship styles, methodology, or specific interpretations on issues such as the sign gifts, eschatology, and soteriology). This does not mean that these men, and others who favor a bridge building approach, are soft on doctrine. I would be highly surprised if these men did not have strong positions on each of these contentious issues. However, they understand that, while all doctrine is important, there is a difference between essential doctrines and nonessential doctrines. They recognize that there is a difference between issues where the Bible is absolutely clear and those where the Bible is less clear. And they understand that the primary reason the SBC exists is not to define what Baptists believe on every single issue, but to facilitate cooperation among autonomous churches so that we can more effectively and efficiently take the gospel of Jesus Christ to all peoples.

In Part 3 I will look at some SBC leaders who, in my opinion, seek to lead us down the path of burning bridges with those who differ from the supposed majority view of Southern Baptists on a number of issues not addressed in the Baptist Faith & Message.

Are We Going to Build Bridges or Burn Them? (Part 1)

By now it should be obvious to anyone familiar with the Southern Baptist Convention that we are a diverse group. People from a variety of races, ethnicities, and languages make up our convention. Our churches range in size from a few people to several thousand people. We have churches in sparsely populated rural areas, small towns, suburban neighborhoods, inner cities, and cosmopolitan city centers. Our churches meet in small frame buildings, brick edifices with steeples and stained glass, cathedrals of stone, modernistic prefabricated structures, schools, movie theaters, individual homes, and almost anyplace else where people can gather. In our churches we sing hymns, contemporary praise songs, musically complex anthems, Southern gospel songs, ancient psalms, and many other styles of music accompanied by piano and organ, rock-n-roll band, orchestra, 5-piece country or bluegrass band, recorded music, and even a cappella. Our pastors wear suits, polo shirts and khakis, Hawaiian flowery shirts, jeans, even t-shirts and shorts. We have pastors with multiple doctorates, pastors who did not finish high school, and everything in between. Our churches have Sunday school and home cell groups, RAs/GAs/Acteens/Mission Friends, AWANA, and TeamKID. We reach out to others through weekly visitation, GROW, FAITH, relational evangelism, revival meetings, community service ministries, VBS, seeker-sensitive worship services, the NET, and many other programs, or even without a program.

It's not only in areas of style, methodology, or programming that we are diverse. We are also quite diverse in doctrine and theology. While we have a shared doctrinal core as articulated in the Baptist Faith & Message (and we have some disagreements over that), on other issues Southern Baptists have a wide range of beliefs. We have Calvinists and Arminians, cessasionists and continualists, every type of millennialist as well as some preterists, KJV-only folks and those who read The Message, those who believe the Bible allows drinking alcohol in moderation and those who believe the Bible demands total abstinence, those who engage the culture and those who try to separate from the culture, complementarians and egalitarians, Landmarkers and ecumenists, and so forth. On most of these issues Southern Baptists can be found at the extremes as well as all points in between.

While many of us view such diversity as an essential part of the unity to which Jesus calls His people, others are uncomfortable with or even suspicious of the diversity that now exists within the SBC. Many of them view changes in style, methods, or programming as compromising with the world. Some believe the church should be a refuge from the surrounding culture or simply wish to recreate the world they grew up in. Others believe that theological diversity inevitably results in syncretism or theological liberalism. However, some degree of diversity is unavoidable. We live in a society comprised of various subcultures; to reach people in all of these subcultures requires us to have cultural diversity within our churches. And like it or not, the SBC is going to have to tolerate a degree of theological diversity within its ranks if we are going to continue to play a vibrant role in God's redemptive mission. The Bible is not absolutely clear on every single point of doctrine. Because the Bible comes to us across wide barriers of time, culture, and language there are things within it that we cannot understand with certainty. Regarding such things, it is not uncommon for people who affirm the truthfulness, inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture to use sound exegetical and hermeneutical principles and come up with different interpretations of these issues.

We can respond to the diversity within the SBC in one of two ways. We can build bridges to join with those who differ from us in matters of style, methodology, and even theology (within the bounds of the BFM), or we can burn bridges with those who differ from us in these areas. People on both sides sincerely believe they are being faithful to the cause of Christ. Within the leadership of the SBC are advocates both approaches.

In Part 2 I will focus on some of the leaders in our convention who are in favor of building bridges.

SBC Executive Committee: "BFM 'Sufficient Guide' for Trustees"

During its meeting earlier this week, the SBC Executive Committee adopted a statement affirming that the Baptist Faith & Message is a "sufficient guide" for Southern Baptist entity trustees in establishing doctrinal policies. The Baptist Press article announcing this development states in part:

The Executive Committee, in response to a BF&M-related motion at last year’s annual meeting in Greensboro, N.C., stated that it "acknowledges the Baptist Faith and Message is not a creed, or a complete statement of our faith, nor final or infallible, nevertheless we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention." [Emphasis is mine.]

It remains to be seen what effect, if any, this statement will have when the IMB Board of Trustees revisit the policies on private prayer language and baptism at their March or May meeting. They are already on record as declaring, "While the Baptist Faith and Message represents a general confession of Southern Baptist beliefs related to Biblical teachings on primary doctrinal and social issues, the IMB retains the prerogative and responsibility of further defining the parameters of doctrinal beliefs and practices of its missionaries who serve Southern Baptists with accountability to this board."

It is my hope and prayer that the IMB and all of our other entities will heed the Executive Committee's statement and repeal any doctrinal requirements other than the BFM. If they refuse to comply voluntarily, the convention needs to require that they do so. Not being an expert on the SBC Constitution & Bylaws, I do not know if this can be done without revising the bylaws. But even if the bylaws have to be revised, we need to ensure that all of our entities are operating according to the same doctrinal standard. No Southern Baptist who is in agreement with our general doctrinal statement should be rejected by any of our entities because he or she does not share a particular interpretation that has not been officially adopted by the SBC.

Sheri Klouda: "I Was Let Go 'Because I'm Female'"

I encourage you to read Sheri Klouda's interview with WFAA-TV in Dallas/Fort Worth. In the interview she makes some strong statements about the events surrounding her departure from Southwestern Seminary. The following statements, if true, make me even more outraged about what happened and the way that it happened:

"I was told that I was a mistake that trustees needed to fix," she said. "Those are the exact words." And she said she was told she could no longer teach at the seminary for one simple reason. "Because I am a female," she said...

But Dr. Klouda said she was deceived as well by Seminary President Paige Patterson. "Initially, I felt like Dr. Patterson lied to me as far as his intentions," she said. In 2003, Dr. Klouda said she went to Dr. Patterson for reassurance after he had taken over the seminary. Even though Klouda got her degree from Southwestern and had been teaching there for three years, she said she was troubled by Patterson's strict interpretation of the passage from Timothy. "He told me I had nothing to worry about, his exact words," she said. But two years later, she had plenty to worry about. She said while no one challenged her teaching, Dr. Patterson said she was no longer wanted at the seminary as a teacher.

Whether or not you believe that it is proper for women to teach men theology and biblical languages, the issues raised by Klouda's statements should be troubling. If it is true that Paige Patterson misled Sheri Klouda into believing that she would continue in her tenure-track position at Southwestern, then his ability to effectively lead the seminary is compromised. If it is true that a seminary trustee or administrator told Klouda that she was a "mistake that trustees needed to fix," we should be concerned that our leaders are so insensitive to the human aspect of this situation. And should these allegations turn out to be false, we in the SBC should be concerned as to why so many Southern Baptists found such allegations to be plausible.

Someone Who Gets It!

I strongly encourage those of you who are interested in the future of the Southern Baptist Convention to read Chadwick Ivester's interview with NAMB trustee chairman Bill Curtis. In reading this interview I found myself thinking, "Here's a denominational leader who really gets it!" With a clarity that is rarely seen among our convention's leaders, Curtis lays out THE issue that we as Southern Baptists must deal with [material in brackets is mine]:

As it stands, there seems to be two major groups in the SBC, and they view this situation differently. Group A fears the contemporary worship movement and the increasing number of pastors who are Reformed [or those who have a private prayer language or who believe the Bible does not require total abstinence from alcohol or who believe...]. Group B fears a further "narrowing" of the convention based upon personal preferences and generational methodologies. What you have is two different groups looking at the same issues from totally different sides. And that’s where, for Southern Baptists, a choice must be made: Are we going to make preference issues a test of fellowship within our convention? Or are we going to say, "No, we have a document which serves as a statement of our collective beliefs called the Baptist Faith & Message 2000. We’re going to let that be the document that helps us define who we are. And when there are opposing positions which can exist within the confines of that document, we’re not going to break fellowship over those issues but move ahead together to fulfill our primary mission as a convention—fulfilling the Great Commission." ...

In the long term, however, our ability to sustain that missionary effort will be dependent upon the degree to which we, as a people, can work together. My concern is with the potential fallout from a further narrowing the SBC tent. The choice to limit cooperation even further will affect our capacity to support missionaries and to fulfill the Great Commission as a convention.

I'm pretty sure that on some of the controversial doctrinal issues being debated within the SBC Bill Curtis and I have totally different views. But we both agree that on these issues of secondary importance---which are not addressed in the BFM 2000---we can hold differing views and still cooperate for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission. If more leaders like Bill Curtis stand up and speak out, the Southern Baptist Convention may have a bright future after all.

Sheri Klouda: "'Tis a Puzzlement"

In today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram, there is an article by former Southwestern Seminary professor Sheri Klouda in which she discusses some of the feelings and questions she still has about her departure from Southwestern. In the article she says that, while not "brittle and full of malice," she is still "puzzled" about the chain of events that culminated in her forced [my word, not hers] departure from the seminary.

Here are some of the questions Dr. Klouda still has [all material in quotes comes directly from the article]:

1. How could Southwestern's trustees (many of whom are still serving) and then-president elect her to the seminary's faculty if they did not believe her election to be in line with the BFM 2000 (which she "proudly and publicly" signed)?
2. "Is it not fair and right to allow a female professor, hired under the same terms as other faculty members, to undergo the same tenure evaluation process and receive objective affirmation or denial on the basis of her teaching abilities, professional development, scholarly achievements and publications, collegiality and service to the students?"
3. If hiring her was a momentary lapse in judgment or a relaxation of "well defined parameters of objective truth" (as at least one trustee has stated), why did they want her to leave "unobtrusively" and give the impression that the departure were her own idea?
4. "Why didn't someone acknowledge the tremendous financial and emotional burden placed on my family through no fault of my own? Why not, as the Scriptures teach, make right the wrong? After seven years of dedicated service, shouldn't I at least receive an apology?"
   

Dr. Klouda is not the only one who is puzzled and has questions.

(HT: Ben Cole)

A Word from the Field

In the midst of all of our discussions, debates, and even arguments over doctrinal parameters and policies in the Southern Baptist Convention, let us not forget that our words, our tone, and the decisions that are made are affecting the work and the morale of our missionaries. Listen to this statement from Nomad, a missionary serving with the IMB in the 10/40 window:

I can't help but to be discouraged to be overseas and know that my supporters are at odds with one another over things that mostly likely don't have an eternal significance. The very people who are supposed to be praying, giving, and participating, are instead spending all of their time arguing. Looks like Satan has pulled one over on us and is making us think this "stuff" is more important than seeing a lost world reconciled to God. May God have mercy on us!

Let us all remember that, no matter what side of these issues we may find ourselves on, the reason the SBC exists is to support missions work cooperatively through our prayers, our giving, and our service. We do not have to agree on every jot and tittle in order to cooperate. Is doctrine important? Absolutely! Are there points of doctrine that we must take an uncompromising stance on in order to be faithful to the gospel? Certainly! Are there points of doctrine that are not worth arguing over if such arguing hinders our cooperation in missions? You'd better believe it!

Now I'm enough of a realist to understand that we will not all agree on which doctrines belong in which category, but I strongly urge all of us to ask ourselves the following question about each doctrinal issue under discussion: Would I be comfortable standing before God and telling Him that I worked to keep someone off the mission field (or made their journey to the field more difficult) on the basis of this point of doctrine?

I'm also enough of an idealist to believe that we who claim to be born again can discuss, debate, and disagree in a manner that does not hurt the morale of our missionaries or, even worse, bring reproach on the name of Christ in the eyes of the world. While there are occasions where it is necessary to rebuke a fellow believer, most of the personal statements that are being made in these discussions are not biblical rebukes; they are character attacks, which may be the norm for politics inside the Beltway but have no place in the Kingdom of God. I would guess that it is the tone of our discussions, more so than the content, that is causing so much of the discouragement and disillusionment we are beginning to see among our missionaries and missional minded Southern Baptists. Let the discussion continue, but let's make sure that both what we say and how we say it reflect the One to whom we belong.