On the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention

[The following post is updated from a section in a longer article on the Southern Baptist Convention, published before the 2021 annual meeting; that article is found HERE.]

Here’s a fact that may be surprising to some readers; as of the time that I’m writing this article, on September 29, 2021, THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION DOES NOT EXIST. This may be surprising to you. You may be thinking, “Hey! My church [or a church that some of my family/friends attend] gives money to the Cooperative Program of the SBC. I thought that the SBC DOES exist!”

Technically, the Southern Baptist Convention only exists for two days each year, at the annual meeting. Think of the term “convention”. What would you call a group when it’s not meeting together? Not a group: not a convention. Since the entities of the Southern Baptist Convention (including the seminaries and mission boards) continue to exist, carrying out the cooperative work of the Southern Baptists, most people take no note of this technical distinction.

But since the SBC doesn’t exist for most of the year, yet the cooperative efforts of the SBC continue, the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention acts for the Convention between sessions, reviewing the work of the Convention’s entities, receiving and distributing funds Southern Baptists give in support of denominational ministries, providing SBC public relations and news services, and performing other tasks assigned by the SBC. (See HERE.) It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the Executive Committee to make sure that the “overwhelming votes” of the messengers at the 2019 and 2021 SBC annual meetings, which affirmed our desire to “make inquiries and recommendations for action regarding instances of sexual abuse, racism or other issues” were fully acted upon. Based on current reports from Executive Committee meetings, it is clear that the will of the messengers has been actively frustrated, rather than responsibly carried out, by the Executive Committee. [See HERE.] Like I pointed out above, the SBC does not currently (technically) exist, but if there is not a significant change, the SBC SHOULD NOT EXIST any more. An SBC that does not respond to the will of the messengers is just a façade for a few people who have gathered power for themselves. At the very least, churches cooperating with the Southern Baptist Convention should prayerfully consider figuring out ways to stop giving funds to the Executive Committee itself.

On the Next SBC Presidential Candidate: Advice to Pirates

Background, Part 1: the Vote for SBC President

A month ago, messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) gathered in Nashville, TN for our annual meeting. One key action at the annual meeting is the election of the SBC president. This year, there were four nominees for president, and a candidate for the SBC presidency must win more than 50% of the vote, so a run-off election was expected. I voted for Al Mohler, who is the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, from which I earned an M.Div and a Th.M, but he did not make the run-off election. The run-off election was between Mike Stone and Ed Litton, and I had serious concerns about both candidates, so I did not vote in that run-off. Ed Litton won.

The main reasons I did not vote for Ed Litton are: 1) before his congregation, for the Lord’s Day worship service, Litton has co-taught with his wife, and I think this undercuts the Southern Baptist confession that, “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture;” 2) I do not believe that his church’s form of church government (having two campuses, rather than a single local church planting an independent autonomous church) is right.

Background, Part 2: the Aftermath of the SBC Presidential Vote

Almost immediately upon the close of the annual meeting, some of those who supported Mike Stone for SBC president began searching for (additional) reasons why Litton should not have won. They seemed to be either looking to the 2022 SBC presidential election, or (increasingly) to be angling for Litton to be impeached (or forced to resign). Sadly, Litton had provided his opponents with ammunition against him in the form of: 1) grave doctrinal error on his church’s website; 2) a highly suspect statement concerning sexual immorality; 3) preaching substantial sections of J.D. Greear’s sermons, and using Greear’s sermon outlines, as his own.

Background, Part 3: a Brief Evaluation of the Litton Controversies Thus Far

1) When he was elected SBC president, Litton’s church website had a statement (pictured above) indicating that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “parts” of God. Messengers were not aware of this when they elected him. (Why not? More on that below.) I saw the statement shortly after the election; shortly after THAT, the heretical statement was removed. Even more recently, the shorter, congregation-specific statement of belief that had been on the website has been replaced with the text of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

I have not heard or seen any evidence that Litton or anyone in his church was ever actually teaching that the Father, Son, and Spirit were “parts” of God. With the level of scrutiny that the recorded teachings from Litton’s church have now faced, I think it is likely that, if trinitarian heresy were being actively promoted, it would have come to light. Therefore, I do NOT think that this removed statement is compelling evidence that Litton is an anti-trinitarian heretic. I DO think that this (along with the following) is indicative of a CARELESSNESS concerning doctrine: a carelessness that is unbecoming of an SBC president.

2) Immediately following the SBC presidential election, a clip from one of Litton’s sermons began circulating on social media. In this clip, Litton claims that the Bible “whispers” about sexual sin (specifically in reference to homosexuality), while “shouting” about other sins. In context, I believe that the basic point at which Litton was driving is this: we are all sinners in need of a Savior, and social conservatives need to deal with our own sins, not just forcefully declaim the sins of others. Litton’s motivation in having made this statement seems to be evangelistic: to gain a hearing from homosexuals or those who may be sympathetic toward sufferings endured by the “gay community.”

HOWEVER: it’s simply not true that the Bible “whispers” about sexual sin. A basic reading of Romans 1 demonstrates this. An SBC president needs to be able to clearly proclaim that we’re all sinners in need of a Savior without downplaying the specific personal and societal harms caused by homosexual activity.

3) Litton’s statement about the Bible ‘whispering’ about sexual sin reminded many of us that J.D. Greear previously had made the same statement. Now, making the same statement as another preacher (without attribution) is not plagiarism. Despite what some people now seem to be indicating, there is a different standard for a speech or sermon than an academic paper. The speaker/preacher does not have to use air quotes or give attribution to every phrase that is similar (or even the same) as another speaker’s or preacher’s. Consider how many times you’ve heard a preacher say “context is king” or “you have to note what the ‘therefore’ is ‘there for’” without giving a source for the phrase.

But someone online found Greear’s sermon, compared it to Litton’s, and found something startling, and much more troubling, than a single repeated phrase (setting aside the issue of how the phrase itself, in this case, is dubious). It turns out that Litton incorporated entire sections from Greear’s sermon into his own. When people pointed this out, Greear released a statement saying that he had given permission for Litton to use his sermon in this way.

HOWEVER: a few comparison videos have come out, showing that Litton has engaged in a pattern of preaching sections of Greear’s sermons (and using Greear’s outlines) as his own. This raises questions of when Greear gave permission for Litton to use his sermons/outlines (one of the videos shows key sections from a 2013 sermon by Greear being used in a 2015 sermon by Litton) and whether Litton’s congregation has been aware of this practice. Many Southern Baptists (and not only those who voted for Mike Stone against Litton) are deeply concerned about this “Sermongate” situation.

Background, Part 4: Where Was the Vetting?

Notice that all the situations described above involve statements/sermons from Litton (or his church) that took place BEFORE he was elected SBC president. Why didn’t messengers KNOW about these before they voted at the SBC annual meeting? Why are these statements/sermons only NOW coming to light?

I myself wasn’t closely investigating Litton, because I knew who I WAS planning to vote for, and I already knew enough about Litton to know I WASN’T going to be voting for him. But there were people actively campaigning for Mike Stone (and the other would-be nominees) prior to the SBC annual meeting. Stone’s supporters included some “discernment bloggers,” who are usually quick to dig up dirt on those whom they perceive to be a threat; why did it take them so long to uncover “Sermongate”? Wouldn’t it have been beneficial to the SBC if the “discernment bloggers” had made and released their comparison videos PRIOR TO the annual meeting? 

Much of the energy in promoting Mike Stone involved an attempt to contrast him with Al Mohler, since these candidates were perceived as similar in their conservative convictions. By the time of the SBC annual meeting, when the initial presidential vote took place, it seems messengers had decided Mohler and Litton were sufficiently similar that the non-Stone vote was split between them, with Litton getting more votes than Mohler. One reason Litton received more votes than Mohler is that there was a certain anti-establishment sentiment at the convention.

Another reason Litton received more votes than Mohler is that the three controversies detailed above had not yet come to light. If they had, Mohler certainly would have received more votes than Litton. Consider these controversies. Mohler’s writings show a sufficient concern for the importance of doctrine (including trinitarian distinctions). On Mohler’s podcast (The Briefing), he often addresses the personal and societal dangers of homosexual sin, so it is not likely that Mohler would ever say that the Bible “whispers” about such sin. Mohler’s sermons and writings show a sufficient care for attributing sources, so that he is unlikely to ever be charged with plagiarism. This may be a ‘sour grapes’ suggestion from a Mohler voter, but it seems like some Mike Stone supporters may have been holding back on finding/releasing all the negative information on Litton in order to INTENTIONALLY split the vote between him and Mohler; the TIMING of when “Sermongate,” etc., has come to light seems politically motivated.

Moving Forward: a Change in Leadership is Needed

When Litton was elected, even though I did not vote for him, I sincerely hoped that he would do well as the SBC president. Knowing that some people had been so animated in their support for Stone, I suspected that Litton would face continued opposition: that some would try to undermine his presidency and have him voted out in 2022. Though there is an SBC presidential election every year, there has usually been a kind of ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ to NOT vote out the president after his first term, so I was initially troubled at the thought that someone would likely be nominated against Litton in 2022.

However, the Litton controversies detailed above have made it so that, supposing I can make it to the 2022 SBC meeting in Anaheim, I will almost certainly be willing to vote for someone to replace him. Though some are calling for Litton’s impeachment, as far as I can tell, the SBC Constitution (under Article V) only allows for the vice president to assume the office of president in the case of the president’s death or disability. One benefit of having a presidential election every year is that if the messengers make a poor choice, the president’s term of office doesn’t have to last for all that long.

The Kind of SBC President We Need

Those who supported Mike Stone for SBC president will certainly be looking to nominate someone to challenge Litton in 2022. Many in the SBC (even beyond those who voted for Stone) will be looking to elect someone other than Litton. But this does NOT mean that the SBC messengers who did not previously vote for Stone will be willing automatically to vote for Mike Stone or whomever else those who supported him decide to nominate.

Presumably, those who supported Stone would’ve liked it if, in the run-off election, the messengers who had voted for Mohler would have given their votes to Stone instead of voting for Litton (or nobody). Therefore, they should be open to some advice. And we all should consider: what kind of president does the SBC need at this moment? I would suggest that, whatever other qualifications he has, we need a president who has specific convictions concerning theology/soteriology and who is without even a hint of wavering concerning the protection of those who have been victimized due to sexual abuse. Furthermore, I would suggest that, if a nominee is going to be presented as a normal rural church pastor, then he should be a true outsider to SBC politics. Finally: a nominee for SBC president needs to be absolutely removed from any “Sermongate” activities.

Explanation

1) The president of the Southern Baptist Convention should be concerned with right theology. Furthermore, I—along with many others in the SBC—continue to believe that the SBC needs to see continued reformation regarding a clear proclamation of the Doctrines of Grace. I am NOT saying that I would only vote for an SBC presidential nominee who is a 7+ point Calvinist like I am. I could definitely see voting for someone who self-describes as a “4 point Calvinist” or an Amyraldian, even though I think those sorts of positions are ultimately inconsistent. However, I believe an SBC president MUST display a high view of God’s sovereignty and a biblical view of mankind’s depravity. Those who hold to a “traditionalist” (that is: semi-Pelagian) view (as I believe Mike Stone does) should not be nominated.

2) In light of sexual abuse and covering up abuse, which sources like The Houston Chronicle have uncovered within SBC-affiliated churches, it is vital that the president of the SBC can be trusted to carry out the will of the messengers regarding investigations into these issues, and he must lead in making sure that the Credentials Committee is active in disfellowshipping churches that permit or fail to report abuse. Prior to the 2021 SBC annual meeting, letters and audio were leaked that raised questions for me (and many messengers) about whether Mike Stone would be diligent in carrying out the messengers’ votes in this area or whether he is overly concerned with the reputation of the Convention. At the 2021 SBC annual meeting, there were reports on Twitter that Mike Stone told an abuse survivor that, by insisting more be done for other survivors, she was “doing harm” to the denomination. Now: I know that some Stone supporters deny the accuracy of these letters, audio, and tweets, but for the 2022 SBC presidential election, there must surely be a candidate whose track record demonstrates him to be without even a hint of wavering concerning the protection of those who have been victimized due to sexual abuse.

3) Going into the 2021 SBC annual meeting, some of Mike Stone’s supporters seemed to be trying to promote him as a rural pastor and an outsider to SBC politics. Now, obviously, my own vote was not motivated by the insider/outsider contrast; no one could argue that Mohler is an SBC outsider. However, there did seem to be an anti-establishment sentiment at the Convention. And the idea that Stone, who was chairman of the SBC Executive Committee, is any kind of “outsider” is laughable. If a nominee is going to be put forward as an “outsider,” then that label must be genuine.

4) The “Sermongate” situation following the 2021 SBC annual meeting has, understandably, made many Southern Baptists wary of Docent Research Group, which “exists to equip pastors and executive pastors of large churches with the tools and resources they need to minister in their unique contexts;” Docent is basically a paid service to do sermon preparation for pastors. There have been charges that Mike Stone has sold some sermons to Docent. I can find no verification for this; however, given that Stone’s supporters have been quick to defend him in other areas, I find it suspicious that they have (as far as I have seen) remained completely silent regarding these allegations.

Regarding this last point, I want to be clear that IF it turns out Stone has had some interactions with Docent (either giving or even selling some of his materials to Docent), I DON’T think that’s as bad as what we have seen from Litton. Theoretically (at least), a pastor could use materials from Docent in a similar way that pastors use biblehub.com or Logos software; that is, they COULD use Docent as a resource, not to replace every aspect of sermon preparation. Preaching someone else’s sermons (or repeatedly incorporating entire segments from his sermons into your own) is WORSE than having your sermons on a website where others probably will be copying them. However, at this point, I don’t think the messengers will be excited to vote for a nominee who’s had dealings with an organization like Docent in any capacity.

Conclusion

These are my own thoughts and evaluations regarding the current SBC president, as well as my suggestions to anyone who might be considering nominating someone for SBC president in 2022. Obviously, other issues could be mentioned. Whatever your opinion of my thoughts, evaluations, and suggestions, I ask that you join with me in prayer for the future of the SBC.

Re: the “Resolution on Abolishing Abortion.” Did SBC Messengers Know What We Were Voting For?

At the 2021 Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) annual meeting week before last, a solid majority of the messengers in attendance passed the “Resolution on Abolishing Abortion.” Last week, 6 Southern Baptist ethicists had serious enough concerns that they published an article at thepublicdiscourse.com explaining their opposition to this resolution. Explaining his opposition to the “Resolution on Abolishing Abortion,” Denny Burk (one of those 6 Southern Baptist ethicists) posted a Twitter thread which included the following:

The direct implication of this tweet, along with some others’ statements on Twitter, is that when the messengers passed the “Resolution on Abolishing Abortion,” we didn’t really understand what we were doing.

Re: the Possibility of Messengers Passing a Resolution We Do Not Really Understand

Is it possible that messengers to the SBC might pass a resolution that we do not really understand? It certainly is. Consider two examples: one from each of the most recent Convention annual meetings.

The only time I have ever spoken on a microphone at the Convention annual meeting was to ask for clarification on this year’s “Resolution on Sole Membership.” I asked about it because I didn’t understand it, and nobody around me seemed to understand it either. Bart Barber, representing the Resolutions Committee, addressed my question from the stage, and the resolution was approved. But even after a clear majority of messengers passed the resolution, when I asked any fellow messenger to explain it, they either: 1) said that it was ‘about the legal relationship between the Convention and its entities [which may be true, but is neither specific nor particularly helpful for understanding why such a resolution was favorable]; 2) clearly had “sole membership” confused with “sole competency,” and they had voted on the resolution because they viewed the doctrine of “sole competency” as a standard Baptist distinctive.

More significantly, the messengers at the 2019 annual meeting passed the now-infamous “Resolution on Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality.” I was disappointed when Tom Ascol’s proposed amendment to that resolution did not pass, and I wrote against the resolution following the Convention. I believed, and continue to believe, that the resolution passed because the messengers heard language that they thought was affirming ‘the SBC is against racism,’ and they simply (and commendably) wanted to vote against racism. The idea that the 2019 messengers voted for a resolution that they did not adequately understand (rather than thinking that they understood and voted for the resolution because they were firmly convinced of CRT and Intersectionality’s usefulness in addressing racism) is supported by the hard about-face we saw regarding CRT between the 2019 and the 2021 meeting. [There was no annual meeting in 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic.] The messengers did not change their minds about the wickedness of racism, they just gained information about CRT.

Did the Messengers Fail to Understand the “Resolution on Abolishing Abortion”?

But I do not believe that the messengers to the 2021 Convention annual meeting passed the “Resolution on Abolishing Abortion” out of ignorance or confusion. Consider the following:

1. Did the messengers pass the resolution because they were blindly following SBC leadership? When messengers pass resolutions they do not understand, such a vote is often a function of our relying on SBC leaders to present worthwhile resolutions to us through the Resolutions Committee. I believe this explains our passage of both the “Resolution on Sole Membership” and the “Resolution on Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality.” HOWEVER, that CANNOT be said of the “Resolution on Abolishing Abortion.” IN FACT, the resolution did not come through the Resolutions Committee, but had to be brought to the floor by a 2/3 vote of the messengers. Blind trust in SBC leadership cannot account for passage of this resolution, as the Committee clearly did not want the resolution voted upon, and representatives from both Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission spoke against the resolution.
2. Did the messengers pass the resolution simply due to its title? The messengers could have been persuaded to vote for the resolution simply due to the title, “Resolution on Abolishing Abortion,” without knowing what was in the resolution. Against this idea, however, it should be noted that the resolution was printed without its title in the Wednesday Bulletin. (The bulletin is the only place that the SBC, as a body, gives for publishing the content of the resolutions to be voted upon.) Furthermore, instead of referring to the resolution by name, J.D. Greear (who was then serving as SBC President) consistently referred to it as “the Bill Ascol resolution” from the stage. (Bill Ascol eventually had to raise an objection to this, and he noted that a group of people had authored the resolution.)
3. Did the messengers pass the resolution because they lacked sufficient time to discern what was in the resolution? Usually, the messengers do not know the text of any resolution that they will vote upon until they read the resolution in the Convention Bulletin, which is released on the morning of the vote. Because this resolution did not come through the Resolutions Committee, the wording of the resolution was exactly the same as what appeared on the “Southern Baptists for Abolishing Abortion” website previous to the Convention. Also, several people in favor of the resolution were standing outside doors to the Convention hall, giving out booklets that contained the text of the resolution along with an explanation for several points of the resolution. The people who were handing out the booklets were happy to engage in conversation (I spoke to one of them for awhile), and they were forthright as to what they were trying to accomplish.
4. Did the messengers pass the resolution as it was written? The messengers voted to amend the resolution, then a solid majority voted to pass the resolution. If the resolution had passed without amendment, then the idea that we were voting based on confusion or ignorance would carry more weight. The fact that messengers read the resolution closely enough to want an amendment, then we passed an amendment, indicates that there is something about the resolution that we thought needed to change, but that there is also something about this specific resolution that we wanted to affirm.

Actual Resolve on Abolishing Abortion

My point in this post is not that Denny Burk or the other SBC ethicists are wrong about everything. I thought the resolution needed to be amended. I disagree with my friends who think that voting for any incremental law to oppose abortion is necessarily sinful, and I think we should argue against that view.

However, I hope that those in SBC leadership—those who tried to keep the resolution from the floor and those who are now arguing against it—will heed the real concerns expressed by the messengers. We were not just ignorant or confused when we passed the resolution. With hundreds of thousands of children being murdered each year “an incremental approach alone” (as we resolved at the Convention) is NOT ENOUGH. We need a stronger, more consistent approach to ending this evil of legalized murder from our land.

Response to “Why We Opposed an Anti-Abortion Resolution at the Southern Baptist Convention”

At the 2021 Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting last week, a solid majority of the messengers in attendance passed the “Resolution on Abolishing Abortion.” Yesterday, 6 Southern Baptist ethicists had serious enough concerns that they published an article at thepublicdiscourse.com explaining their opposition to this resolution.

These ethicists wrote, “The resolution on abortion that was passed at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville was well-intended but woefully flawed.” The ‘woeful flaws’ they see are that the resolution does not include an exception under which abortions would be allowed in order to save a mother’s life and that the resolution rejects incrementalism.

I would say that the resolution was well-intended, that it was good overall, though it could be amended in some ways, especially in the strident language rejecting incrementalism.

Abortions to Save a Mother’s Life?

The Southern Baptist ethicists wrote, “[This resolution] offers no exception for the life of the mother.” This observation might, in itself, be enough to seriously alarm many Southern Baptists (and others). If both a mother and her child are going to die as a result of an ectopic pregnancy or other complication (and especially if the child is going to die either way), then shouldn’t an exception be made to allow for an abortion? This line of reasoning is what has led Southern Baptists to regularly affirm exceptions for the life of the mother in our resolutions against abortion.

Those who brought forward the Resolution on Abolishing Abortion have a web article, giving what I believe are sufficient answers to this issue concerning the life of a mother. (The article, which can be read HERE, is mostly focused on the issue of ectopic pregnancies, since this is a concrete situation often raised in this discussion.)

First, the approach in true healthcare, under the Hippocratic Oath, is “do no harm.” Meaning: do everything you can to save a life. Abortionists aren’t aiming to save a life. On the contrary, they’re aiming to take life. In the situation of ectopic pregnancy and a living baby, a doctor would have two patients, mother and baby, with both of their well being in mind.

Second, an ectopic pregnancy is an emergency situation that should be managed and monitored in a hospital emergency room, not an abortion clinic. Abortion clinics schedule their life-taking murders in advance. Emergency rooms provide life-saving care immediately.

Third, if the doctor is doing everything he/she can to save both lives, his/her training in medical triage will assist him/her in providing care. Should the baby die in the process of trying to save both lives, then just as in any other triage situation, he/she is neither a murderer nor held liable as such. He/she neither had the intent to murder nor the ability ultimately to save the life he/she was trying to save. Like any other healthcare law affecting doctors, abolition bills would not punish a well-meaning doctor for trying to save a life.

Fourth, all states already have laws on record, which would still be in effect with the passage of an abolition bill, protecting doctors from prosecution if they “make a good faith effort to save the life of a patient, but are unable to do so.”

Fifth, a mother whose intention is to do all she can to save and not kill her baby is both not a murderer, nor will she be held responsible for her baby’s death in an ectopic pregnancy she couldn’t control, or the doctor couldn’t save.

Sixth, each state’s homicide laws, which would be the enforcement mechanism in the event an abolition bill was passed, would not punish a mother or a doctor for attempting to do all they could to save the life of the baby.

When thinking about whether an “exception” clause in our pro-life resolutions is necessary, (at least) two related issues must be considered. 1. Is abortion necessary to save a mother’s life? 2. Would an “exception” clause be needed in order to legally protect doctors and mothers, in the case that a pre-born child is (tragically and regrettably) killed in the process of saving a mother’s life?

Part of this discussion is that abortion—the intentional killing of an unborn child—is not the right tool to deal with medical procedures like ectopic pregnancies. If the child must be surgically delivered from the mother’s body, and that child is so premature or medically distressed that he or she dies during or after the removal, then that is a different issue than intentionally killing the child within the mother.

The Southern Baptist ethicists wrote:

Some ethicists question whether a child’s death resulting from removal of fallopian tube qualifies as an “abortion,” as such, since the death of the child is not intended, even if it is foreseen. We believe that, regardless of how one labels the procedure, the larger moral principle holds. It is good and right to save the life of the one in instances when both cannot be saved. [Emphasis added.]

But the lack of a exception allowing for abortion to save a mother’s life—whether such an “exception” clause is needed—in part HINGES on “how one labels the procedure.” I think most Southern Baptists now understand the term “abortion” to mean “the intentional killing of the unborn.” This is evident by our passing the Resolution on Abolishing Abortion without any exception clause. So if part of this conversation is due to Southern Baptists now understanding this term less “generically,” and with regard to intent, then that could make a crucial difference as to whether Southern Baptist messengers should consider the resolution’s lack of an exception clause to be a problem or a strength.

A second part of this discussion is that a mother who loses her child in pregnancy (along with the doctor making a good-faith effort to assist both her and the child) is already not legally responsible for the death of the child. Is an exception clause then needed to make sure that abortion [at least “generically” defined] continues to be allowed to preserve the life of the mother? Writing about torture—another terrible procedure, which may be deemed necessary in extreme and unusual circumstances—Albert Mohler noted:

The safe transit of automobiles requires a set of well-established, public, and intelligible traffic laws, including speed limits. At the same time, a parent rushing a bleeding child to the hospital may be stopped by a police officer, but such a parent is not likely to be arrested and prosecuted for breaking this law. Why? Because the parent’s action, under a set of unexpected but conceivable conditions, was understood by legal authorities to have been justified under this precise set of circumstances. The government does not stipulate in advance that such a set of allowable conditions exists, nor does it attempt to exhaust in advance what circumstances might exist that would be similarly justified. Instead, the law is understood to remain in full effect with full integrity even as legitimate and authorized legal agents decide not to arrest or prosecute a citizen whose law-breaking was understood to be justified under these precise circumstances. The rule is unchanged, and the law is not mocked.

Similarly, the practice of medicine involves the physician’s responsibility to make split-second life and death decisions in the course of medical extremity. No precise set of laws, rules, or regulations can be set forth in advance, even as principles and best practices for medical practice are standardized. One simply cannot remove the physician as a responsible moral agent in the actual context of medical practice – even and especially in emergency cases. Yet, medical review boards exist to review the physician’s decisions and actions in retrospect.

https://albertmohler.com/2005/12/20/torture-and-the-war-on-terror-we-must-not-add-dirty-rules-to-dirty-hands

Mohler uses the above analogies to help make the argument that torture is so terrible that it should ALWAYS be outlawed, and that “we must not add dirty rules to dirty hands.” These analogies (along with an analogy to torture) would pertain to any medically-necessary abortion as well. In this case (if ending the child’s life were truly unavoidable for saving the life of the mother) there are no “dirty hands,” but the precise situation should be considered justified without our arguing that “dirty rules” should be put into place (especially as we have seen that such rules would inevitably be exploited by the abortion industry).

Incrementalism: Better Than Nothing, but Insufficient

On incrementalism, the Southern Baptist ethicists helpfully note: “Incrementalism is the idea that, while we all are working for the complete abolition of abortion, we also want to support measures to limit and curtail abortion along the way to save as many lives as we can.” This is “incrementalism” at its best, with its eye firmly on the goal. However, to those of us who were happy to vote for the Resolution on Abolishing Abortion, it does not seem that enough headway has been made toward that goal. Some of us are also concerned about tactics used in incrementalism: tactics expressed in such as way as to obscure our actual goal.

As I’ve noted before, I do think that some of my friends who were in favor of the Resolution on Abolishing Abortion are WRONG in some of their language, which can tend to paint any incremental measure to end abortion as sinful. The Southern Baptist ethicists are RIGHT to point out:

enacting partial-birth abortion bans, passing parental notification laws, approving “heartbeat bills,” opening crisis pregnancy centers, and other such measures. None of these measures constitute the complete abolition of abortion, but they do save precious human lives along the way to total abolition.

HOWEVER: “an incremental approach alone” ( I do appreciate the amended wording of the resolution) has shown itself insufficient. If the Resolutions Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention had been successful in keeping the “Resolution on Abolishing Abortion” from the Convention floor, then the only resolution regarding abortion would have been one that affirmed support for the Hyde Amendment. THE HYDE AMENDMENT WENT INTO EFFECT IN 1980. The Southern Baptist ethicists wrote of incrementalism with an analogy to D-day, saying:

Of course the goal is the total conquest of the Nazis in Berlin, but that goal can only be reached incrementally. You have to land the troops in Normandy and fight your way through. Sitting on the beach in England and declaring your “total conquest” principles would never have driven the Nazis out of France. You have to fight inch by inch, yard by yard, mile by mile until total victory is achieved.

Too often however, the gains made by incrementalism seem much more analogous to seeing the Allies arrive in Normandy, only to remain holding more or less of that one area. And those of us who gladly voted for the Resolution on Abolishing Abortion start wondering how many ‘increments’ incrementalism will take. Sure, you can’t travel a mile without traveling a yard; you can’t travel a yard without traveling a foot; you can’t travel a foot without traveling an inch; you can’t travel an inch without traveling a half-inch, a quarter-inch, an eighth-inch, etc. But sometimes it seems that crossing these infinitesimal increments is all we ever do or all we ever will do. It gets hard to imagine us ever doing something more than placing a few more ultrasound machines and affirming the Hyde Amendment, or some other piece of good but inadequate legislation just like it.

And though Southern Baptists are usually clear that we’re “working for the complete abolition of abortion,” the pro-life politicians with whom we communicate are sometimes less so. One tactic by pro-life politicians has been to pass legislation requiring abortion clinics to have an agreement with a local hospital, so that in emergency situations involving the life or health of the mother (since intentionally ending the life of the child is not considered an emergency at all), the mother will have easy access to treatment. As many hospitals are loathe to enter into such an agreement, this kind of legislation can effectively shut down an abortion clinic, at least for awhile. On NPR, I’ve heard some interviewers questioning politicians sponsoring this kind of legislation, and those politicians consistently act as if these laws are only about the health of the mother, not about the life of the child. Though I’m truly thankful for any life saved through such a maneuver, this kind of ‘incremental’ tactic raises ethical questions. Christians should be concerned when incremental tactics are used, when those tactics are contrary to basic honesty, or when they obscure crucial issues of justice (in this case, by pretending that the life of the child is an unimportant consideration).

Conclusion

The Southern Baptist ethicists rightly point out that “the immoral regime of Roe v. Wade has presided over the legal killing of over 60 million unborn children since 1973.” But (even as we approach the 50 year anniversary of this horrific court decision) they then want to emphasize “the successes of the pro-life movement.”

“[T]he successes of the pro-life movement” saw 619,591 legal induced abortions reported to the CDC in 2018 [the most current year they have listed on their website], and though the rate of abortions decreased overall from 2009 to 2018, “the successes of the pro-life movement” saw the abortion rate increase by 1% from 2017 to 2018.

“[T]he successes of the pro-life movement” saw the Republican Party—a party with a pro-life platform—take control of the White House and both houses of Congress in 2016, yet fail to defund Planned Parenthood. “[T]he successes of the pro-life movement” saw Donald Trump, who had excellent pro-life rhetoric and some promising Supreme Court appointments, shut down the federal government when he couldn’t get funding for a border wall, yet take no such drastic action in defending the right to life.

Some of us who supported the Resolution on Abolishing Abortion plausibly suspect that pro-life voters, including Southern Baptists, are often being played by politicians who are just pro-life enough to keep angling for incremental wins, thus securing pro-life votes, while those politicians have no intention to ever see “the complete abolition of abortion.” To return to the D-day semi-illustration: these politicians have made a political machine out of sending troops to the beach on Normandy again and again, while never advancing on Berlin.

Meanwhile, voters (including Southern Baptists) remain distracted with the headlines of the day. Other issues of social justice (or how we understand the term “social justice”) drain our energies, while hundreds of thousands of children are legally murdered in the womb every single year.

One thing I appreciate about some of my friends who brought forward the Resolution on Abolishing Abortion is that they act as if they really believe that abortion is murder and that a holocaust is currently being carried out in America. This is not a talking point to them or one issue among many. We need more of that—more clarity, more true resolve, and a more forceful call to action—in the resolutions passed by the Southern Baptist Convention.

.

The 2021 Southern Baptist Convention’s Resolution on Abolishing Abortion

At the 2021 annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), messengers passed two resolutions regarding the sanctity of human life contra abortion. The first, titled “On Taxpayer Complicity in Abortion and the Hyde Amendment,” was brought to the floor by the Resolutions Committee. The second, titled “Resolution on Abolishing Abortion,” was declined by the Resolutions Committee, because they were already bringing the “Hyde Amendment” resolution, and because they thought some of the language in the “Abolishing” resolution was problematic. Bill Ascol, a pastor from Oklahoma, called for the messengers to bring the “Abolishing” resolution out of committee, so we could vote on it from the floor; this is an unusual move, and it takes a 2/3 vote of the messengers, but it was accomplished.

What Is a Resolution?

Other than electing officers of the Convention, the main votes that messengers cast at the SBC are for resolutions or motions. A resolution is an expression of opinion or concern, in contrast with a motion, which calls for action on the part of the Convention. A resolution is not used to direct an entity of the SBC to any specific action. Rather, a resolution communicates an opinion or concern expressed by the specific group of messengers meeting at the annual Convention during a particular year.

Speaking To or Amending Resolutions

Messengers can speak for or against resolutions, ask questions about the resolutions, or propose an amendment to a resolution. Proposed amendments must be voted upon by the quorum of messengers in the Hall. Interacting with the resolutions in these ways can be somewhat tricky, because only a certain (fairly short) amount of time is allotted for discussion of each resolution; messengers must get to one of the microphones in the Convention Hall, and the chair recognizes messengers at the microphones in the order that buttons attached to the microphones are pressed, on a first-come, first-serve basis. Therefore, for resolutions that have a lot of messengers’ interest, lines can form around each microphone several minutes before the resolution comes up for consideration, and most of the people in those lines never have the opportunity of speaking to the Convention before the vote is called. (This is not a complaint, just a description.)

What I Wanted to Say About the Resolution on Abolishing Abortion

I’ve only ever spoken on a Convention microphone once (to ask a question about another resolution), but I felt strongly about the Resolution on Abolishing Abortion, so I got in line to speak about it (and I filled out the required paperwork early!). I ended up not getting the opportunity to speak before the vote was called. I was intending to call for an amendment to the resolution and then to urge passage of the resolution whether or not the amendment carried. Here’s what I was going to say:

PROPOSED AMENDMENT

I propose that the statement in paragraph 14, “we will not embrace an incremental approach to ending abortion” be amended to “we will not settle for an incremental approach to ending abortion.”

I know some of my friends in favor of this resolution believe that any incremental measures to end abortion are sinful, and I’ve debated them on a personal level—in conversation—on that point.

With those who are bringing this resolution, I agree—and believe we should all agree—that our goal is not for fewer babies to be murdered in the womb; our goal is to see every child—these small image-bearers of God—protected under law from conception. Therefore, I’m proposing we should not “settle for”—as I’m proposing we amend this—an incremental approach as if fewer abortions were our goal.

SPEAKING FOR THE RESOLUTION

I want to thank the Resolutions Committee for the resolution yesterday [Tuesday, June 15] regarding the Hyde Amendment. That resolution was mostly focused on addressing the right-to-life at the federal level and federal monies spent on abortion.

However, we have brothers and sisters working with state legislatures to pass legislation protecting the right-to-life at that level. (I know of some in Texas and Oklahoma in particular.)

Practically speaking, the resolution before us now is both more specific in speaking of the right-to-life and more general in its application concerning Southern Baptists’ commitment for the right-to-life. Therefore, I believe this resolution will be a useful tool in speaking to state legislators and to the press, and I urge its passage.

This Convention has shown a resolve regarding issues of justice. If a resolution comes before the Convention decrying racism in any form, the messengers eagerly pass it. If a resolution comes before the Convention decrying sexual abuse or those who would cover it up, the messengers eagerly pass it.

We do NOT say, “Well, we’ve already passed a resolution on that, we don’t need another one.”

So we should be eager to similarly and abundantly affirm our commitment concerning the right-to-life.

This should be an easy vote YES for us.

I urge the messengers to pass this Resolution on Abolishing Abortion.

Outcome of the Resolution

As the resolution was being discussed, a professor from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and an employee with the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission spoke against the resolution. They were concerned about the language against incrementalism, which I had hoped to amend. Before I could get to the mike, someone else proposed an amendment, adding the word “alone,” so that the statement in paragraph 14 was changed to “we will not embrace an incremental approach alone to ending abortion” (emphasis added). This amendment passed, and it was a fine solution, in my view. When messengers called for the vote on the amendment, they also called for the vote on the resolution itself, so (in a separate vote) that passed as well.

I was happy that the resolution passed. The SBC has had several pro-life resolutions before, but this one was the most robust, with the most scriptural proofs, calling for an immediate end to the murder of the unborn. And I wasn’t upset at all that I didn’t have to face the rather intimidating experience of speaking to the Convention Hall (though I had spent all morning working out what I was going to say 🙂 ).

Text of the Resolution on Abolishing Abortion, as Passed:

Adopted by the SBC annual meeting in Nashville, Tenn., June 16, 2021

WHEREAS, from the moment of fertilization, all humans are created in God’s image by, through, and for Jesus to the glory of God, and all souls belong to Him (Genesis 1:27; 4:1; 21:2; Isaiah 7:14; Colossians 1:16; Romans 11:36; Ezekiel 18:4), and

WHEREAS, as God’s image-bearers, all humans both display His divine worth, power, and attributes, and possess equal, objective worth before God, not varying based on incidental characteristics; such as ethnicity, age, size, means of conception, mental development, physical development, gender, potential, or contribution to society (Rom 1:19-20; Gen 1:27; 9:6; Matthew 18:6), and

WHEREAS, to murder any preborn image-bearer is a sin, violating both the natural law of retributive justice as set forth in the Noahic covenant, as well as the sixth commandment forbidding murder, and as such, is ultimately an assault on God’s image, seeking to usurp God’s sovereignty as Creator (Gen 9:5-6; Exodus 20:13; Proverbs 6:17), and

WHEREAS, God’s Word declares that all human life is a sacred gift and that His Law is supreme over man’s life and man’s law (Psalm 127:3-5; 139:13-16; Rom 2:15-16; Acts 10:42; 17:31; 1 Corinthians 4:5), and

WHEREAS, God commands His people to “rescue those who are being taken away to death” and holds them responsible and without excuse when they fail to do so (Prov 24:11-12), and

WHEREAS, God establishes all governing authorities as His avenging servants to carry out His wrath on the evildoer, and commands these authorities to judge justly, neither showing partiality to the wicked, nor using unequal standards, which are abominations (Psa 82; Prov 20:10; Rom 13:4), and

WHEREAS, in 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered an iniquitous decision on Roe v. Wade, and in doing so deprived the innocent of their rights, and usurped God, who sovereignly ordained their authority (Isa 5:23; 10:1-2; Psa 2; Matt 22:21; John 19:11; Acts 4:19; 5:29, Rom 13:1), and

WHEREAS, in the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court of the United States subverted the U.S. Constitution namely, the Preamble, as well as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments without any legal authority (Article 6, Clause 2 “Supremacy Clause”), and

WHEREAS, governing authorities at every level have a duty before God to uphold justice asserting their God-ordained and constitutional authority to establish equal protection under the law for all, born and preborn, by intervening, ignoring, or nullifying iniquitous decisions when other authorities, such as the Supreme Court, condone such injustices as the legal taking of innocent life (Daniel 3; 1 Kings 12; 2 Kings 11; Jeremiah 26:10-16; 36:9-31; 37:11- 21; 39:7-10), and

WHEREAS, over the past 48 years with 60+ million abortions, traditional Pro-life laws, though well intended, have not established equal protection and justice for the preborn, but on the contrary, appallingly have established incremental, regulatory guidelines for when, where, why, and how to obtain legal abortion of innocent preborn children, thereby legally sanctioning abortion, and

WHEREAS, since 1980, the SBC has passed many resolutions reaffirming the importance of human life at all stages of development, but we have yet to call for the immediate abolition of abortion without exception or compromise, and

WHEREAS, our confessional statement, The Baptist Faith and Message, according to Article XV, affirms that children “from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord”; and further affirms that Southern Baptists are mandated by Scripture to “speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death,” now, be it therefore

RESOLVED, that the messengers of the SBC meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, June 15-16, 2021, do state unequivocally that abortion is murder, and we reject any position that allows for any exceptions to the legal protection of our preborn neighbors, compromises God’s holy standard of justice, or promotes any God-hating partiality (Psa 94:6; Isa 10:1-2; Prov 24:11; Psa 82:1-4), and be it further

RESOLVED, that we will not embrace an incremental approach alone to ending abortion because it challenges God’s Lordship over the heart and the conscience, and rejects His call to repent of sin completely and immediately (Gen 3:1; John 8:44; Rom 2:14-15; 2 Corinthians 11:3), and be it further

RESOLVED, that we affirm that the murder of preborn children is a crime against humanity that must be punished equally under the law, and be it further

RESOLVED, that we humbly confess and lament any complicity in recognizing exceptions that legitimize or regulate abortion, and of any apathy, in not laboring with the power and influence we have to abolish abortion, and be it further

RESOLVED, that as Southern Baptists we will engage, with God’s help, in establishing equal justice and protection for the preborn according to the authority of God’s Word as well as local and federal law, and call upon pastors and leaders to use their God-given gifts of preaching, teaching, and leading with one unified, principled, prophetic voice to abolish abortion, and be it finally

RESOLVED, that, because abolishing abortion is a Great Commission issue, we must call upon governing authorities at all levels to repent and “obey everything that [Christ] has commanded,” exhorting them to bear fruit in keeping with repentance by faithfully executing their responsibilities as God’s servants of justice, and working with all urgency to enact legislation using the full weight of their office to interpose on behalf of the preborn, abolishing abortion immediately, without exception or compromise (Mark 6:18; Matt 28:18-20; Rom 13:4, 6).

Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting 2021: What You Should Know/Consider

On Twitter and in personal conversations, I’m reading/hearing many questions/concerns going into the Southern Baptist Annual Convention, which is taking place on June 15-16 in Nashville. The following post is a clarification of some important facts concerning the SBC, along with a point of concern that all SBC messengers should have. I welcome any questions/comments from readers.

The Southern Baptist Convention is a Parachurch Organization

The first point of clarification that I want to make concerning the Southern Baptist Convention is that the SBC is a parachurch organization. Now, the SBC does not usually use the term “parachurch” on its official documents. However: that is the best descriptor for what the SBC is and does. The SBC facilitates cooperation among churches of “like faith and practice,” specifically focused on joint efforts at missions/evangelism and theological education.

• The SBC is NOT a church.
• The SBC has NO authority over the churches that are “in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention”.
• Each Baptist church is autonomous, under the headship of the Lord Jesus Christ.

What the Southern Baptist Convention CANNOT Do

The above points are important to note. I recently had a friendly interaction with a non-Baptist on Twitter who asked, “Doesn’t the SBC set policy for its churches?” The answer is NO. The SBC has no authority to dictate policy to any church. Unlike other denominations, the SBC does not choose any church’s pastors nor control any church’s budget or land. [Except, perhaps, in some relatively rare cases in which the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention is involved in helping to plant a church and procure property.] In general, if the SBC tried to exercise authority over a church, then that church would kindly (and rightly) invite the SBC to “fry ice.” At most (and the SBC does and should do this), the Convention advises, suggests, and encourages cooperating churches concerning policies they should adopt.

What the Southern Baptist Convention CAN Do

Since the SBC is a cooperative effort of churches with “like faith and practice,” it is important that cooperative churches have (within certain parameters) similar beliefs and methods. If a cooperating church is found to hold convictions or allow actions that are sufficiently dissimilar to what Southern Baptists believe the Bible to teach, then that church could and should be disfellowshipped by the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. Practically speaking, being disfellowshipped means:

• A church can no longer send messengers to the annual meeting of the SBC.
• The SBC stops receiving funds from that church.
• The church cannot receive help from the Convention (including tuition discounts at the seminaries).
• The SBC will not commission missionaries from the church.
• Other churches (and people in general) are made aware that the church is NOT one of “like faith and practice” with the Southern Baptists.

In short: being disfellowshipped means that a church no longer contributes to, receives help from, or has a role in directing the Southern Baptist Convention.

The Difficulty with Disfellowshipping

Practically, there is sometimes tension with the Baptist conviction concerning local church autonomy and the Southern Baptist commitment to be involved in efforts with other churches of “like faith and practice”. Southern Baptist congregations have maintained cooperation with each other despite many congregations having different views concerning eschatology, covenant theology, the relationship of God’s sovereignty to human ‘free will,’ and differing practices of worship styles, ordination, and church discipline. A degree of latitude is intentional, allowing for each congregation to act according to conscience and persuasion regarding what they believe the Word of God to teach, along with what they believe to be wise practical applications of God’s Word.

In general, there is no one policing whether any church is remaining in “like faith and practice” with the SBC. No sub-committee from the SBC Executive Committee is dedicated to listening to all the audio from cooperating churches’ sermons or reading through all the cooperating churches’ minutes from their business meetings. Usually, therefore, it is only when something rather public and obvious happens with a congregation, demonstrating a break with Southern Baptist faith and practice, that a particular congregation is disfellowshipped.

This is one main reason why churches get disfellowshipped from the SBC when they begin affirming homosexual marriages or ordaining people who identify as homosexual. There are all manner of sins that are as heinous as homosexual activity. Why is this one singled out? One reason is that it is more obvious. If a church has capitulated to culture on this issue, then they are often proud in declaring themselves to be “gay-affirming”. As terrible as racism and sexual abuse are, when these are present in a congregation, that church is hardly likely to publicly declare themselves as “bigot affirming” or “abuser affirming”.

The Increased Drive for Disfellowshipping Miscreant Churches

However, racism has continued to plague some Southern Baptist churches, and (as uncovered in the Houston Chronicle and elsewhere) there has been an epidemic of unaddressed sexual abuse in Southern Baptist churches. This is why, as Baptist Press reported,

By overwhelming votes, Southern Baptists strengthened their stances against sexual abuse and racism during the opening day of their June 11-12 [2019] SBC annual meeting in Birmingham, Ala. [voting] to amend the SBC’s bylaws to repurpose the SBC’s Credentials Committee into a standing committee to make inquiries and recommendations for action regarding instances of sexual abuse, racism or other issues that call a church’s relationship with the SBC into question.

I was there, and (though the situation was painful to consider and address, with the hurt of the abused being so heart-wrenching) I was glad to be part of the vote to take some practical step in addressing injustices, which have done grave injury to others and hindered our witness in the world.

And SOME follow-up to this vote has taken place. This was seen earlier this year when the Executive Committee disfellowshipped four churches. Two of these were disfellowshipped for affirming homosexuality. Disfellowshipping churches for this reason is important, but is also kind of typical in SBC life. Significantly, however, two were disfellowshipped for allowing sexual predators among their pastoral staff. (See the article HERE.)

Alleged Betrayal of the Abused and the SBC by the Executive Committee

Despite these positive signs that wickedness within SBC-cooperating churches would be addressed, there have been some deeply discouraging (and alarming) reports going into this year’s annual meeting of the Convention. Dr. Russell Moore, former head of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission wrote a letter to current SBC President, J.D. Greear, which describes the SBC Executive Committee systematically stonewalling efforts to address the issue of abuse in SBC churches. While it would be good for Greear to produce a statement either confirming, denying, or qualifying his views regarding the situations Moore relates in his letter, Moore’s complaints do seem credible in light of: 1) his desire for a third-party investigation; 2) Rachael Denhollander‘s testimony that her interactions with the SBC Executive Committee are consistent with what Moore describes.

What the SBC’s Executive Committee Is and the Big Problem Messengers Must See Addressed

Now here’s a big PLOT TWIST. You have been reading several paragraphs about the Southern Baptist Convention; however, as of the time that I’m writing this article, on June 8, 2021, THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION DOES NOT EXIST. This may be surprising to you. You may be thinking, “Hey! I’ve been reading about the SBC. My church gives money to the Cooperative Program of the SBC. I thought that the SBC DOES exist!”

Technically, the Southern Baptist Convention only exists for two days each year, at the annual meeting. Think of the term “convention”. What would you call a group when it’s not meeting together? Not a convention. Since the entities of the Southern Baptist Convention (including the seminaries and mission boards) continue to exist, carrying out the cooperative work of the Southern Baptists, most people take no note of this technical distinction.

But since the SBC doesn’t exist for most of the year, yet the cooperative efforts of the SBC continue, the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention acts for the Convention between sessions, reviewing the work of the Convention’s entities, receiving and distributing funds Southern Baptists give in support of denominational ministries, providing SBC public relations and news services, and performing other tasks assigned by the SBC. (See HERE.) It was the responsibility of the Executive Committee to make sure that the “overwhelming votes” of the messengers at the 2019 SBC annual meeting, which affirmed our desire to “make inquiries and recommendations for action regarding instances of sexual abuse, racism or other issues” were fully acted upon. If Moore is right, then the will of the messengers has been actively frustrated, rather than responsibly carried out, by the Executive Committee. Like I pointed out, the SBC does not currently (technically) exist, but if Dr. Moore is right, then unless there is a significant change, the SBC SHOULD NOT exist any more. An SBC that does not respond to the will of the messengers is just a façade for a few people who have gathered power for themselves.

I want to close this article with some relevant tweets by Rachael Denhollander, echoing her call:

Thoughts from a random Southern Baptist on John Onwuchekwa’s “4 Reasons We Left the SBC”

Today, John Onwuchekwa published an article on why he led Cornerstone Church in leaving the Southern Baptist Convention. (See here: https://thefrontporch.org/2020/07/4-reasons-we-left-the-SBC/ .) As an alumnus of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a member of a church that’s ‘in friendly cooperation with the SBC’, this was a difficult and thought-provoking read. Here are four initial thoughts I’ve had.

1. Thankfulness

Onwuchekwa writes: “the North American Mission Board (NAMB) stepped in and helped us get a loan for our building… and again NAMB stewarded Cooperative Fund Giving our way in the form of a $175,000 grant to renovate the church building.” Onwuchekwa expresses gratitude for Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and for the SBC entity heads. Now, the SBC, as I understand it, is a network of churches that has the primary purpose of pooling resources for missions and theological education. Onwuchekwa’s account seems to indicate that the SBC has been largely effective in this primary purpose in the case of Cornerstone Church and Onwuchekwa’s own ministry. If the SBC continues to help establish congregations like Cornerstone and (at least in part) train pastors like Onwuchekwa, if the gospel is being faithfully proclaimed through Cornerstone Church (as I assume it is), then it is hard to see that contributing to the SBC is a bad idea, even if autonomous congregations eventually come to decide that it is more prudent (in their case) to leave the SBC.

2. Learning

However, I sincerely hope that the SBC learns from John Onwuchekwa’s experience, and that, as a network of congregations, we grow in ways that would make it where churches such as Cornerstone would not feel ‘othered’ and where pastors like Onwuchekwa would not feel like he was on a “work visa” rather than being a full “citizen”.

3. Question

In regard to implementing practical changes that would help with the issues Onwuchekwa mentions, he writes: “The SBC undeniably had a systemic hand in perpetuating wickedness, and yet, its systemic efforts to restore and promote racial justice fall flat.” I’m honestly not sure what Onwuchekwa has in mind regarding “systemic efforts” that the SBC should take as a convention. Obviously, he believes that the SBC Resolution on Racial Reconciliation falls flat (see here: http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/899/resolution-on-racial-reconciliation-on-the-150th-anniversary-of-the-southern-baptist-convention ). Likewise, the NAMB’s work, with its efforts for and giving to Cornerstone Church: their pastor being sensitive to promoting racial justice, also falls flat. I am seriously open to the SBC doing better. I’m honestly interested in hearing specific proposals.

4. Addendum

As a final thought, I would note that the most explicit act of ‘othering’ that Onwuchekwa recounts is when he writes, “I’ve heard the former leader of the Georgia Baptist Convention tell other people that we (Cornerstone Church) are not one of them (presumably Southern Baptists)”. As a Georgia native, I don’t doubt this. I know about the GBC, and I know that many congregations have complaints about the GBC for a variety of reasons. I do wonder if, in another state (such as Kentucky,or Maryland/Delaware), the experiences of Onwuchekwa and his congregation may have been different.

On Critical Race Theory as “a Set of Analytical Tools”

Last summer, the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution titled “On Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality.” This resolution commendably affirmed “Scripture as the first, last, and sufficient authority with regard to how the Church seeks to redress social ills.” However, it also asserted that “Critical race theory is a set of analytical tools that explain how race has and continues to function in society, and intersectionality is the study of how different personal characteristics overlap and inform one’s experience.” The resolution implied that these “analytical tools” (as the Resolutions committee termed critical race theory and intersectionality) can be helpful “to diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills that they identify.”

I have read some, but not a great deal, from and about Critical Race Theory [CRT]. In earning my minor in Philosophy and in other personal studies, I’ve read quite a bit from post-modern and Buddhist sources. Post-modernism points out some flaws in modernism, and Buddhism points out some flaws in Hinduism (or how people in general try to live their lives under an illusion of comfort and pleasure); in their critiques of the previously-established systems, there are some genuine insights, which overlap with how these systems would be critiqued from a Christian worldview. However: I would not call either post-modernism or Buddhism “a set of analytical tools… to diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills that they identify“. These philosophies cannot adequately diagnose the root cause of social ills, because they do not have the biblical doctrine of sin. They cannot adequately redress social ills, because they do not have the biblical doctrine of salvation. I believe that a similar point could be made about CRT, and I believe that this is crucial to understand at this time, when there is (understandably) so much societal unrest over racism.

If I meet a person who has already embraced Buddhism or a post-modern mindset, I want to be equipped to show how the critiques offered by those systems over-lap critiques found in the Bible. However, unless (perhaps) someone is operating from a mindset of modernism or Hinduism, I would not take “analytical tools” from post-modernism or Buddhism. I see no reason to talk someone into being a half-baked post-modernist or Buddhist in order to lead that person to Christ. Similarly: if someone is already immersed in CRT thought, we may want to be equipped to show how the critiques offered by that system over-lap with critiques found in the Bible. But I do not think that we should try to talk people into being half-baked CRT theorists. We should skip straight to the sufficient Scripture to “diagnose and redress the root causes of [ALL] social ills”.

Problems with the Founders Ministries’ *By What Standard* Trailer

Without Founders Ministries, my life would be quite different. As a college student, I became convinced of the Doctrines of Grace. Though I’d been a member of a Southern Baptist Convention [SBC] affiliated church for years, I felt like a commitment to these doctrines was absent from SBC churches, so I began going to a non-denominational Bible church. It was through discovering Founders Ministries, which was committed to educating SBC churches about the Doctrines of Grace and helping to encourage the biblical reformation of local churches, that I felt comfortable re-joining an SBC-affiliated church. Once I was married, the first church that my wife and I joined was a Founders-friendly SBC-affiliated congregation. About a year after I was married, I became a student at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Moving to Louisville, I was again looking for a Founders-friendly, SBC-affiliated congregation, and the church where I am currently a member (Kosmosdale Baptist Church in Louisville, KY) took place in the Boyce Project (an effort, begun when the seminaries of the SBC had become theologically liberal, to get a copy of J.P. Boyce’s Abstract of Systematic Theology into the hands of each graduating SBC seminary student), which was a direct precursor to Founders Ministries, and for years our church had a line-item in the church budget to allow for the pastor going to Founders Ministries conferences. So, in a very real sense, I would not be going to the church where I’m a member, I would not be living in the city where I am, and thus I would not be working in the job that I have (and who knows what else would be different for me), if it were not for Founders Ministries.

In recent years, Founders Ministries has been raising concerns that those holding to theological liberalism are using social justice issues as a Trojan horse in order to persuade churches of unbiblical ideologies. Founders Ministries speakers are also concerned that those adopting the language and categories used by secular advocates of social justice are unwittingly making themselves and their congregations susceptible to theological liberalism. It is based on these concerns that Founders Ministries is producing a “Cinedoc” called By What Standard, and they released the trailer for that film earlier this week.

While I share many of the concerns that Founders Ministries is raising concerning “social justice warriors”, and while a few of men from my church gladly attended the 2019 Founders Ministries National Conference on “The Gospel and Justice” here in Louisville, I am deeply concerned with how things are presented in the trailer for By What Standard: the methods that are used and some of the connections that are directly implied. In considering my thoughts concerning this trailer, I came across a Twitter-thread by Chris Bolt (the pastor of Elkton Baptist Church), which expresses exactly what I would want to say (and how I would want to say it). The remainder of this post is Chris’ Twitter-thread, which I’m using after getting his permission. I’ve only edited for formatting, adding numbers and taking away the “@” Twitter-handles.

—

Assume, for the sake of argument, I agree with everything Founders Ministries believes and is trying to accomplish with their forthcoming video. It does not follow that the trailer for that video is unobjectionable. In fact, the opposite is the case. What are the problems?

1. The trailer features an interview with a gentleman talking about manipulation through guilt leading to destructive behavior, and at the same time he is speaking, shows a clip of SBC messengers holding up, “Becoming a Church that Cares Well for the Abused.”

2. The trailer also features an interview with Owen Strachan commenting on the principalities and power of Ephesians 6, which is a reference to demons, while at the same time showing a clip of Rachael Denhollander speaking on the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission panel at the SBC.

3. As you can see, the short clip is heavily edited. Why? To match the clips of other speakers in the video who are in some form or fashion representative of the problems in the SBC. Filters are used to make some clips jittery and blurred.

4. Filters are also used to show Founders representatives in better light and color. This use of filters, music, and narration is quite likely intended to produce a particular type of feeling to be associated with each of the clips. It’s clear who is portrayed as “good” and “bad.”

5. A brief clip of the theologically liberal egalitarian Nadia Bolz-Weber is shown immediately before Denhollander, with Strachan’s voice speaking of the aforementioned demonic powers.

Now, other objections to the trailer have been raised, but I’m not interested in those here.

Here are my questions.

1. What message is sent by the trailer mentioning guilt manipulation with SBC messengers holding up a book on how to care for abuse survivors in the church?

2. What message is sent by showing Denhollander alongside Bolz-Weber and a discussion of demons?

3. Assuming I agree with Founders on all the current issues of the SBC, wouldn’t I also want to say that the problem of abuse is a real problem, and that it’s a real problem in particular for the SBC?

This problem is not a mere matter of worldly perception. Christians see it too.

The implication of the carefully edited movie trailer is that something dark, even demonic, has made its way into the SBC through addressing abuse and through an individual like Denhollander. Now, even if you support everything else Founders believes and is doing, this is bad.

This is bad because, apart from a lack of wisdom in the selection of an editor/producer who would create a provocative video that politicizes and weaponizes the issue of abuse, and apart from the obvious difficulties with the ethics of this situation, including utilitarianism, it’s bad because Founders has significantly fumbled the ball here… If I were Founders, I would fire the video editor, issue an apology to the Denhollanders, and try again, although credibility may be shot. You fumbled the ball.

What I Wish I’d Said Regarding SBC Resolution 9 on the Convention Floor

Last week, the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution titled “On Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality.” This resolution commendably affirmed “Scripture as the first, last, and sufficient authority with regard to how the Church seeks to redress social ills.” However, it also asserted that “Critical race theory is a set of analytical tools that explain how race has and continues to function in society, and intersectionality is the study of how different personal characteristics overlap and inform one’s experience.” The resolution implied that these “analytical tools” (as the Resolutions committee termed critical race theory and intersectionality) can be helpful “to diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills that they identify.”

The day after the resolution was passed, Dr. Albert Mohler, the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, did well in summarizing the concerns that many have with this resolution, making the following statement on his podcast, The Briefing:

Both critical race theory and intersectionality are a part of the continuing transformative Marxism… I did not want the resolution to say less than it said. I wanted it to say more than it said. I wanted it to acknowledge more clearly the [Marxist] origins of critical race theory and intersectionality.

On the Convention floor, before the resolution passed, Tom Ascol of Founders Ministries tried to amend the resolution with the following language, in line with Dr. Mohler’s concerns:

INSERT AFTER 1st Whereas—>

Whereas, Critical race theory and intersectionality are godless ideologies that are indebted to radical feminism and postmodernism, and neo-Marxism; and

ADD—>

RESOLVED that we remind Southern Baptists that Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality emerged from a secular, worldview and are rooted in ideologies that are incompatible with Christianity; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we repudiate all forms of identity politics and any ideology that establishes human identity in anything other than divine creation in the image of God and, for all redeemed humanity, our common identity, together eternally united to Christ; and be it further…

However, Ascol’s amendment failed, and the resolution passed as it had been presented to the Convention floor.

Now, I had seen that Tom Ascol was going to speak to the resolution, and I hoped the Convention would hear what he had to say. However, I knew it was much more likely that the Convention would simply trust the Resolutions Committee and vote in favor of the resolution regardless of any discussion on the floor. (And this is, indeed, what happened.)

Having 20/20 hindsight, I wish that I had gotten to the microphone to urge messengers to vote against the resolution. (Not that I’m saying I would have been successful, but still, I wish I’d done what I could have.) If I had spoken, this is what I would have liked to have said:

Most everyone in this Convention hall applauded when it was said that there is one human race and that the Bible defines who we are as human beings. These statements, however, run contrary to the assumptions of critical race theory and intersectionality, so I am asking you to vote against this resolution. It’s been less than a year since I’ve gained any knowledge of what the terms ‘critical race theory’ and ‘intersectionality’ mean. I ask each messenger to please ask yourself: without looking at this resolution, can I define the terms ‘critical race theory’ and ‘intersectionality’ in ways that would be helpful to my congregation? If the answer is ‘no,’ then I would urge you to vote ‘no’ to the resolution at this time. Let’s study this issue and re-consider it at next year’s Convention, so that we can give an informed vote.

I do hope that some change in the Convention rules can be made so that in the future, messengers may see the resolutions earlier. (Currently, messengers only see them the morning of the vote.) That way, we could have more time to consider them and give them a more knowledgeable vote.