A Sad State of Affairs

Ah, June is soon upon us, and with it the annual Southern Baptist Convention. I've been watching the SBC for the past year. It's been interesting, to say the least. The convention year began with discussions over Resolution 5. The usual suspects continued to be shrill, to say the least, in accosting the Calvinists in the SBC, and, of course private prayer language has reared its head. Meanwhile the IMB has made its baptism policy a "guideline" now, as well as the ppl policy, so there is some small concession to be had...I think. I still stand by my words about Landmarkism in the SBC in regard to the policy.

I've also been quiet the past few months. For one thing, I've had major problems with my left hip, and I simply can't sit for too long or if I do, I have to get up and walk around. I've also taken the time to refamiliarize myself with practical Christianity after learning that several old friends have died or gotten in a bad way of late, and I've not kept up with them. I've also enjoyed reading some rather large tomes that required my attention, so I've cleared several books off my list. Then there's my surgery recovery from the earliest part of the year. I'll have one more in July to close the portion of my scalp that is nothing more than a skin graft, after having my right ear removed for skin cancer back in December. I've also been working on a small project for Tom Ascol. I've also decided not to answer emails for these reasons, so if you've emailed me and haven't heard back, don't take it personally. I'll start paying off those debts in June and July. Brother Tom, I've not forgotten you. I've just been carefully researching. (He knows what I'm on about).

But, tonight I've read some disturbing articles on the SBC blogs. I am distressed for my SBC brethren over these issues.

See:

Richard Land and Romney Part One
Richard Land and Romney Part Two
Paige Patterson and the the SWBTS chapel
Wade Burleson, Ben Cole, and others and Jimmy Carter one and two.


Allow me to comment on some of this...

On Jimmy Carter and my brethren:

If they are “history” it is not a testament to the faithfulness of those in the SBC. It is just as wrong if we play guilt by association to comport with Roman Catholics (Justice Sundays) and modalists (T.D. Jakes and Jack Graham and others in TX for prayer functions) or Mormons (Land advising Romney) or consistently aligning the Convention with the Republican Party. It would be a testament to the double standard and guilt by association. That would testify the illogic and irrationality of the Convention, so that strikes me as an instance of God, perhaps using something to bring some much needed judgment on the SBC. Personally, I wouldn’t be seen with President Carter in public this way, though I’d certainly sit and chat with him in Plains, GA if the opportunity arose, but I also wouldn’t be seen with Romney, et.al. or any Republican, for that matter. Were I Ben or Wade, if this was mentioned in my presence, I’d bring up Jakes, Romney and others and very pointedly ask what’s the difference. Why can Jack Graham and Ed Young Jr. comport with a modalist who, if he’s consistent, also denies Sola Fide, in PRAYER AND WORSHIP, and why can Mohler and others share the podium with the Catholic League - a group who must deny the gospel of Sola Fide, not to mention Sola Gratia, and why can Mitt Romney be advised by Richard Land and they not associate with Jimmy Carter…and Ben and Wade are also registered Republicans to boot? If folks think badly about Ben and Wade and what they have had to say because of this, then they need to take a long look at the other activity that gets a regular pass.

And I think you might be surprised at how many folks in unexpected places don’t think as badly of Carter as those in the visible and vocal SBC leadership think. Remember, the SBC in convention is the messengers, and there are more out there who couldn’t care less or who feel as I do or who even are (gasp, still registered Democrats) than many think. My best friend for many years was a dyed in the wool Democrat from Horseshoe, NC until the day he died back in the 90’s, and he was as conservative in his theology as any of the SBC’s leaders.

I’m not talking about the bloggers not calling out Graham and others. I advised some folks behind the scenes about the Jakes episode (which I would add, with Graham, is an ongoing issue, since Graham has done it before) when they told me they were going to cry foul, so I know the bloggers are “on it.” I’m talking about the SBC’s own leadership not doing it. Where were Johnny Hunt and others? Where was Paige Patterson? My point is that a great many who would judge Ben and Wade negatively are curiously silent over these other issues on a regular, ongoing basis. Steve Camp and the Stilley’s have been very faithful and for that I am thankful.

The SBC middle needs to speak up, and I personally am far more concerned about the attitude that would overlook antitrinitarianism and the denial of Sola Fide which, for me, are absolute non-negotiables, over and above even my Calvinism even, for some while others would be looked upon as suspect. It makes it look like Truth (capital T) is of secondary importance, eg. the gospel we can overlook, but not political affiliations? Yikes! That bothers me. In the old days, that’d earn a pastor/elder a public rebuke from the Association. The church might be told to repent in a formal letter. Not anymore, it seems.

Regarding Land and Romney:

A. Are we really that surprised? I mean think about it. Jack Graham and others will openly participate in religious functions with T.D. Jakes, who is certainly a modalist and as a Oneness Pentecostal/Apostolic denies Sola Fide. So, if the Trinity (which was the heresy qua heresy that would earn you an anathema from everybody from the AnteNicene era, after the West/East Schism, through the Middle Ages, and from both Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox from the Reformation forward up until the 20th century), isn't of that status anymore and our leaders can comport with Jakes-but you'd better not be seen with a liberal Democrat or worse a CBF leader (shock, horror)-, and Land and others will further share the podium on Justice Sundays with Roman Catholics who don't even agree to the same gospel, as if that doesn't matter...well, let's just say this all smacks of lots of weird logic and a willingness to compromise when it suits them. I mean what message does this send to the people in the pews? Apparently, we'll call Mormons, modalist, and Catholics heretics and objects of evangelism, but we'll gloss over their errors for the sake of political expediency? This isn't to say we shouldn't at least work together for common cause, but we need to be clear about the limits of that work and we need to be sure we're not putting the gospel in a secondary position. The Romanist is welcome to lobby the legislature with the Baptist, but he needs to know we won't do so at the expense of the gospel or, worse, in place of it.

You know, this is what I call "Resolution 5" logic. We'll boycott the demmin likker because it makes us more holy, and we'll pout like babies whenever the CBF rears its head, but we'll gloss over, you know fundamental Christian doctrine (Trinity, Sola Fide) when it suits our political purposes? This smacks of emphasizing externals for the sake of expediency, as if we can retake America for Christ by politics but the gospel is of secondary importance. Tom Ascol is right, the SBC is losing the gospel. I guess we shouldn't be too surprised when less than 40 percent of our members show up to church on Sunday...

And by the way, why are folks upset with Marty, Ben, Wade, and CB for being seen with President Carter while Land, Graham, and others are getting free passes?

B. Seems to me that Romney's candidacy is a perfect time for Land and Mohler and others to be promoting apologetics. Doesn't SBTS have a degree program in that arena? I mean James White is teaching at Golden Gate extension, and I know what he's putting up on his blog about Mormonism must be showing up in his classes at some point, right? Kudos to Dr. White. Why can't the rest of our seminaries do the same? Why can't Richard Land? Let's talk about Mormonism. The press regularly makes it sound like Mormonism is just another Christianity, and apparently some SBC leaders don't mind, or at least not too much.

And I'll just say this, this wouldn't be happening if Dr. Land didn't feel the need to get into the business of wedding the Convention to the Republican Party on a regular basis. This is why the BFM expressly forbids the use of the state for the church's ends. If Dr. Land was a neutral as he says he is, then he'd speak to the issues and leave it at that. So, it's not just his helping Romney in particular that bothers me, it's his tendency to dance around the BFM and the Baptist principle of religious liberty. He should not be advising ANY candidate for ANY office.

C. Speaking of which, Land was on Glenn Beck, a Mormon himself, discussing this very issue. Nary a word was said about Mormonism itself. John MacArthur probably would have talked about doctrine and put Beck on the spot as well as Romney.

D. Which brings me to other evangelicals that Beck has had on his Headline News program at night, who sit there and act like Mormons are Christians. Heavens, Anne Graham Lotz was there with, I think , a Roman Catholic too! Ummm, polytheism v. monotheism? Which of these is like Christianity and which isn't? Sola Fide vs. Justification by merit and faith? Go figure. They were all talking like we're all, Beck included, in this together, all one happy family.

E. And will Land, for that matter, not have choice words to say about liberation theology if Obama is nominated? If he's consistent, he'll keep his mouth shut, but I've heard him say some things about Democrats in the past that make me think that he'll have things to say about Obama's religous affiliation. I seem to recall he had some choice words to say at Providence Baptist in Raleigh a few years ago when Clinton was president.

F. Which brings me to another point, if Obama is nominated for President or VP, then we have a prime opportunity to talk to folks about Liberation Theology, which is his church's theology of choice.
It's time we exhorted our African-American brethren to wake up to what's been passing for Christianity in their midst for far too long. But, then, we're full circle. If so few will call out Jakes for his false doctrine, should we really expect them to do any better with respect to Liberation Theology in their midst?

The American Church including the SBC is in a sad state, and this election cycle and the reticence of folks to speak out about Mormonism and Liberation Theology and debate it apologetically is a testimony to how far we've fallen from our roots.

That said, this is America. I'm not saying that Romney shouldn't be president because he's a Mormon. I am saying that if he does so on the canard that Mormons are just fellow Christians like the rest of us, then that's deception that makes Bill Clinton look like Honest Abe. Sure, a Mormon can be president, for there is no religious test to the office per the Constitution, but let's be honest about Mormonism and what it is and is not.

On Dr. Patterson and the chapel...well, that speaks for itself.

Truly, we need to revisit Tom Ascol's resolution on integrity in church membership. It may be the only thing that can save the SBC...if it is taken seriously. Is anybody listening?