Tuesday, May 02, 2006

A Modest Proposal or a Grand Dream? A Brand New Baptist Confession

Yesterday, I posted over at Wade Burleson's blog . The response has been, how shall we say, interesting. Some agree. One argued that since 99.9 percent of Southern Baptists don't know what I was talking about or care (ditto for unbelievers), the Convention didn't need a new confession, and it only needed a confession that covered essentials. In a response, I reminded "anonymous" that if that was the case, we could basically quote the gospel from 1 Corinthians, toss in an article on the Trinity, one on inspiration, an anathema of Roman Catholic views on Scripture, an affirmation of justification by faith and be done. We should disinclude the ordinances, polity, family, religious liberty, the attributes of God, providence, etc. since they are not really "essential" for salvation itself, and the others guarded against the most common errors in history. I then reminded "anonymous' that by disincluding articles like a statement on God's Providence, we should just call Greg Boyd and ask him and his buddies to join, since we'd be allowing for Open Theism. I'm still unsure how glorying in ignorance is a justification for a bad confession. Maybe anonymous was mad because I used big words in the proposed outline. For the record, I assume some level of competence from blog readers. If you can use the internet, you can look up the big words on Google.

Anyway, here's what I posted. I offer this to generate discussion, nothing more nothing less.

Wade said:

However, we get into trouble when we began to either place in our confessions specific interpretations of doctrines not essential for salvation, or when we demand as a convention conformity in the interpretation of doctrines that are not addressed by our Baptist confessions of faith.



Now, before I post what I said in reply, I want to be clear. I think the SBC is so large now that a confession like the BFM, which functions rather like the 39 Articles in that a Calvinistic Anglican and an Anglo-Catholic can read their own doctrines into it is not really useful. As long as there is a confession in the SBC that is worded vaguely, unclearly, or imprecisely, people will dispute over the interpretation; especially if they are as ignorant as many of them are about what it means anyway. The BFM's are all iterations of the New Hampshire Confession. So, what we're dealing with is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy that has been changed slightly each time. A confession like this does not alleviate the problem Wade has described. If people can't agree over the meaning of, say, the soteriological articles, what makes anybody think they will not abuse the confession on issues not in it? If you want examples, head to www.baptistboard.com and ask questions about the different articles of the BFM and watch the feeding frenzy. Likewise, as I said above, if we place only articles "essential for salvation" in the BFM, then we may as well call Greg Boyd and ask him to join.

Here is my proposal:

Historically, Baptists in general did quite well when the FWB's had their own confessions and the rest used the 1689, Charleston, or Philadelphia Confession. They were often quite specific and elaborate, but folks knew their confessions and what was meant. They also had some give in the Associations as to who they would allow to join if they didn't use that precise language but got the gist of the matter correct. The churches that formed the SBC in 1845 all held to the Philadelphia or Charleston Confessions (which were basically identical). The Abstract of Principles is fairly simple, but the explanation (Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology) explains the Abstract of Principles in detail for us. The SBC functioned quite well on these confessions.

The problem, in my opinion, is not really in placing specific interpretations of doctrrnes not essential for salvation into a confession. I think that's the immediate , but not the long term cause. The latter problem is using confessional language that is intentionally vague in the hopes it will be "inclusive." While that is a nice sentiment, I think it creates more problems than it solves, because two groups see different doctrines in one statement. Take monergistic regeneration. That alone assumes a particular ordu salutis that is not at all compatible with synergistic regeneration. These two sides are thus mutually exclusive at the conceptual level. They can't therefore, really coexist in a single propositional statement on paper. If they do, people read their conceptual scheme into the document. Currently, with both sides appealing to the BFM, we have a growing controversy brewing in the Convention.

Allow me to explain and illustrate:

The purpose of human language is, first and foremost, to communicate truth about God and His truth. This includes confessional documents. Our confessions should not be so broad that two different groups can come to one or more sections and both see their own doctrines in them. They should be clear and articulate the boundaries of what is acceptable and unacceptable. This is the way to write an inclusive confession. On the controversial portions, if the SBC wishes to be a big tent, spell out x,y, and z in no uncertain terms. I've said it once, I'll say it again, I believe the SBC needs to revisit the BFM and come up with a better, more clear confession. For example something like:

On Salvation:
Southern Baptists affirm that all people must believe on Jesus Christ to be saved, repenting from their sins and turning to Christ alone by faith alone for their salvation, to receive forgiveness of sins and obtain a righteous standing before God. This is a standard affirmation of Sola Fide, justification by faith, and, by implication, imputation.

Spell out the classic definitions of Justification, sanctification. glorification, and regeneration with no mention of the place of election, calling, and regeneration in the ordu salutis or their definitions.

Then say something like:

Southern Baptists recognize there to be a diversity of opinions regarding the ordu salutis and, at the conceptual level, the soteriological framework within the greater body of Southern Baptists, we affirm the following to be wholly acceptable within the confessional structure of the Convention and its member bodies:

Monergist (define monergism)

1. Spell out the Calvinist doctrine, any historic clearly Calvinist Baptist confession will do for the words; I knowTom Nettles could write this section anew to make the old confessions more concise but more precise than the NHC and BFM's.

2. Spell out the Amyraldian doctrine, identical to the above with atonement excepted (if a mention of the atonement is in a separate header in the confession, see below. If atonement is not placed here, then, because the Amyraldian and Calvinist agree on the state of man, election, effacious grace, and perseverance of the saints, one need not include this as a section).

Synergist (define synergism)

3. Spell out the Arminian doctrine, emphasizing penal substitution, not the moral govt' theory.

4. Spell out what the current BFM says and be sure it is couched in clearly synergistic terms.

--Here is where you discuss calling, election, regeneration and/or perseverance of the saints/eternal security, maybe the sinful condition of man and its effects on the will, if that is part of the framework presented.

Each of these is acceptable in the SBC now, except perhaps the Arminian scheme, since it denies eternal security. If 3 is thus eliminated, then graft the first 4 articles of that scheme unto the doctrine of eternal security (since that is the gist of the scheme most prevalent in the SBC) and then eliminate the last header based on the current BFM, though redefined and have either two, three or four division headers with the requiste number of sections and paragraph headers as needed for each one. One could even include a statement that allows for diversity among these points, e.g. "or any combination of the above positions" as long as it is supportable from Scripture. IMO, in the SBC, when it comes to election, regeneration, and effacious grace we are really only dealing with 2 positions anyway, 3 if you count the real Amyraldians, and they agree with the Calvinists on these 3 points, only differing over the atonement.

You could also spell out what is "disorderly'" in a final section that denies particular doctrines, though it is rare to find confessions that anathematize doctrines in Protestantism. One could say something like:

Errors and Excesses to be Avoided.

1. Spell out clearly the definiton of hyper-Calvinism and its differentiation from traditional 5 Point Calvinism and Amyraldianism.

2. Define the moral government theory of atonement and other theories deemed dubious.

3. If classic Arminianism is left out, define the denial of eternal security as an error to make this rejection certain.

4. Works salvation (any position which makes salvation a work). If this article appears, it should define what it means by "works" (baptism, good works, circumcision, etc.)

For Spiritual Gifts- Affirm the current BFM's statement. Add: Southern Baptists recognize there to be a diversity of opinions regarding the distribution of spiritual gifts within the greater body of Southern Baptists, we affirm the following to be wholly acceptable within the confessional structure of the Convention and its member bodies:

1. Spell out the cessationist doctrine.

2. Spell out the semi-cessationist doctrine and its bounds.

3. Spell out the charismatic doctrine and its bounds.

4. Spell out what is "disorderly" (a, b, c. etc.)

For the Atonement. Clearly state the doctrine of penal substitution. Then: Add: Southern Baptists recognize there to be a diversity of opinions regarding the scope of the atonement, within the greater body of Southern Baptists, we affirm the following to be wholly acceptable within the confessional structure of the Convention and its member bodies:

1. Spell out the Calvinist doctrine (particular atonement).
2. Spell out the non-Calvinist doctrine (general atonement)

--The language should be clear and non-polemic and can even simply refer to other works on the atonement for further study.

This pattern would be repeated in the confession over other articles where there is recognized diversity in the SBC as it exists today. Notice that this isn't suggested simply because the SBC is diverse and we need to include anybody and everybody. On the contrary, certain views can be listed as errors. Rather it is suggested because these are all orthodox positions to hold and the already exist in the SBC as it is now. In our own church's confession, we have a * by articles that we consider non-negotiables. The new confession could * those statements or include: This is non-negotiable. For example, the doctrine of God, the Trinity, Scripture, Sola Fide, the plain defintions of justification, sanctification, and glorification, a repudiation of Open Theism. Either * them, or for clarity say: Unless otherwise noted these are not negotiable items. Items where we accept and affirm diversity are clealy delineated. It's long and elaborate, but note that this structure is actually clearer and still more forgiving than, say, the 1689.

Yes, this makes for some very hard work.

Yes, this makes for a long confession.

It surely would give the churches in the Convention teaching material for years to come, and the Convention would certainly, if the confession was taught well, have a better educated membership.

No, nobody as ever made such an attempt.

But...nobody else attempted a program like the CP, and look at the horsepower it has provided our missions work!

But...it would do the job and eliminate some of the tension in the SBC over these issues. The problem is in getting people to pass it.

The SBC would very likely be the first group to attempt such a confession, but somebody has to go first. The last really elaborate Baptist Confession was written in the 18th century. It modified the one in 1689, so it wasn't very original. It's about time to draft another. There hasn't been a really good new confession in a few centuries now.

Southern Baptists have some of the best theological minds in the world in teaching at the seminaries and, in my opinion, its pulpits. God's people have gotten lazy when it comes to confessions and stating them well. We should repent and draw up a new one, a truly excellent one that is clear and not to be misconstrued but presents an acceptable range of beliefs in no uncertain terms.

6 comments:

  1. Or update the language of the 1689 confession, with which I have yet to see any problem. The fact is we don't need a new confession, we need to stick by the ones we've always had. Given the current climate of the "Me First, God second" SBC, despite an attempt to return to earlier principles, I don't see it happening. It I seem overly critical of the SBC Im in fact not, I should probably be more critical. If this isn't a lukewarm mess we have now I don't know what is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am totally in for a theologically-decent confession. The BFM is such a pappy little document that could mean anything ... it's a wonder you don't see Mormons affirming it.

    However, what you are suggesting, mean Gene, is that Baptists stop being social activists and secular political pawns of the right and affirm something specific and thorough about the Gospel. It would mean that we started having something like a (gasp) catechism with which we instructed our new-comers of all ages. It would mean that we exercised church discipline because a confession that is not enforced is worse than a "faith and message" which is barely a nod to truth.

    Dude: with the nomination of the new president now pretty much an open field, anything could happen ... unless there's something else going on that we can't really read.

    You tell me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gene,
    I'm the "anonymous" you refer to in this post. My Google is working fine as is my brain. My point is not that these are not important issues but that we should not create such a heavy burden for people in order for them to be a follower of Christ. I'm not an academic or theologian, although I could have been if that were my life goal.That also does not mean I do not know theology.
    I am a minister with an advanced degree from an SBC seminary. Being a minister means I deal with real people. I get to make a choice: impress people with my intellect or point them to Christ. I'm sure you think you are doing both and I'm sure you can write a pamphlet to explain your position. But don't you see? People stop listening. Why use several $10 words that have to be googled or defined? Just use a simple brief explanation straight from scripture. Here's an idea for your next post: How about an exposition on 1 Corinthians 13?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The comment by anonymous #2 raises several interesting questions.

    Anonymous #2 states: "My point is not that these are not important issues but that we should not create such a heavy burden for people in order for them to be a follower of Christ."

    Didn't God provide Scripture so that through our diligent study of it we might get to know all three persons of the godhead better? Don't we want to follow a Christ that we know really well? In this light, is the diligent study of Scripture a heavy burden or a precious opportunity? Mr. Bridges proposed confession - and the $10 words it contains - flows from Scripture. It's an effort to summarize and explain Scripture. Given this, it assists us in out diligent study of Scripture.

    Anonymous #2 states: "I'm not an academic or theologian, although I could have been if that were my life goal.That also does not mean I do not know theology.
    I am a minister with an advanced degree from an SBC seminary."

    Given that theology is the study of God, aren't all Christians called to be theologians? You state that you're not a theologian but you go on to state that this doesn't mean you don't know theology. Isn't that the definition of a theologian - someone who knows theology and lives life accordingly? How can someone complete an advanced degree at an SBC seminary and not be a theologian? Is it good for the church to have ministers who are not theologians?

    Anonymous #2 states: "I get to make a choice: impress people with my intellect or point them to Christ. I'm sure you think you are doing both and I'm sure you can write a pamphlet to explain your position. But don't you see? People stop listening."

    Is comparing impressing people with one's intellect with pointing people to Christ a false dichotomy? Wouldn't it be the case that a powerful intellect devoted to the study of Scripture would allow a Christian to point people to Christ in an effective manner, a manner conducive to people continuing to listen? The quality of an explanation that any Christian can provide on any topic from Scripture is conditioned on the Christian's understanding of that topic.

    The explanation is the tip of the iceberg. The careful, diligent study over a period of years that makes the explanation possible is the vast majority of the iceberg that is hidden below the water's surface. Grasping the meaning and importance of those $10 words is: 1) a byproduct of careful, diligent study over a period of years, 2) part of the iceberg that is hidden below the water's surface, and 3) necessary for providing a foundation for an effective explanation. Without the hidden part of the iceberg there is no tip.

    Anonymous #2 states: "Just use a simple brief explanation straight from scripture."

    Is it possible to provide a simple, brief and effective explanation without the foundation that comes from careful, diligent study of Scripture over a period of years? It's the iceberg again: The simple, brief, effective explanation is the tip; the careful, diligent study of Scripture over a period of years is the foundation hidden below the water's surface.

    Anonymous #2 states: "Here's an idea for your next post: How about an exposition on 1 Corinthians 13?"

    Doesn't this also create a false dichotomy? Isn't Scripture the content of systematic and biblical theology? How can a Christian systematize the content of Scripture without first understanding the content of Scripture? Shouldn't one's capacity to exegete and exposit Scripture go hand-in-hand with one's ability to systematize Scripture?

    I have profited greatly from reading Charles Hodge's commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. I have profited equally from reading Mr. Hodge's systematic theology.

    I guess I'm having trouble making sense of the objections you have to Mr. Bridges proposed confession. We don't want Christians that throw around $10 words the way that many people drop names, but we do want Christians that understand Scripture so well that they know $10 words - and all the important truths that they convey - backwards, forwards and sideways. Isn't that part of the problem with the church today, that we have too few Christians that understand Scripture this well?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don’t think condescension or simplification is the solution; quite the opposite. Why assume a new believer is too disinterested or simple to learn theology? Why should we dumb down the Word of God? One doesn't need an advanced degree in theology to grasp basic doctrine or theology. This rather reminds me of arguments made against teaching the problems with Darwinian evolution in high school chemistry classes, as we wouldn't want to confuse the students.
    Here's a thought, maybe the problem we have in our churches today is that we've dumbed down the gospel so much that it's not the gospel, but a nice morality tale. How on earth did all those poor souls ever come to God under the tutelage of those high context shepherds like Spurgeon, Edwards, or Luther? Would that someone had bothered to teach me real theology in my younger Christian days, how much more would I have glorified and served God in a useful and informed matter. How much less would I have thrashed about with fruitless and world centered doctrine!
    This is a somewhat belittling view of people. What irony, that at the height of our technological prowess, when we are told by the world that man is smarter than in the past, we have a pastor actually offering superficiality and a dumbed down Christianity as a means to persuade this supposedly more sophisticated public. Perhaps many people are put off Christianity by a coddling attitude in the church? Maybe the problem is yours? Why present a false dilemma? Try educating them in theology, rather than impressing them. Expect more from people and you’ll find they’ll rise to the occasion, and will probably appreciate that you think enough of them to respect their abilities.
    I don't find your argument compelling, as I view mankind as neither smarter nor dumber than in the past. The church taught a complete Christ in the past, it should do so in the present. If it did so I have no doubt that people would rise to the challenge, particularly those who have genuine faith. It's time to stop counting baptisms and start making disciples! A dead faith makes baptism merely a bath at best and a curse at worst!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry, but no Confession of Faith is completely unless it (a) uses the term "wherefor" at least once per Article, (b) speaks of "them which have been X-ed", and (c) uses "an" not "a" before words beginning with H.

    ReplyDelete