Evangelism and Evangelical: An Answer to George Bullard

George Bullard, a blogger for Associated Baptist Press, has written a post addressing the use of the words “evangelical” and “evangelism” among what he calls “moderate to progressive” congregations. He concludes his article with these questions:

“Is it [the dropping of “evangelical” and “evangelism”] a type of cultural and religious prejudice or myopia on the part of moderates to progressives? Are they no longer evangelicals themselves–people of the Good News of Jesus the Christ? What do you think is going on here?”

Since Mr. Bullard asked, I’ll answer.

I am involved with two of Mr. Bullard’s “moderate or progressive” churches in central Mississippi. These congregations do indeed seem to be outposts of a particular version of Baptist life among a sea of Southern Baptist churches in the area. They both support women in ministry, progressive social programs, and have a very high regard for orderly, well-done worship based upon the liturgical tradition of Charleston Baptists.

Mr. Bullard claims that such churches have all but eliminated the word “evangelism” and are on the way to eliminating “Evangelical” from their identities.[1] The churches he is imagining have been “turned off by the aggressive models of conservatives who engage in what a friend of [his] calls “confrontational evangelism.” The position taken is we do not want to be like them.” In this regard, Bullard is exactly right. “Evangelism” stirs in my mind images of street-corner condemnations and proclamations of Jesus’ love and salvation to people who are just on their way to class. It reminds me of the various strategies and methods employed by congregations to spread the Gospel: “Here’s Hope: Jesus Cares for You,” “Celebrate Jesus 2000,” “What Now?,” “Who Cares?,” “GPS,” FAITH, Friendship Evangelism, etc.[2]

Mr. Bullard says, “To engage in “evangelism” is to proactively express the Good News. That’s an extremely warm and faithful activity for those who call themselves Christians or followers of Jesus the Christ. It is not something that ought to be diminished, marginalized, or eliminated.” Unfortunately for many Baptists in Mississippi, evangelism means something more than this warm activity of proclaiming the gospel - it smacks of manipulation, bad salesmanship, and the marketing of the Gospel.[3] What is going on here is that so many of the aforementioned approaches to sharing the Gospel have been modernistic and industrial in nature that they did nothing to make true disciples, only shallow converts. What is happening here is that the word “evangelization” has become as baggage-laden as “Evangelical;” both represent the confusion of our calling to be and make disciples with social influence, political relevance, and the ideas of market competition.

I don’t need “evangelism.” I don’t need “Evangelical.” I am convinced that the making of disciples is more complicated than sharing the Gospel via the Roman Road or handing out tracts or flyers. I am convicted in my soul that broad generalizations about churches miss the point that we’re dealing with people, not customers, not clients, not students. We are not “in the business” of making converts. We are called to be the Body of Christ in our city, to be known by our love for one another and the world, and to be witnesses of what Jesus Christ has done for us to all we meet.

At the heart of all of this is the way in which we use words. “Evangelical” has all but lost its usefulness already by becoming too amorphous to describe any church or individual with specificity. So, too, has “evangelism” become cumbersome thanks to its use as something to be done. One does not “do” friendship evangelism; we make friends and meet people because it is good that we do so. Our sharing of the gospel is made real in the way we carry on our lives within that friendship.

What is going on here is that the “good old days” of the evangelical movement have long passed away. What has replaced it is a less-defined atmosphere of Protestant Christianity that still evangelizes, still preaches the Gospel, and still shows the love and grace of God to the entire world. What is missing is the objectification of that Gospel. My little congregation tries to live the Gospel without explicitly training anyone in a certain method of evangelism or starting anything resembling a crusade.

This is not the cultural or religious prejudice or myopia of which Mr. Bullard speaks. It is an attempt to live the Gospel rather than to sell it. It is an intentional decision not to contribute to the confusion over the term “Evangelical.” Being a Baptist is confusing enough.

---

[1] I cannot go on without accusing Mr. Bullard of using inappropriate generalizations in his article. “Some” and “many” are indicators of speculation and assumption and shouldn’t be used to describe movements, traditions, or people without evidence.

[2] These are all strategies and evangelism plans I’ve lived through at various SBC churches.

[3] See Wigg-Stevenson, Tyler, “Jesus Is Not a Brand.” Christianity Today, 53 no 1 (January 2009), 20-26.

Alcohol in Brandon, Mississippi: A Case Study in Baptist Life

On August 20, 2013, the citizens of Brandon, Mississippi voted on the issue of alcohol in their city.[1] The ballot measure empowers the Board of Aldermen of the city to regulate the sale, transportation, and storage of alcoholic beverages within Brandon.

Brandon is a holdout in the alcohol debate in its county. Neighboring cities Pearl and Flowood have recently passed similar referenda and have experienced economic growth through restaurants and bars. Brandon is something of a peculiarity in the county in this respect, though; the city has a much more church-centered society and has resisted “progress” in the name of a moral high ground.

I blame the Baptists.

A cursory survey of the churches in the Brandon area found 39 that self-identify as Baptist.[2] Many of these are affiliated with the Mississippi Baptist Convention and the Southern Baptist Convention. The strong Baptist presence in the city has made the issue a bright line of moral position - you’re either for drunkenness or you’re “againit.”

In the lead-up to the vote several pastors in Brandon spoke out against the issue. The most-quoted voices were those of Baptist pastors.[3] One Southern Baptist Church[4] even displayed signs against the measure encouraging citizens to vote against DUIs. Such is how the issue has been framed in the city: the pro position cites economic development and the revenue that would come from the sale of alcohol; the con side warns of drunk drivers and the dangers of social drinking.

This is the latest verse in a very, very old Baptist song.

Bill Leonard has traced the relationship between Baptists and alcohol through the centuries and notes, “the debate over the use of alcohol is a fascinating configuration of issues related to Baptist biblicism, hermeneutics, spirituality, classism and moral imperatives.”[5] Baptists, according to Leonard, have historically been in favor of the consumption of alcohol, some going so far as to make their own. He writes, “the early Baptists in England and America followed prevailing Protestant sentiments that permitted the use of "spirits" in moderation and in keeping with the common cultural practices of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.”[6] During the Second Great Awakening (1795-1837) many Baptists in the United States took up the cause of the prohibition movement to combat what was perceived to be a creeping “barbarism” among citizens of the western frontier.[7]

Baptists went on to champion the cause of prohibition through the revivals they hosted across the country. Again, Leonard comments:

Nineteenth-century revivals and temperance crusades represented an early "ecumenical movement" that brought together a variety of Protestant groups in cooperative efforts to evangelize and "Christianize" individuals and society alike. Revivals called persons to a direct and transforming experience of God's grace through Jesus Christ. Temperance crusades called the converted to live out their faith by rejecting the physical and spiritual pollution of the body, a temple of the Holy Spirit. Evangelical revivalists made abstinence a sign of true conversion, insisting that alcohol inhibited the work of the Spirit in the life of the believer. Since alcohol was proven to be a dangerous drug and since the effects of its usage varied with individuals, abstinence was the best response. For many Baptists and other Christians, abstinence became a requirement for Christian discipleship.[8]

Abstinence became a plank in the Baptist platform of social and ecclesial life. Many Baptist churches that had formerly prohibited public drunkenness in their congregational by-laws edited those documents to reflect the more strenuous requirement of total alcohol abstinence.[9]

The Southern Baptist Convention was birthed shortly after the era of the Second Great Awakening and soon adopted statements that echoed the prevailing Baptist prohibitionist sentiment of the day. SBC resolutions related to alcohol included language like “do most solemnly protest against its [alcohol] manufacture and sale, and pledge our influence in the exercise of our rights as citizens of this free country, socially, morally, religiously and in all other proper ways, to work for its speedy overthrow, and to this end we invoke the aid and blessing of Almighty God” (1886); “we are unalterably opposed to the sale of intoxicating liquor, as a beverage, either under high or low license” (1890); “reaffirm our truceless (sic) opposition to the liquor traffic in any and all forms and our sympathy with every righteous measure looking to its annihilation” (1898); “The greatest enemy of the cause of Christ which we as a Convention in part represent is the legalized liquor traffic…” (1907); ask a pledge of total abstinence from intoxicating liquors during their [politicians’] official life on the part of all candidates whose oath of office calls for their support of the constitution of the United States” (1923).[10]

Richard Land, formerly of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, summarized the Convention’s position saying, “Southern Baptists' understanding of the issue has been exceedingly unambiguous…Southern Baptists meeting in session have called their brothers and sisters to live "an exemplary Christian lifestyle of abstinence from beverage alcohol and all other harmful drugs" (1984); to recognize alcohol as "America's number one drug problem" (1982); to "reaffirm our historic position as opposing alcohol as a beverage" (1978); to view "personal abstinence" as the "Christian way" (1957); to express their "unceasing opposition to the manufacture, sale and use of alcoholic beverages" (1955); to realize alcohol is a "habit-forming and destructive poison" (1940) and the "chief source of vice, crime, poverty and degradation" (1936); and to "reassert our truceless and uncompromising hostility to the manufacture, sale, importation and transportation of alcoholic beverages" (1896).”[11]

Both Land and Leonard mention that although there is a strong historical trend among Southern Baptists against the consumption of alcohol, a growing minority of church members do consume liquor, wine, or beer either in public or in private.[12] Younger adult Baptists, even Southern Baptists, are moving in a liberalizing direction on the issue. These young adults (and older adults, for sure) are living into the complicated relationship that our theology, polity, and hermeneutics have with one another as Baptists.

It would be easy to settle the issue if the Bible spoke unambiguously about the consumption of alcohol.[13] Those who advocate total abstinence do so with support of various interpretations of the “Spirit-filled” life and passages concerning drunkenness. Those who support moderation or even ignore the issue altogether certainly have the majority of Christian history and tradition on their side, as well as an equal number of Biblical citations concerning the consumption of alcohol presented in a positive context.

The issues involved in the Baptists versus alcohol debate were writ large in the Brandon election. Baptists in the city staked out their predictable territory and lobbied for the defeat of the measure.

It seems that the vote came down to “progress” on the one side and something like Christian faithfulness on the other. The issue was presented in such a way by pastors that it seemed one could not be a Christian (at least a Baptist) and vote yes.[14]

By wrapping the issue up in terms of DUIs, alcohol addiction, and other social ills the Baptists of Brandon revealed their own implicit support of Walter Rauschenbusch and the Social Gospel.[15] Because the argument has been moved for so long from theological and ecclesial language Baptists have not noticed that by even taking a position on the issue they are taking a position on the government’s ability to regulate morality. I hold no misconception that the Baptists in Brandon would endorse the social programs that were developed from Rauschenbusch’s work. I do think, though, that an examination of the historical tradition of Baptists’ fight against alcohol just might nudge some believers from their staunch conservatism.

In the end, the measure passed by a margin of almost 3:1. That’s a landslide in political terms. Was the momentum of progress that compelling to voters? Were the Baptist pastors of the city lacking in their persuasive speeches? No. The vote in Brandon demonstrated what has been true about Baptists all along: we are not a settled people on social issues like the consumption of alcohol regardless of the number of resolutions ratified at an annual gathering. Leonard concludes his article, “as Baptists experience the larger Christian culture, nationally and globally, through ecclesial, corporate or familial contacts, they may realize that the moderate use of alcohol is practiced by many conservative believers without being a litmus test of personal morality or orthodox theology.”[16]

There is room in our Baptist life to truly be the Priests we say we are and to demonstrate spiritual maturity on issues like alcohol and economic development. Few things in the life of the Christian disciple are as black-and-white as political campaigns make them out to be, especially when we are disciples in a tradition with no ecclesial authority to tell us which way to vote.

The teetotalers have a point, and they have sound biblical, historical, and cultural support for their position.[17] The “social progressives” who passed the issue have a point, too. They are worried about the morality of keeping people out of poverty and developing their community for the good of all. Certainly some will exploit the issue and abuse the sale and consumption of alcohol. This is exactly why the issue isn’t settled in Baptist life - we cannot reduce issues of such social import to binary choices between righteousness and apostasy.

---

[1] http://www.cityofbrandon.net/?page_id=141

[2] This number comes from a search for “Baptist Churches” on www.yellowpages.com.

[3] See http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/23115236/brandon-liquor-vote-has-supporters-detractors and http://www.wapt.com/news/central-mississippi/jackson/brandon-to-vote-on-liquor-sales-in-city-aug-20/-/9156912/21441120/-/evhwa8/-/index.html

[4] Crossview Baptist Church

[5] Leonard, Bill, “”They Have No Wine:” Wet/Dry Baptists and the Alcohol Issues.” Creswell Theological Review 5 no 2 (Spring 2008), 3.

[6] Ibid, 5.

[7] Ibid, 9.

[8] Ibid, 10.

[9] William Brackney notes, “So pervasive was the temperance movement among Baptists of the period [late 19th and early 20th century] that literally hundreds of documents could be chosen to illustrate its character and flavor.” Brackney, William, Baptist in Life and Thought: 1600-1980. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1983, 3, 49, cited in Leonard.

[10] All of these resolutions and many more are easily accessed at www.sbc.net/resolutions. I could have listed many, many more; this sample serves to demonstrate how early and how strong the SBC’s position on alcohol was established.

[11] Land, Richard, “The Christian and Alcohol.” Criswell Theological Review, 5 no. 2 (Spring 2008), 20.

[12] Leonard, quoting Robert C. Fuller, says, “Writing in 1996, he [Fuller] reported that a recent study "showed that 48 percent of Southern Baptists drink alcoholic beverages despite strong pressure from the pulpit and denominational authorities."” Leonard, 10. Also Land: “Over the last two decades, attitudes toward alcohol use among some Southern Baptists have moderated, however. The greatest evidence of the recent shift in attitudes occurred at the 2006 annual Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina. At that meeting, the Resolutions Committee brought a resolution that called on churches to reaffirm their historical attitude toward alcohol consumption…That resolution produced more discussion and dissent than any other resolution presented at the meeting. Some messengers were so convinced of their freedom to consume alcoholic beverages that they took to the floor of the convention and urged the body not to adopt the resolution. In the end, according to press reports more than four-fifths approved the resolution, but a small, vocal group voted against it.” Land, 20.

[13] Land believes that the Scriptures do just that. Interestingly enough, his Biblical literalism on other issues falls second to his interpretive and eisegetical intentions for the meaning of the text. See Land, “The Christian and Alcohol.”

[14] http://www.wapt.com/news/central-mississippi/jackson/brandon-to-vote-on-liquor-sales-in-city-aug-20/-/9156912/21441120/-/evhwa8/-/index.html

[15] Leonard, 11-12.

[16] Leonard, 17.

[17] Leonard suggests that there may be movement away from prohibition among Baptists. He writes, “Third, the abstinence emphasis is so strong and so deep in certain Baptist traditions, often because of personal or family problems with excessive alcohol, that many will never entertain another option. Yet the fact that the issue has even arisen (and that this journal requested this article) illustrates that there is renewed dialogue on the matter, and that even some conservative Baptists are reassessing temperance arguments, often in light of biblical exegesis. Whether this represents a new justification of an old historical taboo or a recovery of older biblical hermeneutics remains to be seen.” Leonard, 17. 

It's Time to Think Small

Ed Stetzer’s recent speech to the SBC Pastors’ Conference in Houston highlighted the negative trend within the SBC in terms of baptisms and church membership. He pointed out that this “is a 50 year trend” that has been mathematically documented since the SBC’s heyday in the 1950’s. Bob Allen concluded an article about Stetzer’s speech by saying, “Acknowledging that it’s hard to turn around a 50-year trend, Statzer urged church leaders to stop being distracted by secondary issues and rehabilitate the convention’s image so that Southern Baptists will “be known more for what we’re for – the gospel – than what we’re against.””[1]

Stetzer is commenting on the prevailing themes of the SBC annual convention, that is, Calvinism and the Boy Scouts’ recent ruling on the inclusion of homosexual boys. These “secondary issues” may be responsible for the SBC’s numeric decline, although this is hardly likely. Stetzer is correct, though, to urge that the Gospel be placed at the fore of the SBC’s vision rather than theological litmus tests that only exclude those who would believe.[2]

These secondary issues are just that: secondary. I do not mean that they are unimportant; rather they are the issues that are to be worked out prayerfully and with the leading of the Holy Spirit within a local congregation. The SBC (or any other authentically Baptist convention) cannot legislate belief. The autonomous local congregation filled with Spirit-led Priests (as in the Priesthood of the Believer) must earnestly and thoroughly seek God’s will for itself and act accordingly.

Here’s where the idea of “small” comes in.

I have long assumed that a great hemorrhage of people out of our Baptist churches would come. I remember a conversation with my father when I was first working out my call to pastoral ministry during which he stated that the pastor of the future is going to be bi-vocational. His point was that the institutional, bureaucratic, top-down Baptist model was unsustainable and would ultimately fall. I believe we are seeing the beginnings of that now.

I believe that the Church will endure a great shrinking in my own generation. I credit this neither to the punishment of God nor to the failure of the Gospel. Rather this shrinking will be something akin to a “market correction” that our economists speak of when housing bubbles or tech bubbles or .com bubbles burst. Is it so fanciful to suggest that for the last 50 years we have been experiencing a “bubble” within the Baptist community?

So passionate have we been to baptize every man, woman, and child we meet that we have forgotten how to actually make disciples. Hear me: baptism is a necessary and powerful initiation into the Christian faith that should only be performed upon an individual’s profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. But baptism is not enough. If we, as Baptists, believe that salvation depends on faith in Jesus Christ rather than the act of baptism, and if we believe that the Church’s essential function is the proclamation of the Gospel to all people and the making of disciples out of those who respond, then we must learn to live in a state of holy discomfort when our churches begin to shrink and our statistics trend away from the high-water mark of the 1950s.

We have tried the “smaller-is-better” approach before. We need look no farther than the rapid expansion of cell-groups or other incarnations of the small group church model in our own era to see that our obsession with size, accounting, and the language of the free market has led many to look for smaller, more authentic ways to be and make disciples. I am not convinced that the small-group model accomplishes discipleship any better than massive Sunday School classes, but its existence is certainly a mark of our impulse to be more intimate and real with one another.

Here is a case on point: in my city many Baptists attend Pinelake, a church that is SBC to its gills yet would rather not advertise such a fact. This church does many wonderful things in terms of Gospel ministry, but one new ministry caught my eye. Pinelake has recently developed a worship setting called “the Venue” which “provides an intimate worship experience allowing you to build relationship with others.”[3] It is a church-within-a-church, a worship setting for those who desire relationships rather than worship-tainment. I would note that even in this setting the sermon is still piped in so that all of Pinelake’s campuses see and hear the Senior Pastor simultaneously.

We are already looking for more intimate worship and discipleship settings, and some churches have already begun developing ministries that address this desire among the faithful. More than worship settings, though, we must be prepared for smaller churches as we re-discover the nature of discipleship and the hard, slow work of being the people of God.

I would suggest, though, that we are not on the leading edge of a smaller church today. The old market strategies and religion-as-commodity language will no doubt be revived and efforts redoubled in the wake of Stetzer’s speech. The great shrinking is yet to come. There must be an intentional ministry of transition for those who are searching for authenticity and have no place to land in Baptist life because of it. Baptists must develop what my congregation calls “waystations” for those who are committed to the life of discipleship to Jesus Christ but feel that they cannot live such a life authentically in their current congregations. Our churches must begin ministries that receive, love, and eventually send people on their way as they discover God’s calling on their lives. Then we will be congregations in the truest sense of the word and will be able to minister to those who now classify themselves as the spiritual-but-not-religious crowd.

I can hear the wheels turning even now as pastors and Baptist church leaders think of new ways to get back to the glory days of the 1950s. I pray that in their machinations Stetzer’s words of encouragement will be made real, that the Gospel will be the message rather than any secondary issues of identity hair-splitting. I pray, though, that when the Spirit of God brings revival among those who want a deeper, more authentic walk with God that our congregations will be ready to come alongside them and journey with them for a while.

---

[1] http://www.abpnews.com/ministry/organizations/item/8571-sbc-decline-catching-up-with-mainline

[2] A case in point is Dr. Albert Mohler’s motion to excommunicate Lakeshore Baptist Church of Waco, Texas for that congregation’s support of Planned Parenthood. Ironically, the same congregation that went a bridge too far (at least according to Mohler) voted years ago to disassociate from the SBC. See http://www.abpnews.com/ministry/organizations/item/8580-sbc-targets-church-over-planned-parenthood

[3] http://pinelake.org/locations--services/reservoir/thevenue/

Apparently I'm Not a Baptist

I learned today, somewhat to my surprise, that I’m not a Baptist. The surprise came because I’m an ordained Baptist minister, a graduate of a Baptist Seminary, the son of a Baptist pastor, the grandson of a Baptist pastor, and because I have 31 years of experience in Baptist life. I learned the hard way, though, that these things are not enough to make one a Baptist, much to my chagrin.

The source of my revelation was an article[1] by Dr. Kevin McFadden, formerly of Louisiana College. He was one of the three professors at that school who had their contracts “not renewed,” a thinly veiled attempt to fire those who didn’t toe the political line of the administration and trustees of LC. His firing is unfortunate and demonstrates the continuing cannibalistic nature of fundamentalism in the SBC. Once the moderates were excluded, there was nothing left to do other than to exclude those who were less doctrinally pure than those in power. McFadden was let go because he held to a particular theological position that is well within the bounds of Orthodox Baptist life, namely Calvinism. However, it has been made clear by reports in Baptist media and from personal conversations with at least one now-disenfranchised Trustee of LC that politics was the issue more than theology.

Yet it is theology that McFadden claims to be the cause of his dismissal. In his article the professor explains a three-tiered approach to theology. His hope is to demonstrate that there are some things at the foundational level of faith, specifically, those things that lead to Christian orthodoxy. The other two levels of theology are, in McFadden’s mind, less important than the first. He comments, “Not every disagreement over doctrine is important. Some are more important than others.” He leaves room for disagreement over non-essential doctrines, which is essentially his plea for academic freedom in his now-vacant post at LC.

McFadden’s argument betrays his position, though. He contends that Calvinism (not Hyper-Calvinism, which he claims is not an authentic Baptist position) is Biblical and in line with historic Baptist principles. However, to support this position McFadden does not rely on Calvin, Zwingly, Luther, Mullins, or even Scripture to make his point; rather he relies on his theological position being consonant with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. He says, “The Baptist Faith and Message comes from a line of Calvinist confessions, rooted in the Second London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith. This is our theological history as Southern Baptists. Our confession has been modified over the years to allow views that don’t fit strictly within the Reformed tradition, but it was certainly never modified to exclude Calvinists, because the current revision of the Baptist Faith and Message included five-point Calvinists on the committee. You can be a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist and be a Southern Baptist. Both views are permitted under the umbrella of our confession.”

This is an unfortunate move, but it is telling of McFadden’s real point. McFadden and the other professors who were let go are victims of political maneuvering rather than theological boundary setting. By relying on the BF&M McFadden is attempting to restore his SBC orthodoxy in the eyes of those who fired him.

Here’s where I learned that I’m not a Baptist. In his argument about theology (which is really about politics within the Convention), McFadden describes his position within the faculty of LC. He says, “…not every teacher at Louisiana College has to agree with the second level doctrines—that is, you don’t have to be a Baptist to teach here. However, to teach in the religion department, you have to agree with everything in the Baptist Faith and Message. In other words, you have to be a Baptist.” To be a Baptist, therefore, is to adhere to the Baptist Faith and Message, and to be a Baptist professor at LC is to teach from that perspective.

As a believer who cannot place a “confession” over the Spirit-revealed truth of Scripture that is expressed and made real in the person of Jesus Christ, I have a hard time framing my life of faith in terms of the BF&M, especially on the sections that are contrary to historic Baptist principles of church polity and autonomy. I must, therefore, not be a Baptist.

In a pitiful attempt to reclaim some ground in the eyes of his political persecutors McFadden comments “the Baptist Faith and Message explains the doctrines which are important for us to agree upon so that we can work together in churches and as a denomination. It also allows disagreement on other doctrines that are not as important. It protects us from forcing others to agree with our theological pet-peeves and from being forced to agree with the theological pet-peeves of others.” Unfortunately, as he demonstrated in his citations of Creedal statements in his article, pet peeves are the forte of such statements. As he has learned the hard way, theological orthodoxy is a fire that will burn even those who think they are a part of the pure crowd.

Maybe I can still be a Baptist in spite of McFadden’s confession that to be a Baptist means to adhere to the BF&M. Maybe he meant that you can’t be a Southern Baptist without such slavish adherence. Certainly there are faithful Baptists who thrive in both ecclesial and academic circles without need for that document!

I find confidence in the fact that I can be a Baptist without the BF&M, and, in fact, can be a more spiritually and intellectually honest one in such a state. The real issue here is not theology, creedalism, or even foundational Baptist principles. Instead, the issue is how we use magisterial documents as litmus tests for orthodoxy rather than the testimony of transformed hearts and lives by the Spirit of God.

McFadden’s conclusion is telling of this point. He recognizes the inherent danger of the Fundamentalist position within the SBC. He calls it the “conservative resurgence,” but he’s living out the fundamentalist takeover. Sadly, he probably never thought he’d be a victim. Here is his conclusion in full:

“And this is what some who opposed the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention prophesied would happen. They said in effect that if you cause divisions over first level doctrines, then the divisions will never stop. This prophecy is beginning to come true. I hope you will see that the situation at Louisiana College didn’t have to happen, and it doesn’t have to happen in the future.”

No, it doesn’t. Faithful Baptists have known that for decades, and we’ve found faithfulness to God through Jesus Christ. I pray that the bloodshed will cease and that theological, intellectual, and political freedom will once again be the theme of Baptist life at LC and in our nation. As for me, I’m a Baptist. God have mercy.

---

[1] http://sbcvoices.com/how-southern-baptists-should-approach-disagreements-in-theology-by-dr-kevin-mcfadden/

Poor, Poor Al

Poor, Poor, Al.

Al Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, has written an editorial for the Washington Post about the impending marginalization of evangelicals in American society based on the recent momentum that the homosexual marriage issue has gained.[1] He notes with astonishment the speed with which the nation has changed its mind on the issue, commenting that “before you finish reading this column, another major development may well have taken place. The pace of this moral revolution is just that swift.”[2]

            The rate of change within our nation with respect to gay marriage[3], openly homosexual members in the military[4] and clergy[5], and even the Scouts’[6] recent deliberation over the issue seem to represent a critical mass of support in our land for the equality of homosexuals in most walks of American life. Mohler sees the sum total of these issues as a tide of change: “In terms of the cultural tide, evangelical Christians have every reason to feel left behind.”[7] From his perspective, evangelicals have been marginalized by the trends in politics and social action to the point that his ilk may soon find the American social landscape unrecognizable. In short, Al is crying one last time that he wants his country back.

            But that’s not the point I wish to make about Mohler’s perspective. Notice the sad tone of defeat in Mohler’s comments about evangelicals vis-à-vis the cultural mainstream:

“Churches and other groups that cannot accept the full normalization of same-sex relationships will find themselves driven further and further from the cultural mainstream.”

“We are accustomed to standing within the political and cultural mainstream, comfortable in an America that shared much of our moral worldview.”

“Much has been made of the fact that evangelicals are losing political clout, but the much greater loss is measured in cultural influence…Evangelicals are increasingly out of step with the cultural creatives, Millennials, and an electorate that is trending libertarian.”

“Evangelicals appear to be headed for some kind of marginalization, and this will hurt.”[8]

Dr. Mohler is confident that the Church can return to its marginalized roots (e.g., under persecution from governments and rulers) and thrive by demonstrating the love of Christ from the edges of society. His conclusion that evangelicals “don’t need a slot on the inaugural platform in order to be faithful to Christ” is intended to communicate confidence in the future of the evangelical movement in terms of survival, but all hope of the sweeping cultural influence of Mohler’s imagined years-gone-by is gone for good.

            Let me say that Al Mohler does not speak for me either as an evangelical Christian or as a Baptist. I wear the former lightly – like a jacket on a spring day in Mississippi – but the latter I don with pride. Mohler is betraying his misunderstanding of Baptist principles and some of the more basic realities of the Gospel.

            First, when Mohler laments the loss of whatever cultural influence the SBC or the Moral Majority or any other coalition has had in decades past he neglects that the Baptist position vis-à-vis government has always been one of marginalization and resistance.[9] To be a Baptist is to celebrate religious freedom as a minority while maintaining that freedom of conscience that drove our spiritual ancestors to be willingly executed rather than conform to the prevailing culture around them. It is only now, at the end of a relatively short period of cultural influence, that Dr. Mohler seems to have forgotten his roots. Baptists are the people of the margins, not of the mainstream. His implication that at some point in the past evangelicals (read: Southern Baptists) have carried the day in the American arena of morality is patently false; even at the high-water mark of cultural influence Baptists and evangelicals at large could only claim a participatory place in politics and culture-shaping.

            By allowing himself to mourn the loss of cultural and political influence that evangelicals in America once felt, Mohler betrays his belief that even his Fundamentalist perspective of Baptist Christianity can be counted among the evangelicals that once claimed a victory over social mores.[10] I doubt that throwing in with other Christians who fall under the fuzzy term[11] evangelical would sit well with him from a theological standpoint, although I can imagine Dr. Mohler holding his nose and joining up with other evangelicals in the name of social influence. The bottom line is that Mohler is lamenting the loss of power and control of a movement that in reality never really had as much power and control as it imagined.[12]

            Finally, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is never in the mainstream. Jesus’ ministry is counter-cultural at every point and should never be confused with even the most successful culture war campaigns in this world. When Mohler mourns the waning of evangelicals’ ability to shape American values and culture, he announces a retreat to the sidelines where all he will be able to do is preach the Gospel, in love, to the world that has forgotten him and his friends. What a sad place for someone so convinced that evangelical America was becoming the real America.

            But this is not so sad. If all we have is the Gospel being proclaimed in love from the margins of society, then we have everything the church has ever needed. If we, as Baptists, can stand as faithful witnesses to the reality of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, then we have no need for mainstream influence in American culture.  The only way to be broken-hearted over the perceived loss of evangelical influence in American life is if we have totally misread the Gospel which is not about empire-making or culture-owning or worldview-shaping; it is time to have a funeral for that perspective and all that comes with it.

            I mourn with Al, and I mourn with all who mourn the loss of such a delicious fiction. What the rest of us must prepare to do, then, is to lend a shoulder, a hand, and a heart to those who mourn so that they may feel welcome in our churches and communities on the margins. We must be ready to welcome them home.

---

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/from-the-boy-scouts-to-the-british-parliament-left-behind-conservative-christians-and-the-gay-revolution/2013/02/08/5925bc32-721e-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_blog.html

[2] Ibid.

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/us/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-two-cases-on-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/us/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-two-cases-on-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

[5] http://www.christianpost.com/news/same-sex-marriage-gay-clergy-on-table-at-methodist-general-conference-73998/

[6] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/06/us-usa-boyscouts-gays-idUSBRE9150HE20130206

[7] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/from-the-boy-scouts-to-the-british-parliament-left-behind-conservative-christians-and-the-gay-revolution/2013/02/08/5925bc32-721e-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_blog.html

[8] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/from-the-boy-scouts-to-the-british-parliament-left-behind-conservative-christians-and-the-gay-revolution/2013/02/08/5925bc32-721e-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_blog.html

[9] http://www.abpnews.com/faith/history/item/7570-be-true-to-religious-liberty-baptists-urged#.URbd_aUtY5Z

[10] Martin Marty, “At the crossroads: evangelicals have become major players in American culture, and that may be their biggest problem.” Christianity Today 48 no. 2 (2004), p. 38-40.

[11] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/01/defining-evangelical-why-its-necessary-and-impossible/

[12] See Dean Curry, “Where have all the Nieburhs gone? Evangelicals and the marginalization of religious influence in American public life.” Journal of Church and State 36 no. 1 (1994), 97-114. “The fact that evangelicals are marginally relevant to the formation of American public life is, sociologically speaking, not surprising. Nevertheless, the ability of evangelical leaders and institutions to meaningfully take part in American public life is further hindered by the nature of the dominant evangelical public philosophy which can be described as "biblicist" in its worldview.”