;)
Five Reasons the SBC Should Almost Always Refrain from Making Political Statements in Their Resolutions
Posted by David Rogers in Baptist Life
Guest Poster Chris Cooper is a PhD Student in the Church History program at Southern Seminary. He is a member of Clifton Baptist Church in Louisville, KY.
While unity and an encouraging focus upon ethnic diversity and church planting marked the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, a resolution that touched upon national immigration reform aroused a brief, but heated debate among opposing factions from the convention floor and continues to foster discussion in the blogosphere. Rather than rehash various arguments concerning how the convention should stand on immigration reform, I want to address a more foundational question. Should a convention of churches make political resolutions at all? Political resolutions couched in kingdom rhetoric have become commonplace at the Annual Meeting, although this has not always been the case historically. When two messengers attempted to lead the convention to pass temperance resolutions at the 1888 Annual Meeting, they were ruled out of order by convention president James P. Boyce because the question introduced was political and lay outside the proper bounds of a convention of churches.1 What follows is a list of five reasons why Southern Baptists should return to this policy and almost always refrain from making political statements in their resolutions.
First, God created and instituted (and thus legitimated) both government and church and reigns over these two spheres differently, has given these two institutions distinct roles, and has equipped them differently to fulfill those roles. God rules over the state as creator/sustainer and has given it a non-redemptive, coercive role in society. God rules over the church as redeemer and has given her a redemptive, non-coercive role. In other words, God has given to the church the keys of the kingdom to mediate salvation through the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the ordinances, and discipline and has granted the state the sword and the right and responsibility to punish evildoers, reward virtue, and promote the welfare of its inhabitants. For this reason, a church as an institution or a convention of churches speaking with one voice through resolutions does not bear the responsibility to make laws or to add their opinions concerning the implementation of laws needed or the reform of laws already made, although it may be appropriate for her to speak with a prophetic voice when governing authorities have clearly transgressed a biblical command through policy and precept. In this way, the church does have a responsibility to speak where Christ has spoken, even if it touches upon a political concern. However, politics are often too complicated, and rarely is an issue simple enough, for a convention of churches to take positions or make political statements. For instance, the Bible is clear on what an individual church should do concerning homosexuality. They should preach that it is a sin and come alongside those who desire to follow Christ and compassionately help them to continue on in the struggle of lifelong repentance towards God and faith in Christ. They should not accept into membership, and, if members, they should discipline, those who do not express a desire to follow Christ’s commands. But what about the nation as a whole? Should a church or a convention of churches demand that a federal marriage amendment be passed? Possibly, but wouldn’t that bind the conscience of a church member who believes all that the Bible says about homosexuality, but is against a federal marriage amendment because he/she does not believe the federal government should make such powerful decisions for individual states that have their own governing bodies elected by the people?
Second, Christ instituted the church and has given her instructions for government and mission by the Holy Spirit in the Word of God through positive commands and example. A church must therefore set up her government, conduct her worship, and construct her mission according to what Christ has commanded. Whatever Christ has commanded and said in His Word, she is to say. Where Christ is silent, she is silent. The mission that Christ has given His church is not to make laws or shape public policy through opinions, but to preach the gospel, make disciples, and plant churches. Therefore, the resolutions made by a convention of churches like the Southern Baptist Convention should address issues from the perspective of preachers and church planters, not from the perspective of policy makers.
Third, a church and her members are bound by what Christ has commanded in His Word through positive command and example. Therefore, church leaders and a voting congregation or a voting convention should not bind the consciences of church members or churches where Christ has not bound them. To encourage church members or a convention of churches to associate with lost people, have compassion for them, and share the gospel with them is to encourage them to do what Christ has commanded. To take a stand on a political step concerning immigration or any other issue that Christ does not mandate is to bind a church member or a church in a way that Christ does not and is a breech of Christian liberty. To call on the government to take a certain route that Christ does not mandate is to bind them as well, and it also causes the convention of churches to turn its focus away from the particular mission that Christ has given it.
Fourth, what is appropriate for an individual Christian to do or say in society is not the same as what is appropriate for the church to do or say. In other words, a biblical distinction exists between the church as an institution of Christ and individual church members. Individual Christians are citizens of both spheres. They are citizens of Christ’s church and the nation where they are citizens, and they take part in the voting and thus the legislation of both institutions. Therefore, it is appropriate and right for individual Christians to think through the best possible scenarios for them and the nation to love their neighbors and govern society. In fact, Christians should make the best neighbors, citizens, and politicians. Non-Christian citizens are made in the image of God, have the law written on their hearts, and are constrained to act properly by the civil government. These individuals have a general sense of right and wrong and often act benevolently in God’s common grace. However, they do not have a regenerate heart or the indwelling Holy Spirit, are at enmity with God, and often act from selfish ambition. Christian citizens, on the other hand, are made in the image of God, have the law written on their hearts, are in subjection to the governing authorities, and have a new heart, the Holy Spirit, and the Word of God. Therefore, individual Christians should be involved in politics and conversations concerning the reform of unjust laws and policies. However, a Christian should not call it a sin or pretend that he holds the only gospel approach to an issue when another Christian comes to a different conclusion on a political question upon which the Bible has not spoken definitively. The resolution on immigration and reform presented by the resolutions committee represented in its entirety a well-thought out, biblically based position on immigration reform appropriate for an individual Christian to propagate, but not the position found in the Bible (one does not exist) and certainly not what the church should declare as a spiritual institution.
Finally, a church or a convention of churches has an eternally more important mission than the state and a wonderful message, a message that is powerful enough in and of itself to bring salvation without the church having to align herself with a particular political position or cause. She has the words of eternal life and the message of reconciliation with God. This message may seem irrelevant and out of touch to those who are perishing, but to those who believe, it is the power of salvation. Therefore, a convention of churches does not have to make resolutions on cultural hot button issues and national politics in order to be effective or to be faithful. A church and a convention of churches does not prove that they are faithful to the Lord’s Word concerning homosexuality by passing a resolution on federal policy, but, as stated above, they prove that they are faithful when they preach the gospel to unbelieving persons struggling with homosexual attraction and come alongside them to help them begin the lifelong struggle of repentance towards God and faith in Christ. In a like manner, a convention of churches does not have to pass a resolution that takes a position concerning the future legal status of undocumented immigrants in order to validate their pledge to preach the gospel to undocumented immigrants and to act compassionately towards them.
It is my hope that Southern Baptists would consider these arguments and principles and some day in the not too distance future refrain from making political statements in their resolutions, especially since we as Southern Baptists expressed a desire for regional and ethnic diversity at this past convention. In the past, Southern Baptists have passed politically worded resolutions with little controversy, because people from the same age-group, region, and denominational background tend to see things concerning government from the same general perspective. However, if we are successful in reaching people of different regions, ethnicities, and age-groups, we are just as likely to alienate them from Southern Baptist life once they come in, if we continue to take unwarranted, official political positions rather than focus on cooperating to plant churches.
———————
1Joe L. Coker, Liquor in the Land of the Lost Cause: Southern White Evangelicals and the Prohibition Movement (Lexington, KY: The University of Kentucky Press), 95.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
AMEN! In recent years, the SBC had to make a humbling apology for our past views on race and segregation. It is my hope we learn from such mistakes as these. We should be focused on building the kingdom through witnessing and preaching of the Word, not legislation and political resolutions.
AMEN! With an emphasis on discipleship within the church that incorporates and promotes these points alongside the Word and work of truth.
Chris,
Thank you for posting. I think I can agree for the most part with what you say here, but I don’t have a framework for determining which resolutions are appropriate and which aren’t. Any thoughts on this?
Andrew,
That is a great and difficult question that I have thought about as well and am still trying to think through. “Political statement” is a hard term to define, because it is relative to what goes on in the realm of politics. Our resolution on Hell could not be seen as political, but what if there were one political party that advocated the doctrine of Hell and another one that did not. At that point, many would look at it as a political statement.
Perhaps the best way to look at it is not to ask whether a statement addresses something that is going on in the political realm, but to ask the following questions. How does a topic relate to our mission as a convention of churches? What does the Bible clearly say about this topic in relation to our mission as a convention of churches? Has our resolution only gone as far as Scripture concerning a topic without making specific extra-biblical demands that may alienate churches and their members within the convention?
Should a group of politicians, meeting, issue statements on religious matters?
No, and we wouldn’t stand for it.
But I’ll admit that the “group mentality” of conventions does give the individual an escape from doing what he ought as an individual. No single pastor has to repent over bloated membership numbers if we do it as a convention, right?
While I can agree with most of these points (and indeed talked about the different roles of both the state and the church in a series of articles before) I think one has to consider long and hard about this proposed compartmentalization of “churches” where these churches are made up of individual Christians living in the world. Also to extend the word “political” is suspect because one persons “prophetic voice” is another persons “politics.” In example, the Christian Body has spoken “prophetically” about abortion since her founding. And yet for many people, abortion is primarily in the “political” sphere. Is it the author’s contention that a church or even a convention of churches should refrain from advocating for laws to protect the unborn because some believe that said advocacy is merely “political”?
And should we refrain from speaking “prophetically” using biblical principles if the subject matter is not spoken to directly by the Scriptures? I think your protesteth too much.
I so have a continued objection to this willy-nilly attempt to compartmentalize all of life from the church. It has had ill-gotten results. “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness…” Everybody talks about the “kingdom” part – but rarely talk about the “righteousness” part suspecting if we talk too much about what is good and right and just they will not listen to us. They reject us because they have rejected the Jesus in us and all the ramifications of both the Kingdom and righteousness.
My view: understanding that the church (and by extension a convention of churches) only has a “encouragement, commenting, and advisory” role vis a vis the state, then we as individuals, churches and conventions should not refrain from doing what is good and right in that capacity despite what some may think. In the fact that not everybody will agree with us or even within our own body is just a part of that human process and does not make the majority who voted so such things wrong. We are to be “salt and light” and not just “light”.
Rob
The beauty of the congregational system is that neither the individual nor the church has to agree with the resolutions passed on by the majority of the convention meeting.
Rob,
Thanks for your insights. Concerning your first point, I think that the case can be made biblically for distinguishing between a church and individual Christians. First, while a church cannot exist without believers, a group of believers gathering together does not constitute a church. In other words, a church is not merely a community. Rather, it is also an institution with a mission, its own government, worship, and ordinances that are all to be taken from the Word of God. An individual church member is also a member of society at large, which has its own government and practices. An individual church member does not cease to be a church member and certainly does not cease to be a Christian when he engages in social issues and politics, but he also does not speak on behalf of his entire church either. As a member of an earthly government and a Christian belonging to a church, he can and should say things and take positions out of Christian love for his neighbor that would not be appropriate for an entire church to say or take a position on through an official resolution.
Concerning your second point, I tried to answer that in my reply to Andrew above, in my title, and in the first reason that I submitted for almost always refraining from making political statements. If the doctrine of Hell were an issue in the political realm, we should not cease saying what the Bible clearly says about it just because it would also be construed as political. If we lived in a country that did not separate church and state and that was unchristian, our commitment to extend mercy to all people, to plant churches, to preach, and to do the other things appropriate to a church’s mission would probably be construed as politically defiant, but we must speak about what we have seen and heard. Thankfully, that is not the case in our country. That is why I stated in the title that the SBC (I would use italics here if I could) should almost (imagine this word is italicized too!) always refrain from making political statements.
Concerning your section on my protesting too much about what the church should say officially through resolutions, I stand by my argument that a convention of churches as an institution speaking through resolutions should only speak where the Bible has spoken clearly through positive command, example, or biblical principals and that it should only speak officially, if the position stated is THE biblical position and not A biblical position. Even though we are a convention of congregational churches, resolutions are often perceived as the positions that the SBC has taken or official statements that the SBC has made, regardless of the fact that many of the godly SBC laypeople that I love and whose piety I wish to emulate do not know about, and will never know anything about, most or any of the resolutions adopted just a few weeks ago.
Finally, I want to clarify that I am not arguing that Christians should cease taking positions on issues like immigration reform or that they should not debate these issues. My arguments do not grant warrant to a person that desires to duck his head or hideaway from the ills of the society or the needs of his neighbors. The blogosphere is an excellent venue to debate such issues. A church business meeting and an annual meeting is not. By all means, let Christians write and publish pieces like the immigration and gospel resolutions and propagate their particular positions on immigration reform. It expresses a well-thought out viewpoint based on a desire to honor Christ and to be Christlike towards all people. But, do not force it and other statements upon churches, when they have their own positions based equally upon biblical principles and Christian charity, even though those messengers who disagree will just shake their heads, say “I will not repeat that at my local church,” and go on their way without out facing any consequences.
Shucks Chris, do you have a biblical reference for your first paragraph that among other things says this, “…a group of believers gathering together does not constitute a church.” Really? I thought the Master said that the church was not a building but called out individuals: ergo, if they gathered together, then the Master would be present even if the number of them only included “2″. Is the mission in any way mitigated without being in a dedicated holy building, or taking the roll? Is such a group who gathers, encourages, prays, shares scriptures, and plans to share outside of their group not a church, an ecclisia? The apostles called such small house groups “the church” – right? Is not the “church” present in those places where “institutionalization” not proceeded. Among a group of believers in a fox hole? Or in a basement hiding from the authorities?
I think your “hell” example is missing the point, and in our current paradigm a bit absurd. It also ducks a bit on MY specific example, i.e. abortion. In that regard, would not advocating for life in resolutions, and the promoting of laws to protect the unborn would be among those included in your small list of those things which the church (and in extension a convention of churches) could ‘safely” comment on in a resolution? Does it have sufficient biblical foundation as to being THE biblical position?
As to your “perception” argument I have one word: irrelevant. There are some who “perceive” that Christians sharing the Good News to anyone outside of their circles is being “intolerant.” I will not allow the “perception” of others to mitigate what I know is the right thing to do, both as an individual and an Pastor and as a messenger duly appointed. Just because some do not understand our polity is no excuse to not act on proper and just statements that reflect the prayerful views of the majority.
I disagree with the viewpoint that business meetings and convention meetings cannot be educational and informative to various viewpoints. For most, it is the only time they have from their various activities to become aware of all that is going on in the mission of the church or convention of churches. In this regard, we have ill used our polity in believing they are informed of all issues. They are not like us who take the time and read blog articles on a daily basis
You have a fairly cynical view of the democratic process and specifically our polity, do you not? How is it “forcing” a resolution on churches when: a)churches are autonomous; b)conventions are autonomous; c)resolution writers are autonomous d) most resolutions die in committee; e)resolutions are subject to a vote of the messengers present and must be approved by majority before they are posted as approved in the Book of Reports and released to the churches and media. Are resolutions “forced’ on the messengers? No, a messenger can vote for or against a resolution as presented. Is a convention resolution “forced” upon a church? No, a church can accept, reject, or ignore a resolution. Is the resolution “binding” on a church passed by a majority of convention messengers? No, it is not – a church can decide to support a convention resolution by action or not, and the church and their membership in the convention is not imperiled by declining or rejecting the resolution. How is any of this “forcing” anything? What I suspect your protesting here is this: “Don’t pass a resolution if it disagrees with my sensibilities – and if you do, I will call it “forcing” your view on me.” I restate my position that you are protesting too much.
Otherwise brother, this is fun!
Rob
Rob,
I think if we keep on at this we are going to dispel the myth that Southern Baptists share a common ecclesiology. (Pretend there is a smiley face here.)
The group of believers that gathers, encourages, prays, shares scriptures and plans to share outside their group is obviously an assembly, but they are not quite the assembly that Christ instituted for HIS assembly that we call the church, not because they do not have a building or list of names in the building’s office files, but because they do not bear the marks of the church. The churches that met in homes in the apostolic era consisted of baptized believers that took the Lord’s Supper together, heard the preaching of the Word, had a polity, and exercised church discipline. If this is not the case, why doesn’t the Southern Baptist Convention allow the Gideon’s who meet at the local diner to join. (After all, we need more people who are passionate about evangelism.) We don’t do that, because a group of men gathering wherever is not a church unless they bear the marks of the church that Christ has given in His Word through positive command and example.
Concerning your question about abortion, my answer is yes.
If your comments about perception are directed towards my final reason, then I must not have made myself clear, because I think that I am saying basically the same thing that you are, if I am reading you correctly. We do not have to make political resolutions to get the approval of anyone, because the Gospel is powerful in and of itself to bring people to salvation. If not for Dr. Mohler’s answer on homosexuality after his seminary address, and if not for the resolution on immigration and the gospel, the Annual Meeting probably would not have had the little media coverage it had. Why? Because the fact that we are a group of sojourners looking forward to the return of a man who died two thousand years ago on a cross and supposedly rose again seems absurd, irrelevant, and certainly not news worthy to unbelievers. But that is okay, because to those who have been drawn to see and believe that Christ did atone for sins, rise from the dead, and will return to judge the living and the dead, it is the power of salvation and the sustenance that gives them hope in this fallen world. I am saying we should not be so concerned with how we are perceived. What Christ has commanded us to do, we are to do. What Christ has spoken, we speak without shame and without apology.
Concerning your statement on business meetings and annual meetings, I still argue that that is not the proper time to debate or talk through matters where the Bible is not clear. At the local church level that you are referring to where men don’t read blogs, the kind of churches that I am from and the kind of church that I have pastored, there are better places to talk through Christian ethics than when the church meets as the church to conduct her business. Isn’t this what discipleship is all about? Let the pastoral staff meet with those interested on a friday night around fish and french fries to discuss these things. Maybe once the older men in the church have learned these things, they can share them with the younger men. And maybe the older women could disciple the younger women. Isn’t this how we are instructed to do it in Scripture?
Finally, I will concede that force was too strong of a word. I was a bit grandiose in my language at the end of that response. (Picture another smiley face.) However, whether a bishop, a presbytery, a pastoral staff, or 50.00001 of their peers speak on behalf of church members where Christ has not spoken, concerning a doctrinal position, a matter of acceptable Christian behavior, or a political position, it is inappropriate. Concerning resolutions, even though they can be disregarded by churches, they still are often viewed as the positions of the SBC on the issues they address. Why not address what Christ has clearly spoken through His Word about her mission in the world rather than debate things on which we can disagree (like public policy). If I know myself at all, what you state about me at the end is not the case. Did they teach a course on psychology where you studied? Perhaps you know me better than I know myself. (Smiley Face)
Chris,
I’m also interested in the concept of “binding” people’s consciences. I can’t think of anyone who feels bound by all the resolutions passed at the annual meeting (though it would be interesting to know if someone gave up the NIV because the SBC said so).
Likewise, we have the question on the political nature of urging the government to cease acting wickedly or start acting righteously. Speaking of that, I need to start drafting a resolution on the TSA for next year’s convention
.
It seems to me, at the bottom line, this is a question of Christian unity. What binds us together as Christians, is the gospel, and faithfulness to Christ’s commands, as we understand them. I can hold a personal opinion on any number of issues. But if some other brother in Christ holds an opinion that is different than mine, and that opinion doesn’t place him outside the bounds of the gospel and faithfulness to Christ’s commands, it is best to be clear my opinion is just that: my opinion, nothing more. And, what is the use of voting on personal opinions in churches or conventions of churches? We could all vote on who is our favorite football team. We would all have our opinions. Some of us may even have very strong opinions. But what would voting on it accomplish, other than to divide us, when we should be united on the gospel? It seems to me that for anything we vote on (other than strictly pragmatic matters, such as the color of the carpet) we need to be prepared to make a strong case why biblical faithfulness demands us taking the position we are taking.
The teller at the bank is trained with genuine authentic currency. They count large sums of it for days on end before ever making public transactions. Eventually, a counterfeit is inserted in a pile of money and it is easily detected. Why, because the tellers fingers have become sensitive to the genuine, it obviously feels different. We would be better off preaching and teaching and applying the kingdom principles in our daily walk of faith. When the political statements arise we would be sensitive to its oddity and be able to discern the difference. Our instructions are, “Wisdom is the principle thing..” and we would be a better body if we sought the purest form of Kingdom living and let the counterfeit be revealed when it is presented. If we train ourselves on how to detect political statements we waste God’s time and begin to split grey area hairs.
Chris,
Excellent word!
I too cringe when a group of well meaning Christians take advantage of the other million or so Christians and voice an opinion that is out of context with the mission of preaching and teaching the gospel.
Of course, there are those that have extended the preaching and teaching of the gospel into these politically loaded scenarios, but as you have outlined….that type of extension really is running away from the primary task at hand.
The first thing that pops into my mind when certain resolutions appear, …is, … my church doesn’t really see it that way because we don’t have a stance on immigration, or we don’t treat homosexuals in a bad way,…or etc. etc. Its difficult for a small conventionized group to speak for the whole IMHO. It certainly detracts from the main thing, remaining the main thing.
Blessings,
Chris
I also agree with David Rogers,…… it is a matter of Unity. Leadership of a convention should recognize when unity is about to be breached. It is there responsibility to at least attempt to maintain the unity among the believers. The problem seems to surface….when a small group trys to force a false unity in politic, by side stepping the more important matter of unity among believers.
-Chris
It truly (for me) boggles the mind sometimes about what I read on blogs. How could you think that we hold together common principles, doctrines, and prescriptions and we could fairly get along without unanimity of opinion? I don’t know – it must be a God thing or something
First off I would require (if I were a King for a day – you should be thankful that I am not
) a class on basic Baptist polity (and ecclisiology for that matter). The functions of a Baptist business meeting comes to mind. Somehow we have lost the idea that every time the body gets together it comes for the purpose of WORSHIP – and a business meeting is a CELEBRATION and an ACCOUNTABILITY session of all that God is doing and all that He will do. We start off business meetings where I am at by singing a hymn together, reading a portion of Scripture, and going into prayer. If inside that meeting we cannot be seriously honest as well as sharing information that would inform the Body of Christ as well as glorify God then we are not doing it right. Just because you guys have been in business meetings that did not portray this does not deter business meetings – it merely shows how depraved and fallen even those who are saved by grace are. And while it is hoped that consensus and total unanimity can be found, that in and of itself is a PIPE DREAM. Is the Church of God at a standstill because unity and unanimity are at a standstill? Because we can’t agree that to act in unison requires that everyone have complete consensus on what the Bible says to do or not do? Shucks, agreement to even what are direct or indirect commands of Scripture seems to be in play in some circles right? There is a realm of reality here that needs to shared: “semper reformanda” (something I threw out for all Calvinists everywhere).
If one understood Baptist polity in IMHO they would not play word games using “forced” or “taken advantage of”. They just would not, period. The answer to it all is to “engage” not “put your head in the sand” or “withdrawal”. I agree that Christian unity is preferred over schism and disunity. The only exception to this are Biblical demands and Biblical commands and principles. What seems to be suggested here is “what makes a direct biblical command – and if the principle being voted upon is not direct, then for the sake of unity abandoned.” I disagree with the premiss, based partly on my understanding of Baptist polity, and on Scripture. If those folks who have criticisms of the system, they should put some “skin in the game” and with prayerful consideration place these things into the consciousness of Baptists. What better way to do it than a business meeting inserting a resolution for consideration?
Rob
Rob,
Seriously, whether you have a degree in psychology or not, please refrain from pretending that you know the reasons or motives for other peoples’ positions. I cannot recall a business meeting that I have been to, at the local church level, where people got out of hand or openly displayed their depravity. However, what I have seen in business meetings or how you conduct business meetings is irrelevant.
The reformed church is to be always reforming, not according to the whims of the majority, but according to the Word of God. The congregation may vote and the majority carry the day on how the church is to be reformed according to the Word of God. To that I submit. To the idea that the majority can make up extra-biblical rules as they go I along, I do not submit. Christ is the head of the church, not the majority. Christ decides her mission, polity, and worship. Christ decides through His Word what is appropriate for her to say. This is why I am a Baptist. I believe that Christ has prescribed this system of church government in the Scriptures. I believe that the congregation has the final say concerning her next minister and the reception or the excommunication of members. However, the authority granted to the congregation is not a license for extra-biblical creativity.
Finally, I believe that my position is based on a robust understanding of ecclesiology fully within the confines of the Baptist tradition and am thus afraid that any further study into this subject will leave me even more suspect in your opinion.
A little sensitive Chris? What exactly was the purpose of bearing it “on the man?” You questioned my integrity, my education, and my intelligence all in one fell swoop. You accuse me of ESP and using psychological magic when I did none of the above. Let us draw back a minute, get our bearings, take a breath, and move on. Granted much of this is because we are limited by the typed word, and cannot see all of the non-verbal communication going on, limited as we are by distance and the medium. I will track back a bit, and then attempt to be me clear as to what my criticism is. If you think I am bad, just wait – your committee reading your dissertation have it in their heart to completely and concisely tear you apart no matter how good or bad your work is, “a rite of passage”. My meager criticisms here are just minuscule as compared to your day of reckoning approaching.
When you claimed that resolutions “forced” belief on people who did not agree, I claimed you knew little about Baptist polity. You backtracked from the “forced” but still maintain the position by stating that, “However, whether a bishop, a presbytery, a pastoral staff, or 50.00001 of their peers speak on behalf of church members where Christ has not spoken, concerning a doctrinal position, a matter of acceptable Christian behavior, or a political position, it is inappropriate.” Again the Argumentum ad Baculum approach. If one truly understood congregational polity, that statement again would not be spoken. The convention (in particular) never speaks for the Body of Churches – it only speaks on the sentiments and belief of those messengers assembled. Period. A resolution in a church business meeting is the same – a moment of understanding by those members present – no more, no less. Finis. If anyone has a different understanding they have a false understanding. Their perception is irrelevant. If you are for limits on resolutions that are in the end biblical, God Glorifying, and truthful and expedient to our mission together, then I am all ears. I hope you understand that I (and others) will not give you the license to decide in total what is Biblical and Scriptural and would prefer that decision should be decided by the Body of Christ – committed believers who have taken the time to attend those business meetings and conventions rather than a group of elders, a pastor, or a bishop, “Holy Men” all for as the Word says, “…in the abundance of counselors, there is safety.” While majorities are not always right, they are not always wrong either (particularly when they agree with me! I would ask you to put yourself in the shoes of this parenthetical statement and see if it does not fit). In any regards, our doctrinal belief is that committed Christians coming together to consider the Mind of Christ are prayerfully considering His way – and thus we also consider that God is in control of all of these things even when a resolution passes that does not agree with us. Right. God indeed is Sovereign. Sometimes I just wish those who are in agreement with the totality of that statement would believe it and act accordingly.
My apologies for projecting a bit. You see I have been in business meetings where things got out of hand. I have been a participant as well as a moderator in such meetings. If somebody has not, then they have lived a insulated church life where everything was heavenly (Great!) or they have not gone to business meetings (sad) or they live in a church that has pretty much done away with the things. Your answers to key questions has led me to a conclusion – not my psychological training. You can have an opinion based upon your observation and/or perception. But let it not be said that Convention and Congregational meetings and their resolutions are any more than what they are. Your argument (with others) may not be on par with taking extra-biblical creative shortcuts with biblical truth. But I would think an Baptist historian would refrain from such grandiose arguments.
By the way a
is colon-dash-right parenthesis all together – the system does the rest!
Rob
Rob,
I conceded that I should not have used the word forced. I did not restate the same thing over again as you state above. I stand by the argument that it is inappropriate for the church as the church to speak on points of doctrine, ethics, or public policy when Christ has not spoken to it through biblical command or logical entailment through biblical principles, whether in a statement of faith or a resolution. Other Baptists have shared this viewpoint throughout history without having their Baptist identity card revoked or their knowledge of Baptist principles questioned. I understand that churches are not required to put resolutions into practice. I did not sleep through that part of congregationalism 101. I am arguing that just because resolutions made by a covention of churches are not binding by threat of penalty does not mean that a convention has a license to make statements on matters of doctrine, ethics, or public policy where the Bible is not clear. I will state this one more time. The reason that I hold this position is not that I am a child who gets angry when the majority does not see things his way. I do not hold the position that I hold because of observations that I have had of business meetings that I have been in in the past. I hold this position, because I believe that the church has a specific mission given to her by Christ and that the church does not need to widen that mission in order to be effective. I believe that the church has her rulebook for practice, polity, and worship in Scripture and that it is sufficient without our additional opinions, even if those opinions are not binding by threat of penalty. How is it expedient for a convention to make a resolution on a matter of doctrine, ethics, or public policy where Scripture is silent? Is the message that Christ has left us with not enough? Is the mission that Christ has left us with not enough? Does the Gospel need our extra-biblical creativity in order to have power to save? Why not speak where Christ has spoken? Why not focus on the task of planting churches and calling ourselves to bibical faithfulness in areas where the Bible speaks? This particular viewpoint concerning ecclesiology is not anti-Baptist or anti-congregational. Others besides Baptists have held this viewpoint and Baptists have held this viewpoint (as I allude to in the introduction of my article). I am careful to show in my article that I am not calling on Baptists to bury their heads in the sand. We should follow the Scriptures command concerning making disciples. A part of making disciples is helping them to see the world through a Christian’s perspective, allowing them to love their neighbors in the realms of politics and public policy in ways that are honoring to Christ. But I believe that when the church meets as the church to discuss the business of the church and make statements as the church, then she should speak where Christ has spoken and remain silent where He is silent. She should focus on the mission given to her and not be distracted by other matters. This is not a matter of me being outside the confines of congregationalism and you calling me out on it. The position that you are arguing is a position from within the confines of congregationalism. The position that I am arguing is a position from within the confines of congregationalism. From the principle of sola scriptura, I believe the church should go as only as far as Scripture goes whether her speaking about things outside of Scripture is done through a decision that is binding by penalty or through a resolution that is not binding by penalty. While I am not questioning your allegiance to sola scriptura in theory, I do wonder whether you have abandoned it in practice, if you believe that it is appropriate for the church to make statements on doctrine, ethics, or public policy where Christ is silent.
Concerning a resolution only representing those present and voting, I disagree. Those voting on resolutions are messengers delegated by local churches to speak on their behalf. This fact is not negated just because a resolution is not binding by threat of penalty.
Finally, I should not have questioned your education or intelligence, but I find it ironic that right after you rightly call me out on this you proceed in your statements to continue to question my education and intelligence.
“Finally, I should not have questioned your education or intelligence, but I find it ironic that right after you rightly call me out on this you proceed in your statements to continue to question my education and intelligence.”
I did not question your intelligence or education – just your “understanding”. I quote E.Y. Mullins and Herschel Hobbs, “The Axioms of Religion” pg. 107-108 under subheading “Interchurch Relationships”:
“Local Southern Baptist churches do not send ‘delegates’ to denominational meetings with delegated authority to act for them, in which case the actions of the body would be binding upon the churches. Instead they are ‘messengers’, who comprise the given body. No action taken by them is binding upon any other body. Cooperation is purely voluntary right down to the individual member. Thus the right of equality is preserved for Baptist bodies as well as for individuals within the churches.”
You may disagree with Herschel and Mullins here. But they are certainly “historical” figures of which form much of the basis of Historical Southern Baptist understanding of the church and its convention bodies and how acts done above are both autonomous and do not even speak for the churches – the actions speak for the assembly for that moment of time. At least that is how I understand Baptist polity from my Congregational 101 class.
Most of your long discussion is called in most circles a “straw man” in which most I do not disagree. Our disagreement merely lies in “Can a resolution be based upon a Scriptural principle minus a ‘direct’ commandment in the affirmative or dis-affirmative, and can a Body so inclined to move on such a resolution do so under the inspirational leading of the Spirit.” – and “Does a convention body speak for all the churches” and the corollary, “Does a church in business speak for all of its members” To the former, you say no, I say yes. To the latter, you say yes and I say no. You say the sky is green. I say the sky is blue. At least that is the way I see it
Rob
Rob,
I am not sure if your comment here is in reply to my comment (partly or entirely) or to someone else.
In any case, I agree that it is sometimes hard to determine what things are questions Scripture demands we take an opinion on, and what things are not. I am willing to consider an issue as an issue to take an opinion on, if a good case can be made that Scripture demands it. This, of course, implies a certain degree of subjectivity. But, at least, I think we must retain this principle in theory. I also agree there are certain Scriptural demands that are more by inference than by direct injunction. But, at least, I think the person arguing for a certain position should be able to lay out a cogent argument as to why biblical principles demand one to take that position.
No David not totally towards you – more at others than at you. We have been down this road before, and am acutely aware of your position. In this regard and upon our understanding I embrace the sentiment of this statement: “In essentials unity; In non-essentials, liberty; In all things, charity”
Rob
Rob,
Just because you still do not understand what I am saying does not mean that I am employing a straw man argument. I have argued consistently that a convention of churches should not make statements where the Bible does not make a direct command OR where the Bible does not entail a certain position through biblical principles. You argue that as long as a position is based upon biblical principles and is guided by the “inpirational leading of the Holy Spirit” in a body of voters, it is appropriate. My position is that we should only say what Christ has clearly stated through His Word and that we should remain silent where He is silent. You cannot say this. I believe that almost all of what was written in the resolution on immigration and the gospel was appropriate, but that it breached the bounds of appropriateness when it took a position on the future status of undocumented immigrants that was not entailed by biblical principles. You believe that all of it was appropriate, because even the part that made a political statement not entailed by biblical principles was made by a group of Holy Spirit inspired voters who did not represent anybody but themselves.
When church members vote to receive a new member, does their decision represent only themselves or the entire church? Am I less obligated to pray for them, encourage them, rebuke them, and love them, because I missed that meeting and did not vote? When church members vote to excommunicate a member, does their decision represent only themselves or the entire church? Am I allowed to continue to treat that person as a believer in good standing, because I missed that meeting and did not vote? When church members vote to adopt a statement of faith that says that Christ was the second person of the Trinity, does their decision represent only themselves or the entire church? Can I shrug off the fact that I am a unitarian (I am not really a unitarian) because I was not at that meeting? Can I use this same protest when I am being voted out of membership from the church? Now these situations are different from resolutions, which are not binding by threat of penalty, but they show that none of us believe that a church in business only speaks for those present and not, at least at points, for the entire congregation. But even if a business meeting only represented those present and voting, which it doesn’t, it still does not mean that they have a license to speak where Scripture does not speak, which is my main argument.
On the contrary, I know exactly what you are saying and getting to (there you go again, impugning my intelligence – oh well – and here I thought I was taking the high road by ignoring your statement of your doubt of my belief in sola scriptura). Then you succinctly reproduce our positions of disagreement.
As to your specific examples – when a church meeting in assembly takes a vote on a doctrinal position (or membership, or excommunication (the Baptist vernacular is “dis-fellowshiped”) , then each member as a priest has a choice, as Mullins suggested ‘the right of equality’ (if they were there or not). “Does this position represent my understanding of where Christ is in my life.” If the answer is “yes” then their conscience is clear, and the vote is affirmed as being their own with the body, the majority. If the answer is “no” the next question is, “does the majority position of the body conflict with my worship with them; can I in good conscience remain in this body and walk together with them?” If the answer is “no” that person looks for a new church family. But you know this, right? So while the resolution (most motions are “resolutions” binding or no) only “technically” speaks for those present, those present voting “no” and those not present will either accept the finding of the vote (though they disagreed with it or were not present) or not. I have found however two maxims to your examples: most churches accept new members regardless if they were present and voted “aye” or not(having trusted Pastors and leaders to do the appropriate vetting) and most all members show up to a church discipline assembly unless they are sick or on vacation.
You kind of glossed over the “Axioms” quote which would you not agree is in direct opposition to this quote of yours: “Those voting on resolutions are messengers “delegated” by local churches to speak on their behalf”? If that is your opinion then fine. But does not this position run against the Baptist historical understanding represented by Mullins and Hobbs?
This statement IMHO is your opinion and strongly held belief and I accept it as such: “I believe that almost all of what was written in the resolution on immigration and the gospel was appropriate, but that it breached the bounds of appropriateness when it took a position on the future status of undocumented immigrants that was not entailed by biblical principles. You believe that all of it was appropriate, because even the part that made a political statement not entailed by biblical principles was made by a group of Holy Spirit inspired voters who did not represent anybody but themselves.” Of course your opinions are your own, and I accept that you own them – otherwise you would not have written the article. A couple of questions: 1) Is it totally “unreasonable” to believe that the comment on the future status of illegal emigrants was not also in some way guided by a Biblical principle? and 2) Are you suggesting that the messengers there assembled were not guided by the Holy Spirit? Is that based upon your belief that it was unreasonable to vote on the resolution so encumbered by inappropriateness of the “political” statement? Is that then in the eye of the beholder? For the record I did not agree with the resolution, and if present would have voted “no.” I am not encumbered by it, and it will neither rule me or the church I pastor. It does not impugn my conscience however so I will remain Southern Baptist. My only concern is the resolution has no author which it needed to (but I have my suspicions of who it was).
Rob
Shalom my brother. I will give you the last word here. If you wish to continue this dialogue I am willing, but only through private communication – I think you have had enough of me. I have wished you no ill will; on the contrary I give God praise for giving you a passion and a willingness to stand up for your convictions – we need more of you. I have a passion for historical Baptist polity – a waning and dieing dinosaur in these dark days. A good friend of mine, Jerry Grace, used to write much on congregationalism from a Baptist Deacon perspective on his blog SBC Outhouse. He also rubbed off on me some of his blog hubris (Jerry if your reading
). Nothing was said on my part personal – but I find that I cannot let a contrary point by without debate, as “iron sharpens iron”. No one learns anything with mere “yes” men, but those willing to sling it out together as long as they love each other in the end. Thank you Chris for the discussion.
Rob,
I did not comment upon the Mullins quote, because I did not see the relevance. I stated earlier that what you are arguing falls within the confines of congregational polity and what I am arguing falls within the confines of congregational polity. I thought that whether or not I agree with Mullins, which I obviously don’t, did not have a bearing on my main argument, if it falls within the confines of congregational polity. In this regards, my argument runs opposite of a, but not the, historic Baptist understanding. I don’t think your Baptist umbrella opens wide enough. You and many more Southern Baptists may prefer the term dis-fellowship to excommunicate. I and many of the Southern Baptists that I have known prefer the term excomminicate. The former does not make you any less of a Baptist than does the latter make me.
Concerning your quote of mine regarding the immigration resolution, I will repeat what I stated above. I think that the resolution, in its entirety, is based upon biblical principles and represents an admirable position for any individual Christian to maintain. It may even be my position. I personally don’t have a problem with anything it says in and of itself, just on the occassion in which it was presented. My reasons for this are listed in the article and my comments above. While the section on the future status of undocumented immigrants is based on biblical principles it is not the position entailed by biblical principles. Therefore, other Christians can come to different positions that are equally based upon biblical principles. Since this is the case, why take a position? Is one preference needed over another in order for the Gospel to bear fruit?