I've recommended Jeff Riddle's work in the past. He's a
Reformed or confessionally Calvinistic Baptist pastor out of Virginia.
By way of clarification I personally am an ex- or more
probably post- Reformed Christian and most definitely not a Baptist in any
sense, but there are some in those circles I can appreciate. I think Riddle
demonstrates some wisdom when it comes to discussing certain topics but most of
all I appreciate his work defending the traditional text and concepts like providential
preservation as opposed to the pseudo-conservative position of inerrancy and
its embrace of the Critical Text.
I listen to his Word Magazine podcasts and while at first I
wasn't that interested in this particular topic, it pulled me in. He and a
guest (Clevenger) are talking about developments within the Southern Baptist
Convention, both of them are apparently ex-members.
The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is noteworthy because
it is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States and occupies a
unique position. It was on the verge of becoming a Mainline denomination but
due to internecine battles it was wrested back in the conservative direction,
mostly during the 1980's. There are still some that are very bitter over this.
The denomination was in the process of embracing women's ordination and more or
less adopting doctrinal positions that would exclude it from the Evangelical
world. This was still a time in which there was a relatively clear
understanding of what an Evangelical was, a situation no longer true today.
There were strong conservative elements within Evangelicalism although by the
1970's the movement was quickly succumbing to the cultural forces which it had
aligned itself with from its post-war birth. For the SBC this would become a
source of conflict and strife.
Critics refer to this period as the Fundamentalist Takeover
of the SBC, though I think to refer to it as such would require re-defining of Fundamentalism.
I think Conservative Resurgence, the term used by those involved is probably
more accurate.
The SBC made a conscientious turn in the conservative
direction and additionally there were further moves made with the rise of the
Founder's Movement, which advocates Calvinistic Theology and as a movement attempts
to re-orient the SBC with its older Reformation connections. Then in 1993
Albert Mohler took over as head of the SBC flagship seminary in Louisville
Kentucky. Mohler is certainly more of a New Calvinist as opposed to a true
Confessionalist like Riddle. Now whether the Founder's Movement has (in
general) shifted toward New Calvinism is a topic that's probably worthy of
consideration, but one I personally am unable to answer.
And yet for all that, barely a generation later the SBC once
more seems on the verge of slipping back into the 'Evangelical' current which
inevitably leads toward cultural conformity and liberalising trends in both
doctrine and practice. It's clear feminism is rearing its head and the SBC is
being highly affected by the contemporary trends of our culture.
And yet a required basic discernment seems to be lost to
some. I think even my teenage daughters can understand that while sometimes
Christians can sound some of the same alarms and criticisms as feminists
regarding chauvinistic behaviour, misogyny and the objectivising of women,
neither the motivations nor the goals are the same. Feminists and Christians
may decry beauty contests but one camp is motivated by an egalitarian ethos and
perceived degradation, while the other is motivated by both inward and outward
modesty, temptation and other moral concerns.
Riddle and his guest seem to suggest the problem is that the
SBC has never been confessional and as a consequence it's driven by the
culture. Additionally because of this it's subject to fads and gimmicks geared
toward trying to keep the numbers up, as indeed the SBC has a real problem in
numerical decline. They also express concern that left-wing social justice-type
movements (like feminism) are gaining a lot of traction.
While I appreciate these sentiments I think there's also a
problem in the strict confessionalist approach. There's a tendency to try and
hold the church together by utilising forms, creating an institution and
something of a bureaucracy that will hold pastors and congregations accountable
and circle the wagons as it were.
And yet, I also find this approach can be very damaging.
Confessional statements in particular like the 1689 London Baptist Confession,
the Westminster Confession and the Three Forms of Unity form rather detailed
comprehensive and certainly coherent statements and yet this does not mean
they're Biblical. All are riddled with problems, some of them being
foundational. But here's the practical difficulty. If one can't 'sign on' then
they are effectively excluded and what these groups end up doing is making the
gospel something far beyond what is required to be not only a Christian but
someone with a viable profession that has every right to be part of a local
congregation. They harp about 'joining' and 'becoming a member' and yet even if
one were to subscribe to their extra-biblical frameworks and institutions,
they've all but made it impossible unless you dot your 'i's and cross your 't's
just like they do... or (as is all too often the case) you just nod along and
consent to things you don't understand.
Now they all have their ways of dealing with this problem,
the Presbyterians in particular have mastered the shell-game and exercises in
verbal sleight-of-hand. They insist that they don't require the average
'member' to sign on to the exhaustive statement, but this is less than
truthful.
What holds the church together? Confessionalism and thus
denominations, or so we're told. And yet
institutionalising the Church and holding it together through a bureaucracy is
without Scriptural warrant. It is the Holy Spirit that holds the Church
together. If individuals and congregations are disobedient to Scripture then
rebuke them and if they won't repent, don't fellowship with them.
Yes, the Holy Spirit utilises means but those means have to
be ordained by God Himself. The modern denominational system and the whole of Presbyterian
polity are little more than man-made constructs. The good and necessary
argument also collapses as it fails its own criteria. For it to survive the
test, good has to be defined in consequentialist terms and their ecclesiastical
polity is easily demonstrated as something far short of necessary.
Why am I labouring this point? Isn't unity a valid concern?
Isn't that what Confessional Subscription seeks to accomplish?
Confessionalists think so and yet in every case their
argument collapses. Reformed Baptists believe that Confessional Presbyterians
and Reformed are brethren and vice versa. This is to acknowledge that there are
those who do not fully subscribe to their confession(s) and yet are indeed
Christians. Most will go further and acknowledge that many Arminians are
Christians as well. You may be a Christian but we're not going to let join our
club, our version of the Church, our faction which we control. Their own
acknowledgements are in fact an admission that their structures promote
dis-unity and by nature generate division. It is sad to me that they seem to
think orthodoxy requires a bureaucracy to sustain it.
What this really comes down to is control of an organisation,
an institution and a bureaucracy. Riddle and his guest complain about the
political nature of the SBC and they're right. The organisation is huge with
millions of members and I can scarcely imagine what its budget and bank account
look like. And when I consider what is done with that money, it makes me
literally sick. Denominational financial portfolios can be impressive (that's
not a compliment) and don't think for a moment their value and the power they
represent doesn't come into play.
And so while I find the trends in the SBC to be interesting
the whole discussion on another level is moot. It's a battle over a
bureaucracy. This is the curse of denominationalism.
Some good points are made by Riddle and Clevenger about
plurality of elders as opposed to the typical Baptist model of utilising the
diaconate as elders. They didn't even get into what happens in Baptist churches
where you will also (due to unbiblical relations with the IRS) have your 'trustees'
who then function as almost rival elders to the diaconate. It's a mess and it's
not Biblical. But then again, neither is the hired-gun 'pastor' system which
dominates the denominational scene. In fact in many ways it is the pastor who
ends up being the denominational man,
so to speak.
I was very pleased to hear discussion of the SBC's tendency
to seek cultural relevance and acceptance and that they are effectively embarrassed
by certain teachings of the Bible. Let me clarify that. I am not pleased by the
SBC's positions but rather that others (like Riddle) have acknowledged the
problem and one if its most important sources.
It's good to hear others note this simple but profound fact
regarding Evangelicals. Worldly respect and approval is really what motivates
them. They seek cultural acceptance and through it, influence. That's what
Billy Graham and the whole movement have always been about and as Graham went
to the grave the movement he more or less founded and shaped is quite literally
in a state of collapse. I wonder if he grasped that as he declined. Maybe not.
Graham had been moving away from the gospel and Biblical Christianity for
decades and it's hard to know what kind of discernment he had left. Based on
what I saw in the early 2000's, the last time I paid much attention to him, I
would say he had precious little.
As mentioned previously there was concern over a tendency within
the SBC to fall prey to left-wing causes and the social justice movement. This
is indeed a cause for concern but we should be equally concerned over the
increasing tendency toward right-wing nationalism in the Church. From
idolatrous patriotic display, the celebration of militarism, guns and a
heretical Christianised version of Capitalism, right-wing politics are just as
destructive and making tremendous in-roads. I'm sorry to say that for Riddle
and his guest this didn't seem to be a concern. I hope they merely omitted it.
What will become of the SBC? Will they experience another
resurgence, another pairing down, another conservative revival?
Actually I've heard some talk of a three-way split between
the liberal wing, the Calvinists and the mainstream Arminian-Dispensational
Evangelicals. It's quite possible. Once again, the problem here is actually
denominationalism. If the thousands of SBC congregations were just that,
congregations, which is what the Bible envisions, then the whole nature of the
conversation would change.
Would many of the congregations go liberal and just turn into
entertainment circus shows? Well, in many cases they are anyway. Many 'Evangelicals'
have already gone down that road. But the thing is, forcing them to conform to
a set of bureaucratic standards doesn't create Church Unity. It creates a sham,
a type of counterfeit unity or as I often put it, an empty form lacking
substance. If you've ever worked with concrete you'll know what a form is, the
shell that's built into which the concrete is poured. It has to be strong
enough to hold the concrete. If it's not, it will blow out and you're left with
a disastrous mess. If all goes well after the cement has set you remove the
form and the concrete (if things were done right) is solid, uniform and true.
Denominations are like forms and yet all too often in order to keep their
rather weak and frail form from breaking, they fill it not with heavy concrete
but with fluff, sawdust or since we're speaking of Evangelicals, confetti. When
the form is removed it just collapses and blows away. It had no substance, the cheap and flimsy form
looked like it was containing and constructing a massive edifice but in the end
the form was weak and the substance was even weaker. In order to keep up the
charade it was filled with counterfeit material.
The Evangelical form was revealed as a sham some forty years
ago and yet some still haven't gotten the message. Confessionalists keep
focusing on the forms. Evangelicals keep focusing on filling the cavities of
the form with whatever they can.
If I can stretch the illustration a bit.... the Biblical way
is to build without forms, or rather with the very minimal forms God has
provided in the New Testament. How can concrete be shaped without a form? With
God all things are possible. The Holy Spirit builds the Church. God uses means
but the means are that which He has ordained. Man-made forms are little more
than man-made solutions. The Church is built supernaturally. I think an era
that has focused on church growth, Bill Hybels, Rick Warren and the like has
forgotten that. They think of numbers as denoting substance. A lake can be a
mile wide and yet only a few inches deep and such lakes dry up quickly in the
heat of the sun.
Some lament the fall and collapse of their denominations. The
truth is, they never had much of anything to begin with, or if they did it
departed a long time ago.
So do I simply not care about what happens to the SBC? Well,
on one level I don't but on the other hand as a Christian living in the United
States I care very much about what's happening in general. Am I big fan of the
SBC? No. Of Albert Mohler? God forbid. Both have subordinated the Bible to
other concerns and have erred concerning the faith. And yet they're part of the
larger mosaic and an organisation as big and influential as the SBC bears
watching. There's a lot we can learn. There's a lot to contemplate.
Here's the link to the Riddle podcast: