Home

If anyone doubts the intrusion of Critical Theory into the worldview of the average Southern Baptist Christian, or church, not to mention the Convention at upper echelons as expressed in the annual resolutions proposed and passed at conventions, one need only: a) Observe how many SBC leaders are now linking the pro-life cause with socialism / Marxism / redistribution of wealth / government nanny-state; b) Review the many resolutions expressing some kind of public apology for sins of the past.

This post focuses on the latter.  

For the last twenty years or so, this has been especially focused on the Southern Baptist Convention’s supposedly racist roots, and participation in slavery. One can barely keep up with all the various resolutions apologizing for any and all forms of perceived or real racism, support of slavery in any form, and so on. It’s dizzying. B&H even published a book by Jarvis Williams (professor at SBTS well-known for pro-CRT rants) and Kevin Jones. The title says it all: Removing the Stain of Racism from the Southern Baptist Convention. The book was published in June 2017. And the title assumes by use of the word “stain” that either racism still exists (perhaps even systemically) or at bare minimum is still perceived and present in such a way that it affects the Convention as a whole in various ways. This is, to be blunt, classic Critical Theory rooted in Marxism.  

While there is no doubt that the SBC came into existence due to the Civil War (it did, after all, split the nation into two), and while there is no doubt some SBC leaders and church members were racist and some had slaves, this in no way means the entire Convention of churches was (or is) systemically racist and supportive of chattel slavery! Even in the 1860s, the vast majority of members of SBC churches did not own slaves. They couldn’t afford them or did not own plantations. The average SBC church member has always been blue-collar, quite `rank`ly. And, I dare say that mistreatment, including chattel slavery, of other people was never, and is not now, something the majority of SBC church members endorse. 

Again, this is not to say that prominent Christians of all denominations in America, did not endorse or support the institution of chattel (man-stealing) slavery. While I was in seminary, I actually did a research paper on the biblical arguments used by Christian pro-slavery authors and leaders. I found their arguments wanting, and often just outright repugnant. While voluntary economic servitude (sometimes called indentured servanthood) has always existed, and still exists all around the world, and did characterize the world of the Bible, the man-stealing type of chattel slavery is condemned by the Law as a capital crime. (Ex 21:16; Deut 24:7). But the fact that the actual kidnapping and man-stealing was so often done by fellow Africans, who conquered then sold other tribes of Africans to Europeans, is seemingly all but lost on SBC elites of today. Indeed, as I have detailed in past posts, many of my people (Irish) were captured and sold to Barbary (Northern African) pirates, who then took them to America and sold them into chattel slavery. (Yes, there were white slaves in the American colonies). 

History is replete with innumerable examples of people mistreating other people. Adam’s race is fallen! Every tribe, tongue and nation is fallen in Adam. Sin is endemic. Rampant. Run amuck. Woven into every strand of the human DNA. If we have to publicly apologize for every sin or wrong ever done by those in the past, whether they are our direct ancestors or not, we will never do anything other than apologize. Perpetual sorrow for those deemed oppressors (namely, CIS gendered, white Protestants) with no hope of forgiveness is a hallmark of Critical Theory. Nothing about this is remotely biblical or Christian! Of course we are sorry for past sins of all people, but must we insist upon specifically trying to name each and every sin ever committed? How is this conducive to Christian unity? Or gospel cooperation? We seem to be so busy in the SBC trying to apologize for our past that we are neglecting to evangelize the truly oppressed (by sinful depravity) in the present.    

This worldview of Critical Theory reared its ugly head yet again in the 2022 Resolution on On Religious Liberty, Forced Conversion, and the Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative Investigative Report (https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/on-religious-liberty-forced-conversion-and-the-federal-indian-boarding-school-initiative-investigative-report/). This resolution seemed to me to be completely unnecessary. Is there a single Southern Baptist today who delights in the mistreatment of Native Americans, either past or present? I mean, maybe there is a closet Indian-hater out there somewhere, just like there might be a closet African-hater, or male-hater, or female-hater, and so on. But I haven’t met him or her yet! If we white Americans are truly remorseful for the past mistreatment and displacement of the Native Americans, shouldn’t we just give them their land back? Reparations? This kind of virtue signaling in the SBC Resolutions mirrors our culture, which is growing ever-more Marxist. It is starting to truly drive some of us away from this Convention. If “love keeps no record of wrongs” (1 Cor 13:5), then some of us in the SBC are not feeling very loved anymore. 

If we Southern Baptists truly insist that we must continue to be publicly sorrowful for any and all past sins committed against various peoples, then may I suggest a few future Resolutions be aimed at:

• Apologies by those who voted for President Biden and other Democratic candidates for the violence against pro-life pregnancy centers now being endorsed by this party.
• Apologies for black people for the pandemic of black-on-black crime. 
• Apologies by Native Americans for their ancestors’ inter-tribal warfare, which was often brutal, long before white people stood on the shores of the New World.
• Apologies by the Native Americans for the often unprovoked raping, pillaging, burning and looting of white settlements in the 17th and 18th centuries of American history. 
• Apologies by Italian business owners who posted signs “Irish need not apply.”
• Apologies by Irish business owners who posted signs “Italians need not apply.” 

Well, by now you surely get the point. Where does this all end? This insanity needs to stop. If we in the SBC want to show genuine repentance and gospel cooperation, may I suggest we do two things:

1. Start pouring massive amounts of time and energy into freeing actual slaves all around the world right here and now, including sex slaves (often employed by the porn industry that millions of our church members imbibe on a weekly basis). 
2. Adopt the Dallas Statement on Social Justice, so we can get back to applying a biblical worldview to these matters, and stamp out godless Marxist ideology from our beloved Convention (https://statementonsocialjustice.com/).   

I won’t hold my breath waiting on these Resolutions to be written or approved by the SBC. I am deeply saddened to see what is happening to this Convention of churches. For anyone who thinks these things are not significant, I simply ask this: Which gospel are we cooperating together to send to the world? The gospel of CRT? Or the gospel of Jesus Christ? 

“For even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you contrary to what we have preached to you, a curse be on him” (Gal 1:8).

In the previous post, I warned of the feminist view of the office and role of pastor that has infested the Southern Baptist Convention. As the Chairwoman of the Credentials Committee mentioned, some in the SBC think the “gifting” of pastor can be distinguished from the “office” of pastor, thus paving the way for ordination of women into the pastorate, or the allowance of women serving in some kind of pastoral functions or roles. This kind of obfuscation of the meaning of words is classic liberal, ignore-the-plain-meaning of the Bible strategy. 

The New Testament never bifurcates or makes any distinction at all between the office of pastor and the role of pastor and the gift of pastor. Everywhere the words pastor, elder, overseer, and shepherd are used, it is always assumed that the man filling the office of pastor is performing the function of pastor and fulfilling the role of pastor according to God’s gifting of him as a pastor. There is no such thing as a pastor in the New Testament who is gifted by God as a pastor and yet somehow cannot ever be biblically qualified to fill the office or serve in the role because of sex/gender. To say God gifts women to be pastors, while also clearly forbidding a woman to teach a man (1 Tim 2:11-15), is to accuse God of double-speak. God is not confused. We are! 

The pastor must be “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2). No formal qualifications for a female pastor, or even a pastor’s wife, are listed anywhere in the New Testament. When the Apostle Paul corrects the Corinthian Church’s abuse of spiritual gifts, he insists “the women should keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church” (1 Cor 14:34-35). 

In context, Paul is addressing authoritative speaking in the church assembly (prophecy and tongues, which was simply prophecy in a language unknown to the speaker). He doesn’t mean women literally cannot say “hello” to others in the church gathering. Paul assumes women pray in the church (1 Cor 11:1-13), and elsewhere he commands all believers to sing to one another (Col 3:16). So, in context the meaning is clear – in New Testament churches, women are not permitted to speak in authoritative ways in a mixed church assembly. So, then, how does one pastor a church without teaching and speaking in with God-invested authority? It’s impossible, of course! 

The real issue is not whether God’s Word is clear. It’s whether we are embarrassed by what God says. It’s whether we will simply submit to what God says. It’s whether we trust the Lord knows better than we do who should be a pastor, and what husbands should do and wives should do. What a man is and a woman is. What a man is created and called to do and what a woman is created and called to do. Because our culture and churches have been so saturated in feminism for so long, we’re sorely tempted to bend God’s Word to our own ways of thinking. It will make us more “winsome” if we put women with the gift of gab in the pulpit to preach. It will sound better if we say women are better leaders because of their natural compassion and propensity to listen. It will be equitable. Fair. I mean, we don’t want to go back to the Stone Age do we?   

Some seem embarrassed by male headship. I know even conservative Bible teachers who try to make a case that male headship is a result of the fall, and was not a part of God’s original creation design. Well, someone forgot to tell the Apostle Paul that! He makes his argument for male headship in the church via the office of pastor from the creation of Adam and Eve. And in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:22-33 he makes the case for male headship, and a woman’s submission to it, by pointing to the relationship of Jesus to His Father, as well as that of Jesus to His Church. 

You see, it’s not a matter of value or dignity or worth. Genesis 1:26-27 settled that long ago. God the Father and God the Son are equal in value, one in essence. But, the Son willingly, joyfully submits to the Father (John 5:19-30; Phil 2:5-11). And the Spirit is sent by them both and submits to them both in the exaltation of the Son (John 16). Men and women are created to image God. Created to mirror God in His Trinitarian Nature. Hierarchy and submission, headship and followership, are good; for they are part of God’s own nature (1 Cor 15:27-28). It is blatant, stubborn sinfulness that insists on subverting and over-turning God’s own nature and God’s own design for humanity, and it is especially heinous for professing Christians to do so in their homes and churches. 

Does sin warp male headship? Yes. Sin warps everything. But I find no evidence that God gave up on male headship after the Fall. Indeed, Paul appeals to the Law in 1 Corinthians 15, as he says women must keep silent in the churches. Apparently, Paul also thinks the Law models God’s good intent here in this matter, and still guides us in the Church in this matter. Male headship was the warp and woof of the structure God established for Israel under the Law (Old Covenant).

God chose Abraham to be the father of His covenantal people. God chose the twelve sons of Jacob as heads of the tribes of Israel. God chose kings, all men (and the one queen was a usurper that brought about swift judgment from God; see 2 Kgs 11). God called out Prophets who were nearly all men, and again, the few exceptions seem to indicate severe judgment upon the people (much like Deborah the Judge). Nations who send women to fight wars in the Old Testament are mocked. Men are heads in the homes (Num 30) and in the assembly (Deut 1:13) and in the Nation (Deut 17:14-15). This is most definitely what we conservative evangelicals today would call “Thick or Broad Complementarianism.” This view holds that God designed men to lead, in every facet of life. It should really be called Godly Patriarchy. This principle of male headship is why it is unwise for Southern Baptists to appoint women to chair committees that are exercising oversight of pastors and who are then put into the awkward position of having to be publicly rebuked by Dr. Albert Mohler. Subverting God’s design for male headship is not loving to women. Caving to the world’s demands never ends up actually honoring women as the Lord desires.    

Is that system or design of Male Headship or Christian Patriarchy subverted or replaced in the New Covenant? Hardly! If anything, it is redeemed in Christ and commended even further among the saints. Jesus chose Twelve Apostles, all men. And it wasn’t because He was constrained by His “misogynistic culture,” because Jesus frequently highlighted women and commended women and blessed women in ways that were radically counter-cultural. And through the Apostles, and the men through whom He breathed out the Scriptures, Jesus commands His people to order their homes under male headship, as well as their churches. 

It does not seem a stretch to me to think that given the obvious Divine design for male leadership in the entirety of the Bible, we ought to pursue such a design in the three primary spheres or realms of society: home, church, government. What does it say about our Nation that the most courageous political leaders are now seemingly all women? And this is true on both sides of the aisle! While I respect courageous, conservative, Bible-loving female politicians, I also lament the pitiful condition of manhood in America that may seem to necessitate these ladies standing in the gap.  

O God give us men who delight in being men. God give us women who delight in being women. God renew a Christ-like Patriarchy, marked by selfless love and protective grace, among us as Your people. Help us stand against this demonic tide of feminism invading our homes and churches and nation, that we might once again radiate Your image and Your light to a dark, dying, demonic world. 

It is not misogynistic to say only men may be pastors, anymore than it is so to say that only men may be husbands and dads.  It is biblical. It is godly. It is Christ-honoring and glorifying.

We Bible-loving believers who submit to the plain teaching of God are not the crazy ones. We are the ones holding to God’s design in creation, and celebrating His re-creation of us in Christ our Lord. 

Preach on, brothers. Lead on brothers. With Biblical courage and sacrificial love. With strong protection of women and consistent provision for women (1 Peter 3:7). Model Christ. He’s worth it. 

Follow on, sisters. With quiet submissive spirits that are precious in the eyes of your Lord (1 Peter 3:1-6). Work on in your homes, sweet sisters. With joy that encourages and enlivens the next generation of strong Christian women (Titus 2:3-4). Model Christ. He’s worth it. 

For more on this topic:  https://g3min.org/will-feminists-win-the-pulpit/?mc_cid=4d9110983d&mc_eid=8385e936b7 

During Her Confirmation Hearing, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Infamously (Or Famously, Depending Upon Your Political And Ethical Persuasions) Could Not Nor Would Not Answer The Question, “What is a woman?” Instead, she quipped, “I’m not a biologist.” 

Well, the Credentials Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention recently answered the question, “What is a Pastor?” by essentially saying, “We’re not theologians.” 

Before I proceed, let me lay some backdrop. For several years now, pastors, scholars and church members within the SBC have been debating the role of women in the Church. More specifically, they’ve been debating whether or not a woman can serve as a Pastor. This controversy was stirred to the boiling point a few years back when the world-famous Beth Moore began bragging publicly about preaching from SBC pulpits on Mother’s Day. Many other women were emboldened to “come out” and also brag about their own preaching in SBC churches. This revelation shocked many in more conservative SBC circles, whose naivety was obliterated swiftly. Add the election last year of SBC President Ed Litton, who was known to sometimes “co-preach” with his wife, and we should have all known we have a problem in the SBC. Courageous pastors like Tom Ascol, Tom Buck, Voddie Baucham, Jeff Noblitt and David Miller had been telling us Southern Baptists for at least a decade or more that this liberal, feminist agenda had indeed slithered under our SBC tent. And a growing number of SBC churches had been snake bitten! 

So, when world-famous Saddleback Church led by Pastor Rick Warren publicly ordained several women as pastors last year, it was considered a “bel weather” matter by those of us in the SBC who believe, as Christians have for nearly two millennia, that the Scripture is crystal clear on the office of pastor being reserved for only men. We also believe that the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 (BFM2000) is clear in its affirmation of this biblical principle. A motion was made at the 2021 Nashville Convention that Saddleback be investigated for potential disfellowship for being clearly out of line with the BFM2000. Such a motion is referred, then, to the Credentials Committee, which is tasked with looking into these matters and then making a recommendation to the messengers the following year. Messengers arrived in Anaheim a few weeks ago eagerly anticipating the Committee’s recommendation.

Imagine their shock when they heard the Credentials Committee Chairwoman (that in itself is indicative of a lack of biblical wisdom on the part of the SBC, but I will save that for a future post), recommend that yet another task force or committee be appointed to determine what the BFM means by the word “pastor.” She did this after doting on how gracious and kind Pastor Rick Warren was in his dealings with the committee, then trying to explain that some in the SBC think the gifts of pastor and the office of pastor are different, and others think that so long as the lead pastor is a man, other pastor roles may be filled by women. In other words, Rick Warren got to the committee! His graciousness and kindness won them over and softened them up so that whatever biblical convictions and courage they had melted away. But the issue at hand was simple – is Saddleback in conformance with the BFM’s statement on the office of pastor being reserved for only men or not? Did the Committee consult with any of the scholars who actually wrote the BFM2000 that was overwhelmingly adopted by the messengers that year? 

Well, apparently not! Because Dr. Albert Mohler, who did help write the BFM2000, had to hustle to a microphone to make a strong rebuke of the Credentials Committee’s cowardice. Dr. Mohler rightly pointed out that everyone who crafted the BFM was clear on what they meant by the word “pastor” and so were the messengers who endorsed the statement of faith. He then lamented that if the SBC has to appoint a committee to ascertain what every word of the BFM means, we are going down a dark road to nowhere. I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Mohler, and would only add that if we do go down such a road, it’s very clear what’s next . . . 

And what does the BFM mean by the word “man” and “men” and “woman” and “women?”

Doctrinal compromise in the God-assigned roles of men and women in the home, church, and society, lies at the heart of every denomination that ever turned left into the limping lane of liberalism. And the limping lane of liberalism leads only to a loss of the biblical gospel, a lack of genuine New Testament churches, theological obscurity, and pragmatic pomposity. Don’t take my word for it.

Ask the UCC, the UMC, the PC-USA, or the Episcopalian denominations. They’ve already traveled this road, and are now ordaining anyone, regardless of sex, gender-identity, and lifestyle into the pastorate. Their so-called “churches” have become nothing more than pawns of the Democratic Party agenda rife with Marxism and social programs that demand forced redistribution of wealth and forced equality of outcomes. The gospel of a bloody Savior nailed to a tree for the very wickedness they now endorse and ordain long ago left their buildings. 

So, if the SBC gets this issue wrong, Ichabod. 

And, at least two prominent leaders in the SBC got to a microphone in Anaheim to seemingly speak for the side of Rick Warren and Saddleback Church. Dr. Adam Greenway, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and once Dean at Southern Seminary under Dr. Mohler, offered an amendment which more or less seemed to endorse the idea put forward by the Credentials Committee. And Dr. Todd Benkert, PhD from Southern Seminary, argued for not disfellowshipping churches over this issue. After all, he claimed, many SBC churches do not agree to the BFM’s position on the Lord’s Supper. (For the record, I think his claim here is quite dubious.) Either way, it’s smoke and mirrors. It does appear obvious that key leaders in the SBC want us to not debate this issue, and certainly do not want us to hold SBC churches accountable in this matter. To which I respond, “Then why bother having a Statement of Faith?” Why have the BFM if it doesn’t at all define the acceptable parameters of our gospel cooperation? We might as well start planting churches with the Methodists, then. This desire for a “big tent SBC” (one of Dr. Greenway’s favorite expressions) is leading us into the doctrinal no-man’s land of sloppy pragmatism and lack of any genuine biblical accountability.

If this long, black, left-leaning train is not stopped soon, count me out. 

Pastor Tom Ascol stepped to a microphone and reminded Southern Baptists that not only is the BFM clear in this matter, but far more importantly, “We have a Book.” And that book is clear. Indeed.

“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” (1 Tim 2:11-15).

These words are clear, if words have any meaning at all. The Apostle Paul’s argument, please note, is not rooted in the culture of his day and time (which liberals try to assert). Rather, he roots this principle in creation (Genesis 1-3). In other words, this principle of male headship is foundational to human society. And this principle is maintained throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. 

Tune in to next week’s post, and we’ll take a longer look at the Doctrine of Headship, particularly as it pertains to the office, the task, the gifting and the role of Pastor. 

"But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness, must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints" (Ephesians 5:3).

Sexual abuse is abhorrent to every genuine follower of Jesus Christ. Indeed, it is abhorrent even to the vast majority of non-Christians. (This is, by the way, what makes the current push of the LGBTQ agenda into the public elementary schools so disturbing. It is classic pedophile grooming to sexualize young, pre-pubescent children. But I digress.) Sexual lusts and sins of every kind, as defined by the Holy Scripture, are also abhorrent to Christians. The Church of Jesus Christ has always stood against such evils. To oppose abuse in any form takes no courage at all.

But, to oppose worldly solutions to sexual abuse does take courage, especially in today's environment. And to oppose secular ideologies informing or influencing our view of what abuse is, and how to investigate a claim of abuse, and when to actually label someone an abuser, takes courage. And to oppose cultural labels undergirded by a worldview of perpetual victimhood placarded upon professing Christians who either have been abused or who claim they have been abused, also takes courage.

And it seems the Southern Baptist Convention is lacking just such courage. Or, those within the SBC who do possess such courage, by the sanctifying grace and power of Holy Spirit God, are becoming fewer.

My friend and one of my all-time favorite preachers, Evangelist David Miller, encouraged messengers to the 2022 Convention to reject the Guidepost report and recommendations, and to reject the recommendations of the internal, SBC Sexual Abuse Task Force (SATF). Brother Miller did so not because he is pro-abuse, nor because he lacks compassion for anyone, not the least of which are those harmed by abuse. But, he rightly discerned that the whole process was flawed from the start, and threatens to so restructure the SBC that our historic Baptist bottom-up organization is turned on its head. If the "local church is Baptist headquarters," you surely wouldn't know it by reading the recommendations of either the Guidepost report or the SATF recommendations (which were overwhelmingly adopted).

The messengers from our local church were in the miniscule minority in Anaheim that voted to reject the SATF recommendations. And, our messengers in Nashville, last year (2021), voted to reject the proposal to hire a third party firm to conduct the sexual abuse investigation. We did so knowing we might likely be viewed or even called "uncompassionate" or "pro-abuse." But we did so out of biblical convictions. If the Scripture is all-sufficient, as Baptists have always maintained, then it seems the SBC leaders and messengers did something very unwise by hiring Guidepost (a pro-LGBTQ organization) to investigate and recommend ways we backwoods Bible believers can get with the times to prevent sexual abuse. I wonder how many millions of Cooperative Program Dollars we paid Guidepost have been put to use to endorse and support what God hates?

1 Corinthians 6:1-8 instructs Christians in local churches not to take their disagreements and offenses into the secular courts. To do so demonstrates an incompetence to rightly judge and discern right and wrong. And to do so is an embarrassment to the Church of Christ before unbelievers. Now, I realize that this is directed to local churches, but it seems to be wise to apply it also to a convention of voluntarily cooperating churches, too. Doesn't it?

Don't misunderstand me. I am not for a second saying any church or entity should not report suspected abuse or crimes to the proper governmental authorities. In fact, that's one of the biggest take-aways for me from the Guidepost report (which I read in its entirety), that local churches in the SBC are absurdly unhealthy and often fail to properly deal with both sin as well as crimes. More on this in a bit. But for now, I am simply arguing that it is a shame if we cannot ourselves as Southern Baptists somehow conduct an investigation into one of our denominational entities that is biblically just, fair and wise. Among 47,000 churches affiliated with the SBC, we just do not have the wisdom and expertise required to conduct such an inquiry? Hiring this out to a secular firm was lazy, unwise, shameful and unbiblical.

But, what's done is done, as they say.

The Guidepost report itself was actually fairly helpful. At first blush, it is shocking. And upon deeper reading and reflection, it was clearly written to shock. As I plowed through all 288 pages over several weeks, it began to occur to me that I was reading about the same claims and reported incidents over and over and over and over again. That's because only 22 "survivors" spoke to Guidepost. And, over the 21-year period investigated, I think about 400 incidents of reported abuse were noted. In a convention of 40,000+ churches! While every instance of actual abuse is abhorrent and unacceptable, statistically this was nothing close to the "apocalypse" (Dr. Russell Moore's description). This does not merit the media's hyperbolic headlines. This is nothing of the sort that was uncovered among Roman Catholicism. And for that, we Southern Baptists ought to be humbly grateful to our God, for it is all of His grace. And we ought to be doubly vigilant to ensure the number of cases continues to decline steeply among us. Our Lord and Savior is worthy of our best effort to eradicate abuse in and among us in the SBC, and in every other organization, for that matter.

But, how we go about this battle matters. It matters because we have an absolutely authoritative and sufficient Book, breathed out by God. It matters because our Baptist polity, which has historically, and we believe rightly, hinged upon local church autonomy, is at stake.

The recommendations of Guidepost were not all bad. I do not oppose all of them. But they infused so much secular mantras and labels and language. Everything has to be "trauma-informed" (which I take as a buzzword for grounded in the worldview of secular psychology). Everything has to be farmed out to "qualified third parties." In other words, local churches and local associations of churches are deemed totally incompetent in this matter. Every committee or task force has to be "gender-balanced." This one is especially intriguing to me because it assumes the presence of more women automatically means less abuse, or more able handling of abuse, more compassionate care for abuse victims, and so on. If that's so, then someone please explain to me the atrocity of sexual abuse within the public school system? More than one study and investigation into the public schools, which is dominated by women, has shown that as many as 1 in 4 kids in that system will be abused at some time. Again, this is not meant to disparage women. And I hate the fact that most sexual abusers are men. But the Guidepost recommendations are flowing out of a feminist worldview that believes women are actually better at protecting children from sexual abuse than men. But that reverses God's creational design! God made men to protect women and children. The public school system emphatically disproves the theory and worldview lying behind such recommendations for "gender balance" on SBC teams and committees.

The SBC SATF took the Guidepost recommendations, and pared them down to about two pages of recommendations (which were adopted overwhelmingly by the messengers). Again, there is much I appreciate about the recommendations. We clearly do want to take sexual abuse within the SBC with the utmost seriousness. But, I have concerns with the adopted SATF recommendations:

• More than one new layer of bureaucracy and administration is being added (aka hierarchy). That's millions more of our CP dollars not going to missions, church planting and seminaries.
• The standard for "credibly accused" is solid, at least as its stated in writing, but it relies upon "an independent third party" to make such a determination. Again, local churches are deemed incompetent, as are local associations and state associations. Indeed, it appears Christians in general are just not up to this task. So, we hire the world to determine if an accusation is credible.
• What if the third party's process for determining "credibly accused" comes from the worldview of #MeToo? Local SBC churches' fates are being handed over almost entirely to outside firms.
• Funding is established for churches to hire third party firms to conduct investigations, but one wonders if re-directing that funding to allow more local churches to raise up certified biblical counselors (through ACBC or CCEF or Rick Thomas) is not more biblical and effective.
• More often than not, victims or so-called survivors (a label I do not prefer as it lends itself to a status of perpetual victimhood, rather than "more than conquerors through Him who loved us") are allowed if not encouraged to remain totally anonymous throughout the reporting process. Is this biblical? Anonymous accusations against those in churches, even in your own local church?
• How a local SBC church handles or "cooperates" with the newly christened ARITF (Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force) greatly determines whether that church will be disfellowshipped or not. But who defines "cooperation?" What if our local church fundamentally or doctrinally disagrees with the hiring of a third party investigative firm? As I read it, such a local church would pretty much be guaranteed to be disfellowshipped from the SBC, were an accusation against someone in that local church ever made.
• The establishment of a "Survivor's Compensation Fund" makes me extremely nervous. Does this not encourage accusations and "out-of-court settlements?" Who determines who gets what? Is this what SBC churches want their CP funds to go to? More power taken out of the hands of local churches in the matter of how funds are allocated and spent.

I realize my view is clearly not the majority view of the SBC, at least not as it is expressed through the messengers to the annual convention. I would have voted against adopting these recommendations. I believe we are complicating what is a simple matter of local church health. No amount of top-down initiatives or mandates will fix what is really wrong with the SBC. Our local churches are not biblically healthy. Far too many SBC churches practice little to no biblical discipline of their membership (Matthew 18:15-18; 1 Cor 5; 2 Tim 3:1-9; Titus 3:9-11). One of our messengers told me that just before the vote for the President of the SBC Pastors Conference, a very large gaggle of people who were not in attendance at the conference arrived, apparently to cast votes against Voddie Baucham. I told the messenger, "Sounds like a typical Southern Baptist business meeting where a pastor gets fired by members who roll into the meeting even though they've not been in a worship gathering for a year or more."

The SBC is unhealthy because its churches are unhealthy. Far too many are unwilling to do the hard work of ensuring, as best we can by God's grace and wisdom, a regenerate church membership. The Guidepost report manifested far too many instances where a local SBC church did not handle sexual sin biblically, did not call proper authorities to report potential crimes, and did not call other local churches. The SATF report includes this comment: "One of the problems in our churches is the ability of abusers to move from one church to another to perpetuate their abuse. This often happens because churches don't have the means to communicate with one another."

Say what? SBC churches don't have cell phones? Or email? Or Facebook? Or Instagram? Or Twitter? Or laptops and printers to type and print letters to mail? This is one of the lamest claims I think I have ever heard. I have never had any great difficulty contacting and communicating with other SBC churches or pastors. But I have had problems with those pastors ignoring my advice not to receive someone into their membership because he or she is under discipline at my church, or left my church slanderously.

No amount of CP money can fix unbiblical, unhealthy churches and pastors. Only a repentant return to doing church God's way, and honoring other local churches who do, will serve as a long-term solution.

For more in-depth analysis: https://www.dailywire.com/news/southern-baptists-metoo-moment

The annual spectacle known as the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting is over. I watched it all via livestream, and our church sent two messengers. Although I have not met with the messengers in person yet, we texted extensively during the convention, and I feel quite safe saying we were all three very disappointed. 

That makes two years in a row. Really three years, since the debacle of the pro-CRT Resolution 9 in 2019, and of course 2020 was canceled due to COVID. Three straight years of disappointment. So, with the next few blog posts, I want to express my concerns and disappointments, primarily for the local church I am privileged to pastor. We already voted to significantly reduce our giving to SBC causes (particularly the Cooperative Program) as an expression of our ongoing disagreement with the direction of upper echelons of the convention and its entities. Hopefully, these blog posts will serve as a launchpad for us to discuss the wisest way forward in months ahead. 

Among the various disappointments with the 2022 convention, perhaps none cut me so sharply as the ERLCs position on the abolition of abortion. 

Last year at the 2021 convention, the messengers managed to do the impossible. They overrode the Resolutions Committee and pulled the Resolution on the Abolition of Abortion to the floor for a vote. It passed overwhelmingly, despite key ERLC leaders speaking against it! They spoke against a resolution to abolish abortion! Their excuse was it somehow insults all the incremental progress made by the pro-life movement to simply call for the abolishment of abortion immediately. Confused? So was I. 

Now, as we anticipate the potential Supreme Court’s overturning Roe any day, the 2022 convention saw lively questions from messengers to several leaders and the ERLC on making abortion illegal, and criminalizing it. Dr. Albert Mohler was the only leader on the platform who offered a courageous answer which pointed to the woman’s culpability, along with doctors and often men, who are complicit in the murder of the unborn.  Mohler further defended the American legal system’s ability to handle various kinds of murder (degrees) and homicides and manslaughter, as well as its ability to discern whether a woman truly was victimized and therefore should not be held culpable.

That is to say, abortion is murder. It thus violates God’s Law as well as the laws of all 50 States, once it is admitted that a baby is a human. Murder has always carried stiff punishments upon conviction. Our legal system is indeed handling all kinds of wrongful deaths and manslaughters and murder cases every day. Why should we not expect it to do so with the willful murder of unborn babies? 

But the ERLC signed on with dozens of other pro-life ministries to a letter a few months back standing in absolute opposition to any criminalization of abortion! Friends, the pro-life movement has lost its ability to reason morally from the Scriptures, particularly the Law of God. And at this convention, more than one ERLC leader defended their position, which goes something like this:

We support the abolition of abortion. But not its criminalization. Because all women are victims of abortion. So there should be no penalty whatsoever for any woman who aborts her baby. Instead, what we should do is to change the hearts and minds of our culture (neighbors and cities) so that abortion becomes illegal, unthinkable, and unnecessary. We will win them with kindness.

Are you following this logic? Nah? Me neither.

Because it is illogical, and worse, it’s unbiblical. Why pass a law (to make abortion illegal) if you have no desire to see it enforced? Does the ERLC seriously think that penalties for crimes such as murder should not be enforced? Or that punishments do not deter crime? Maybe we should ask them if they support the defund the police movement because some of us are growing very suspicious here. Furthermore, does the ERLC seriously think that we can change every single citizen’s view of abortion? Last time I checked, only the regenerating power of Holy Spirit God changes hearts and minds, not my eloquence or powerful persuasion. We’ve had 50 years to change our culture and society’s minds on abortion, and those who love death still love it. Now more than ever! Violence against pro-life ministries and pregnancy centers is on the rise. And mark my words, abortion lovers will seriously hurt and kill some pro-life lovers in the near future (indeed they are promising to do so). Vast numbers of pro-abortion advocates hate God and therefore they hate life (unless it’s their own, of course). No amount of argument, and even no amount of gospel evangelism, is going to change 50% of Americans’ minds, unless we seriously think nearly every single American is going to be born again and come to faith in Christ in the next year or so. O, that God might make it so! But throughout history, God’s redeemed have always been the righteous remnant. Evangelize we must. But the ERLCs strategy here is nuts. 

Removing penalties for violations of laws is not biblical. It is also not loving. We are seeing rampant crime sprees across our land right now is because of DA’s refuse to prosecute and judges refuse to give proper and right sentences. To think we somehow know better than God how to counter human depravity and crimes such as murder is the height of arrogance! Have we no regard for God’s holy Law? Do we Southern Baptists not regard the Law as a moral guide of any kind? Do we not see the wisdom of God in the Law? Do we not see His holy character reflected in it? O, I know we’re not under law, in the sense of being under the Old Covenant. Nor are we under Law in the sense that we must live as Old Covenant Israel. We are under the New Covenant of grace. The Law’s blessings and curses are all fulfilled in Jesus Christ our Righteous Lord. Hallelujah! But have our SBC leaders altogether jettisoned the idea that God’s Law lays down solid principles of crime and punishment? The State does not bear the sword in vain, but is to promote good and punish evildoers (Rom 13). 

So, is abortion not evil? Is a woman never culpable for getting an abortion? Is it actually true that every single woman who aborts her baby is a hapless victim? The #ProudofmyAbortion movement mocks the ignorant, naïve, unbiblical, unloving position of the ERLC.  

Brent Leatherwood, interim President of the ERLC, said from the platform when pressed on this issue, “You will never get me to say we should throw women behind bars.”   

Not even women who murder the most innocent among us? Not even women who knowingly use abortion as “birth control?” Not even women who abort their babies in spite of the husband’s pleading not to kill their child? Not even women who get counsel at pro-life pregnancy centers, see a sonogram of their baby in their belly, are counseled on all the stages of life development in the womb, are made aware of the many adoption agencies and options, and who still go let a doctor chop up their babies like a piece of steak? Not even women who know full well that the “morning after” pill literally poisons and even burns their unborn babies to death? Really? 

Dr. Kevin Smith spoke for the ERLC and did confirm that abortion violates the Commandment, “Thou shalt not murder.” But he said nothing of whether any penalty should then be exacted upon a woman who aborts her baby should a State make it illegal in a “post-Roe” world. In other words, he did not answer the question concerning whether a convicted murderer should bear any penalty for the crime. 

Not every sin is a crime. But some are. Surely, we Southern Baptists can see that abortion, which we all say is murder, is both. The church deals with sin. The State deals with crime. And God has ordained both to do just that. To outlaw abortion but then not enforce it, only ensures infanticide continues.  

And if the ERLC cannot see something as simple as that, then maybe messengers should have abolished the ERLC (the motion was made but it did not pass).

“For with you is My contention, O priest. You shall stumble by day; the prophet shall also stumble with you by night; and I will destroy your mother. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to Me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children” (Hosea 4:4-6).

In this series, I have endeavored to share some observations and critiques of the SBC21, which gathered last month in Nashville.  I focused the first two posts on Resolutions.  While Resolutions are not binding in the SBC, which believes strongly in local church autonomy, they are an important glimpse into the hearts and minds of SBC leaders.  And Resolutions are seen by the secular press as the way to know what churches in the SBC think, believe, and find worthy of acting upon in our culture. 

I turn my attention now to the election of the President of the SBC.  The office of SBC President, while not at all comparable to the authority possessed by a Regional Bishop in more hierarchical denominations, is nevertheless important.  He appoints the Committee on Committees (yes, that’s a real thing in SBC life), which then appoints the Committee on Nominations.  And that Committee recommends trustees for the various SBC entities.  The trustee system is designed to hold entity heads accountable to the SBC churches (or the members of those churches).  But perhaps in more recent decades, the SBC President’s interaction with the secular press has become an even more important facet of his role than the Committee appointments.  He is seen as the representative of the entire Convention of Churches.  His voice is “the voice” of the SBC.

This year there were four candidates for SBC President: Randy Adams, Albert Mohler, Ed Litton and Mike Stone.  While not everyone will agree with my assessment here, I think generally Adams and Stone were considered the non-establishment candidates.  Stone was endorsed by the Conservative Baptist Network and Founders Ministry.  While I have respect for both Randy Adams and Dr. Mohler, I voted for Mike Stone because he seemed to have the most momentum of the truly conservative candidates.  And indeed, he won the first vote!  But, he failed to get a majority, which was no surprise in a four candidate race.  It went to a run-off between Stone and Litton.  I went into the run-off with a high degree of confidence that Mike Stone would win.  After all, I could not imagine that the over 3,000 messengers who initially voted for Albert Mohler would then make the leap leftward to vote for Ed Litton in a run-off against Mike Stone.  As one of my local pastor friends put it, “I voted in the run-off for the only man I knew I would have in my own pulpit.”

Ed Litton was the obvious progressive candidate, though he would refuse that label.  He has co-preached sermons on Sundays in his church with his wife, Kathy.  That’s common knowledge. He has not been willing to rebuke CRT with any degree of specificity or force. Instead, he often makes CRT sound like nothing more than a “distraction” that we should ignore so we can get back to the Great Commission.  (For the record, I agree that CRT is a distraction, but it is so because it is a false gospel.)  On Wednesday of the SBC, a messenger called out a heretical statement on the Trinity from the church’s website which Ed Litton pastors (the sentence was removed that night from the site).  Maybe just an innocent oversight?  But nonetheless a significant theological oversight!  I am not saying he is not a Christian.  I am merely stating what I believe is obvious – Litton was the most left-leaning candidate of the four. 

So, I cannot begin to describe to you my shock when Litton won the run-off.  I think the final tally had Litton winning by just over 500 votes.  I sat stunned. Perplexed. Grieved. That night, at the “9Marks at 9” conference, I heard Dr. Danny Akin, President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, tell the 1,000 plus attendees that he voted for Dr. Mohler in the first round, and Ed Litton in the run-off.  I cannot process that reality, at least not without the leaked letters of Dr. Russell Moore.

Friends, say what you want, but if one of our seminary presidents, and several thousand others who initially voted for Albert Mohler (our most prominent seminary President), cast a vote for a pastor who co-preaches with his wife, that is most definitely a leftward doctrinal and theological drift!  At what point in the last thirty years could that have happened in the SBC?  That one issue alone is enough to prove that there is a progressive drift in our SBC leadership. 

To add insult to injury, we are now wrangling with SermonGate – the public scandal of Ed Litton’s obvious long-term plagiarism.  Newsweek and the NYT have reported on it.  I am not one to level such charges against a brother lightly, or hastily.  But the evidence is splashed all over the internet and various social media outlets.  And it is crystal clear plagiarism. And it’s happened multiple times dating back at least as far as 2013.  We’re not just talking about a misplaced quote. We’re witnessing a man stand in the pulpit and preach an entire sermon that someone else produced, personal illustrations and all.  To make matters worse, he has demonstrated no brokenness or contrition. He has downplayed it as a mere mistake of “Oops, forgot to credit J.D.”  And to a local newscaster, he claimed the charges of plagiarism are coming from “unnamed” sources.  What?  Are you kidding?  Anybody with a smart phone can name those sources!  Even a recent 9Marks podcast addressed Litton’s admitted plagiarism. 

I am sorry to have to say this, as I take no pleasure in publicly criticizing anyone, especially an SBC pastor, but Brother Litton’s responses to this blatant sin are disgusting.  The SBC is being humiliated every day that he remains in office.

“Do not lie to one another, seeing you have put off the old self with its practices” (Colossians 3:9).

“Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands” (Ephesians 4:28).

“Go to the ant you sluggard; consider her ways and be wise” (Proverbs 6:6). 

In my humble opinion, Brother Litton has disqualified himself from the pastorate, as this sin was not merely a one-time oopsie, but is rather systemic.  I am not saying with genuine contrition and long-term repentance he could never be restored as a qualified pastor.  But as of now, it appears to me he’s DQ’d.  This matter is ultimately, of course, between him and the church he currently pastors.  But, he could start down the dusty road of repentance by taking the first right step – resign as SBC President.

How can a man whose public reputation is so tarnished possibly lead us well?  Even if his church refuses to rebuke, discipline and/or remove him, we, every single one of us members of SBC churches, are by default caught up in this embarrassing mess.  And, I am not aware of a single SBC Seminary President who is publicly standing with pastors like me against Brother Litton. This, in spite of the fact that plagiarism gets students at their schools expelled.  Is there anyone on the Executive Committee of the SBC publicly calling on Brother Litton to repent and resign? Any other SBC entity heads?    

Brothers and Sisters, God often gives us the leaders we deserve. 

“How long will you go on limping between two different opinions?” (1 Kings 18:21)

In this series of blog posts, I want to offer my thoughts and analysis on the recent Southern Baptist Convention held in Nashville, TN on June 15-16, 2021.  I do so, as with all my blogs, primarily as a service to the local church I love and serve, Corydon Baptist Church. 

In Part 1 of this series, I tackled the first two resolutions approved by the messengers in Nashville.  Below I want to assess two more resolutions that passed, and one that had to be tabled due to time. 

The leaders on the platform clearly expected the Resolution “On Abuse and Pastoral Qualifications” to pass without even a hint of discussion or controversy, much less dissension.  The reason I know this is because I observed carefully the looks of utter disdain and disgust when President Greear announced “Microphone #__ to speak against?!”  His furrowed brow lingered for what seemed like 30 seconds or more!  Ditto for others on the platform.  But the leaders should not have been so shocked.  The Resolution was sloppily worded.  In its original form, the Resolution permanently disqualified from the office of pastor “any person who has committed sexual abuse.”  Our CBC messengers had a good discussion about whether or not such a stance is actually biblical.  After all, a person might commit all sorts of heinous sins in his lost condition.  Just ask the Apostle Paul who used to be Saul.  Should a man be disqualified forever from being a pastor because of sins he committed prior to conversion? 

That’s an impossible case to make, biblically, I think. And so did several other messengers who stepped up to the mic and said as much.  One messenger pointed out the growing prevalence of child-on-child abuse. He remarked that he did not think it was a display of belief in the power of the gospel to save sinners to the uttermost to permanently disqualify a man for something he did as an unregenerate eleven year old.  It seems to me that if the Apostle Paul wanted to list those kinds of sins as permanently disqualifying he missed his opportunity to do so in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 where he names sexual sins with specificity.  Instead, he says,

“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11).

Doesn’t sound like he thought those washed, sanctified, justified men were forever barred from God’s call to the office of Pastor!  Now, whether it’s wise for a church to call such a one to be her pastor is a matter we can debate.  But, as one messenger aptly pointed out, this Resolution also infringed upon the local autonomy of a church to call such a man as pastor if they determine his life after conversion consistently meets the biblical qualifications (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).  Indeed, the Resolution says, “we recommend that all of our affiliated churches apply this standard to all positions of church leadership.”  But if a local church interviews a man who is transparent about his past as a lost man, and who demonstrates repentance by his voluntary hard and fast boundaries in ministry, shouldn’t that church have the right to make that decision without being made by the Convention to feel like horrible supporters of abuse?  Many inmate prison chaplains are serving faithfully and well, who were raised up and trained by our SBC seminaries!  Some of them are on death row.  NOBTS has ordained many of these former hardened criminals into gospel ministry inside the prison systems. 

The way this Resolution was originally worded sounded more like Law than Gospel.  The “stoning” of the offender is his permanent disqualification. No forgiveness and restoration in Christ, only perpetual sorrow and repentance.  While I believe the intent was good, we need not be so determined to show the watching world how against abuse we are (and what true Christian has ever been pro-sex abuse?) that we run rough shod over the Bible, making a law where God has not spoken.  Thankfully, the Resolution was amended to at least say, “any person in a position of trust or authority who has committed sexual abuse is permanently disqualified from holding the office of pastor.”  Still not as explicit as I prefer, but better than the original. 

The undeniable highlight of the convention was the passing of the Resolution “On Abolishing Abortion.”  The Committee did not bring it to the floor for a vote, but offered another less strongly worded (but nonetheless good) Resolution “On Taxpayer Complicity in Abortion and the Hyde Amendment.”  But the messengers voted to override the Resolutions Committee and bring “On Abolishing Abortion” to the floor for a vote.  And it passed!  Albeit with an amendment that ever-so slightly softened the language to ensure those in the pro-life movement who are battling for every victory they can get do not feel unappreciated or slighted.  But the final Resolution is still the strongest anti-abortion resolution the SBC has ever passed!  I encourage you to read it here: https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/on-abolishing-abortion/.

My only consternation regarding this Resolution was how vehemently it was opposed by a Professor at Mid-West Baptist Theological Seminary, as well as a paid employee of the ERLC.  I guess my brow furrowed like Greear’s did earlier at the very thought of this Resolution being opposed at all.  But praise God, in the end, the messengers approved it.  Now, let’s put feet to it and start working to completely abolish abortion from our nation. Period. God help us! 

Finally, there was the Resolution that got tabled and never voted on, which condemned the January 6 Capitol insurrection and riots, and mourned the loss of life.  In and of itself, there was nothing horribly wrong with the Resolution (although the actual number of deaths directly due to that riot are hotly disputed, and the Resolution listed exactly 5).  But as the messengers from our church quickly surmised, this Resolution lacked any reference at all to the plethora of riots, looting, burning and loss of life and livelihoods for the past 12 months due to Antifa and BLM “protests.”  Why?  Why on earth would our SBC Leaders call upon us to publicly denounce only one of the dozens and dozens of riots in our nation over the last year?             

Might be because “the world is watching.” 

Many prominent SBC Leaders say they are trying desperately to somehow “depoliticize” things in the convention, making it a safe place for folks affiliated with either political party.  But are they really?  This Resolution smacked of left-leaning politics, just to be blunt.  It appears to be yet another example of a growing unwillingness among our leaders to condemn sin, period, wherever and in whomever it is found.  Violence against people and property is not ultimately a political issue.  It’s a sin issue.  So, we ought to condemn it regardless of whether it comes from BLM or QAnon.

Thankfully it never came up for a vote. Let’s see, however, if it reappears in some form in 2022.

That’s all the assessment I care to make on Resolutions.  Other Resolutions passed, but the ones I have addressed in these two posts, in my opinion, demonstrate a definite leftward limping in the SBC.  May God put that left leg out of joint, forcing us to hobble back to the Sufficiency of the Bible, and to a desire to please and glorify our risen Lord Jesus Christ above all.

“How long will you go on limping between two different opinions?” (1 Kings 18:21)

In this series of blog posts, I want to offer my thoughts and analysis on the recent Southern Baptist Convention held in Nashville, TN on June 15-16, 2021.  I do so, as with all my blogs, primarily as a service to the local church I love and serve, Corydon Baptist Church. 

First, let me say to my church family, “I am sorry. Please forgive me.”  I have not attended a convention in many years. I have been relatively unattached to the goings on at national / convention levels. I have placed an implied and uncritical trust in SBC leaders over the last decade.  For all this, I am genuinely regretful.  Resolution #9 at the 2019 convention awakened many thousands of us local SBC pastors to the reality that something sinister was afoot in our beloved “denomination” (technically we’re a convention of churches).  Many of us were pretty ignorant about Critical Theory and Intersectionality.  But thank God for leaders and ministries such as Tom Ascol at Founders, who began sounding the alarm!  We got educated, and like thousands of Americans now storming school boards, once we got educated, rebuking Critical Race Theory as a godless, unbiblical, toxic and demonic worldview proved a no-brainer.

But in 2019, somehow a Resolution was passed that actually promoted CRT/I as “a set of analytical tools that explain how race has and continues to function in society” and “can aid in evaluating a variety of human experiences.”  Say what?  Do you see how this language assumes CRT/I offers a valid explanation and lens through which to analyze the world and our culture?  The Resolution even went so far as to say “Critical race theory and intersectionality alone are insufficient to diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills that they identify” (emphasis mine).  Here again, it is pre-supposed that CRT/I is in some way able to “diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills.”  Isn’t the root cause sin?  And isn’t the pure, unadulterated gospel of Jesus as revealed in the Bible the only solution that can actually diagnose and redress sin?  Isn’t the Bible enough to diagnose and redress any and all social ills, including racism, sexism, and so on?   

Imagine my shock and dismay upon discovering it was a prominent professor at my beloved Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who chaired the Resolutions Committee that gave us this atrocious statement!  Imagine my double shock at discovering how he and his committee took the original resolution submitted by a SBC pastor from California, totally gutted it, and turned it into something that was 180 degrees opposite from its original intent.  This whole thing smelled like a skunk!  And the seminary presidents all sat silently while this insidious resolution passed.    

So, I and thousands of messengers descended upon Nashville last month with intent to redress the evil of Resolution #9.  To right our convention’s wrong. To admit our error and make a biblical course correction.  Several resolutions had been submitted to do just that, including one signed by over 1,300 Southern Baptists.  But none of those were brought to the floor for a vote.  Instead, what the Resolutions Committee, chaired by Pastor James Merritt, did was to write their own generic Resolution #2, titled “On the Sufficiency of Scripture for Race and Racial Reconciliation.”  In and of itself, the resolution was fine.  It states, “That we reject any theory or worldview that finds the ultimate identity of human beings in ethnicity or in any other group dynamic; and  . . . we reject any theory or worldview that sees the primary problem of humanity as anything other than sin against God and the ultimate solution as anything other than redemption found only in Christ.” 

Well, amen. But nowhere does the Resolution call CRT/I by its name.  An effort to amend the resolution to so name CRT/I failed. No real debate happened because a savvy messenger from Indiana “called for the question.”  He was banking that the majority of messengers really did not want to have any open or real debate about CRT/I, nor our need as a convention to rebuke it with doctrinal and theological precision.  We had named it in 2019 as a “useful analytical tool.”  Makes sense that we now need to rebuke and repudiate it by name, essentially owning up to our mistake.  To my great shock, the majority of messengers voted to end the debate and approve the Resolution #2 as written.  Perplexed doesn’t begin to describe my feelings on how this went down.  Are we seriously scared to rebuke CRT?    

Now, I do not know the heart motives of the Resolutions Committee or the messengers who did not want to name it as a worldview we specifically reject.  But the most common refrain we heard from the platform this year was “the world is watching.”  That at least hints that our SBC leaders are scared of being branded racist, and of possibly losing black or African American churches if they specifically rebuke CRT/I.  Indeed, some prominent black SBC leaders have been leaving the convention, like John Owunchekwa and Charlie Dates who pastor in Atlanta and Chicago, respectively.  They did so simply because the seminary presidents issued a statement last fall repudiating CRT/I by name and stating it would not be advocated in the seminaries.  And as Dates specifically stated, because Dr. Albert Mohler dared to state that he believed a Bible-loving Christian has to reject the Democratic Party Platform because of its obvious endorsements of evil. Another prominent SBC pastor, Dwight  McKissic threatened to leave the SBC with his church if the seminary presidents’ statement was ratified by the 2021 convention, dismissing the statement because it “originated with six Anglo seminary presidents.”  As if their skin color rendered them incapable of understanding and rightly applying biblical truth! McKissic has clearly adopted the worldview, the lens, the pre-suppositions, of CRT!

But if the SBC Leadership and the messengers of the SBC cannot find the doctrinal spine to, as one messenger aptly put it, “call a skunk a skunk,” then our witness to the lost world, regardless of the amounts of melanin those lost people possess, is already a wreck.  And if a black brother or sister cannot rebuke a white brother or sister, or vice-versa, because he or she is in obvious biblical error or espousing outright anti-gospel heresy, then our convention is already lost to the muddy morass of doctrinal and theological liberalism.  Liberalism despises doctrinal precision.  The Protestant Reformation did not happen by way of generic doctrinal statements and debates!  Truth has to be proclaimed with Spirit-enlightened precision. And error has to be called out in like manner.  The Apostle Paul called out Judaizers with gospel precision!

James Merritt rejected the attempt to amend Resolution #2 with a zealous diatribe that accused those of us who wanted to repudiate CRT by name of being more passionate about CRT than we are about evangelism.  It was unkind, to say the least, and it was a straw man argument.  He also said CRT was not in the Bible, so we need not name it.  Somebody forgot to tell that to the Resolutions Committee in 2019.  His diatribe received wide-spread applause.  My heart sank. 

Perhaps Resolution #1, “On Baptist Unity and Maintaining our Public Witness,” can shed some light.  It stated, “RESOLVED, That we will not permit our personal, social, theological, or political interests to supersede the urgency of evangelism and distract us from the task of the gospel’s advancement through the whole world.”  The messengers from the church I pastor immediately saw a problem with this wording.  It calls theology a distraction, and pits theology against evangelism!  It essentially tells theology to take a back seat to the Great Commission, as if they’re at odds.  But Jesus commanded us to make disciples of the nations by “teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you” (Matt 28:20).  The theology and doctrine of Christ is part and parcel to the mission.  This resolution, if memory serves me, was rightly amended to say “secondary theological interests.”  But the fact that this was brought to the floor as originally worded, gives me no great confidence in our SBC leaders’ concern for doctrinal purity which drives proper biblical evangelism.  What gospel we are proclaiming does still matter, doesn’t it?  Or, are we now just for cooperation for cooperation’s sake?  If so, let’s ditch the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 which is supposed to be our doctrinal standard for cooperating. 

I truly have no desire to be the nit-picky thorn in any SBC leader’s side.  But these first two resolutions of SBC21 did not serve to encourage me to keep wholeheartedly supporting the SBC.  They were just generic enough to be sure to pass messenger muster, without saying nearly enough given the very obvious debates and doctrinal errors running rampant among us today (in both broader evangelicalism as well as in the SBC). 

I wonder if the seminary presidents, whose anti-CRT statement I commend, will now demand that professors who have been promoting CRT/I and speaking publicly in ways that clearly demonstrate they have adopted that unbiblical worldview, publicly recant?  If not, why not?  When I have misspoken from the pulpit in years gone by, or when I have sinned in orthodoxy or orthopraxy, by God’s sanctifying grace I have confessed the sin or error and asked the church to forgive me.  Other pastors I know have done likewise, as this is just Christianity 101.  So, will we hear any public recantations?  Will any of the obviously pro-CRT professors at SBC seminaries be fired?  Based upon the seminary presidents’ statement, they should be! 

But I fear that SBC21 all but ensured those professors will stay safely ensconced in their professorships. Sadly, the mothers of America demanding resignations among school boards and public school teachers seem to have more courage than Southern Baptists right now.  And the world is watching . . .  

I just wonder if they are also applauding. 

“For we are powerless against this great horde that is coming against us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on You [Lord]” (2 Chron 20:12).

O Lord, God of our Fathers, are You not God in heaven?  You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. In Your hand are power and might, so that none is able to withstand You.

Thus were the words of King Jehoshaphat of Judah.  As he prayed, we are told “All Judah stood before the Lord, with their little ones, their wives, and their children.” 

As they prayed and cried out to God, the Spirit of God filled a prophet and he spoke the words of God to the people of God: “Do not be afraid and do not be dismayed at this great horde, for the battle is not yours but God’s.” 

The Southern Baptist Convention finds itself in a very similar predicament.  Maybe due to our own pride and sin. Maybe due to our allowing some theological drift towards man-centered philosophies and man-made solutions to problems that stem from our fallen state as Adam’s race.  Maybe due to our organizational structure not adjusting well to the rapidity of technological change.  Maybe due to us talking about one another instead of to one another.  Maybe due to our becoming far too influenced by the ways of our culture, instead of staying on the old paths.

I suspect all of the above.

But one thing is certain.  Only God can save us. Only God can preserve us. Only God can humble us. Only God can employ us for the glory of Christ in the propagation of the gospel.  Only God can grant us repentance and forgiveness where needed. Only God gives us wisdom. Only God.

So I offer this prayer as I and 16,000+ of my fellow messengers flock to Nashville next week:

O Lord God, we do not know what to do, but our eyes are on You.  We glorify and exalt Your Holy Name for the ways You have chosen to use us as Southern Baptists to spread the good news of Jesus, the Savior of sinners, both near and far.  Heavenly Father, Your name is to be hallowed. Much of what we are engaged in publicly right now in the SBC is doing anything but. Please forgive us for Jesus’ sake. Lord God Almighty, You have brought us back from the brink of theological liberalism and gospel extinction before. O God, would You do it again?  Be pleased, for the sake of Your steadfast love and mercy in Christ our Lord, to rescue us from ourselves. From the devil, our real enemy. From the world, and the world’s systems which are antithetical to the gospel which makes us one new man in Christ Jesus.  Lord Jesus, You said what is hidden now will one day be shouted from the rooftops.  Give us a fresh awareness of this truth as the Holy Spirit moves in and among us. What needs to be exposed, please lay it bare. And grant us courage Lord, to do what is right in Your eyes.  Help us stand upon the absolute fixed truth of Your Word, which has always been settled in heaven. Settle it in our souls yet again. Father God, You do not need the SBC. Lord Jesus, You will build Your church with or without us as a denomination.  But we are pleading for mercy. That we as Southern Baptists might continue to be useful and fruitful by a sovereign work of Your saving and sanctifying grace.  Because Jesus is worthy of our doctrinal fidelity and great commission cooperation. Until the whole world hears, and until all Your elect are sitting around the table of the marriage supper of the Lamb.  In Christ alone, amen.