A Rant Against the Southern Baptist Convention

As a former Southern Baptist pastor, I still care deeply about the goings on of the convention.  What I have just learned warrants an intelligent blog post, but it’s late at night, so I’ll just give a rant…an opening salvo to one of the SBC’s saddest upcoming chapters.

Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, gave an exception two years ago, and allowed a Muslim to become a student at the seminary.  Allegedly, he has also allowed two Mormons to enroll in the seminary.  This is in clear violation of common evangelical sense and the seminary’s own documents.  I’ll cite sources later….I’m venting after all.

I have enormous respect for Dr. Patterson, but he needs strong reprimand on this point.  Non-Christians have no place in a Baptist seminary dedicated to training Christians for future ministry.

Evidently, Dr. Patterson is citing “evangelism” as the reason he made the exception.  He wants to witness and expose the student to Christ, hoping for a conversion.  We’d have to wonder, then, why only one Muslim and two Mormons?   Why not 20 or 50?   And what of Wiccans?   Are they not worthy of evangelization?  And surely we share the gospel with pedophiles, prostitutes, drunkards, meth users, strippers, evolutionists, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, atheists,  Hare Krishnas, Jews and Jehovah Witnesses.  If allowing persons of other faiths entry into SWBTS for the purpose of evangelism is a priority, shouldn’t recruiters start targeting these faiths for enlistment? But of course, that is absurd, since the purpose of theological education is to educate one in a certain theology—in this case Christian theology.

But lest anyone think Dr. Patterson is being reckless, we are told he secured assurances from the Allah devotee that he would conform to the moral code of the seminary.  Whew!  The fellow won’t smoke, drink, cuss or womanize; he’ll only blaspheme Jesus Christ.  What a relief…admission application approved! (allegedly along with a nice presidential scholarship and job with the seminary landscaping department).

But there is nary a peep of objection from the bulk of the people called Southern Baptists.  They used to call themselves people of the book.  When I was there, we fought a battle over inerrancy and the truth of the Bible, fundamentally centered on Jesus Christ.  There are a few rumblings and some action coming from an old Patterson nemesis, Wade Burleson.  But, for the most part, there is no outcry.

The professors at SWBTS are silent, presumably in fear of losing their jobs.  The students at SWBTS are mostly silent, presumably in fear of their futures.   The trustees of SWBTS are silent, presumably out of respect for the conservative patriarch Patterson.  The presidents of the other five seminaries are silent, presumably because it’s not their business.  The churches of the SBC supporting the Muslim student with their Cooperative Program dollars are silent, presumably because they don’t practice accountability.  And the messengers in Baltimore’s  upcoming SBC Annual Meeting will be silent.  A few dissenting voices will sound out, but they will be too measured and tepid, and  outmaneuvered by a system that will protect this insanity.

It’s one of the reasons I separated from the SBC.  They talk truth.  But they don’t practice it.

 

 

The Weakening of the Bible

Many of my regular readers know my past history with the Southern Baptist Convention. A few years back, I went into a self-imposed exile of sorts, having been informally and unofficially ousted by a denomination that had covertly changed its convictions from its once stalwart resurgence. Still, I have a deep love and a not-so-deep hope for the denomination that gave me so much in terms of my personal faith development and professional preparation.

I find myself still following the happenings of America’s largest protestant denomination, bound to this love-hate relationship of a man and a convention that espouse rather significant differences in biblical convictions. The latest angst I’ve experienced is from the current edition (April 2011) of Facts & Trends, a publication of Lifeway, the publishing arm of the SBC. Lifeway is probably my least favorite entity of the SBC for several reasons. First, Lifeway isn’t very discerning about the books they sell. One would think they’d be rather rigid in peddling books that support Baptist doctrine and foster fundamental Christianity. Not so. While the shelves aren’t littered with bad books, they’ll sell the popular stuff even if it has a bit of a rub against traditional Baptist beliefs.

Second, Lifeway also makes money, lots of money. Long ago, they were the Baptist Bookstore of the Southern Baptist Convention, committed to serving the local church. In these later decades, they’ve reinterpreted their identity to appeal to the larger Christian family. The trade off is their service to the local Baptist church isn’t all that great. When I was pastoring local Baptist churches, one of the highest budgeted items was our literature from Lifeway. But hey, they do give money to the Cooperative Program!

And while I’m pontificating, why not give a third critique. Lifeway’s major face of Biblical teaching is Beth Moore. While she does hostess only woman’s conferences (though I’m sure men attend) and seems to teach orthodox beliefs, it seems ironic that a denomination that believes in male-only Biblical offices, wouldn’t also have a male face hosting conferences and writing studies.

Be that as it may, my most recent conflict is that Facts & Trends is currently debuting one of Lifeway’s newest training modules: “Game Plan for Life.” One headline reads: “Football, NASCAR champion helps guys develop a “Game Plan for Life.” Did you catch that? Yeah, read it again. It isn’t the Bible that’s helping men develop their game plan. It’s football and NASCAR.

Joe Gibbs, head coach of the Washington Redskins and NASCAR owner, is at the center of the new discipleship module. Maybe he’s the author. Maybe he’s the sponsor, I’m not sure. The whole promotion rubbed me wrong. Here’s a new module off the presses designed to help the local pastor train his men in Biblical discipleship and the dominant graphics, words and ideas are football, superbowl, NASCAR, etc. Lots of glitz, but very little substance.

The accompanying article was the most troubling. Entitled “Football and NASCAR captured men’s imagination, led to Bible study” (yes, you read it right again…it’s football and NASCAR that are capturing Christian men, not the Holy Spirit or the Bible), it focused on the module’s usage by Riverbluff Church in North Charleston, South Carolina. The summation of the article was that this is a great study because it draws men together via the sports theme and gets them talking with each. Hmmm. And I thought we men were supposed to be learning the Bible.

Now to be sure, I’m quite convinced that the men of Riverbluff Church did talk about the Bible. My problem is that in reading the article, you come away with this dominant idea that the Bible alone is insufficient (and even absent!) in attracting men. It must be repackaged. And the wrapping needs to be pretty. The Bible wasn’t in the spotlight. Joe Gibbs, football and NASCAR were.
Two realities are staring at me.

The first, is that in the modern church age, there is a demand to repackage the Bible. Common churchmen and women aren’t committed to studying the Bible on its own merits. They don’t want to abide with Christ, learn of Him or be sanctified by His truth. They must be enticed by bells and whistles. They need allurement and excitement.

The second reality is that church leaders and church entities are catering to this immaturity. It brings to my mind God’s scathing rebuke in Ezekiel 34. Verse 10 states, “Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I [am] against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.” Lifeway needs to stop focusing on what sells and what is attractive, and start focusing on what matters and what is needful.

The church is weak. We don’t need chats stemming from the backdrop of football championships and roaring stock cars. We need men (and women) who recognize their great need of God’s Word and will “lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls” (James 1:21).

ERLC president reacts to ‘Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change’

In a follow up to Monday's post, Iwanted to help circulate the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission President, Dr. Richard Land's statement (included below). I especially appreciate Dr. Land's memory that the 2007 Resolution was amended. I must have been giving my wife some play-by-play.

Dr. Land's statement shows why he, and not others, is the President of the ERLC.



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NASHVILLE, Tenn., March 10, 2008—Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, issued the following statement today regarding the recently released “Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change.”

Land answered questions about the ERLC’s lack of support for the declaration explaining that as an official SBC entity, the ERLC follows the consensus of Southern Baptists on public policy matters as determined by the SBC meeting in session each year.

He also stated, “The ERLC does not agree that Southern Baptists have been ‘too timid’” in addressing the issues of creation care and environmental stewardship.

Land’s statement follows:

“While official Southern Baptist Convention resolutions are not binding on the conscience of any Southern Baptist, they are instructive, particularly to those of us who have the privilege of serving all Southern Baptists through one of the Convention’s official entities.

“One of the responsibilities that accompanies this privilege of serving Southern Baptists is to seek the broadest possible consensus on issues where the Convention has spoken and to encourage change, when it is considered appropriate, through private discussion and dialogue to reach new consensus rather than public critique. We continue to encourage, and to participate in, such dialogues on this issue, as well as many other important issues.

"Southern Baptist public policy advocacy is most effective when it is supported by the broadest possible consensus among Southern Baptists.

“The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission has a Convention-assigned role to express the consensus of Southern Baptists on public policy matters when they have reached such consensus. If the ERLC asserted Southern Baptists were in a different place on an issue than they actually were, we would lose the trust of Southern Baptists, and we would rapidly lose our credibility in Washington as well. Individual Southern Baptists may feel greater latitude in expressing disagreement on issues on which the Convention has spoken than do spokespersons related to official SBC entities.

“The Southern Baptist Convention had an opportunity at its 2007 Convention in San Antonio, Texas, to address this issue in the manner it is addressed in ‘A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change.’ Instead, the Convention’s voting messengers, elected by their local churches, voted approximately 60 to 40 percent to remove the following language from the proposed resolution:

‘RESOLVED, That we encourage continued government funding to find definitive answers on the issue of human-induced global warming that are based on empirical facts and are free of ideology and partisanship; and be it further.
. . .
‘RESOLVED, That we support economically responsible government initiatives and funding to locate and implement viable energy alternatives to oil, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and decreasing the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions; and be it further’

“The officially adopted resolution, minus the above language, is as close to an ‘official’ position as the SBC is capable of making, apart from its formal confession of faith, The Baptist Faith and Message.

“Consequently, in our Convention-assigned role to share faithfully with Washington and other public policy venues where the Convention is on an issue, it would be misleading and unethical of the ERLC to promote a position at variance with the Convention’s expressly stated positions.

“Given the fact the Convention has officially addressed the issues of creation care and environmental stewardship in its 2006 and 2007 Conventions through resolutions adopted by the Convention’s duly elected messengers (see links below to view cited SBC resolutions), the ERLC does not agree that Southern Baptists have been ‘too timid’ in addressing these issues.

“Southern Baptists, collectively and individually, jealously guard their independence and autonomy. They reserve to themselves the right to decide through Convention action what the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy positions are to be. The ERLC will continue to share the officially adopted positions of the Convention with public policy makers and the media. Thus, the ERLC has declined to endorse ‘A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change’ in its present form.”

The Southern Baptist Convention is America’s largest non-Catholic denomination with more than 16.3 million members in over 44,000 churches nationwide. The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission is the SBC’s ethics, religious liberty and public policy agency with offices in Nashville, Tenn., and Washington, D.C.

Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change: More About Contacts than Contents

Today, a new movement within the Southern Baptist Convention was launched. As a former Southern Baptist activist, it caught my eye.

Jonathan Merritt, son of former SBC President James Merritt, a student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has organized a “climate change” movement to evidently by-pass the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), one of several Southern Baptist entities, and the one specifically charged with environmental issues.

Sometime over the weekend, the young Merritt offered several news releases and full blown website (very well constructed, I might add) and several influential names attached to his Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change.

Friday, all was well within the SBC[i]. Today, an entire movement has been strategically launched, causing no small uproar. Picking up on the Associated Press story, the New York Times writes the event is “signaling a significant departure from the Southern Baptist Convention’s official stance on global warming”, A CNN headline reads: “Southern Baptist Leaders Shift Position on Climate Change”. The Kansas City Star chronicles "Baptist group rethinks climate change".

Sadly, when you get past all the glitz, there just ain’t much there. The document seems more about connections and contacts then it does about content. I have tried (unsuccessfully) to reign in my sarcasm which will be obvious in my retitling of the Declarations various sections, if not in the commentary itself.

Let’s consider the actual document, which you can read [here].


“Introductory Remarks” or “We want the limelight”

We believe our current denominational engagement with these issues have often been too timid, failing to produce a unified moral voice. Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed. We can do better. To abandon these issues to the secular world is to shirk from our responsibility to be salt and light. The time for timidity regarding God’s creation is no more.

The 1970 and 1990 resolutions notwithstanding, the Southern Baptist Convention has spoken to the environment in each of the past 2 years. In this past year’s meeting in San Antonio (2007), resolution No. 5 “On Global Warming” couldn’t have been more direct. The previous year’s meeting in Greensboro (2006) produced Resolution No. 8 “On Environmentalism and Evangelicals”.

I would hardly call these back-to-back resolutions “timid” or a “cautious response”. Just try getting a resolution or motion voted on by the SBC and you’ll see why. I was present for both meetings and am admittedly a bit sketchy on the disposition of these resolutions, but I don’t recall any of the signatories offering amendments to toughen up the “timid” language. Maybe the signers have had a sudden epiphany on issues of the environment. But many of us in the SBC have been addressing these issues formally and (even more forcefully) informally for several years.

Southern Baptists, through the very excellent work of the ERLC, have hardly “abandon[ed] these issues to the secular world.” I cannot believe the above mentioned reference is anything but a slam on the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. These signers are notable leaders within the SBC and know well that the ERLC is charged with environmental issues.

I distinctly remember these signatories did NOT publicly support my motion during the 2005 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting to increase funding for the ERLC. If they are serious about Southern Baptists addressing environmental issues, they should realize that Southern Baptists are not adequately funding the entity we’ve charged to handle this (and other) issue(s). I would ask them to make increased funding for the ERLC part of their agenda.

I doubt even the ERLC could accurately record the volumnous times its staff or publications have spoken to environment issues in the past 5 or 10 years. I personally sat in a meeting with other State Ethics Leaders in November 2005 and listened to ERLC Vice-President Dr. Barrett Duke speak of the need for us to be more involved with issues of the environment, both as leaders and as a denomination. Dr. Duke is often eclipsed by the ERLC’s President, Dr. Richard Land. Few Southern Baptists realize Duke’s work and influence on our behalf in Washington, DC, but he is one of Southern Baptist’s brighest thinkers and was a signer of the 2004 Sandy Cove Covenant on the environment.

Ironically, Jonathan Merritt has launched a website using the namesake of the organization that issued that covenant. They are creationcare.org. Merritt’s new organization uses baptistcreationcare.org.

I cannot help but to conclude, based on the provocative language of the "Introduction" that those involved with this Declaration are newcomers to the environmental cause and woefully ignorant of the past involvement of the SBC and its ethics leaders on this issue. I welcome them to the fight to be good stewards of God’s earth. I just wish their entry into this battle was a bit more gracious.

Frankly, Southern Baptists do not need an independent entity. They need to adequately fund the entity (read ERLC) they have charged to promote this issue. Organizers of the Declaration should be fully supportive of the ERLC—at the very least with their verbage if not with their money.

Statement 1: “Humans Must Care for Creation and Take Responsibility for Our Contributions to Environmental Degradation.” or “DUH”

There is undeniable evidence that the earth—wildlife, water, land and air—can be damaged by human activity, and that people suffer as a result. When this happens, it is especially egregious because creation serves as revelation of God’s presence, majesty and provision. Though not every person will physically hear God’s revelation found in Scripture, all people have access to God’s cosmic revelation: the heavens, the waters, natural order, the beauty of nature (Psalm 19; Romans 1). We believe that human activity is mixed in its impact on creation—sometimes productive and caring, but often reckless, preventable and sinful.

God’s command to tend and keep the earth (Genesis 2) did not pass away with the fall of man; we are still responsible. Lack of concern and failure to act prudently on the part of Christ-followers reflects poorly to the rest of the world. Therefore, we humbly take responsibility for the damage that we have done to God’s cosmic revelation and pledge to take an unwavering stand to preserve and protect the creation over which we have been given responsibility by Almighty God Himself.

This section is one of the best of the entire documents. It is standard, yet essential, language for any conservative Christian in the environmental movement. Creation can be, and often is, damaged “by human activity.” But what’s this statement of “we humbly take responsibility for the damage that we have done to God’s cosmic revelation”?

I never cared for the corporate repentance language of the SBC during the Resolution on Racial Reconciliation of 1995; yet I got it. Even though a lot of current SBC-ers were northerners and even had abolitionists in their family tree, the SBC itself was formed in a climate of pro-slavery. So even though I had neither a personal nor a geneaological history of racism and no personal need to “apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime” I understood what the SBC was saying.

But I’d like to know what damage the SBC has caused the environment. If this is intended to be a corporate document, I’d like “the damage that we have done” as Southern Baptists to God’s earth to be documented, listed, cataloged, inventoried, litanized, published and otherwise proclaimed.

But if the signers are being personally penitent, I’m not so sure we need clarification. The confession of Jack Graham pee-ing in a stream spoiling the spawning pools of trout; or of Johnny Hunt using hairspray—that’s spray not pump—sending fluorocarbons into the ozone; or Danny Akin tossing out Diet Pepsi cans along Interstate 440, well let’s just say, some things are better kept to oneself.

I may apologize for the racist past of the SBC, but here I draw the line. The first full chapter of the Bible I memorized was Psalm 19 “The heavens declare the glory of God…” I’m no litter bug. Periodically, I recycle and participate in community litter collections. I always bring out more than I take in on every hike. I was not driving the Exxon Valdez in 1989. And while I don’t chain myself to trees, I love God’s earth and care for it as much as possible.

Statement 2
“It Is Prudent to Address Global Climate Change.” or “Do something, even if it’s wrong!”

We recognize that we do not have any special revelation to guide us about whether global warming is occurring and, if it is occurring, whether people are causing it. We are looking at the same evidence unfolding over time that other people are seeing.

We recognize that we do not have special training as scientists to allow us to assess the validity of climate science. We understand that all human enterprises are fraught with pride, bias, ignorance and uncertainty.

We recognize that if consensus means unanimity, there is not a consensus regarding the anthropogenic nature of climate change or the severity of the problem. There is general agreement among those engaged with this issue in the scientific community. A minority of sincere and respected scientists offer alternate causes for global climate change other than deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.

We recognize that Christians are not united around either the scientific explanations for global warming or policies designed to slow it down. Unlike abortion and respect for the biblical definition of marriage, this is an issue where Christians may find themselves in justified disagreement about both the problem and its solutions.

Yet, even in the absence of perfect knowledge or unanimity, we have to make informed decisions about the future. This will mean we have to take a position of prudence based partly on science that is inevitably changing. We do not believe unanimity is necessary for prudent action. We can make wise decisions even in the absence of infallible evidence.

Though the claims of science are neither infallible nor unanimous, they are substantial and cannot be dismissed out of hand on either scientific or theological grounds. Therefore, in the face of intense concern and guided by the biblical principle of creation stewardship, we resolve to engage this issue without any further lingering over the basic reality of the problem or our responsibility to address it. Humans must be proactive and take responsibility for our contributions to climate change--however great or small.

Well, yes we can make SOME wise decisions about environmental issues. See the DUH statement 1. Don’t litter. Don’t dump your oil in the lake (or even in your yard). Don’t burn old tires. There is a lot we can do using common sense to protect and care for the earth.

But this section is on “Global Climate Change”. This declaration is for something much bigger than recycling aluminum cans and the signers want action, even if that action is wrong. They don’t tell us what action to take, though they hint at following the crowd: “There is general agreement…”

In fact, there is no such general agreement. The Declaration admits “A minority of sincere and respected scientists offer alternate causes for global climate change other than deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels” but then it continues the drumbeat of action, do something NOW, we can’t wait.

The Washington Post carried an excellent article just a few shorts days ago entitled “Global Warming Skeptics Insist Humans Not at Fault”. This argument, too long dominated by Al Gore and his think-a-likes, is beginning to shift. And thoughtful, serious Christians ought to pause and cerebrally weigh the arguments before they act, not after.

If the logic of the Declaration is followed in other fields, then children ought to be educated about the value of homosexuality as the majority of the NEA says; and surely the earth has evolved over millions of years as the majority of biologists say.

The global warming argument has been one-sided, dominated by people with clear agendas. True, objective science is beginning to speak on this issue and what it is saying should slow us down on the issue of global warming, not provoke his to frenzy.

Statement 3
"Christian Moral Convictions and Our Southern Baptist Doctrines Demand Our Environmental Stewardship." or "DUH (part 2) and Ooops".

While we cannot here review the full range of relevant Christian convictions and Baptist doctrines related to care of the creation, we emphasize the following points:

· We must care about environmental and climate issues because of our love for God—“the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe” (BFM 2000)—through whom and for whom the creation was made. This is not our world, it is God’s. Therefore, any damage we do to this world is an offense against God Himself (Gen. 1; Ps. 24; Col. 1:16). We share God’s concern for the abuse of His creation.

· We must care about environmental issues because of our commitment to God’s Holy and inerrant Word, which is “the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds and religious opinions should be tried” (BFM 2000). Within these Scriptures we are reminded that when God made mankind, He commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures (Gen. 1:26-28). Therefore, our motivation for facing failures to exercise proper stewardship is not primarily political, social or economic—it is primarily biblical.

· We must care about environmental and climate issues because we are called to love our neighbors, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us and to rotect and care for the “least of these” (Mt. 22:34-40; Mt. 7:12; Mt. 25:31-46). The consequences of these problems will most likely hit the poor the hardest, in part because those areas likely to be significantly affected are in the world’s poorest
regions. Poor nations and individuals have fewer resources available to cope with major challenges and threats. Therefore, “we should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy … [and] the helpless” (BFM 2000) through proper stewardship.

Love of God, love of neighbor and Scripture’s stewardship demands provide enough reason for Southern Baptists and Christians everywhere to respond to these problems with moral passion and concrete action.

I sense the influence of David Copperfield (the magician, not the Dicken’s character). How did we move from a very excellent statement on Baptist doctrines regarding “issues” to the “problems” of the concluding paragraph? I’ve watched Copperfield’s prestidigitation enough to transport such trickery into my logical thinking processes (and they say you can’t learn from a magician!). No léger de main in cards or logic will get me to buy into “problems” with global warming. To unilaterally proclaim there are “problems” in the climate change/global warming issue without any offer of proof may illicit some more signatures on a website, but it won’t hold up to logical scutiny.


Statement 4
"It Is Time for Individuals, Churches, Communities and Governments to Act." or “Well…time to at least think.”

We affirm that “every Christian should seek to bring industry, government and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth and brotherly love” (BFM 2000).

We realize that we cannot support some environmental issues as we offer a distinctively Christian voice in these arenas. For instance, we realize that what some call population control leads to evils like abortion. We now call on these evironmentalists to reject these evils and accept the sanctity of every human person, both born and unborn.

We realize that simply affirming our God-given responsibility to care for the earth will likely produce no tangible or effective results. Therefore, we pledge to find ways to curb ecological degradation through promoting biblical stewardship habits and increasing awareness in our homes, businesses where we find influence, relationships with others and in our local churches. Many of our churches do not actively preach, promote or practice biblical creation care. We urge churches to begin doing so.

We realize that the primary impetus for prudent action must come from the will of the people, families and those in the private sector. Held to this standard of common good, action by government is often needed to assure the health and well-being of all people. We pledge, therefore, to give serious consideration to responsible policies that acceptably address the conditions set forth in this declaration.

Maybe I’m getting tired of my critique. On this statement I say “Here, here.” Though, the declaration might have catalogued more than just the "abortion" problem within the mainstream environmental movement. There are many practices and/or conclusions most conservative Christians would find objectionable.


Conclusion

We the undersigned, in accordance with our Christian moral convictions and Southern Baptist doctrines, pledge to act on the basis of the claims made in this document. We will not only teach the truths communicated here but also seek
ways to implement the actions that follow from them. In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, we urge all who read this declaration to join us in this effort. Laus Deo!

This effort is needlessly confusing. In a time when Southern Baptists need more unity and less division, it is unfortunate this entire episode was not worked out in conjunction with the ERLC.

I am glad for Jonathan Merritt’s passion. Southern Baptist’s need many, many more like him who will move beyond shallow evangelicalism into assertive application of biblical values. And particularly in less popular but equally biblical arenas like creation stewardship/environment (as well as poverty, hunger, persecution, welfare reform, etc), the church needs more, not fewer voices.

I’m glad his father and many of his father’s friends have affirmed this passion. They should have been more discerning of the political fallout this is causing around the nation.

I have no commendation for the SBC’s current President Frank Page. For a sitting president to undermine the work of the convention and of a convention agency, in this case the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, is inexcusable and shameful.

In the end, this blurp has caused more confusion than clarity to the issue of environmental stewardship. It will continue to do so in the days ahead as a great distraction to the work of Southern Baptists.

-----------------

[i] With the exception, of course, of declining baptisms, inflated membership numbers, personal attacks on denominational leaders, division over charismatic issues and doctrine, a growing acceptance of alcoholic consumption, unspiritual leadership, turmoil over missionary appointment policies at the International Mission Board, influence of Emergent doctrine, ecumenism and a recalcitrance of biblical separationism. Otherwise, all was well in the 16.5 million 8 million member denomination.