JoyaTeemer at 18:46, 20 May 2010

2010-05-20T18:46:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:46, 20 May 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:
	heavily-committed individuals. Their answers are presented in an order that hopefully		heavily-committed individuals. Their answers are presented in an order that hopefully
	makes the forum read as much like a unified presentation as possible.		makes the forum read as much like a unified presentation as possible.
		+

	'''SBJT: As an outside observer, what comments would you make on the conservative resurgence in the SBC during the last quarter-century?'''		'''SBJT: As an outside observer, what comments would you make on the conservative resurgence in the SBC during the last quarter-century?'''

-	D. A. Carson: Doubtless I am an “outside	+	'''D. A. Carson:''' Doubtless I am an “outside
	observer” in the sense that I am not myself		observer” in the sense that I am not myself
	a member of a church belonging to the		a member of a church belonging to the

JoyaTeemer: Created page with '{{info}} ''Editor’s Note:'' Readers should be aware of the forum’s format. D. A. Carson, Paige Patterson, Mark Coppenger, Jerry A. Johnson, and Richard Land have been asked ...'

2010-05-20T18:42:29Z

Created page with '{{info}} ''Editor’s Note:'' Readers should be aware of the forum’s format. D. A. Carson, Paige Patterson, Mark Coppenger, Jerry A. Johnson, and Richard Land have been asked ...'

New page

{{info}}

''Editor’s Note:'' Readers should be aware of the forum’s format. D. A. Carson, Paige
Patterson, Mark Coppenger, Jerry A. Johnson, and Richard Land have been asked
specific questions to which they have provided written responses. These writers are not
responding to one another. The journal’s goal for the Forum is to provide significant
thinkers’ views on topics of interest without requiring lengthy articles from these
heavily-committed individuals. Their answers are presented in an order that hopefully
makes the forum read as much like a unified presentation as possible.

'''SBJT: As an outside observer, what comments would you make on the conservative resurgence in the SBC during the last quarter-century?'''

D. A. Carson: Doubtless I am an “outside
observer” in the sense that I am not myself
a member of a church belonging to the
SBC. On the other hand, I am an ordained
Baptist minister, and have followed the
resurgence reasonably closely, both in
person and by scanning the histories that
both sides have produced. The observations
that seem most pertinent include
the following:

(1) This resurgence is not unique. Several
other denominations and associations
have followed a somewhat similar path.
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
was heading for a decline into systemic
liberalism, and in the mercy of God that
decline was halted. The old Baptist Union
of Ontario and Québec, after lurching
toward liberalism under the influence of
McMaster in the 1920s, gradually built up
the percentage of confessional pastors, and
about a dozen years ago voted itself ''out'' of
the World Council of Churches. Examples
in other countries come to mind. This
observation is not in any way meant to
denigrate the conservative resurgence in
the SBC. It is merely a way of reminding
ourselves that the preservation of the gospel
and the purifying of a denomination
are not unique phenomena: God’s grace
has been poured out in similar ways in the
past, and will doubtless be poured out in
similar ways in the future.

(2) The lines that were drawn were
muddied from the start. On the conservative
side, the most far-sighted leaders
understood that the fundamental issue
was the truthfulness and authority of
Scripture, but some voices tried to make
a handful of other issues touchstones as
well. More disturbingly, on the moderate
side, not a few well-meaning pastors
and other leaders, who themselves were
entirely orthodox, viewed the conservatives
as nothing more than a nasty group
of power-hungry tyrants whose ostensibly
theological motives were a cover-up
for naked greed, whose asseverations of
theological commitment merely masked
their native belligerence. These moderates
knew many nice people in the moderate
camp, and could not believe that they
were denying the truth in any fundamental
way.

I must say that on this score I am
entirely aligned with the conservatives.
Had it been nothing but a power grab
by disgruntled right-wingers who were
irked by the fact that they were sidelined,
I would not assess things this way. But
throughout the period of the conflict, I
scanned the journals and many of the
books put out by SBC seminaries and
other organs, and I was deeply disturbed
by the theological and critical drift. In
the mid-1980s, I was asked to give some
lectures at one of the leading SBC seminaries—
asked, it must be said, not by the
faculty, who at that juncture ''never'' invited
a conservative like me, but by a caucus
of evangelical students on that campus.
I was told by one of the faculty members
that at that institution there were only two
members of the faculty (out of about fifty)
who considered themselves to be inerrantists.
Several students told me of one
faculty member who, after introducing
his classes to the thought of Rudolf Bultmann,
would regularly ask, “So whose
understanding of the resurrection of Jesus
is closest to getting things right—Paul’s,
or Bultmann’s?” In recent years, classes
had been voting about 65 percent in favor
of Bultmann. I could multiply reports of
this sort. Such stances were widespread,
virtually unchecked, and growing. The
issues were not marginal or merely personal.
They very often had to do with
the non-negotiable fundamentals of the
faith. Those moderates who were personally
orthodox but who failed to see these
dangers were either extraordinarily illinformed
or extraordinarily blind to the
dangers.

(3) In the years since the conservative
resurgence, the most frequent charge leveled
by the moderate organs runs something
like this: The conservatives have
caused the SBC to lurch toward the right,
especially in the matter of soul-liberty.
Baptists have always cherished the freedom
to make up their own minds, to avoid
hierarchies and (many would say) creeds
that cripple the principle of soul-liberty.
Thus in the name of Baptist orthodoxy,
the conservatives have sacrificed the most
fundamental Baptist principle, constraining
soul-liberty by a bunch of politically
astute demagogues.

But this is a bit like Brian McLaren trying
to convince us he is Reformed. He is
Reformed, he says, because he holds to the
Reformation principle of semper reformandum:
the church must always be reforming
itself under the Word. True enough. But
he acts as if this principle is a ''sufficient''
definition of what belongs to the Reformation.
At no point, however, does McLaren
espouse the five ''solas'' of the Reformation,
or think through how these ''solas'' relate to
each other and to the principle of ''semper reformandum''. By espousing just one principle
of the Reformation, and making it
the ''sufficient'' definition of the Reformation,
while ignoring or even denying the five
''solas'' so characteristic of the Reformation,
McLaren succeeds in simultaneously disowning
the Reformation while claiming
to be Reformed. He is, of course, at perfect
liberty to espouse anything he likes, but
simple integrity should warn him not to
claim he is Reformed while he cuts his
independent swath.

So also with the moderates who make
soul-liberty the ''sufficient'' criterion of
what a Baptist is. Historically, Baptists
stand in the tradition of the Reformation,
but, belonging as we do to the believers-
church tradition (i.e., we hold that
the local church should be made up of
regenerate, baptized believers), we are
inclined to be suspicious alike of state
churches and of churches that are undisciplined
or that wish to mingle the openly
regenerate with those who merely claim
to belong to the covenant community
(as in the Presbyterian tradition). Many
Baptists have adopted creeds without
feeling that soul-liberty was thereby
jeopardized: many Baptists in England
in the 1640s bound themselves together
under a creed, and many Baptists adopted
the famous 1689 Confession. It would be
easy to multiply such examples. In such
a heritage, soul-liberty was suspicious of
an improper mingling of church and state,
and of hierarchialism that imposed order
but that was careless about regeneration.
The contemporary version espoused by
moderates, however, wants to elevate
soul-liberty to the role of ''sufficient'' definition
of a Baptist, and ties it to freedom
from all creeds. Taken consistently, that
would mean that a Baptist could disown
the deity of Christ, feel uncomfortable
about his resurrection, conclude that
Christ’s death on the cross did not atone
for sin, deny the truthfulness and authority
of God’s written revelation, deny the
Trinity, and so forth, and still be called a
Baptist. Not for a moment am I suggesting
that all SBC moderates go down such
paths. But if they protest that, as Baptists,
they ''do'' believe such fundamental truths
are bound up with what it means to be a
Christian, then of course they ''do'' adopt
a creed, whether written or un-written.
But if they say that soul-liberty trumps all
such credal affirmations, then of course
they are saying that their understanding
of soul-liberty, which in their view ''defines''
Baptist, is more fundamental than what
makes a person a Christian. This is such
egregious silliness that it deserves to be
exposed wherever it rears its head.

(4) On the other hand, it is desperately
important for the conservatives within
the SBC, who have so largely triumphed,
to avoid several mistakes, some of which
are already present. (a) Eschew triumphalism.
If God in his mercy has raised
up leaders who have seen what needs to
be done, if God in his mercy has granted
them favor with the messengers year after
year, if God has enabled confessional
voices to regain the initiative, this ought
to be an occasion for deep thanksgiving,
renewed repentance, and humility of
mind. (b) Avoid a swing to the cultural
right. Not every issue on the right-wing
of our culture, or on the right-wing of
evangelicalism, is consistent with biblical
thought. Many are; some are not. But
a swing to the cultural right begins to
align one’s commitment to the Bible with
every right-wing cultural item that comes
along. Leaders begin to play games of
“I’m more conservative than you.” (c) Let
the leaders become increasingly careful
about the extent to which their public
utterances are negative. In any movement
of resurgence, there is a great deal
that must be corrected, so of course there
are lots of negative things to be said. The
Reformers had to expose the corruption
of the indulgences. But a couple of centuries
later, Richard Baxter was right when
he insisted that if anyone brings a false
doctrine of justification into your area,
your ''first'' responsible is to “preach up”
(his expression) justification better than
he. Within that framework, it is much
easier to expose false stances on justification.
So also today: God knows there are
plenty of errors and dangers around, and
we need clear thinking about them and in
many cases warnings against them. But
leaders who have earned their spurs by
correcting things are in grave danger of
thinking that our ''primary'' task is correcting and warning, and end up sounding
like perennial self-righteous and angry
critics. Our ''first'' obligation is to unpack
the glories of the gospel, the wonders of
God and his self-disclosure, the privilege
and pleasure of sins forgiven, the power
of the Spirit, the anticipation of the glory
to come, and much more of the same.
Unless our warnings are surrounded by
sheer delight in God and his truth, we
ourselves become corroded, and invite a
nasty backlash with deleterious results
for years to come.

(5) And finally: we should be grateful
to God for those who tried to be faithful to
God and his Word during the years when
the decline seemed irreversible. I have a
friend, a pastor in New York, who likes to
say, “For the Christian, optimism is naive,
but pessimism is atheistic.” Just so.

The SBJT Forum: Retrospect and Prospect - Revision history

JoyaTeemer at 18:46, 20 May 2010

JoyaTeemer: Created page with '{{info}} ''Editor’s Note:'' Readers should be aware of the forum’s format. D. A. Carson, Paige Patterson, Mark Coppenger, Jerry A. Johnson, and Richard Land have been asked ...'