Avoiding Evil

This is the third part in a series of posts. If you have not read Part I or Part II then please go back and read them first.

In this discussion of the SBC Controversy we have seen what caused it and why the splinter group CBF exists. A multitude of concerns have been raised about the liberalism that permeates every area of the CBF and they have been unable to provide answers. When it comes to political movements there has to be some “issue” to rally around. The CBF needed an issue that would take the heat off of them and allow them to exploit the issues of the SBC. That issue came in 1998 with the addition of the article on “the family” to the Baptist Faith & Message and the 2000 revised Baptist Faith & Message statement (which included the article on the family). The leadership of the CBF/Mainstream coalition realized that this was the issue they needed, because if they framed it properly they could potentially turn the hearts of Southern Baptists against the “Fundamentalist” leadership of the SBC.

However, the CBF/Mainstream leaders show their true colors once again by attacking the leaders of the SBC for the 2000 BF&M without ever addressing the very reasons why such revisions and additions were deemed necessary by conservative Southern Baptists.

Here is what the MBLA has to say about the changes in the BF&M:

“While much has been written regarding the theological arguments, we will look briefly at the context that gave rise to the 2000 revised BF&M. Thus, to fully understand the underlying significance of the revised BF&M statement, it must be understood in the context of the current SBC/CBF controversy as well as the post-modern American culture in which we live.

As one prominent CBF leader once told this writer, “everything comes out of a context.” Indeed he was right, and the 2000 revised BF&M came out of a context. That context was a culture increasingly hostile toward the very concept of absolute truth and a growing commitment to “religious pluralism” with its belief that Jesus Christ is just one of many legitimate paths to God. Unfortunately, this ideological/theological shift did not occur just among the unbelieving or within the “liberal” denominations, but had severely infected the left-wing of the Southern Baptist Convention — the CBF.”

The family and human sexuality has become a big issue in our current culture and it certainly should be a growing concern of the SBC. The revised article in the BF&M about the family allowed Southern Baptists to speak out clearly about the biblical principles that govern the family. “By stating in a positive manner what the vast majority of Southern Baptists believe, this statement challenged those who, while claiming “Southern Baptist” credentials, were sending a very “uncertain sound” out into a world desperately needing to hear the truth” - Moran.

The Baptist Faith & Message speaks clearly as it should:

…that marriage is between one man and one woman for a lifetime thus negating the idea of homosexual marriage. We can understand why the CBF/Mainstream has such a problem with the revised article seeing that the CBF-funded Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America advocates the ordination of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons and the CBF-funded BJCPA played a leadership role in the production of an extreme pro-homosexuality political training manual and several CBF churches allow its ministers to perform gay marriages and have openly homosexual members serving on the deacon board, in the choir and as Sunday School teachers.

…that the only legitimate expression of sexual intimacy is within the confines of marriage, thus negating the idea that homosexuality is “a gift from God” or that “bisexuality,” which is promiscuous by definition, is somehow a behavior to be protected. Hmmm. That seems to fly in the face of the CBF published pro-homosexual “church resource” that was published to let churches know that all sexuality is a gift from God and that a person does not choose to be homosexual but instead they are born that way.

…that children, from the moment of conception, are a gift from God, thus negating the idea that God is “pro-choice,” or that abortion is biblically acceptable. I would think that the CBF would have a problem with this too since some of their leaders have worked in “coalition efforts” with planned parenthood and since they do align themselves with organizations whose leaders have openly declared their support of the partial-birth abortion procedure.

The CBF leaders and related organizations declare themselves to be Southern Baptists and yet they boldly and publicly hold beliefs that the majority of Southern Baptists do not believe. There is a large number of leaders who openly support abortion and homosexuality and yet are identified as Southern Baptist, even though they don’t hold to the belief of Southern Baptists. This created a need to further define what Southern Baptists believe as truth based on the inerrant, infallible word of God.

The SBC’s article on the family was a direct kick in the face to pro-abortion/pro-homosexual activism, which ruffled the feathers of many members of the CBF. However the revision that created the biggest outcry from the CBF/Mainstream leaders was the section of the family article calling for wives to “submit” to their husbands. Obviously this comes from Ephesians 5:22-23 which states: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church…” and Colossians 3:18 which states: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” The BF&M revision states that “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”

At first I asked myself, why in the world was this such a big issue? I know the stance of most CBF/Mainstream leaders on abortion and homosexuality and I can understand their frustration with the revision of the Baptist Faith and Message, but when it comes to wives, submitting to their husbands what is the big deal? Strikingly the heart of this issue is the CBF’s commitment to women serving as senior pastors. The very concept that wives should “submit” to their husbands or that “the husband is the head of the wife,’ is seen by CBF leaders as a direct assault against women in ministry, most specifically, women serving as senior pastors. Dr. David Currie, who heads the National Network of Mainstream Baptist organizations, stated in a September 2000 interview in Baptists Today: “I personally believe God does call women into the ministry and I’m thrilled when a local church calls a woman to be their pastor.”

I simply sit here in amazement at this. If the very idea of wives submitting to their husbands is a direct attack on women as senior pastors then the CBF/Mainstream leadership should not simply be attacking the BF&M but scripture itself! {sarcasm} Shame on the SBC for basing the changes of the BF&M on scripture, that is just uncalled for! {/sarcasm}

Ok, now there is even another area where CBF/Mainstream leaders cried out in unison, which was over the changes in Article One of the revised BF&M entitled, “The Scriptures.” This area goes to the very heart of the whole SBC controversy that has raged within the SBC since 1979. Dr. Morris Chapman sums it up in saying, “The core difference between these two groups [conservative SBC leaders and CBF/Mainstream leaders] is their beliefs about the authority of God’s Word… The moderates believe the Bible contains God’s Holy Word. Southern Baptist conservatives believe the Bible is God’s Holy Word.”

Three distinct changes were made in this section of the Baptist Faith and Message:

1. The section that referred to the Bible as “the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man,” was changed to state that the Bible “is God’s revelation of Himself to man.”

2. The section that states the Bible has “truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter” was followed up with this addition, “Therefore, all scripture is totally true and trustworthy.” - This eliminated the “wiggle room” for those who argue that not all Scripture is true, that the Bible contains errors and contradictions and that the Bible is not historically and scientifically accurate.

3. The statement “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” replaced the statement: “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”

The third change to this article created a vicious attack against the SBC. The CBF/Mainstream leaders claimed that the Southern Baptists had “rejected Jesus” and “exalted the Bible above Jesus” and that Southern Baptists “worship the Bible.” Isn’t it interesting that the CBF remain virtually silent regarding the liberalism that clearly violates scripture and permeates every area of the CBF and yet they universally burst out in a verbal attack against the SBC over the removal of the statement identifying Jesus Christ as the “criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted.”

From this point on I will directly quote the MBLA as they make several interesting and awesome points that I cannot say better myself:

While CBF/Mainstream leaders were quick to condemn conservative Southern Baptists for approving the 2000 revised Baptist Faith & Message, where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…former CBF Coordinating Council member, Dr. Kirby Godsey, president of Mercer University, argued in his 1996 book that “Jesus is not God,” that “Jesus did not have to die,” discounted the virgin birth as “unimportant,” and declared that “universal redemption… finds strong support in Holy Scripture.” Interestingly, CBF is housed at Mercer University and Dr. Godsey’s book was published by Smyth and Helwys, the CBF-funded publishing house.

where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…former CBF Coordinating Council member Ron Sisk, pastor of Crescent Hill Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, publicly denied the exclusivity of Christ — the idea that there is salvation only in Christ. Sisk stated: “I certainly don’t believe that any one tradition has an exclusive corner on God. I would never limit God’s salvation to those who share my own perspective or my own understanding. I would respect the traditions of others, both Christian and non-Christian, for the truth which they reveal. I would say Christ’s spirit operates in places where Christ is not named or known.”

Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…former CBF Coordinating Council member Dr. Molly Marshall, a leading feminist theologian and former professor at Southern Seminary, openly identified herself as an “inclusivist” in her doctoral dissertation. In her book, No Salvation Outside the Church? A Critical Inquiry, based on her dissertation, Marshall articulates her viewpoint that there are other ways to salvation than belief in Jesus Christ. She also argues that those who never hear the gospel will be given another opportunity to respond to God after death. Dr. Marshall is currently a professor at Central Seminary, one of CBF’s 11 “partnering” schools of theology.

Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…Dr. Alan Neely, who has served on CBF’s “World Missions Ministry Group” and as a CBF “breakout” leader, rejected the idea that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, stating that such a view is “not my theology” because such a view “reflects arrogance, ignorance, and superficiality.” A former professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and the first executive director of the Alliance of Baptists — which claims to have “provided much of the leadership” of the CBF — Dr. Neely stated clearly the theological condition of SBC seminaries prior to the 1980’s when conservative Southern Baptists began to influence the course of the convention. In a March 5, 1990 article in Christianity in Crisis, Dr. Neely identified the “beliefs of classical fundamentalism” as “the infallibility of the Bible, Virgin Birth of Christ, substitutionary atonement, bodily Resurrection of Christ and the pre-millennial Second Coming,” and then goes on to say: “Until the 1980’s, for example, I never knew a Southern Baptist seminary professor who affirmed all of these doctrines.

where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…former CBF Coordinating Council member Dr. Paul Duke used “Jesus” as “the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted” when he concluded that: “Homosexuality is not a major concern of the Bible. The Ten Commandments say nothing of it. The four Gospels say nothing of it. Jesus apparently said nothing about it.” Dr. Duke then goes on to state: “Having taken the time to study the [biblical] text, I must tell you - I cannot with confidence say that the Bible condemns all forms of homosexual behavior.” Dr.

Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…Jann Aldredge-Clanton, a leading feminist theologian and author of In Search of the Christ-Sophia, stated in her book: “…Jesus is not just the last and greatest of Sophia’s children, but is Sophia herself in the flesh. In other words, Jesus is not merely Sophia’s child nor Sophia’s prophet, but Sophia incarnate.” She further states: “When people make the historicity of the virgin birth, the historicity of the miracles, and the historicity of the resurrection their prime concerns, they miss the significance of the Christ-event.”

Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…the CBF-funded Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America issued its 1995 statement calling for the ordination of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons, arguing also that such persons should not be disqualified for denominational leadership positions by virtue of their sexuality.

Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…four CBF “partnering” schools of theology admitted to having open admission policies for homosexual students and when the president of a fifth “partnering” school, Central Seminary, endorsed the Baptist Peace Fellowship/Alliance of Baptists pro-homosexual church resource. Interestingly, former CBF moderator Carolyn Weatherford Crumpler also endorsed the pro-homosexual church resource.

Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…three of CBF’s 11 “partnering” schools — Wake Forest University (Wake Forest Divinity School), Duke University (Baptist House of Studies at Duke) and Emory University (Candler School of Theology at Emory) voted to allow same-sex ceremonies in their chapels.

Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…CBF leader Dr. Paul Simmons, a former professor of Christian ethics at Southern Seminary, argued in his book, Birth and Death: Bioethical Decision-Making, that “God is truly pro-choice” and that “Abortion may at times be understood as the command [of God] to control population growth.”

Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders about the liberalism espoused by their fellow CBF leaders? Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders against those who had stripped Jesus of His divinity and His exclusivity in matters of salvation? Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders against those who had re-created Jesus as pro-choice and as the creator of homosexuality? Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders against those who had applied a fabricated “Jesus” as the “criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted?”

It was in this context that messengers at the 2000 annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention voted to approve the revised BF&M statement, saying in essence: “We can no longer silently stand by while those who call themselves ‘Southern Baptists,’ re-create a ‘Christ’ in an image they are personally more comfortable with.” As conservative, Bible-believing Southern Baptists, the SBC messengers said in essence: We cannot — we will not — silently stand by…

…while the pro-homosexual faction of the CBF re-creates a “Christ” that has no problem with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered sexuality.

…while the pro-abortion faction of the CBF re-creates a “Christ” supportive of a woman’s “right” to abort her unborn child.

…while the feminist faction of the CBF calls on people to worship the “Christ-Sophia,” and re-creates God as “Mother.”

…or while the inclusivist/universalist faction of the CBF re-create a “Christ” committed to the salvation of the unrepentant and the unbelieving.

The conservative leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention understood clearly that where there is a low view of Scripture, there is also a low view of the Christ of Scripture. The conservative leadership of the SBC understood clearly that when Jesus Christ is divorced from Scripture and then used as “the criterion by which the Bible was to be interpreted,” there is no limit to the theological/spiritual perversions that can arise. Likewise, conservative SBC leaders understood clearly that the only Christ we can know that can save us from our sins, is the Christ of Scripture — the same Christ that calls all men everywhere to repent of their sin.

Thus, the conservative leadership of the SBC spoke clearly, concisely and with a prophetic voice in warning Southern Baptists to beware of those who profess a “Christ” who bears little resemblance to the Christ of Scripture and who exalt personal experience and personal opinion above Scripture. And the conservative leadership of the SBC spoke clearly, concisely and with a prophetic voice when they sounded the alarm against those who had re-interpreted Scripture in order to re-created a “Christ” more to their personal liking, and then applied this “fabricated” Christ as “the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted.” Indeed, Dr. David Currie said it well in a recent article in his newsletter: “Division in Southern Baptist life is the result, most of all, of our belief in a different Jesus! Mainstream Baptists and many fundamentalist [pro-SBC] Baptists have a different, unreconcilable visions of the Gospel.” (Jan/Feb 2001 Texas Baptist Committed Newsletter)

This concludes Part III as we have discussed the reasons for the changes in the BF&M and the reasons for the outcry of the CBF in view of those changes. There will be one more post that will sum up the “Controversy” in the SBC and there I will present my own views as well in Part IV, so once again stay tuned…

Pressed

NOTE: I must give credit where credit is due! Most of this information is from the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association. They have given me written permission to simply copy and paste the information but I have chosen to re-write some of it in my own words as I understand it.