Getting a motion passed from the floor of the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting is an uphill battle. Convention bylaws stipulate motions that deal with the internal operations or ministries of an SBC entity must be automatically referred for consideration by that entity, which then reports its decision at the next year’s annual meeting.

The man who wrote the book on Baptist polity–former Baptist Sunday School Board president James Sullivan–said the wisdom of this procedure can be understood when it is remembered that occasionally, motions have been made from the floor of the conventions that have dealt with matters already under study or consideration by the trustees of an institution.

“For the Convention, not having all details in hand, to try to deal with complex situations would probably intensify the problem and slow down an ultimate, satisfactory solution.”

The number or motions introduced from the floor of the convention settled down to about a dozen in 2002 but grew to a record number of 29 proposals in 2004, 24 in 2005 and 25 in 2006.

While most proposals end up being referred to an SBC entity, many of the suggestions made by messengers are accepted favorably and lead to the development of ministry initiatives or changes.

Here are a few proposals offered last year that led to changes or recommendations this year:
• A request to improve physical accessibility accommodations at the annual meeting led to this year’s Local Arrangements Committee adding a subcommittee to consider those needs.
• This year’s Committee on Order of Business considered a call for 15 minutes of praise, confession and prayer during the annual meeting.
• A call for an administrative expense analysis of SBC entities led the SBC Executive Committee to ask trustees of the boards to be mindful of fiscal responsibility and stewardship and recommend revisions to strengthen the SBC Business and Financial Plan relating to audits, administrative expenses and business procedures. The EC declined to recommend the proposed analysis, feeling that would “usurp the role or invade the province of trustees.”
• Calls for study regarding the influence of Calvinism, unregenerate church membership and the emerging church movement may be undertaken if this year’s messengers approve an EC recommendation to reinstate the research-related SBC ministry assignment to LifeWay Christian Resources.
• An EC statement drafted in February suggests trustees do well when guided by the Baptist Faith and Message in crafting doctrinal policies. They stopped short of recommending Texan Boyd Luter’s proposal that messengers vote on any doctrinal position or practical policy adopted by an SBC entity that goes beyond or seeks to explain the explicit language in the BF&M. (See related article by David Roach on Luter’s motion in this issue of the TEXAN.)

Ryan Johnson of Birmingham, Ala., initially called for a study of the emerging church movement, fearful that some Southern Baptist leaders “are drifting dangerously close to identifying the SBC with this movement.”

Johnson told the TEXAN he has come to believe the North American Mission Board and Southern Baptist seminaries are equipping Southern Baptists with both the doctrine and methodology to reach the culture and re-establish the church’s witness.

“I am confident that LifeWay will put the right people on the case to research it,” Johnson said, expressing gratitude that the matter is being addressed.

Following a vote calling for LifeWay to examine these issues, Executive Committee member Roger Moran of Missouri charged that the Acts 29 Network of churches, which has hosted meetings at which Southern Baptists have spoken, encourages lax attitudes toward sinful behavior in order to gain a hearing among unbelievers.

Moran argued that because some of the network’s churches have allegedly sponsored meetings at pubs to facilitate theological discussions, presented what he said were R-rated movies during film nights to address ethical concerns, and hosted poker nights as fellowship, Southern Baptists, by any association with the network, are nurturing the “fleshly nature of our people.”

Regarding the call for a study of the influence of Calvinism, John S. Connell of Georgia told the TEXAN of his concern that “the Calvinistic cauldron is already boiling in Southern Baptist churches” and if not addressed will cause the SBC to explode within 10 to 15 years.

Connell shared a manuscript he wrote on the subject with EC members and convention officers, as well as seminary presidents, in which he warned that Calvinism would ultimately destroy the greatest mission program in the world.

Another motion that prompted further study asked GuideStone Financial Resources to consider allowing members of SBC churches to participate in their financial and insurance products. GuideStone will report this year that such a study is underway.

CONCERN ALREADY ADDRESSED
Sometimes SBC entities respond to a referred motion by stating that the desired action is already being taken, as happened in these cases:
• NAMB trustees declined to employ a disabled person in order to raise disability awareness by SBC churches, stating their own sensitivity and inclusiveness toward those with disabilities and the lack of ministry assignment in this area of local church policy.
• Jerilyn Leverett of Wesleyan Drive Baptist Church, Macon, Ga expressed gratitude for the subcommittee and regret that NAMB had not devoted more energy to the 95 percent of disabled persons who do not attend church. “There needs to be a coordinated missions emphasis utilizing people with disabilities,” she said, to reach people with disabilities so they in turn can serve through their local churches.
• When one messenger shared his concern that Cooperative Program giving has been presented as “the only legitimate way to determine if a church or pastor is genuinely mission minded,” the Executive Committee explained that reporting in the Annual Church Profile currently includes a category reporting total mission expenditures of each church. While G. Wayne Dorsett was not surprised that ACP reports include that information, he remains concerned that CP giving is the only criterion for considering candidates for SBC offices and trustee posts.
• Last year a Lufkin pastor proposed that the Executive Committee develop a plan of action in the event that a disaster prevents the annual meeting from being held. According the Article XI of the SBC Constitution, such provision has already been made.
• Similarly, a call by a Texas pastor to amend bylaws to require convention officers to be chosen from churches that give 10 percent through the Cooperative Program and the local Baptist association was regarded by the Executive Committee as having been addressed. Last year messengers voted to remove a similar stipulation from the Ad Hoc Cooperative Program Committee’s final report, while embracing other initiatives to heighten CP giving.
• A messenger asking that a LifeWay store be opened in Phoenix was told that the city remains a potential site.
• After a messenger asked for a committee to be appointed to examine how IMB and NAMB might work in greater partnership, both entities responded that such a mechanism for cooperative work already exists through the Inter-Missions Council that meets regularly throughout the year.
• A call for an external audit of all funds handled by the IMB Central Asia Region for the years 1999-2005 was rejected after being referred to IMB trustees who concluded appropriate action was taken in 2004 following both an audit and supplemental procedures accomplished by a qualified CPA.

But Texan Ron McGowin express dissatisfaction with the response, raising questions about the amount actually embezzled and the efforts to return funds to the region. He also questioned the limitation of the audit to a smaller time-span than the 1999-2005 period called for in the motion.

ACTION NOT NEEDED

Several messengers appealed for changes that the Executive Committee rejected.
• A call for the Committee on Nominations to appoint at least one pastor under the age of 40 to committees and boards was declined. The EC noted that trustees under age 40 are regularly appointed for service “without regard to their age, gender or ethnicity.”
• A call for a comprehensive study of the makeup and function of all SBC entity boards was declined, noting that such information is included in the 2006 SBC annual and in governing documents available online. EC staff agreed to compile the information for a chart in the SBC Book of Reports.

Just because an SBC entity doesn’t think an idea merits consideration doesn’t mean a messenger won’t urge an action that overrules or limits an SBC entity. Repeated calls have been made in recent years to give immediate consideration to a matter if sought by a simple majority of the messengers instead of the two-thirds now required.

A similar call has been made repeatedly to allow a simple majority of messengers to consider a resolution that was not brought to the floor by the Resolutions Committee.

The Executive Committee argues that such issues “should be sufficiently compelling to sustain the two-thirds vote required to preempt the referrals normally made to the entities involved” in the case of motions to bring out of committee a resolution not introduced by the committee assigned to consider it.

Rodney Albert of Missouri said the two-thirds majority requirement has the potential of thwarting the will of the majority. Believing the Executive Committee is “more inclined to dispose of these matters than to understand them,” Albert expressed disappointment that greater concern is not shown in protecting “the right of the majority” on either a motion or a resolution.

Another effort was rejected that called for amending the bylaws so that trustees serve a single seven-year term.

“We are ignoring a huge talent pool…when we continue to allow the repetitious service of policy makers” through renewed terms of service, said Barrett M. Lampp of Florida.

Messenger Wiley Drake of California remains dissatisfied with the Executive Committee’s refusal to recommend his repeated calls for allowing the submission of resolutions by messengers on the first day of the annual meeting. The EC said the current deadline of 15 days before the convention provides for thoughtful deliberation by the Resolutions Committee. Drake told the TEXAN he will again call for this change at this year’s convention meeting.

Two of last year’s proposed motions prompted spirited debate before being referred—one calling for an investigation of the IMB for allegations of impropriety and the other asking the 2008 annual meeting to be moved to hurricane-stricken New Orleans.

An Oklahoma messenger called for the EC to appoint a committee to investigate what he alleged was impropriety among IMB trustees. He deferred to SBC President Bobby Welch’s suggestion that the matter first be given consideration by an internal IMB committee.

IMB trustees responded last January by approving without dissent a report presented by their executive committee in consultation with executive staff. Trustees did not address fellow trustee Wade Burleson’s charge that the nominating process for appointment of trustees had been manipulated or that undue influence by outside SBC agency heads had occurred, finding those requests outside their authority—a point which Burleson later cited as a reason for his initial call to have an outside committee conduct the investigation.

The IMB response noted their prerogative and responsibility to further define parameters of doctrinal beliefs and practices beyond the BF&M for missionaries who serve Southern Baptists.

David Crosby of New Orleans told the TEXAN that the SBC fails to understand the “wonderful mission opportunity and powerful witness they could have by immediately scheduling our annual meeting in New Orleans.” While larger secular conventions are making the city a destination, Crosby said the SBC postpones selection of that site “because we are still in recovery.”

The EC estimated that breaking contractual agreements with the city of Indianapolis would cost the SBC approximately half a million dollars and questioned whether the city could accommodate the large crowd.

Crosby countered by citing the tens of thousands of Southern Baptists who have endured inconveniences by “sleeping on cots and eating bologna sandwiches” in order to share the gospel “with powerful words and deeds.”

As messengers hear reports from the SBC entities to which last year’s motions were referred, they will have an opportunity to question the decisions that were made and even call for the original motion’s reconsideration if two-thirds of the messengers agree.

In his book on Baptist polity, James Sullivan praised the fairness shown each messenger even during years when spirited debate was commonplace. “Extremisms are usually discouraged by the very process of democracy,” he wrote. “If an extremist persists in presenting prejudiced and unjustified view or making extremist motions, a deliberative body will soon recognize his off-center positions. This person will tend to lose his influence with that body.

They may vote to hear him, but they will cease to respect his views if he has moved very far from the center of the assembled constituency.”

SAN ANTONIO–As the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting approaches, some messengers are considering making a motion that would prohibit SBC entities from adopting doctrinal policies that speak more specifically than the language of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.

But several members of the committee that revised the BF&M in 2000 caution that such a motion is unnecessary and would inhibit entities from carrying out their work.

“It would severely hamstring us,” Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and a member of the BF&M Study Committee, said of the potential motion. “It would basically leave us (the ERLC) in limbo if an issue comes up between that meeting and the next convention as to whether we could address it.

“There are lots of issues that are not explicitly settled in the Baptist Faith and Message and that we haven’t had resolutions on yet that come up that we need to deal with. It seems to me that it’s a violation of the trustee process. We elect trustees to provide that kind of oversight.”

The idea for a motion limiting policies to the language of the BF&M initially came up at last year’s SBC annual meeting in Greensboro, N.C., where Texas messenger Boyd Luter made a motion calling for a vote by the full convention on any “doctrinal position or practical policy” adopted by an SBC entity “which goes beyond, or seeks to explain the explicit wording of the duly constituted authoritative language of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.”

Luter’s motion was referred to the SBC Executive Committee, which issued a one-paragraph statement at its February meeting characterizing the BF&M as a sufficient guide for trustees of SBC entities.

The Executive Committee stated that it “acknowledges the Baptist Faith and Message is not a creed, or a complete statement of our faith, nor final or infallible, nevertheless we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention.”

C.J. Bordeaux, chairman of the Executive Committee’s administrative sub-committee, told the TEXAN that the statement does not tell entities what to do and affirms that each SBC entity is autonomous.

“We cannot tell the entities what they can do,” Bordeaux said. “…When we came to this thing about the BF&M, there was the realization that we can’t make them do what we want them to do They’re their own private entity, and that has to be up to the individual entity to determine.”

He added that the BF&M is not a specific “battle plan” but merely a “great guide” and a general statement of what Southern Baptists stand for.

Luter, pastor of Comal Country Church in New Braunfels, told the TEXAN in an e-mail he is “gratified with the action of the Executive Committee” but that he has lost respect for the trustees of three entities that have taken doctrinal stands outside the bounds of the BF&M.

“I have lost even more respect for the trustees of the three entities that now have in place de facto doctrinal additions to BFM 2000: NAMB, IMB and SWBTS,” Luter wrote. “Each of these three boards has met at least once since the Executive Committee decision in February, which effectively counseled these trustees that BFM 2000, as it is currently worded (i.e., not being stretched to bear a narrow interpretation well beyond the actual wording), is ‘sufficient’ to inform all entity ‘policies and practices.'”

Luter expressed disappointment that none of the three boards publicly acknowledged the EC recommendation, nor did they “bring their own previous actions beyond BF&M 2000 back into line with the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention.”

Though Luter is not planning personally to introduce a follow-up motion in San Antonio, he said he has seen drafts of several potential motions that seek to “bring home more effectively to these trustees their proper expected accountability to the Convention at large in keeping faith with BFM 2000.”

One possible source of such a motion is the participants in a roundtable in December dubbed by host

Dwight McKissic as the Sandy Creek-Charlestonian Convergence, named for two 18th-century traditions out of which Southern Baptists rose. Roundtable participants signed a letter asking the International Mission Board, the North American Mission Board and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary to reconsider policies and statements concerning private prayer language, and to provide a response at the SBC meeting in San Antonio.

Concerned that “restrictive policies and statements have now introduced conflict and disharmony within a convention that has labored diligently to preserve our common bond of missions and evangelism within the Baptist Faith and Message,” the letter said that task is too great to begin excluding people from service based on “interpretive variances and disciplines of personal devotion.”

Wade Burleson, a participant in the roundtable, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Okla., and an IMB trustee, has also criticized the IMB for adopting a baptism policy he said goes beyond the parameters of the BF&M.

The IMB’s baptism guideline, adopted in May, states that baptism “must take place under the authority of a local church that practices believer’s baptism alone, embraces the doctrine of the security of a believer’s salvation and does not view baptism as sacramental, regenerative or essential to salvation. A candidate who has not been baptized under the authority of a local church, which meets the standards listed above, is expected to request baptism in his or her Southern Baptist church.”

Roger Spradlin, a member of the committee that drafted the 2000 revision of the Baptist Faith and Message and pastor of Valley Baptist Church in Bakersfield, Calif., said that while he understands the concern of those considering a motion in San Antonio, trustee boards need to retain the right to speak more specifically than the BF&M at times.

“I understand the motivation for such a motion because it’s difficult for an entity to pass policies that the whole convention doesn’t necessarily buy into or agree with,” said Spradlin, who is a member of the Executive Committee and former trustee at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. “But on the flip side of that, it’s just about as dangerous to try to have a confession of faith that is so broad that it covers every possibility for separate entities. For instance, our seminaries should have a right to ask questions of a professor and to set guidelines that aren’t necessarily specified in the Baptist Faith and Message.”

Though he personally disagrees with the IMB baptism policy, Spradlin said trustees are in a better position than the full convention to debate detailed theological issues and set policy for their entities on such issues as baptism, prayer languages and the gender of professors.

“I think it’s appropriate that they not contradict the Baptist Faith and Message,” he said of entity policies, “but to say that we can’t go beyond that I think is unrealistic.”

Heather Moore, also a member of the BF&M Study Committee, agreed with Spradlin’s assessment, saying Southern Baptists’ confession is a general statement and that entities should be permitted to deal with issues that arise, which are not specifically addressed in the BF&M.

“The committee was given the responsibility to review the Baptist Faith and Message statement and to clarify and to clearly communicate the commonly held doctrinal beliefs by Baptists,” Moore said. “The Baptist Faith and Message is not a complete statement of faith; it is not considered infallible.”

“For issues that arise, not addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message, we must allow each SBC trustee board to fulfill the role for which they are elected and to work with their respective agency head and other staff to implement policy in accordance to biblical standards.”

Simon Tsoi of Phoenix was also a part of the BF&M Study Committee and now is on the IMB trustee board where he served on the ad hoc subcommittee that reviewed the baptism guideline.

“We were just doing what we were expected to do as a trustee board to help work together with our administration. We prayed and we discussed this for quite a while,” he said of the review.

Tsoi said he disagrees with the charge that the board went beyond the expectations of messengers who entrusted the board with authority to establish IMB policy.

Land noted that even without a motion requiring entities to adopt policy only within the parameters of the BF&M, the convention has plenty of ways to hold trustees accountable if they take actions that it finds objectionable.

Messengers “could write to the trustees and communicate with the trustees, and they could seek to change the board of trustees through a process of attrition or otherwise. The point being made in the controversy (the Conservative Resurgence) was that these entities are accountable to the Southern Baptist Convention. The Southern Baptist Convention can change the trustee boards.”

Messengers should not think that trustees are out to thwart the will of the convention, Land said, adding that the trustees he has spoken with are very sensitive to the convention’s desires.

“I find trustees overwhelmingly to be very conscientious and very much understanding that they are holding their post in trusteeship for the wider convention. But you can’t have 16.4 million Southern Baptists’ elected messengers trying to, in a two-day convention, provide oversight and review the decision-making authority and the decision-making practices of a dozen entity boards. That’s why you have trustee boards in the first place.”

In an effort to better understand questions related to cooperation and doctrine, the TEXAN spoke with four Southern Baptist theologians and asked their viewpoints. They are: Russell Moore, dean of the school of theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., Denny Burk, assistant professor of New Testament at Criswell College in Dallas, Ron Rogers, IMB missionary in Brazil and former assistant professor of missions and theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Mo., and Stan Norman, who was associate professor of theology, occupying the Cooperative Program Chair for SBC studies, in addition to being the director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry before moving to his current role as vice president for university development at Southwest Baptist College in Bolivar, Mo.

TEXAN: To call someone a Christian, which doctrines, in your opinion, are essential?

Denny Burk: I think usually when this question is asked, one wants to know what bare minimum is required to ensure that one is going to inherit eternal life rather than judgment. I don’t think that kind of minimalism appears anywhere on the pages of Scripture. Biblically speaking, the name Christian only properly belongs to those who are disciples.

I think of Acts 11:26. Everybody knows that a disciple is not someone who merely embraces the minimum of what is required. A disciple is one who is willing to go to the death for Jesus and the gospel. So the essential question is this: Are you a disciple? Are you following Jesus and his gospel?

Doctrines, essential doctrines, are helpful in so much as they help us to clarify who Jesus is and what his gospel consists of. I don’t think it will do just to affirm the doctrines held to be essential if you are not a disciple of the one to whom the doctrines point. Christianity cannot be reduced to a rote affirmation of doctrines. Nevertheless, right doctrine points to the biblical Christ and gospel and it’s absolutely essential for a person to be trusting in and submitting to the authority of both in order to be called a Christian.

Russell Moore: I think the question points to which Jesus one claims to believe. So I think the humanity of Christ is necessary for one to be a follower of Christ. Also, a belief in the deity of Christ, a confessing of Jesus as Lord, a belief in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus–those things the apostle Paul says he delivered to us as of first importance. And so I think that the key issue here has to do with the identity of the Lord Jesus. Who is the Jesus one claims to trust in?

I think the irreducible minimums include a recognition of Jesus in his person and in his work. And I think the question can be confusing simply because often, as Denny mentioned, we’re looking for the bare minimum. So for instance, you can have the question, can someone be a Christian and reject the virgin birth?–something that the church has always held to be foundational. Well, I think you can have people who can believe in Christ who do not yet know about the virgin birth. But I think it’s an entirely different matter to have someone who claims to be a Christian who consciously rejects the notion of the virgin birth. So I think that’s a bit of a complicated discussion. I do not think anyone can be saved who does not recognize and understand the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

Ron Rogers: I would agree with the statements of the two brothers ahead of me and simply say that Christology–the person of Christ, who he is and what he did–is the very heart and soul of what it means to be an authentic Christian. I would include in addition to his deity, humanity and virgin birth something specific about his incarnation because John said that he who does not confess that Jesus has come in flesh is not of God. I think that is very crucial for us.

Stan Norman: There are two ways of addressing the question as it is stated. One is an historical, traditional way. How have people regarded themselves historically within the broad spectrum of Christianity, and probably what we’re more interested in is how is someone born again unto the life of a disciple of Christ.

Reflecting on Dr. Mohler’s article, I believe when he talked about theological triage he mentioned categories of doctrine. I think Dr Mohler has used a classical, two-model approach where he talks about major doctrines and minor doctrines. I have kind of modified that a little bit with the three tiers of doctrines, with, of course, the primary tier as the orthodox doctrines. I would put in that the doctrine of the Trinity. As has been said, if you aren’t Trinitarian, you aren’t Christian, or as a country Baptist preacher once said, if you aren’t Trinitarian, you ain’t. Of course, assumed in Trinitarian theology is the full humanity and the full deity of Jesus and along with his substitutionary atoning work–all of that in my opinion is subsumed in that first tier of doctrines, which are essential, I think, for a robust, meaningful, genuine life of discipleship. Going back to what Denny was saying, really, the ultimate quest is, are you born again?

And so I would look at those doctrines probably along with some others that tend to be classified with evangelical beliefs of conversion, justification by grace through faith and so on–those would be clustered as what constitutes a meaningful, regenerated disciple of Christ.

TEXAN: What is essential for one to be a useful, effective Christian disciple?

Moore: Well, I would say all of the doctrines revealed in Scripture are essential to authentic Christian discipleship. That’s not to say that one cannot be a disciple while having a faulty view of a number of given doctrines, but I do think that all Scripture is given for everything that is needed for life and godliness. So while we may say that there are some doctrines that are minor in a relative sense, we cannot say that there are any doctrines that are minor in an essential sense.

And that’s where I think Dr. Mohler’s theological triage argument has been so terribly confused in some quarters. What he is saying is not that there are some doctrines that are minor and therefore not to be quibbled about. What he is saying is, the doctrinal categories that are necessary in terms of agreement have to do with what a particular group or church is actually doing in terms of cooperation with other Christian groups. It doesn’t mean these doctrines are minor.

So often you will have people, for instance, say, well, we have a great deal of disagreement over minor issues such as the millennial question. Well, the millennial question is something that I think that many of us can disagree on who believe the Bible and who hold to the authority of the word of God, but we cannot say that it’s a minor issue. If the Lord Jesus spoke to us about a 1,000-year reign of Christ, then it is necessary for us to hear him and understand what it is about which he is speaking. It’s not a minor issue. Now, relatively speaking, it’s a minor issue when compared to issues such as the Trinity and justification by faith, the deity and humanity of Jesus, but it’s not a minor issue. Baptism is not a minor issue. I go can door-to-door witnessing with a paedobaptist believing him to be grievously wrong on baptism, but it doesn’t mean the issue is minor. It’s a very major issue that has been given to us by our king, our Lord Jesus.

Burk: I would agree wholeheartedly with that. I think submission to every biblical doctrine is important for a disciple of Christ. You can’t claim to be a disciple and then not be submitting to something that he’s spoken to. The Bible tells us when Jesus was led out into the wilderness to be tempted, the devil tried to get him to turn stones into bread and Jesus resisted the devil with these words: “Man shall not live on bread alone but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. And if Jesus’ whole life was characterized by nothing less than someone who is hanging on every word spoken by his father, his disciples’ lives can’t be anything less than that. So you can’t say that any word or doctrine from Scripture is non-essential; it’s all essential for us to submit to, even though you might recognize the relative importance of it along the lines of what Russell was saying.

Norman: In reflecting on the question, the first thing that crossed my mind is: Are you asking about prioritizing doctrines as we understand them hermeneutically, or are you asking about doctrines we share in a cooperative context and how we relate to others who believe differently than we do?

TEXAN: I think the latter. How do we explain that outside the Baptist fold? To be an effective, mature Christian—things essential for discipleship but not salvation perhaps.

Burk: I would reject that distinction.

Moore: Well, I think the way Stan just worded it is actually very helpful, that levels of cooperation is really what is at stake here. So in other words, I could cooperate denominationally with churches that disagree with me about, for instance, whether a church ought to have elders. But in my own local church, that would be a situation that we’d have to have some consensus on in order to carry out our mission as a local church. And so I think the issue of levels of cooperation is really essential here. For instance, could I be involved in a Billy Graham crusade with Presbyterians and evangelical Methodists if we’re simply using a cooperative endeavor to point people toward the gospel” Sure I could. But could I plant a church with evangelical Presbyterians and evangelical Methodists? Well, no, because we’re going to have to decide who to baptize and how. So I think levels of cooperation here really is the key.

Rogers: That is also very important when it comes to our work on the mission field. You know the International Mission Board has encouraged us to be involved with other Great Commission Christians. But we have to distinguish levels of cooperation –with which groups can we cooperate at what point in getting the gospel to men and women in other cultures. And in some contexts we can cooperate with a wide spectrum of Christians to get the gospel to people. But when it comes to planting a church, we will not cooperate with people who do not believe in baptism by immersion or some of those essential things.

Norman: And when we talk about authentic Christian discipleship, there are so many ways that could be expressed. I certainly applaud Denny’s concern that he would not draw the distinction between conversion and a life of pilgrimage. I think, as I understand the question though, with regard to the level of cooperation, what are the doctrines that are essential?

There are some areas where I would draw the line on the level of orthodoxy. For example, I can’t cooperate with you because even though you might claim the label Christian and claim to be a disciple, we don’t even agree on the basic orthodox tenets of the faith. Then there would be levels of, OK, we’re evangelical. … we affirm orthodox doctrine and agree about the importance of regeneration. But then in church planting and questions of ecclesiology, my level there is even further limited by what I believe about Baptist identity and that there are tenets in that which will not allow me to cooperate with you. And then we can turn that around and in the political/social sphere, a disciple and someone who stands in a rich heritage of cultural engagement—I know Dr. Land files friend-of-the-court briefs with some people that on other matters we would never cooperate, but on that particular court case or on this particular civic matter, we have decided to cooperate for a single voice on this particular issue.

I don’t think you can just be quite so reductionistic and say in every case this is what happens. I think the level of the issue will determine the level of cooperation.

Moore: And one cultural and historical context also will often dictate the kinds of questions that must be answered. For instance, you think of the Baptist Faith and Message statement adopted by the SBC in 2000, which speaks to issues of homosexuality and abortion—issues that were not raised in the 1963 or the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message statements.

This is not because the messengers to the 1963 or 1925 Southern Baptist Conventions were pro-homosexual or pro-abortion rights. It’s simply that these issues were not assaulting the church to the degree that they are now assaulting the church, and thus they had to be addressed prophetically in terms of the cooperation of the churches.

Norman: And that may require that we partner with others in certain political engagement that the ’63 or ’25 messengers would not have conceived.

TEXAN: Considering Christ’s call for unity in his high priestly prayer, how do we obey that and at the same time contend for doctrines that we hold dear and which may separate us from other Christians groups?

Moore: I don’t think that Jesus’ high priestly prayer is calling for a global, multi-national organization. I think that what he is calling for is love, faithfulness, fellowship, and that ought to be seen chiefly in the lives of local congregations that are unified, congregations that cooperate together.

But there also is a recognition that we see in the New Testament itself, in the book of Acts, that there are going to be situations in which in this fallen world we do not yet see eye to eye closely enough to be able to cooperate on particular issues. And so when the brethren have a disagreement over, for instance, whether or not baptism is for believers or for infants, there has to be unity at that point of doctrine before those brothers can then carry about the mission of baptizing the nations. So I don’t think that Jesus’ high priestly prayer means a pseudo-unity. I think it means a genuine unity, which means there’s going to have to be contending with one another often as brothers on issues that we can debate as brothers, but we have to debate them. And we have to come to a consensus about what the word of God actually teaches.

Norman: I agree. There are two ways you could address it. One, unity ultimately is understood in the person and work of Christ. And that seems to dovetail nicely into his prayer. He is praying that we would know him and walk with him authentically and genuinely, and so true unity is found in rightly knowing who he is, rightly believing who his is and rightly serving and obeying him. But you could turn it around and say the fact that I have associated myself with a particular denomination is that I am doing so in an attempt to be biblically united with Christ and with other believers.

People often view denominations as separation, and that is true, but denominations also provide vehicles for uniting like-minded believers, unifying them and their convictions and calling as they understand Scripture and their relationship to Christ.

It kind of cuts two ways. I could justify denominational identity and separation along the lines of “I do it in a quest for being united with like-minded believers with like-minded convictions and a like-minded life of discipleship as I follow after Jesus Christ.”

Burk: And I would say I can’t be a faithful disciple of Jesus if I think that the Bible teaches that baptism is immersion of a believer in water and then I don’t submit to that word. If you are allowing all these other people to join your assembly who aren’t baptized, and you’ve defined discipleship in your understanding of the Scripture to be baptism of the believer by immersion in water, you really don’t have any choice. To be faithful means you have to submit to that word. And you can’t just say this is unimportant, this is non-essential, they’re still saved. No, you have to submit to what Jesus teaches on it.

Rogers: I’m wondering if a lot of people are looking to this term “denomination” or denominational identity as a divider when in reality I don’t think it is necessarily an indicator of division in the body of Christ.

TEXAN: First, do you agree with perception of some that there is a narrowing of doctrinal parameters in the SBC? And second, is this to a degree necessary in order to have a denomination?

Moore: I do not see an undue narrowing in the Southern Baptist Convention right now. As a matter of fact, I see a wide and growing latitudinarianism in the SBC, especially at the level of our churches. You can see this, for instance, in the way in which some people read the confessions of faith to say that as long as something is not explicitly mentioned in the confession, we have latitude to go in a completely opposite direction. I think that’s something we ought to be worried about. Often when people are charging the denomination with narrowness, they are charging the denomination with narrowness that is necessary for a denomination to decide how we continue to cooperate together in carrying out the Great Commission. That means that you are going to have new questions that emerge as the culture changes and begins formulating threats to orthodoxy in different ways.

So I don’t at this point see narrowness. Is there always a danger of an undue narrowness? Certainly there is. And we can see that in some examples of some groups that have gone before us that have divided over issues that were not essential to cooperation. But I don’t think we are in any danger of that right now.

Burk: How are you going to cooperate on the mission field if you don’t agree on what baptism is, and the convention or the IMB is going to speak to what they think baptism is. I have no problem with that at all. We need to be specific about it. You cannot disciple in a church, you can’t plant churches, without knowing what that is. So it’s not inappropriate to narrow that. And I agree with Dr. Moore. He sees some relaxing of things that are essential to being Baptist here stateside. I recall reading of a Baptist church that was going to accept as members those who had been baptized as infants. That is so contrary to Baptist understanding and I think a biblical understanding of what baptism is.

Norman: In may experience in denominational service, there have been a few exceptional occasions [where inappropriate narrowness occurred], but we can’t let occasional issues paint an entire denomination as large as ours. The gadflys are really having a profound influence in certain quadrants of our culture today, maybe far beyond what they have earned or should have.

Moore: And most of the charges that you hear of undue narrowness are coming from people, when you actually appear behind the rhetoric and ask what exactly are they talking about, you find a very pernicious agenda, an agenda that’s already been settled in the Southern Baptist Convention. It’s an issue that has to do with, for instance, gender roles, an issue that has to do with open communion and open membership in some cases in our churches, an agenda that has to do with a whole wide array of things that have already been settled in Southern Baptist life. And you have a whole group of people who could never win at the church level by speaking to the issues themselves, who if they speak in broad terms of undue narrowness believe they will gain a hearing because of personality issues and what have you that have to be confronted directly.

Norman: The case of the theology professor at Southwestern Seminary who was denied tenure is a good example. The Baptist Faith and Message speaks about males as pastor, not specifically professor, therefore the conclusion is drawn that the BF&M has been breached. And yet, that’s too reductionistic a way to ask the question. Has there been some kind of illogical and ecclesial distinction between our seminary professors and those who serve in a pastoral role in a local church? Do we have a tradition of a pastor-theologian such that the qualifications for pastor do translate into most, maybe not all, professors at the seminary? I don’t think that you can argue against that, yes, we have a long tradition. In fact, it was intentionally conceived that way by Broadus and by Boyce and by Manley. And to argue differently, well, maybe we don’t have it stated in the BF&M, but it is to argue against a long, rich tradition in Southern Baptist life.

TEXAN: Do you believe the Baptist Faith and Message should be a baseline for our denomination’s work or is it a maximal parameter beyond which our SBC entities cannot appropriately go?

Moore: The Baptist Faith and Message is a single statement of belief defining cooperation of the churches denominationally. Each entity must decide what is necessary for that entity to carry out its mission and commission. Southern Seminary, for instance, every faculty member at Southern Seminary must be in agreement with the Baptist Faith and Message and also with the Abstract of Principles, the statement of faith adopted by this institution from its founding. There are some issues in the Abstract of Principles that are clarified beyond the degree to which they are written in the Baptist Faith and Message. And that is perfectly appropriate for an entity to have that level of expectation and to have employment standards for each entity that are going to take into account a wide array of issues.

Norman: We trust the trustees of each SBC entity to govern for us in our behalf, and they appoint administrators to implement the policies and procedures that the board approves. We empower them to do this for us and if they deem that there is something that requires greater specificity than what is required by the BF&M, we trust them within certain parameters to make that call. It may be an issue of do we trust our trustees as much as it is how we interpret the Baptist Faith and Message and issue of confessionalism within our denomination.

TEXAN: How should this discussion apply at the mission boards?

Rogers: At the International Mission Board, the Baptist Faith and Message is a good standard for us and I have no problem with asking all missionaries and missionary candidates to affirm the BR&M. It provides us a good parameter, doctrinal and to a degree practical, and it gives us an understanding of where we are as Baptists. So I don’t hesitate. I think it’s a good idea and I’m glad to affirm it anytime I’m asked to do so.

TEXAN: What role, if any, should church tradition play in how we interpret biblical doctrine?

Burk: I think it would be arrogant to ignore how previous generations of Christians have interpreted the word of God. I think it would be even more arrogant to subjugate the word of God to any perceived authority in the church’s tradition. And that was precisely the issue in the Reformation, the issue of authority. And I think the Protestants and the Baptists with them have always insisted on sola scriptura, the understanding that the Bible is the sole infallible authority of our faith. All tradition has to give way to that authority. Yes, tradition has a role to play. But it’s sort of an advisory role. That tradition can be revised.

Moore: The apostle Paul warns us of wolves that will come in and twist Scripture to suit their own agendas. Tradition helps us to see the strategies the wolves use. Whenever you have false teaching in the church, there’s always the taking of Scripture texts out of context and there’s always the twisting of these texts around. For instance, you think of the Arian controversies when people would say Christ is the firstborn of all creation. Church tradition helps us to see how these debates have already been carried out in the life of the church, and so we recognize these things when they come up again in for instance, Jehovah’s Witness teaching or the debates over modalism.

We’re able to recognize the ways in which Oneness Pentecostals argue. Even take church tradition from its broad sense of 2,000 years of church history. In Baptist life, look and see in a very narrow timeframe in the 20th century the kinds of strategies that have been employed. Many problems that we have now in the Southern Baptist Convention have everything to do with the fact that we’ve forgotten some of the lessons learned from the battle over biblical inerrancy in the latter half of the 20th century.

We ought to pay attention to these things and pay heed to these things not because they add to the authority of Scripture—Scripture judges every human tradition—but because they help us to see the ways in which error tends to raise its head.

Rogers: I would add to that that church tradition informs us as we formulate an interpretation of doctrine and practices but it does not regulate in our interpretation of Scripture.

Moore: And church tradition can also often show how our forebears have misinterpreted Scripture. It can be every bit as instructive as the ways in which our forebears have rightly interpreted Scripture. So there’s a great deal we can learn from the ways in which, for instance, the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention justified chattel, race-based slavery. We ought to look at those debates and see how it is that men who understood the Scriptures so rightly in some many ways could get it so wrong at this point. That can help us to look at our own blind spots and our own ways of appropriating the culture in ways that do damage to us.

Rogers: And in that way we will help to inform the future generations as they formulate their doctrine.

Norman: And tradition is a fine safeguard against novelty. There’s a fine line here because if you err too far on tradition, you will stray from biblical authority, and if you err too far on novelty, you are going to stray from biblical authority. The writer of Ecclesiastes said there’s nothing new under the sun and if someone comes to me and says, “We are anti-tradition in every single way. We’re going to formulate it all anew,” you are probably working on a cult. So there is a fine line. On the one hand we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. And we’re probably not going to concede on the person and work of Christ. We’re not going to come up with something novel to add to that. But on the other hand we don’t want to make ourselves so much to antiquity that we are unable to articulate biblical truths that speak meaningfully to our culture. We walk that line, we walk it carefully, we walk it finely, and hopefully we walk it correctly. Sometimes we walk it better than others.

TEXAN: Dr. Moore, you mentioned that it would be possible to become too narrow at some point. How would we recognize that?

Moore: I don’t think you can do it with a list of doctrines. In order to say this is the chart and these doctrines are off limits. I think it would have to be done in the context of life together, mission together in terms of local communities and denominational entities. For instance, someone may say to me, “Our church is not King James only. What should we do with someone in the life of the congregation who is KJV-only advocate?” Well, my response to that is not going to be simple. It is going to be, what’s he doing? If you have someone in the congregation who believes in the confession of faith, who believes in the mission of the church, who believes in biblical authority, who believes that the King James version is the only rightly translated copy of the Word of God today and yet that person has no problem with pastor preaching from the translation of Scripture of which he uses, he tolerates other church members who do not hold that conviction. That is an issue where you ought be able to live with one another and to be able to tolerate that kind of difference. However, if you have people within the life of a congregation who are KJV only, who are standing up and causing division among the brothers because it’s new-age Bible translations, then that is an issue of factiousness that ought to be dealt with in the life of the congregation. Often, these are not very simple but sometimes they have to do with issues within the life of a particular body or group of churches. You could take any number of issues and ask is there a point to where you could become too narrow with these? Of course there is, but you cannot come up with a blanket statement because there is always going to be issues in the life of a given organization or church in which that becomes a stumbling block in the cooperative mission of the church or the institution.

Burk: One thing that I really wish and pray that Southern Baptists would pay more attention to is Baptist distinctives. This is where I believe that we are losing ground in our denomination in terms of an insistence upon baptism and what baptism is, the immersion of a believer in water, an insistence upon a regenerate church membership and all that entails. An insistence upon church discipline. The way that we disciple and preach the gospel. I fear sometimes that we are losing those things in our press for numbers and all of these other things until we end up with a mixed multitude that’s not that much different than what you see in other churches. And it cuts directly against who we profess to be. What’s why I get so concerned about these doctrines that people put in this secondary category as not important, not essential. They are essential. They are essential for our discipleship–regenerate church membership, baptism and all of that.