Being mad makes me mad

I hate being mad, so it's a good thing that I don't have a short fuse and don't get my feelings hurt easily. In general, I'm more laid-back than high-strung, so while I'm in touch with angry feelings when they arise, I don't dwell on them -- usually.

Yesterday, however, two things really got into my craw.

The first was a credit card bill. We've been doing lots of home maintenance lately, and the cost added up to several thousand dollars. I could have taken money from savings to pay for it, but when a "0% interest" offer arrived from an Amazon.com credit card I never use, I decided to take advantage of it for six months of no interest payments.

I'm usually pretty savvy about such things and rarely get burned, though I know the credit card companies use such teaser rates because they know most people won't pay the balance before the typically exorbitant interest rate kicks in. I make notes and generally avoid that.

When my first bill arrived, however, I discovered that Chase Bank, which operates under the guise of Amazon.com and many other branded credit cards, had added a full $285 in "transaction fees" to my balance -- effectively charging a high rate of interest in advance and making the "0%" claim an absolute sham, nothing more than a big honking lie in bold print.

After scouring the original offer, I eventually found information about the transaction fee. As you might guess, it was printed in such a tiny font that it was barely readable.

That made me mad. I called, complained, and asked for the deceptive fees to be removed, but got no satisfaction, other than that letting the company know they would get no more business from me -- and knowing I could warn any readers to beware deceptive claims.

While I can afford to pay the ridiculous fee and clear the account before the six months is up, I know that is precisely how credit card companies entice many other people into taking out loans they cannot afford to pay, contributing to mountains of debt that can become overwhelming. That makes me mad.

The second thing that got my goat was not a financial issue, but a theological-social-cultural one: I learned that a professor from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, while preaching in a Texas church, said wife-abuse sometimes results from a woman's unwillingness to submit to her husband's "God-given authority" over her. You can read about it here in Bob Allen's report at EthicsDaily.com ... I won't go into the stomach-turning details.

The professor's pompous position is really nothing new, as it builds on the SBC's "Baptist Faith and Message" statement that was amended in 1998 to assert that wives should be submissive to their husbands, claiming divine sanction for such a practice.

Fundamentalists moan that Christians have fallen prey to cultural shifts that have promoted women's rights and allowed women to think they might be qualified to stand on an equal footing in their marriages, their workplace, or even the pulpit.

They do so, however, on the basis of biblical texts that are clearly products of their own culture. The same biblical texts that talk about submissive women also speak often of human slavery but offer no words of condemnation. For modern interpreters to claim that slavery was a cultural anomaly but male domination is an eternal principle is nothing more than bad hermeneutics fueled by men who like being in charge and fear losing their power.

The professor did not put all the blame on non-submissive women for abuse they might receive -- he admitted that men are sinners, too -- but promoting a theology that tells men they should expect their wives to be submissive is just priming the pump for domestic violence.

And that makes me mad.

I suspect I'm not the only one.

Credit where credit isn't due?

It came as no great surprise that Georgia pastor Johnny Hunt was elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention this week. Hunt had been favored as the anointed one two years ago, but declined to run, inadvertently opening the door for non-establishment candidate Frank Page to take the top spot.

Hunt, a successful evangelist, popular preacher, and senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Woodstock, Ga., agreed to put his name in the pot this year, and brought the office home to the tightly knit party that led the conservative insurgence that captured leadership of the SBC more than two decades ago.

What many people don't know about Hunt -- who goes by "Dr." Johnny Hunt and is regularly introduced as such -- is that his two "doctorate degrees" both appear to be honorary tokens from diploma mills that are not accredited by any respected accrediting organization.

I first became aware of Hunt's tie to the sketchy schools and noted it in August 2006 when Steven Flockhart, a protege of Hunt's, was forced to resign his Florida church when it was discovered that he had fudged on his resume. While Flockhart claimed degrees from two rather legitimate schools, his "credentials" actually came from Covington Theological Seminary, which operates out of Ft. Oglethorpe, Ga. The school confirmed to the the Palm Beach Post that it awarded bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees to Flockhart in 2003, 2004, and 2005.

Do you know any legitimate school where you can earn degrees so quickly, including a "doctoral" program that apparently took just one year?

It turns out that the church had not done due diligence in researching "Dr." Flockhart's background (which included other skeletons that are beside the point at the moment). Apparently, the church had given undue consideration to the strong endorsement given to Flockhart by "Dr." Hunt himself, whose credentials include an honorary "Doctor of Divinity" from Immanuel Baptist Theological Seminary of Sharpsburg, Georgia, and also a "Doctor of Sacred Laws and Letters" from Covington Theological Seminary, Flockhart's online alma mater.

Do you think an honorary degree from a marginal school provides an adequate credential to call someone "Dr."? Do you think it is honest or ethical to accept the title when it carries so little academic weight? Do you think it is appropriate to thus give tacit credibility to unaccredited schools?

To his credit (I guess), on his personal website where he sells sermons and books, Hunt (a North Carolina native) lists only degrees from Gardner-Webb University and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (though he still posts a picture with pre-gray hair). His biographical sketch on sermonsearch.com, however, lists both of the "doctorates," and both regularly appear in the program bio attributed to him at frequent speaking engagements, as pointed out by Robert Parham at EthicsDaily.com. Whether Hunt is responsible for sending out biographical information that lists those degrees, he has apparently done nothing to discourage its use.

There is no question that Hunt is a gifted preacher, for those who like his style of preaching, and an effective evangelist. He has successfully grown First Baptist Church of Woodstock from medium to mega-sized. He has been a faithful soldier in the conservative movement. He has more than enough credentials to be a leader among today's Southern Baptists without claiming dubious doctorates.

As Southeastern Seminary president Danny Akin warned in a column for Baptist Press following the Flockhart fiasco, pastors who seek to be above reproach don't pad their resumes.

Integrity matters -- especially at the top.


[Disclaimer: in the interest of disclosure, the author spent more than five years earning his Ph.D. at Duke University (completed 1989), and was awarded an honorary doctorate by Campbell University in 2005. He may rightly be considered a bit of a purist on the subject, but still doesn't expect to be called "Dr."]

It's about time -- to change

An organized group of Southern Baptists including a strong contingent from North Carolina is calling on the International Mission Board to reverse restrictive policies enacted more than two-and-a-half years ago.

The policies, which reject applicants who practice a "private prayer language" and who were not baptized in an acceptable Baptist church, caused considerable controversy at the time they were proposed.

The "prayer language" restriction would disqualify even IMB president Jerry Rankin. The Landmarkist Baptist requirement has eliminated dozens of potential missionaries from consideration.

At the time the restrictions were approved, Oklahoma pastor Wade Burleson, then a trustee of the Board, spoke openly against the new policies. He was harshly reprimanded by fellow IMB trustees, and eventually resigned because he could not abide by additional restrictions and hush rules they placed on him. Few of those who are not challenging the IMB spoke up for Burleson at the time.

Now, however, they have created a website called "Time to Change," and posted a carefully reasoned argument that clearly and appropriately points out that the restrictions are extra-biblical and go well beyond the SBC's Baptist Faith and Message statement, which many would argue is already both extra-biblical and extra-Baptist.

Five of the first eight signatories are from North Carolina, including Allan Blume, president of the Baptist State Convention (BSC) Board of Directors, Pam Blume and Paul Brown, both former IMB trustees, pastor Michael Barrett of Pleasant Garden, and staff pastor Conley J. Bordeaux, Jr. of Fayetteville.

Initial signers also include former IMB trustee Steve Hardy of Winston-Salem, and pastors J. D. Greear and Chris Hilliard. The growing number of other Tar Heel Baptists who have signed the list since its June 2 posting include former BSC presidents Greg Mathis and David Horton, and former IMB trustees Gary Burden and Karen Gilbert, along with a a number of other pastors and lay members. The full list, which includes some present and former IMB missionaries, can be found here, where others are encouraged to sign on.

Those who have signed the list tend to be strong supporters of missions and of the IMB -- they just recognize that IMB trustees have gone way beyond the bounds of Baptistness in approving the restrictive policies.

I'm delighted that these folks have decided to speak out on the subject.

I wish more of them had spoken up when the policies were still a matter of debate, and when Wade Burleson was being hung out to dry for saying precisely the same things.

An honorable dream

As noted previously, LifeWay Resources' annual statistical study of the Southern Baptist Convention demonstrated in rather clear fashion that the SBC, which had long defied the trends of mainline denominations by continuing to grow, appears to have peaked and begun a gradual decline. Baptisms continue a steep slide despite fervent efforts to prop them up, and even the amorphous "membership" category showed a dip in 2007.

LifeWay missiologist Ed Stetzer analyzed the statistics, pronounced the Convention to be "in decline," and suggested some reasons for the fall-off.

A new financial report from the SBC's Executive Committee adds yet another weakening statistic: Cooperative Program giving is down -- just barely, at -0.30 percent -- but still down from the previous year at this time.

The significance of this is that, through the past several years, despite a struggling economy and falling revenues in many state conventions, the SBC Cooperative Program continued to post 2-3 percent gains on a regular basis. The April report, however, just over halfway through the SBC's fiscal year, shows CP to be $360,255 behind the $120,638,766 received at the same point in 2007. The monthly report was even more striking: April receipts of $15,765,017 were 15.07 percent, or $2,797,103, behind the $18,562,121 received in April 2007.

Has the nation's financial flop finally come home to the SBC, or does the drop reflect other indications of decline? Time will tell, I suppose, assisted by a whole bunch of commentators who are very certain of their opinions.

Trevin Wax, minister of education at First Baptist Church in Shelbyville, Tenn., noted in a first-person post on Baptist Press that there's likely to be a great deal of finger pointing as various factions within the SBC fault their opponents for the denomination's apparent slide. Calling on Europe's "Thirty Years' War" in the mid-17th century as an example of the damage religious factionalism can do, Wax notes appropriately that Southern Baptists' own infighting has now raged openly for nearly 30 years.

Wax calls on Southern Baptists to "end the fighting, reunite around the Gospel, love those with whom we disagree and continue to cooperate."

What a concept.

Many called for a similar response in the early days of the conservative insurgence, but appeals to love could not compete with the appeal of power.

There is nothing more divisive than absolute certainty, especially when manifested as the belief that one position is right, all others are wrong, and the "right" way must triumph.

Absent a miraculous inrush of humility, I suspect Wax's timely challenge will remain an honorable dream.


[For interested N.C. readers: the Baptist State Convention's April report shows contributions through the first third of the fiscal year ($11,233,701) moved 1.46 percent ahead of 2007 giving, but remain 9.18 percent below current budget needs of $12,369,103.]

Stetzer calls it straight

Statistics recently released from LifeWay Christian Resources reveal that the Southern Baptist Convention has clearly peaked, and is in decline. Not only are baptisms down for the seventh year out of the last eight, but even membership numbers, a highly inflated statistic, showed a small dip. This despite a recent campaign designed to baptize a million people a year and persistent calls to do more in evangelism.

One of the few SBC insiders willing to call it straight is missiologist Ed Stetzer, who works for LifeWay Research. In a recent post, Stetzer analyzed the trends and concluded: "Reality is we have peaked. "

In no uncertain terms, Stetzer spells out the evidence showing that the SBC is declining.

Stetzer attributes the decline, in large part, to:

1) "a serious (and increasing) depopulation of young leaders" and a lack of ethnic representation in leadership positions,

2) the "national caricature" of Southern Baptists as bickering people who can't get along, and

3) what he sadly calls "our loss of focus on the Gospel."

One of Stetzer's more insightful comments relates to his second point, which I think may be the most significant factor of the three:

"The communities in which we live simply do not want to hear what we have to say when we can speak kindly to one another. If the focus of every SBC meeting is a new controversy to be debated, new parameters to be narrowed, and new issues to be fought, the trend toward decline will only accelerate."

Those are powerful words.

They are also the truth.

We can only hope that the powers-that-be and those who support them will get the message.

[Image from LifeWay Resources]

More see wrong in the right

I'm fascinated by an emerging trend of disillusionment with the religious right and a willingness of some conservative Baptists to buck the denominational pontificate and speak for themselves.

Regarding disillusionment with the religious right, I still find it amazing that anyone could have ever bought its illusion to begin with. But millions did, swallowing the line that America's future freedom depends on electing officials who are indebted to Christian fundamentalists. A growing number of former fans have distanced themselves from the political movement, recognizing that its religious guise was a calculated farce for some leaders and an ego trip for others, with a few inhabiting the Twilight Zone of self deception.

Rob Boston's "Theocracy Rejected: Former Christian Right Leaders 'Fess up," like other similar articles, makes fascinating reading, and shows how one-time superstars like Frank Shaeffer, John Whitehead, and Cal Thomas have recognized and rejected the hollow hubris upon which the religious right was based.

Meanwhile, some Southern Baptists have shown a willingness not only to admit that global warming is real, but to stand up to the denominational titans who have sought to squelch any statements that wouldn't pass muster with the Republican Party. Jonathan Merritt, a student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and son of former SBC president James Merritt, has managed to grab all sorts of headlines by speaking up for the environment, including a report by Time Magazine on "The Greening of the Baptists."

Showing a little hubris of his own, Merritt called his proposal "A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change," and garnered the signatures of 44 Southern Baptists of varying prominence. Signers who would be widely known included current SBC president Frank Page, former presidents Jack Graham and James Merritt, and educators such as SEBTS president Danny Akin, Beeson Divinity School dean Timothy George, former Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president Ken Hemphill, and Union University president David Dockery.

Conspicuously absent was current SWBTS president Paige Patterson, and curiously absent was the name of Malcolm Yarnell, a professor at SWBTS, which initially appeared on the statement but was later removed from the signatory page at creationcare.org.

Another notable absentee is Richard Land, head of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Land issued a statement of his own begging off any responsibility for stating his own view, claiming that his job is only to express "the consensus of Southern Baptists on public policy matters as determined by the SBC meeting in session each year." Last year, the SBC passed a watered down resolution on the environment that cast doubt on whether climate change is real.

Land's response is particularly interesting, since being limited to "the consensus of Southern Baptists on public policy matters as determined by the SBC meeting in session each year" has never stopped him from expressing any number of opinions on Larry King Live and other TV and radio outlets.

Does the split response over the environmental statement suggest a potential divide in Southern Baptist ranks, as some have suggested? There are divisions, certainly, and bound to be more, though the next great Southern Baptist divide will more likely be over Calvinism than climate change.

Whether it's the machinery of the religious right or the power-brokers of the SBC, any group that contains so many people who are so dead certain of themselves can only cover the cracks for so long.

Why do younger Baptists avoid the SBC?

A new study from LifeWay Christian Resources notes that the percentage of younger adults attending the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting has declined significantly for the past 27 years, with an even steeper drop since 2004.

The study found that messengers in the 18-39 age group comprised 33.6 percent of the messengers in 1980, but made up only 13.1 percent in 2007.

The numbers were reversed for the oldest age group: the percentage of messengers aged 60 and above increased from 12.9 to 35.4 percent during the same period.

Little change was seen in the middle group: messengers aged 40-59 made up 49.9 percent in 1980, compared to 51.6 percent in 2007.

LifeWay's research director Ed Stetzer observed: "Simply put, the proportion of those under 40 attending the SBC is declining precipitously –- down by more than 50 percent since the beginning of the Conservative Resurgence."

Note that Ed made the "Conservative Resurgence" connection, not me. He went on to note that some folks have debated whether the decline in participation by younger people is real. With evidence in hand, he concluded, "My hope is that now, finally, we will stop debating and instead ask the hard question: 'What is causing so many young leaders to stay away?'"

I can't speak for others, but I can recall why I attended the SBC when I was younger. I fit into the 18-39 age group from 1970 to 1991. I drove to my first convention (Miami) in 1975, and missed only a couple during the remainder of my "young pastor" years, even though finances were tight. In 1981, the Tabbs Creek church in Oxford took a special offering to help me get to Los Angeles, where I ate mostly crackers. In 1984, Jan and I slept in our car to avoid spending money on a hotel while driving to Kansas City. It was a struggle, but I thought it was important to attend.

Why?

In the earliest years, at least, I made the effort to attend because:

1. I loved the SBC, wanted to support it, and believed it was relevant.

2. I admired the statesmen who led the SBC executive committee and its agencies, and wanted to learn from them.

3. I thought it mattered.

To the extent that the above statements remain true for younger Baptists, I believe they'll come to the meetings. If not, they'll put their time, energy, and travel money into something they believe is more relevant.

With their 61 percent drop in attendance, it appears to me that younger Baptists are sending a clear message. Whether anyone beyond LifeWay will pay attention to it remains an open question.

The presidency is decided?

The Iowa caucuses brought some surprises to the U.S. presidential campaign and established Barak Obama and Mike Huckabee as the early front runners in the world beyond opinion polls.

They did not, however, decide the presidency: there's a long way to go. Several states that host upcoming primaries don't necessary share Iowa's inclinations, and several candidates who finished near the top still have boatloads of money. The race is far from over, and we will have to suffer through many more political advertisements before the final results are in.

Barring an unexpected surprise, however, the contest to be the next president of the Southern Baptist Convention has most likely been decided: after being rumored as a candidate for more than a year, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler has publicly declared his candidacy, going the traditional route of having a supporter announce that he plans to make the nomination. In this case, Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, did the honors.

Like Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president Paige Patterson, who was twice elected to the SBC's top office while serving as president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (1998-2000), Mohler is a primary architect of the Convention's extreme makeover .
Mohler differs from Patterson primarily in being an outspoken proponent of five-point Calvinism. Like many other contemporary Calvinists, however, he somehow manages to simultaneously believe in both the reality of predestination and the need for evangelism.

Mohler has received occasional (mostly anonymous) criticism from professors and staff who find his leadership style to be abrasive and tempermental, but he has been in the position long enough to weed out most opposition to his view of what theological education should be. That view, among other things, is so opposed to the idea of women as pastors that female students at Southern are not allowed to enroll in preaching classes, or so I've been told by folks in Louisville.

Mohler is as well known for his frequent guest appearances on national news programs, vying with Richard Land of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission to be the "go-to" guy to weigh in on Southern Baptist thought. Look for both of them to get lots of face time in discussing the candidacies of former SBC pastor Mike Huckabee and faithful Mormon Mitt Romney.

In addition, Mohler writes a popular blog in which he reviews movies and comments on social issues such as family life, once arguing that couples who are childless by choice are guilty of sin.

There will be opposition to Mohler in Indianapolis: how potential opponents fare depends on who they are and what they bring to the tablel. Little known William L. (Bill) Wagner, president of Olivet University International in San Francisco, announced Sept. 7 that he will allow his name to be put in nomination, but he is unlikely to be a factor. Perennial SBC gadfly Wiley Drake may give it a go, but while messengers laughingly elected him to the meaningless post of second vice president two years ago, they are unlikely to put him in the top spot.

Perhaps the most spirited challenge would come from Oklahoma pastor and influential blogger Wade Burleson, who would be a favorite of many Southern Baptists who have chafed under the SBC's current steamroller status quo. Burleson, who was recently censured by the fellow trustees of the International Mission Board for daring to speak his mind, has not publicly indicated a personal interest in running.

In a New Year's Day blog, however, the first of 10 predictions Burleson made is that "A pastor with a strong commitment to the Cooperative Program will be elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention in 2008, defeating Al Mohler." Burleson correctly predicted on Jan. 1, 2007 that Mohler would become a candidate, noting that the 2009 SBC meeting is slated for Mohler's home base in Louisville.

Will Burleson run? Will another pastor with a strong giving record, like current president Frank Page, rise to the challenge? Or will Mohler mow them down? I suspect the latter, but with Baptists, most anything is possible.

The upside is that the decision can be made without subjecting the populace to political ads on television, and it will all be over in six months.

Let's give thanks for small favors.

Inerrancy for politicians

I tend to avoid politics, but couldn't help but take note of Republican Mike Huckabee's recent rise in the polls, which has brought the same sort of media spotlight to his background as a Southern Baptist pastor that Mitt Romney has had to endure with regard to his Mormon faith.

Huckabee has said he will not talk about what he called "intricate, nit-picky things of church doctrine" such as the role of women in the ministry, because he thinks issues like that aren't relevant to the presidency, according to newspaper articles like this one.

One could argue that a person's beliefs about whether God has ordained limited roles for women is not a nit-picky matter for someone who would represent all Americans, more than half of them female.

What really caught my eye, however, was Huckebee's response to Newsweek magazine on whether he believes the Bible is inerrant. Huckabee said "I believe it is," though he acknowledged that much of it is expressed in figurative language. He then went on to define his understanding of inerrancy.

"Inerrant" means if you follow the direction of the Bible, it will not lead you into error.

Huckabee is obviously trying to gain the support of voters from the religious right by using their language, but he apparently is not averse to giving it his own definition. Defining inerrancy on the basis of the Bible's influence rather than its content would probably fall far short of acceptable among those who believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible inspiration of every word in the Bible, at least in the no-longer-existing "autographs," or original versions.

I'd love to hear what others think about Huckabee's definition of inerrancy. Comments are welcome.

[Photo from MikeHuckabee.com]

Is Calvinism predestined to grow?

Observers of Baptist life – especially as it relates to the Southern Baptist Convention – will not be surprised to learn that Calvinism is on the rise. With Al Mohler, an advocate of Calvinism, having led the SBC's flagship Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for some years now, it’s not surprising that a growing number of seminary graduates also profess Calvinism.

Acknowledging the trend, conferences on the newly resurgent doctrine now dot the Baptist landscape, including one of about 550 people who are at Ridgecrest this week for a conference called “Building Bridges: Southern Baptists and Calvinism.” The conference is co-sponsored by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and “Founders Ministries,” an unabashed pro-Calvinist organization.

Speaking at the conference, the SBC's LifeWay Christian Resources researcher and “missiologist in residence” Ed Stetzer said nearly 30 percent of recent SBC seminary graduates now serving as church pastors affirm the traditional five points of Calvinism.

That compares to about 10 percent of pastors who claim to be Calvinists among the general SBC population.

Stetzer said his research showed that 29 percent of SBC pastors who are recent SBC seminary graduates indicated they are Calvinists. He said 27 percent of 1,234 recent graduates serving in SBC church leadership positions "somewhat agree" or "strongly agree" that they are five-point Calvinists, while 67 percent affirmed that God's "grace is irresistible" and 58 percent said they believe "people do not choose to become Christians, God chooses and calls people who respond to him."

In other words, a clear majority of recent SBC seminary graduates do not believe that God gave humans the freedom to make their own decisions about matters of salvation, but that God alone decides who will receive grace and who will be condemned.

For many rank and file Baptist church members, that is a surprising and radical thought – but one that might well be proclaimed by their next pastor.

Stetzer’s numbers indicate that the Calvinist shift has strong momentum: the numbers of graduates who affirmed Calvinism rose steadily between 1998 and 2004, with 34 percent of the 2004 graduates identifying themselves as five-point Calvinists.

Some of Baptists’ bitterest battles were fought in the nineteenth century as Calvinistic “anti-missionary” Baptists and Arminian “missionary” Baptists struggled for control of churches on the American frontier.

Now that fundamentalism has won the day against more progressive thought in the SBC, it appears certain that the next “resurgence” will not be of conservatives, but of Calvinists.

Divisive is as divisive does

You may have read about an anti-blogging resolution approved last week by the Georgia Baptist Convention (GBC). You can find the full text of it here. And, if you look closely, you’ll see a brief reference near the end of this article from Baptist Press.

As of Sunday Nov. 19, I could find no mention of it at the GBC website, or the site of the GBC-controlled newspaper, The Christian Index, even though editor Gerald Harris wrote the article that appears on Baptist Press.

The resolution, sponsored by pastors Wayne Bray and Bill Harrell, says that the sponsors treasure free speech and recognize the potential value of “responsible blogging.” They assert, however, that “certain people use this tool for divisive and destructive rhetoric at the expense of peace among the Brethren” and that “blogging is also being used by some as a tool for personal attacks upon other Christian Brothers and Sisters, and this critical and divisive use promotes a negative view of the Southern Baptist Convention.”

It is telling that the resolution, offered at the Georgia Baptist Convention, is primarily concerned with the Southern Baptist Convention.

The resolution called for messengers to “oppose blogging when it is used to cause division and disharmony among the members of our Southern Baptist Family,” that “all personal attacks should cease immediately,” and that messengers should “request and expect that individuals who disrupt the fellowship through blogging repent and immediately cease this activity and no longer cause disharmony for the advancement of their own personal opinions and agendas.”

The resolution passed.

Would you like to see what gall looks like when standing up? Having co-sponsored a resolution against blogging that is used “for personal attacks upon other Christian brothers,” Harrell then preached the GBC’s annual “doctrinal sermon,” in which he roundly criticized mega-church pastors Rick Warren and Bill Hybels, and by extension those who have adopted their seeker-sensitive methods (see this timely blog for more details).

Do you notice a disconnect here?

Apparently, questioning a person’s behavior in a digital discussion is sinfully divisive, but calling names in a fiery sermon is righteous.

To paraphrase Forrest Gump’s mama, divisive is as divisive does.

If they're concerned about too much sharing of opinions, perhaps the GBC and SBC should follow the lead of another Baptist organization that adopted a different method of discouraging divisiveness … it did away with resolutions.

IMB trustees censure Burleson for talking

Trustees of the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board (IMB) voted Nov. 6 to censure a board member for violating new rules designed to silence public dissent. The vote was taken behind closed doors (surprised?), and no count was announced.

Oklahoma pastor Wade Burleson first drew the ire of fellow board members when he dared to speak against another set of new rules designed to tighten restrictions on potential missionaries, eliminating those whose baptism did not meet certain standards, along with those who practice a "prayer language," even in private.

After Burleson spoke publicly about the issue, and discussions surrounding it, the trustees enacted new board policies stating that members could not speak negatively about IMB business or publicly disclose conversations with other board members. Burleson, upholding the Baptist tradition of one's right to dissent, voted against the policies.

Prior to the Nov. 5-7 meeting, fellow trustee Jerry Corbaley e-mailed a 153-page accusation against Burleson to other board members, calling for his dismissal from the board. The e-mail charged Burleson with slander and consisted mostly of several of Burleson's blog posts, along with readers' comments.

Burleson said he attempted to talk with Corbaley about the matter, but Corbaley has pointedly shunned him, citing a biblical injunction to have nothing to do with troublemakers.

Getting no response from his accuser, Burleson posted Corbaley's charges on his blog.

The IMB did not dismiss Burleson, but did approve a three-page document censuring Burleson for publicly disclosing "private" conversations with other board members, including Corbaley and trustee chair John Floyd.

When the vote was announced near the end of the meeting on Nov. 7, Burleson sought to speak, but Floyd had Burleson's microphone turned off, according to Ben Cole, who is joining Burleson's staff at Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Oklahoma.

The IMB's news page offered no news about the action as of 3:30 p.m. Nov. 7, but Burleson has posted a personal account and response on his blog.

Fellow trustees voted not only to censure Burleson, but to suspend him from participation in the next four meetings. Burleson is prohibited "from any active involvement with the board of trustees for at least the next four trustee meetings," according to a post on Baptist Press.

Free speech and principled dissent are cherished values in most parts of America and among most Baptists, but are no longer recognized by the IMB trustees.

There seems to be a failure on their part to understand that rank and file Baptists are not entirely gullible. When the only information they are allowed to get is carefully packaged and questions are not allowed, trust will inevitably plummet. That may be fine for the theological ideologues who run the show, but it can't be good for the missionaries -- or the offerings that support them.

The last Baptist standing

Wade Burleson may be the last Baptist standing on the International Mission Board who truly understands the Baptist heritage of allowing (indeed, cherishing) freedom to dissent as well as cooperation.

Fellow trustee Jerry Corbaley is trying his best to topple Burleson from his position on the Southern Baptist Convention's flagship mission agency.

Californian Corbaley, whose personal blog consists mainly of solicited endorsements for a book he's written, recently e-mailed other IMB trustees to call for Burleson's dismissal at the board's Nov. 5-7 meeting, to be held in Springfield, Ill.

In his efforts to incriminate Burleson, Corbaley attached an amorphous collection of documents that amount to 153 pages if printed. He charges Burleson, perhaps the SBC's most popular blogger, with promoting "slander" and "gossip" on his blogs, and characterizes these sins as being so egregious that Burleson should not only be removed from the IMB, but openly shunned, a practice he attributes to 1 Corinthians 5:11 and Titus 3:10.

In a measured response to Corbaley's charges, Burleson details ways in which Corbaley has shunned him, refused to eat at the same table, and hung up when he tried to call.

To support his charges of slander and gossip, Corbaley's attachment begins with a copy of a conveniently timed August 2007 article on slander by SBC Life editor John Revell (SBC Life is the official public relations magazine for the SBC).

In addition, Corbaley includes "A list of comments by God on what he thinks about slander and gossip," a copy of a previous motion (in January 2006) to dismiss Burleson, excerpts from the IMB trustee policies, and a lengthy assortment of blogs, including hundreds of comments posted by others.

Anyone who knows Wade Burleson or who has read his posts understands that he is willing to say what he thinks and to stand up for those who have been mistreated (like Sheri Klouda, a Hebrew professor fired by Paige Patterson for being a woman in a man's world). Burleson is bold, but always in a kind and gentle-spirited way, and with enough humility to admit that he might sometimes be wrong. It is true that some of the comments posted to his blog have a meaner streak, but those cannot be attributed to Burleson.

Burleson dares to say he believes the SBC has gone far enough in narrowing doctrinal parameters for cooperation and service, and has stood against the efforts of Landmarkist and other ultra-right trustees who would disqualify potential missionaries who weren't baptized in an acceptable church or who utilize a "private prayer language" in private prayer.

Corbaley's efforts to remove Burleson are an obvious symptom of what's wrong with the more radical elements of the so-called "conservative resurgence."

Here's hoping that the IMB trustees will recognize Corbaley's tome (and tone) of intolerance for what it is, and stand with the one who understands what it means to be Baptist. If they remove anyone from the board, it should be the one who has already cut himself off from his brother.

Work for green, or wait for gold?

Should Christians be at the forefront of the ecological bandwagon, promoting care for the earth because we care about the people who depend on it?

Or should we focus solely on souls and not worry about the earth because our eschatology predicts a bad end for this world and the divine gift of a new one?

It's not a new question, but I raise it in the light of recent comments by Al Mohler, who is president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, host of a regular radio program, a frequent blogger, and an outspoken proponent of a conservative and Calvinist remaking of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).

According to EthicsDaily.com, Mohler recently discussed a Christian approach to environmentalism on his radio show, responding to news that fellow Baptist but political foe Al Gore had received a share of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Mohler said Christians shouldn't be immune to environmental concerns, but shouldn't make them a top priority, either. "We've got to expect this world to end badly," Mohler said, voicing a reference to the biblical Book of Revelation, which predicts the creation of a new heaven and a new earth.

One of Mohler's main concerns with environmentalists seems to be their efforts to curb overpopulation. "There are serious proposals out there, coming from the secular left, that one of the ways to deal with global warming is to stop having babies," Mohler said.

Mohler has previously described deliberate childlessness as "moral rebellion" against God's plan for the world.

Mohler's response, at least, is more measured than that of some outspoken preachers like John Hagee, who seriously want to provoke an all-out war in the Middle East in order to bring on Armaggedon and the end of the world.

An eschatological emphasis is also behind the change in focus at the SBC's mammoth international mission enterprise, the International Mission Board (IMB). The IMB once sponsored hospitals, schools, and other humanitarian efforts in many countries. Southern Baptists made many friends and won great respect for their humanitarian efforts.

That is no longer the case, however. While IMB missionaries still engage in some relief and community health efforts, the primary goal is winning souls rather than improving lives. IMB president Jerry Rankin said several years ago that God had convicted him that the world would end soon, and thus he has focused all efforts on bringing people to faith before the curtain falls.

I don't doubt the sincerity of those who think humanity's spiritual condition should always take priority over their physical condition, but I'm reminded of two things: (1) the Bible gives us a clear mandate to care for the earth as stewards, not exploiters, and (2) Jesus made it very clear that no one knows when the end will be.

Ignoring the environment because we expect the world to end before humans can use up the oil or melt Antarctica is a gamble we cannot afford to take.