When Does the Struggle End?
by Gary Ledbetter Vol. VII, No. 8, October 1994
[Gary Ledbetter is editor of The Indiana Baptist, and the following in taken from his editorial in the 7 June issue. Bold print has been added for emphasis. In two introductory paragraphs, omitted here for brevity, Gary refers to our precipitate disarmament after World War II.]
I think of such human tendencies when someone says that the controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention is over or that it should be over so that we can get back to the basics. They have a point, but I wonder if it is a very important point. The controversy of the late seventies which would decide the leadership, vision, and beliefs of the next Baptist generation is over. It was decided in the eighties when trustee boards began to consist of a majority of conservatives and these trustees started to make deep changes in our agencies. Does the fact that this narrowly defined controversy is over really mean anything? We have disagreed about social issues such as race, doctrinal issues like evolution, universalism, security, and the virgin birth (that is, the nature) of Christ, and legal issues like the separation of church and state, in one form or another for as long as there has been Baptist history. Is it one long controversy - the fight to follow God as perfectly as possible, or is it a series of struggles related to different topics?
When one says that the controversy is over, does he mean the one related to the general and constant turnover of leadership, or the one related to the future of Southwestern Seminary, or the one about the meaning of church-state separation, or the emerging problem of funding plans and meaning of cooperation, or different theories of church growth, or the "should our Annuity Board have a conscience to go with its gifted brain" question, or the participation of Land and Lewis in the Catholic document? These things are either a part of what has gone on since the birth of political organizations or they are an endless series of little fights that will continue as long as men are fallible. Whichever way you look at it, the declaration of peace is meaningless without an essential unity and agreement rarely seen in large bodies of people. ... It is always something. Call it entropy, call it the depravity of man, call it the march of folly, but there will always be the need for accountability, always be a reason to question the easiest rendering of the facts.
That is why we need and will always need knowledgeable, courageous, and energetic trustees for our institutions. Mistakes are not the sole property of the secular, neither is dishonesty. Such problems cut across political lines and tempt the best among us. We must not only hope the best about our leaders and employees, but we must also expect [and demand] the best from them. Appointments that will affect the coming years of our denomination need to be made with a sharp awareness of the recent past. We cannot afford the luxury of turning our agencies over to nice guys who are flattered by all the attention paid to trustees. Doing this is a quick way back to the malaise and theological torpidity of a previous generation of leaders. Our president must look for those who care enough to work hard at looking beneath the surface of all convention business. Frankly, many people are not wired that way. I believe they are unqualified to make appointments or have oversight of our denominational resources.
That, by the way, is one reason why we need a denominational press. It is our privilege to tell the good news of our world mission. It is our stewardship to tell of the less pleasant side of what goes on. Religious bureaucracy is not enough different from its civil counterpart. Administrators try to keep the lid on information that might rock their own boats. Those who goof are hesitant to make it right or come clean for fear of hurting their careers. I know it is seamy and nobody is glad that such things happen, but who can deny that it does happen. Even more unfortunately, without the real possibility of public disclosure and outcry, some leaders will not do the right thing often enough or quickly enough.
Many people find the metaphor of warfare unpleasant, especially when applied by Christians against one another. I understand. Are words like "struggle." "controversy," or "scandal" any better? Is "disagreement" strong enough? What we are talking about is the result of sin-the sin if you will. The same sin that caused Satan to say "I will be like the Most High." This is the same attitude that caused Adam and Eve to see the forbidden fruit as desirable to make wise, (like God). It tempts us to believe that the rules don't apply to us because our work is so important. We are led to believe by this sin that what people don't know won't hurt them. It is against the sin that even Christians find tempting we wage war. It is a war and a controversy and a struggle that will not end until Jesus returns (even the assumption of his return is controversial among some Baptists, by the way).
Like the people of Nehemiah rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, we must do our work and guard our borders at the same time. Our work will not end in the foreseeable future, neither will our need to understand and to prepare for warfare.
[Editorial Comment: Right on! Gary has brought forcefully home something not often faced. Allow me to restate the issue he has discussed so cogently.
1. There is a natural (by the way, Christians should be wary of that word and its implications) tendency for everyone to want to be liked. And that tendency may be particularly strong among Christians and especially pastors, because of our emphasis upon God's love: "For God so LOVED the world..."
2. But a God who is ONLY love and forgiveness is as monstrous as one who is ONLY justice and wrath. We tend to forget or ignore the fact that each of God's attributes is just as holy, good, beautiful as another. Thus His wrath is as perfect and good as His love.
3. Simultaneously we conservatives tend to equate correct doctrine with correct judgment, correct motives across the board, correct decisions in all circumstances. We humans just don't work that way. Other things being equal, give me a man with correct doctrine every time. But other things are NEVER equal. Each of us is an individual with all the benefits and disabilities thereunto attendant.
4. It boils down to the fact that conservatives are also prone to error and require the independent scrutiny of strong, godly trustees. As long as sin remains in the world, each of us must be ready to "contend for the faith." Not that we seek or enjoy contention, but because our loyalty is to Christ, not to any man or organization. When Jesus' resources (not just money, but time, organizations, etcetera) are not being used as He would wish, it is the responsibility of each of us to speak up and act in a way honoring to Him REGARDLESS of what men may say or think of us. After all, though we may be held accountable by men briefly down here, we before King Jesus' throne and to Him personally that we will answer, even for "every idle word," much less for our more significant words and actions. The consequence for each of us will be eternal.
5. Biblical doctrine is foundational and its integrity will continue to require vigilance. But careful use of God's money, honing and refining our organizations to achieve utmost effectiveness and efficiency, discipling our members so that every person is a missionary and minister, continually working and revising procedures so that our churches, local associations, state conventions, and the SBC operate flexibly and responsively to rapidly changing needs at home and around the world ... these and other challenges will ensure that we face repeated controversies in the future.
6. Finally, controversy and testing are not to be feared and hushed up. Rather, they are normal parts of the Christian life and should be faced with prayer, commitment to biblical solutions, and determination to place our loyalty to Tame first in all circumstances.]