SBCV Going Great! ... A Time for Care and Prayer!

by T. C. Pinckney                                                                                 Vol. XI, No. 8, September 1998

The comic strip character Pogo once observed, “We has met the enemy, and they is us.” Though that is not always true, it frequently is right on the mark.

The Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia is a new and prospering organization, united in commitment to the vision of a Virginia state Baptist convention fully devoted to the complete authority, the inerrancy, the truth of God’s Word. Many worked for years trying to reform and renew the older state convention which, in their judgment, was departing in both doctrine and practice further and further from biblical truth. Then, when the rules were changed by constitutional amendment in such a way that conservatives would never be able to muster voting majorities, we felt forced to form a new state convention.

God has greatly blessed our initial efforts, and much has been accomplished in a relatively short time. We have a godly, committed, very able Executive Director; four dynamic new staff members hired this past January; a steady flow of churches aligning with the SBCV (20 in March-June); Cooperative Program receipts 66% above last year as of 30 June, and several new church starts we are supporting. There is excitement and joy among us, for God honors those who

 honor Him. This is truly a time to be grateful, to rejoice, to work for the Kingdom.

But as we look expectantly toward the future, this is also a time when we should be cautious and concerned, patient and prayerful. Let me explain.

The problem lies in the fallen human heart, the insidious pressures of modern “culture,” and the nature of human institutions. These three factors produce the almost universal tendency of organizations over time to replace controversy with conformity, sacrifice with status, hunger for truth with thirst for approval, and those bearing or willing to incur the scars of battle with poster boys. The watchword of religious institutions which have reached this degenerate stage is, “The battle is won. The war is over. We can put all that behind us. From now on all should be sweetness and light, inclusiveness and moderation. After all, we can all cooperate in our programs if we just relax, don’t unduly stress doctrine, and appropriately interpret the Bible for our modern times.”

And the number of such emasculated once-theological institutions is legion. Several nationally known denominations welcome not only women but also practicing homosexuals as pastors. It seems that virtually every school established primarily to train ministers of the gospel is now grossly apostate. (Happily, the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention has rescued our six seminaries and turned them dramatically from such a course.) Perhaps the worst example is one I read about, that the chaplain of the Harvard University chapel refused to allow Bibles to be placed in the pews because Bibles would cause trouble!

Documentary Protection

How does one protect a new institution against such degeneration? One way is through its founding documents with perhaps the most notable examples in Southern Baptist life being the Baptist Faith and Message and Southern Seminary’s Abstract of Principles. The former speaks of the Bible as “truth without any mixture of error”. And yet many Southern Baptist moderates and liberals assert that this refers only to its theological content, not to the Bible’s statements on historical or scientific topics.

The Abstract of Principles was adopted by Southern Seminary on 30 April 1858. Its first article reads, “The Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and are the only sufficient, certain, and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” The “Fundamental Laws” of the seminary state that everyone who accepts a professorship “shall be considered by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down.” And yet Southern became notable for its liberal professors. [See “Anti-Heritage: Former Ethics Professor Makes Amazing Confession” in the August Banner.]

These two examples do not suggest that carefully worded documents are not important; they are. But the two cases point out that documents, no matter how carefully phrased, are inadequate to maintain doctrinal integrity in and of themselves. The simple fact is that to the degree a man does not believe the Bible, to that same degree he will be willing to lie when it suits his purpose. To be sure, he will often not consider it lying; rather, he will redefine words, invent new meanings, and rationalize his desire to circumvent the plain meaning of the restrictive document.

Membership Requirements

What then is to be done? For one thing, we in the SBCV must carefully consider each church we welcome to our fellowship. Honey is made for the bees of the hive, but honey also attracts bears which crush the hive and flies which infect it with deadly disease. At some point we will be faced with a church applying for SBCV alignment although it departs from biblical doctrine in some way, perhaps by having women deacons, perhaps by a lenient attitude toward abortion, perhaps in some other respect.

We must realize that the inevitably competitive nature of our geographical co-existence with the BGAV — competitive even though perhaps not intentionally so on the part of either the SBCV or the BGAV — and our legitimate desire to grow in human and monetary resources so that we can contribute more to the kingdom are subtle temptations to avoid too close an examination of applicant churches in order that growth not be hindered. Yet we must keep to the forefront the fact that our strength lies not in human or material resources but in Him who owns the cattle on a thousand hills. If we observe His principles, if we rely upon His resources, we shall lack for nothing needful to fulfill His purposes for us. Contrariwise, if we observe other principles, if we rely upon material resources, if we seek to draw crowds simply to boast in numbers, He will withdraw His blessings, and our grapes shall all be bitter; our waters, waters of Marah.

The immediate objection will be, who are you to tell an autonomous church what they can and cannot do?. The response: who is a local church to tell an autonomous SBCV whom it must welcome as a member?. Of course the SBCV should not, must not, can not tell a local church what policy it must follow in regard to women deacons, abortion, or any other subject. But within its own sphere the SBCV is also autonomous and has a perfect right, indeed an obligation and responsibility before God and men, to order its affairs, including the requirements for membership, in accord with its best understanding of biblical standards.

To add to the complexity of such decisions, there is yet another consideration: we must be on guard against legalism. Those criteria we use must be scriptural, not mere matters of preference, not just what I am comfortable with. We must focus on biblical standards, not fashions such as hair or dress styles. This will pose many difficult problems for those responsible for implementing the policy, but with the Lord’s guidance we will be successful ... and without the Lord’s guidance we will never be right in His eyes.

Personnel Selections:

The key factor is people. People write the documents. People implement and interpret the documents. People serve on the credentials committee and vote on whether to approve a newly applying church. While documents and approval or rejection of church applications are extremely important, the most critical factor is the people we select to staff our convention and to serve on our committees and boards.

First, each such individual must hold to sound biblical doctrine. To accept someone with flawed doctrinal views would be to welcome cancer into our convention body. No combination of other outstanding qualifications can compensate for bad doctrine. No assortment of winning personal characteristics, no academic background, no areas of expertise, no past successes can offset disagreement or confusion about clear biblical doctrine, and no one should be considered at all unless his doctrinal stance is straight arrow. (Note: There are, of course, subjects upon which the Bible speaks with less than complete specificity, for example, eschatology or the role of elders and deacons or biblically proper roles for the divorced. Such topics allow room for varying views, and they are not the areas which this paragraph addresses.)

Second, each person must have demonstrated his understanding of the importance and implications of doctrinal purity. Good doctrine without good understanding results in compromise which in turn produces apostasy. It is never enough that the man merely be sincere in his belief or that his intentions be the best. The road to a very hot place is paved with sincere good intentions in the wrong cause. That which validates sincere good intentions in the cause of Christ is unwavering adherence to God’s Word in act as well as word. If the individual does not comprehend the reason such loyalty is critically important, he will likely waver at the crucial moment. He must understand the importance of pure, firm doctrine and must have put that understanding into action. It is necessary that he be willing to affirm biblical truths verbally, but that alone is insufficient, for it really is true that actions speak louder than words. “By their fruits shall ye know them.” “Bring forth fruits meet for repentance.”

Third, each one must be focussed on God’s goals, not on his career. May God preserve us from the multitude whose every response is conditioned by “What’s in it for me?”. Give us men and women who will stand alone against the world if need be with only Jesus by their side. They must understand that with Jesus, they may suffer but cannot be defeated, may be calumniated by men but will inevitably be commended as good and faithful servants by the only One who counts. Gracious, yes. Loving, yes. But also strong and firm, ready to assault the very gates of hell, alone if need be, in honor of our Savior and Lord.

Finally, superior personal qualities such as knowledge, experience, innovative imagination, and leadership are also necessary. Pure doctrine, demonstrated appreciation of the importance of right doctrine, and unselfish courage are prerequisite but insufficient. Without the other qualities just named, the first three produce merely a static organization of correct belief but no future. We must never be in such a hurry to fill a position that we are unwilling to wait for God’s man. He knows whom we need, and He will supply that need in His good time. Often we will have to undergo what is, perhaps, the severest trial of all: to wait on the Lord.

Addendum on Personnel: There is also an important personnel issue which centers on retention rather than selection. Even the most rigorously selected individuals remain human. We are all subject to the comfort syndrome, the complacency of the habitual. We joke about adamantly two-hymn versus three-hymn churches, but there is here a significant kernel of truth: the almost insuperable inertia of the familiar, the atrophy over time of courage to dare the new. Individuals and organizations are very often like that. How do we guard against our SBCV staff becoming too burdened by the merely customary, unwilling to undertake a new thing in accord with Christ’s will? Should we perhaps develop a variant of term-limits for our employees, possibly that each (excepting perhaps the executive director) may serve continuously for a maximum of five or seven years as SBCV staff and then must take a break of at least three years elsewhere — serving a local church, a seminary, or another denominational entity? Whatever the specifics, a steady infusion of fresh experience and new ideas will be essential for the SBCV to maintain an eagerness to innovate for Jesus.

Compromise?

Pervading all the above is the principle that some things are too important to compromise. This is a simple, rather obvious standard, but often violated.

Perhaps the reason for such violations is our early training to be nice, not to offend. Mixed up in it somewhere is our innate need to maintain friendly relations with everyone. Another strong element is our current “post-modern” culture which actually claims that there is no such thing as objective truth, that what is true for me might not be true for you, and that thus the same statement in the same relationship may simultaneously be both true and untrue.

Logically and biblically such contradictions are utter nonsense, but nevertheless, they are the essence of our society’s “culture.” And they pervade our thoughts and our churches, though perhaps never specifically stated nor even consciously recognized.

It is this kind of thinking that enables even a scholar like Robison B. James to write, “Your doctrines and my doctrines may differ at some significant point, perhaps in our doctrine of Scripture. Even so, we can share leadership in missions, evangelism, and theological education if the crucial question ... is whether you and I are mutually related to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, living faithfully in Him and for Him.” It is not my purpose here to critique fully James’ assertion. [Al Mohler has done that. Both James’ article and Mohler’s response appear in Beyond the Impasse?, Broadman Press, 1992, a fascinating book in which four “liberals” and four “fundamentalists” wrote individual chapters and individual responses. Highly recommended. The above quote from James is from p 128.] Rather, I simply want to point out this example of post-modern thinking. What is the purpose of missions, evangelism, and theological education if not to convey saving doctrine? Can virtue before God reside in the mere activity heedless of the doctrinal truth conveyed by the activity?

Few if any fatal compromises appear suddenly, full blown. Rather, they start as small relaxations, frequently in an effort not to appear doctrinaire, not to make a mountain out of a molehill. As a member of a selection committee, we may refrain from asking the hard question, hoping someone else will do so. Then when no one else does, we let the opportunity pass, question unasked, and we have failed to maintain the integrity of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. Worse than an unprofitable servant, we have traitorously opened the gate and allowed the enemy to enter.

On personal matters, when the issue centers on my honor, my reputation, compromise is often, usually, appropriate. But when Jesus’ honor, Jesus’ commands, the clearly revealed truths of Scripture are involved, compromise is deadly sin. We must carefully guard against such compromise diluting our focus upon the Word of Christ, our commitment to the cause of Christ, or our implementation of the commands of Christ.

Conclusion:

Praise God for the blessings He has showered upon the SBCV as we emerged from Babylonian captivity into the bright sun of a land flowing with milk and honey, with challenge and promise. We are clearly unequal to the task, but God will supply all our needs as long as we remain faithful to Him. Our greatest challenge and the most difficult lies before us: to build upon the foundation which has been laid a house pleasing to our Lord and God. May we be eternally careful as we choose the craftsmen.