Beyond the Impasse?

by  T. C. Pinckney                                                                                            Vol. XI, No 6, Jun/Jul 1998
 

In 1992 a book was published which all Southern Baptists seriously interested in the controversy within the SBC over the last nineteen or so years should read. The book is Beyond the Impasse? Scripture, Interpretation, & Theology in Baptist Life, edited by Robison B. James & David S. Dockery, Broadman Press, 1992. The book's format is unusual in that eight different authors, four moderates and four conservatives, each offer a chapter and then each presents a "response" in which he chooses some portion from the chapters upon which to comment. The eight represent some of the best known academic authors among moderates and conservatives.

The following brief excerpts are from three of the authors: Robison B. James is Professor of Religion at the University of Richmond. He has been a regular contributor to Baptists Today, the national moderate newspaper, has written numerous articles and two books dealing with the SBC controversy, and is a member of River Road Baptist Church, Richmond.

The selection immediately below is quoted from his chapter, "Beyond Old Habits and on to a New Land", and come from pp 121-2 of Beyond the Impasse?.

"What Does the Bible Make Central-Ongoing Relation or Doctrine?

"The first feature of this new land is the fact that those who live there agree with the Bible that our ongoing relation to God in Christ has priority over right doctrine or 'orthodoxy.'

"I believe this first point holds the key to whatever chance we have of moving beyond the impasse. In addition, as I will make clear, the other six features of the new land confirm this one. The seven features comprise an interlocking network in which they reinforce and clarify each other.

"As to this first point, I must be clear. I am not talking about relation to God in Christ without sound doctrine. The question is one of priority. Both doctrine and ongoing relation are important. We certainly must affirm both.

"But which must conform to which?

"Do we require our doctrines to conform to our living, ongoing relation to God in Christ, as I believe the Bible mandates? Or do we require our ongoing relation to Christ to conform to doctrines -- that is, to doctrines which (in that case) must be based, partly if not entirely, on some foundation other than Christ and our living relation to Him (1 Cor. 3:11)?

"Let me state another caveat. I am not playing 'relation to Christ' against 'biblical teaching.' Quite to the contrary I am asking, 'What does the Bible teach?' Or, in case the Bible does not want its way of dealing with us to be viewed purely as 'teaching us things,' I am asking, 'What does the Bible most centrally press upon us, or get across to us, or what is it like when the Bible really has its way with us?'

"The answer is that when the Bible really has its way with us, though we will find ourselves believing biblical doctrines, we will not be primarily believing biblical doctrines. Primarily we will be believing in Christ. The Bible never says, 'Believe in the doctrine of the incarnation and you will be saved.' It says 'Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved' (Acts 16:31, NIV).

"To put this provocatively: We do not believe in doctrines. We believe through them, and in terms of them, in Jesus Christ."

In his "Response" on pp 282-3 Paige Patterson, at that time President of The Criswell College and Associate Pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas, presently President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NC, replies inter alia to the above selection of James.

"James' first major proposal for resolving the impasse is to change the emphasis from right doctrine to a focus on our ongoing relation to God in Christ. Doctrines are 'to conform to our living, ongoing relation to God in Christ,' rather than the relationship to Christ conforming to doctrine. This proposal sounds noble, even pious. But in the final analysis, it is not only in error, but also James himself fails to follow his own proposal. For example, James says our situation is like that of Thomas, who upon confronting the risen Christ said, 'My Lord and my God.' By this James means to suggest that it was the experience of encountering the glorified Christ and submitting to Him that takes precedence over the theology of the moment. But Thomas's statement, 'My Lord and my God' is theological to the core. In fact, it was the inescapable theological conclusion which led Thomas to the profound personal confession and experience."

Our last selection, from pp 248-9, is from the response of R. Albert Mohler, Jr., then editor of Georgia's Christian Index and now President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY.

"James's most basic concern appears to come in his early section on the Bible's concern with doctrine and relation. He states that 'doctrine is to conform to our ongoing relation with God in Christ, not the other way around... .' My most basic concern with this statement is its assertion of what I see as a false and ultimately fatal dichotomy.

"There is no faith relation with Christ free of doctrinal content. The knower must have some knowledge of the known, or no relation exists. That seemingly redundant and self-evident statement should underline the issue. Jesus Christ and our knowledge of Him are not in any sense coextensive. But one cannot have a relation with Him without knowledge, and that knowledge represents incipient doctrine. James is clearly correct in his assertion that 'the whole purpose of biblical doctrine is to bring about that living relationship,' but I must take strong issue with his later statement that 'God's revelation in the Bible is not basically a matter of doctrinal truths so that in the first instance, we are to believe them. Rather, God in the first place reveals Himself to us in Christ....'

If one does not believe the truths concerning the Christ as revealed in Holy Scripture, one cannot have any authentic relationship with Him. [Emphasis added. TCP] Doctrine, we eagerly concede, does not in itself save. There is a measure of truth in what I think James means to say. One may worship orthodoxy more than Christ. But, on the other hand, one cannot truly worship Christ and seek to live as an authentic disciple and deny, denigrate, or neglect in any sense the biblical teachings concerning Him."

Just two further words in closing. First, there is another aspect of the false dichotomy James presents and Mohler points out. The Christian will never find the smallest disagreement between biblical doctrine and his personal relationship with Christ. From numerous biblical citations supporting this statement we note only a few. Jesus stressed the essentiality of the Word of God in John 5:24, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." And in John 8:13, "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;". In Matthew 4:4 He emphasized that God's Word is the source of life, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." And in prayer He even spoke of the role of the Word in sanctifying men, also affirming that the Word is truth, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. (John 17:17).

To place experience in competition to biblical doctrine is to create a problem of decisional authority: How am I to decide which is correct, which truly God's will? Inevitably it comes to a matter of personal interpretation which dethrones God and seeks to substitute my judgment or preference for His sovereignty.

In the 1960s and 70s the secular watchword was, "Question authority." Today the postmodern shibboleth is "Deny authority." But God has graciously spoken with His own matchless authority in His written Word and through His Son, the living Word. We have both, and they can never conflict or contradict each other.

Second and finally, it should be obvious that in such restricted space we cannot do full justice to any of the three authors quoted above. I urge you to read the entire book, Beyond the Impasse? It is not long, being a bit less than 300 pages of text and though written by scholars, written for lay readers. It is, I believe, the single best volume for understanding the issues within the SBC.