As the SBC annual meeting approaches, the boundaries for our cooperation, especially as they relate to females and the office of pastor, will be a key point of discussion. This comes in the aftermath of the Executive Committee’s decision to disfellowship Saddleback Church, as well as Mike Law’s proposed constitutional amendment, which you can read about here.
Last week, Baptist21 published an article that suggested upholding the disfellowship of Saddleback and amending Article 3.1 of the Southern Baptist constitution, which delineates the criteria for cooperating churches, to clarify the phrase “closely identifies” in the following section:
Has a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith. (By way of example, churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior would be deemed not to be in cooperation with the Convention.)
More specifically, B21 recommended that the Convention adopt a constitutional amendment or appoint a task force to develop a recommended amendment “that would define article 3.1 with positive statements about what ‘closely identifies’ means such as: inerrancy, justification by faith, believers baptism by immersion, regenerate church, and qualified male only pastors/elders/overseers.”
Denny Burk responded to B21’s article, and although he agreed that the SBC should uphold the Executive Committee’s decision to disfellowship Saddleback, Burk argued that B21’s constitutional amendment proposal falls short on a couple of different fronts. First, he says that nothing beyond Mike Law’s amendment is necessary because the constitutional article is sufficiently clear. Burk argues that “closely identifies” means not in contradiction to the BF&M.
Second, Burk charges that B21’s proposal is a halfway covenant that opens the door for permission to reject certain parts of the BF&M, which would “set in motion the destruction of confessional accountability.” He has argued that full subscription to the BF&M is not required, but non-contradiction should be the minimum for cooperating churches.
Denny raises some fair concerns in his article. For instance, it is reasonable to express concern that a list like the one mentioned in B21’s article could unintentionally weaken the doctrinal foundation of our cooperation. While I disagree with him and think that such a list would aid the Credentials Committee in handling churches that are reported, I understand why some may be apprehensive. This is not an approach that should be taken lightly.
In this article, though, I want to challenge a couple of points where Burk’s argument misses the mark. Let me say from the start that I respect Burk, and I commend him for the way he charitably interacted with B21’s article. He’s a brother and co-laborer in the gospel. My desire is to see this discussion move forward so that we can have productive unity during our annual meeting, and sometimes, unity must come through gracious disagreement. Therefore, let me address Burk’s argument.
First, Burk’s interpretation does not line up with the face value of the framers’ word choice. He argues on multiple occasions that “closely identifies” refers to faith and practice that does not contradict the BF&M. If they meant to say, “Has a faith and practice that does not contradict the Convention’s adopted statement of faith,” it would have been simple to state it that clearly.
But that is not the option they chose. Rather, by choosing the word “closely,” the authors introduced a category of proximity, or a spectrum of alignment. In Burk’s reading, there is only a binary: either churches are in alignment or they are not. “Closely,” though, allows more flexibility than Burk’s interpretation would permit.
For example, if I am looking for a couch that closely resembles the couch that already sits in my living room, most people would understand that to mean that it need not be identical, but it should be similar in most ways. I would then need to set some criteria for what deviations or variations would fit within my acceptable range of similarity. In the same way, our constitution needs to define what categories fit within the acceptable range.
The constitutional article goes on to give the example of affirming, approving, or endorsing homosexual behavior as something that is deemed not to be in cooperation with the Convention. Burk sees this as evidence that any contradiction to the BF&M would lead to disfellowshipping the offending church if they persisted in the error.
While the article specifically lists abuse, racism, and homosexuality as errors that would result in disfellowshipping, it is not clear that those examples were inserted by the framers to demonstrate that any deviation from the BF&M would lead to disfellowshipping. Would the framers, as well as most SBC churches, assume this same understanding? It could just as easily be argued that those errors are listed because they rise to the significance that would require an offending church to be removed. In short, Burk assumes his reading of the Convention’s constitution instead of actually proving the validity of his reading.
On a related note, if—as Burk asserts—Article 3 is sufficiently clear and the messengers affirm the Credentials Committee’s recommendation to uphold Saddleback’s disfellowship, why is Law’s amendment even needed? The push for an additional amendment indicates that most people see the need for greater clarity.
Second, Burk argues that the issue is not clarity, but resolve. He writes, “The problem is that many are reluctant to acknowledge accountability to the entire BF&M. So they are looking for ways to make this or that portion of the BF&M optional for cooperation.” That may be the case for some, but there are many, like myself, who are resolved to set strong doctrinal boundaries to our cooperative efforts, but still believe there’s a need for greater clarity. Denny’s comments are unhelpful here because they give the impression of casting aspersion on many who are genuinely seeking to walk wisely and faithfully through this issue.
While I share Burk’s desire for faithfulness to the Scriptures and principled cooperation among the Convention, I differ with him on the best path forward. Law’s amendment is not the best long-term solution. We need clarity. If Article 3 is meant to be understood as “not in contradiction to” the BF&M, then let’s change the wording accordingly. Let’s work to clarify the boundaries of our cooperation so that we’re not revisiting and revising this issue every few years.
My hope is that an amendment along the lines of B21’s proposal would make it to the floor for discussion and a vote. However, these are not easy or simple decisions, and I’m praying that grace and wisdom would prevail as the annual meeting draws near.
Leave a Reply