The Vile Wickedness of Schisms

I try to stay away from Baptist issues as much as I can on this blog. I hope that what I have to say today is not seen simply as a Baptist issue, but as a Christian issue, a church issue, and a ministerial issue.

Bart Barber pastors FBC Farmersville, TX. He and I went back-and-forth a little on a previous post here and we’ve gone back-and-forth on a related post on his blog.

Bart is at pains to show how I and others are inconsistent because we, as Baptists, separate from other denominations that baptize infants, yet refuse to call those who baptize infants “unrepentant sinners.” I and others are inconsistent, according to Bart, because we do not call infant baptism sin yet we still separate based on baptismal beliefs. It is a greater sin, in Bart’s mind, to separate over something that is a theological conviction, but which is not sin. It is a violation of Christian unity.

Now, don’t go thinking Bart is some ecumenist holding out his hands to his Presbyterian brothers and sisters. In fact, he casts doubt on the fact of those Presbyterians being brothers and sisters at all (my apologies to all of you who may not practice believer’s baptism. May God have mercy on your souls). That being said, however, Bart seems to have no trouble with a Baptist inviting a Gentile, tax collecting, unrepentant Presbyterian preaching in his Baptist church. He wouldn’t want to “accuse” that Baptist of anything. He’s only interested in accusing infant baptizers and those who refuse to call them unrepentant sinners. Are you following along, here?

Bart was pressed to be consistent himself. Let’s hang millstones around the necks of these infant baptizers in obedience to Christ. To this Bart could only reply that he does not believe in sinless perfection in this life. He must think that the apostle John did.

But to turn all of this completely on its head, Bart would have no objection to FBC Farmersville calling an unrepentant glutton or gossip to serve as the pastor or on staff at their church, though he believes they should meet Biblical qualifications. Of course, Titus tells us that two of the qualifications for church leadership are self-control and discipline. How one can be self-controlled and disciplined and also be an habitual glutton or an habitual gossip is apparently a matter for some new theory of Biblical interpretation. Actually, if you cannot with logic and a reasonable use of the English language figure it out then you are a legalist.

Now, all of this is to illustrate the dangers of being schismatic. It is no wonder that throughout much of church history schismatics were viewed in a very negative light. Schismatics would narrow the church down to themselves and all who believe as they do (excepting a few friends they do not want to “accuse” of anything, of course). I predict that schismatics will end up splitting the Southern Baptist Convention within my lifetime, unless something changes. These are some of the men teaching in our Baptist seminaries and leading in positions in our denomination. They should be opposed at ever turn. For the sake of the gospel. For the sake of unity in Christ. They wonder why movements like Emergent pop up and gather steam. Well, my brothers and sisters, wonder no more.

Why, O Why?!?

As you know I grew up in public schools.  With a last name like Littleton, if you use your imagination, you can probably figure out some of the things I’ve been called by those cruel little demon spawn I went to school with.  But then I graduated and moved on the the Christian University in Shawnee, Oklahoma - Oklahoma Baptist University.  Those young adults were markedly less cruel.  Yes, there were times we could devolve into the nether regions, but those were generally momentary lapses in which many young people out on their own for the first time indulge.  Then it was off to Southwestern Seminary where everyone was well on their way to sanctification.

All that to say that it’s been a while since I was last referred to as being a tool of the devil, an outlet for iniquity, depraved, foul, and playing satan’s (sic) game.  Perhaps it won’t be the last.

I’m not writing to defend myself.  I don’t believe I need to be defended.  I write only for clarification.  If you read this clarification and still want to call me a demonic scamp I can live with that.

You simply cannot have read anything I have written about the Southern Baptist Convention and not know that I do not believe all is well in Zion.  I believe we are being led down a path toward Fundamentalism with a capital "F."  I believe there are numbers of good people among us who do not see it.  They are conservative believers who simply do not understand or wish to ignore the implications of recent directions and pronouncements that have been made by some of our leaders.  It has actually been happening for quite some time.  When Fundamentalists like Jerry Fallwell can feel at home in the SBC I suspect it isn’t because Jerry Fallwell has changed.  What we are beginning to see is not simply a conservative resurgence, but a Fundamentalist coup.  And don’t you dare come on here and call me inflammatory for using the "F" word when you remain silent about others using the "M" word or the "L" word.  If it walks like a Fundamentalist and talks like a Fundamentalist, well, I think we all know what that means.  I’m not here to win a beauty contest, so while you may not like the description don’t expect me to go changing my ways any time soon.

So, am I just putting up acidic comics to offend the other side?  To "attack" them?  If that is what you think my purpose is then you are simply employing shallow thinking.  If I simply wanted to attack the other side I would probably go about it more like an anti-Jeremy Green.  Except with fewer quotes.  And fewer blatant mischaracterizations.  And more logic.  And a heart (see, I know how to use prose as well a comics for my purpose).  No.  This isn’t about attacking people.  It is about critiquing a movement.

I could always do the propositional blah, blah, blah thing, and that’s largely what I’ve done in the past.  I actually think I’ve made some pretty salient arguments [wink, wink. nod, nod].  But movements are not often sustained on direct discourse alone.  That is the very reason we have editorial cartoons in America.  If you think editorial cartoons are simply to show the other side to be dolts then you have a shallow understanding of the purpose of that sort of humor.

I’m not going to give a lecture on the purpose of humor.  Humor is the sort of thing that if you have to explain it it isn’t funny anymore.  Students don’t do term papers on humor.  I also realize that people do not find the same things humorous.  I suspect that George Bush does not spend a lot of time reading editorial cartoons.  Those in power seldom do.  Those in power do not generally produce editorial cartoons, either.

But humor can make a point in ways direct discourse can’t.  It can be disarming.  It can break down barriers (yes, it can create them as well).  It can keep us from taking ourselves too seriously.  It can expose difficult truths about us while making us laugh at ourselves at the same time.

At the risk of being pedantic (as if that has stopped me before), let me take a moment to use a couple of last week’s comics as examples of my intent.

We all know Al Mohler is a great leader.  What he has done at Southern is remarkable.  When a friend went to visit with each of the seminary presidents back in the late 90s he came back with the report that all of the Presidents were nothing but empty suits.  Except for one.  Al Mohler.  But I was offended at Dr. Mohler’s seminary report.  I was offended that he spent less time talking about the great things going on at Southern and more time patronizing me and others who voted for the Garner resolution.  He did it in a powerful way that got him lots of applause because he knows how to work a crowd.  And he spun some magic that day.  But I was not impressed.  I was overwhelmingly saddened.  I wasn’t the only one.

I could have said all of that and more last Monday.  And in fact, in a way I did.  I just didn’t use the words above.  I used the genius of Scott Adams and a good photo editing program.  The risk of humor is that, like art, people will get different things out of it - sometimes things nearly the opposite of what the artist intended.  I’m saying to you that I can live with that.  If you think the comic last Monday was simply about a vicious attack on Al Mohler I’ll still go to sleep peacefully tonight.  Being misunderstood is a risk in using the medium of humor that I am willing to take.  I’ll have "constructive dialog" in other spheres - maybe in the comment section of your blog, or over on SBC Outpost.  I’ve never wanted my blog to be a "Baptist" blog and I often feel that posts like this come too often as it is.

I also poked fun of Ben Cole.  I said that he squealed like a girl in a public restaurant.  I depicted him as a fanny pack wearing zebra about to be eaten by lions for his weakness.  If you’ve met Ben you know he is a sharp dressed man.  A hair is never out of place.  He wouldn’t be caught within a ten-foot poll range of camo.  He is proper in all that he says and all that he does.  I also consider Ben to be a friend.  If he weren’t he just might give me that sock in the nose he threatened.  But I knew I could have a little fun with him and he would simply give it back.  And give it back he did.

Ben is very bright.  At 30 he is a sharper thinker than most I know twice his age and he is a sharper thinker than me, for sure.  I don’t always admire his ways, but I do admire his gumption, his willingness to lay it on the line without concern for what his critics will say, his blatant honesty and his dogged determination.  In a very surface way that comic about him was an apt description of Ben, but there is a whole lot of irony in it as well because if you know Ben you know that he’d kick that lioness in the teeth.  And that’s what, to me, made the comic funny.

Robin Foster implies I may have done what I’ve done to drive up blog traffic.  The truth of the matter is that my blog traffic did go up last week.  But I posted those comics because we were in Bible school and they were quick and easy - and entertaining.  I made myself laugh at every one of them.  And I wanted to provoke you to think.  Think about what we are becoming.  Al Mohler is not a tyrant, but Fundamentalism is tyranny, and if he says things that aid us along a path in that direction I won’t mind pointing it out.  The Caner boys are often full of hot air and bravado and I may post a comic that indicates that I think their rhetoric is sometimes just childish posturing.  Just go read the archives from April to October 2006 at Tom Ascol’s blog for an example.  Jeremy Green’s contributions to the ongoing Baptist discussion is nothing but a noxious monologue and I’m not a child of the devil simply because I point it out. 

So, I’ll continue to post comics, but it won’t be an every-day thing.  Maybe once a week.  And I expect my traffic to decline.  But I’m not going to change what I do in the interest of blog traffic.  Now you at least know my motivation.  And if you still don’t like my comics….well…. ppbthbbbpth.

Render Unto Caesar

Well…I knew it was coming but being busy this week I hadn’t checked to see if it was up yet.  Robert Marus, a writer for ABP, is doing contributing to a six part series on religion and politics.  The first article can be found here. [And yes, I’m linking to this because he quoted little ol’ me.]  Of course, in true "guilt-by-association" fashion this will ruin me….to be quoted in ABP….along with Ben Cole.  The madness must stop.

Clear Baptist Identity

For those interested in what a "clear Baptist identity" means within the SBC go here.

SBC Wrap-up

You can find my SBC wrap-up at Littletology.

A Post-denominational World

Last week at the Southern Baptist Convention was "interesting" to say the least.  I’ve spent all but two years of my life in ministry utterly ignoring the larger part of denominational life.  A couple of years ago I listened as some denominational representatives bemoaned the lack of involvement from younger pastors in the SBC.  Last week as my very good friend [wink, wink] Ed Stetzer spoke to the convention he joked that the reason he goes to the convention is that it makes him feel young and thin.  Apparently finding denominational life more-or-less irrelevant is not unique to me.  Considering the proceedings last week I can’t imagine that denominationalism has suddenly become more relevant.  I believe within the larger Christian community it continues to be less and less so.

Paige Patterson apparently thinks so as well.  In his report he noted four directions denominations/denominational entities can take: the left side of liberalism, the center of the stream of moderate life, the right side of evangelical ecumenism, and the only position it appears he viewed as viable of motoring upstream.  I think he left at least one option out: sinking the boat altogether, which by some accounts he appears to be doing at Southwestern Seminary. [An odd part of his report, in my opinion, was that he warned that Fundamentalism is as deadly as Liberalism, yet Fundamentalism didn’t get a spot on the theological river.  Take from that what you will.]

Nevertheless, this isn’t about Paige Patterson.  Or Ed Stetzer.  But it is about much of what is going on in the larger Christian community.  People in local churches - at least those outside of more rural areas, and often within them - care less and less about denominationalism.  The most recent visitors to our church have been Methodists from down the street.  Nearly half of those who are members of our church did not grow up Baptist.  Some have not been Baptist for very long.

Thus, much of last week’s debate over where we are going to draw our denominational boundaries seems like an archaic argument.  I’ve said before that it feels more like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  Most denominations can continue for another couple of decades on inertia alone, though many are currently bleeding so profusely that they will either re-invent themselves or disappear altogether.  According to the SBC’s Book of Reports denominational support is drying up.  While real dollars have increased, percentages given have steadily decreased.

Part of the reason for that is that churches are finding alternative ways of doing ministry.  Mega-churches have been doing this for quite a while now.  Many simply do much of their ministry directly (the average SBC mega-church during the last 30 years of the SBC takeover has given a pittance of a percentage to "SBC causes").  Others are finding other means of forming external partnerships (for instance Acts 29 and partnerships formed by people like Rick Warren, Bob Roberts and Tim Keller).  These partnerships have a greater ability to be flexible.  For instance, Acts 29 has become more flexible just in the last five years.  SBC agencies, on the other hand, have become more rigid.

But flexibility isn’t the only factor at work.  Other denominations are doctrinally flexible, yet they’re losing members by the droves.  I think, on the whole, denominations have outlived their own visions.  With all due respect to the United Methodists, "Open doors, Open hearts, Open minds" simply doesn’t present a motivating or compelling vision, in my opinion.  It is fine to be open and accepting of others, but you can do that and still not be going anywhere.  What’s the compelling vision of the PCUSA?  or the PCA, for that matter (other than "we’re not the PCUSA," which can only last so long)?  Or the SBC?  In the SBC we’ve spent 30 years casting the vision that "we’re not liberals" to "we’re not even just any old conservatives…we’re the right kind of conservatives."  Compelling it’s not.

And because of that I’m simply not convinced denominations have much of a future.  I’m pretty sure after the last two years that the SBC does not have the capability to cast a compelling vision of the future.  Shoot.  We’re now arguing over whether or not closed communion is a Baptist essential and most who read this will probably not even know what "closed communion" is.  Nor will you likely care.  Because it isn’t a compelling vision of the future of God’s kingdom.  I think it is ironic that we will host a Baptist Identity conference in a day and age where the typical person on the street could absolutely care less, yet these days many on the inside of Baptist life could hardly care more.

I believe future partnerships will expand and explode.  In fact, they are already emerging.  That very well may be the next great wave of the movement of God.

[Update: For an example see Natalie’s post here.]

On Seminary Hill

Last year Art Rogers gave somewhat of an SBC procedural primer heading into the Southern Baptist Convention.  He covered a number of procedural points of order so that messengers might know how to do things like submit resolutions or make motions.  One thing he may not have covered was the trustee selection process for those who serve on our various boards.  For that we turn once again to Steven Pastis:

Blah blah blah….

I’m really resistant to turning my blog into a "Baptist" blog.  My interests are broader than that.  Yet every now and then I have something I just need to get off my chest about our tribe.  I won’t be doing that here.  You can check those thoughts out at my other blog.  I will, however, finish out my comic series here this week.  I’ve already got a post up over there for any who might be interested.

Meanwhile…….

 We interrupt our story for breaking news from Steven Pastis who brings us this dialog between Tim Rogers and Robin Foster who appear to be keeping tabs on the Baptist blogosphere as we head into San Antonio:

Could A Last Minute Deal Be Brokered?

In this episode, Bart Barber Dilbert reports back to "the pointy haired boss" about the tenuous agreement he’s made with the Elbonians.  With San Antonio looming ever closer, will the deal last???  Who will win this epic battle?  The terrorists? Or the rebels?  Stay tuned, dear reader!

Next Page »