SBC President Frank Page has a new article released by Baptist Press. It is an interview by James A Smith of Florida Baptist Witness fame. You can read it here:
Frank Page discusses SBC theological issues
The issues he discusses are his dissertation/women in ministry; the IMB and theological boundaries; alcohol use and the famous/infamous resolution; and the Calvinism debate within the convention.
My thoughts:
1. He says his dissertation is fair ground and was surprised that it did not come up during the weeks prior to the election. Page also says that he is concerned that some might be promoting the story to give grounds to a contested election in San Antonio. I think both assessments are correct. Page also gives some clear statements on what was going on then, what he believes now and why he changed.
2. While saying that he doesn’t know the specifics of previous IMB controversies concerning the PPL and re-baptism issues, Page does say that he would like to see us be very careful not to overstep the Word. Here is where I part ways. He does see the advocating of some to be re-baptized if coming from a church with “incorrect theology.”
As I have said before, this opens the doors for those who lack integrity and may be seeking to jump through hoops to get the SBC to pay for their mission work even though they are not SBC “at heart,” (people whom this guideline was specifically drafted to address) the ability to jump quickly through that hoop and move on. Those with integrity – those presumably not attempting to deceive the IMB – would be the ones excluded by the guideline – as they would not be willing to be re-baptized. The guideline is self defeating.
He strongly speaks to the PPL policy as over reaching. Read his Scriptural argument, there.
3. As a member of the Committee on Resolutions, Page offers his assessment of the verbiage swirling around the resolution concerning alcohol. He criticizes the accusation that the stance is pharisaical and assures us that there were no strong arm tactics involved in getting this resolution to the floor.
Here I have to openly disagree with Dr. Page. I am, as always, a tea totaler, but the call to alcohol abstinence in the verbiage of the resolution and the implied authority of Scripture is the very definition of “pharisaical:” adding to the law to avoid breaking the law.
4. For the most part, his assessment of the Calvinism issue within the Convention right now is accurate. I question the whole “Seminary churning out hundreds of Calvinist pastors and only a few churches to fit them,” characterization of the situation. For the most part, this would be a problem if we were churning out Hyper-Calvinists or 5 point Arminians, but these guys are neither.
I know quite a few Calvinist pastors who don’t carry that issue as a banner and they and the church get along just fine. Most people are between 2 and 4 points without ever knowing who John Calvin was. It’s an issue if we make it one. I do think that extremists are there in both positions, but it seems that the “no Calvinists ALLOWED” position is a little more active and numerous.
Calvinists, please note that the critiques of Calvinism that White quotes are from the TULIP book from 2000, not new quotes. Recent statements are at the end of the article and are much more palatable.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Kevin Bussey
on Aug 1st, 2006
@ 9:05 pm:
Wow! Great article. I am even more impressed.
Alan Cross
on Aug 2nd, 2006
@ 12:14 am:
The article says:
“Page said that it is proper for the IMB to set theological policies which are not explicitly addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message. “There are a multitude of issues that have to be dealt with within the trustee framework that go way beyond the Baptist Faith and Message. … There are many things that the Baptist Faith and Message just simply doesn’t deal with.”
One example that Page agreed the Baptist Faith and Message does not address, but that the IMB properly can address in its policies, involves the charismatic practice of speaking in tongues in public worship.
“I believe there should be serious criteria that would exclude persons from service in that regard,” Page said of those who advocate and practice tongues.”
This concerns me. I understand what he is saying, but it is a dangerous slide to start making policy against things. Why can’t supervisors just say, “The Bible has restrictions on what you are doing. Let’s look at the Bible and follow it”? Why do we have to create policies for every little thing. Why isn’t Scripture sufficient? The problem is that some people’s interpretation of Scripture will be set in stone.
For every anti-charismatic policy that is adopted that most Baptist have no problem with, you have further policies on baptism. On theological issues, I think that we should stick to the BF&M and then pastor people with Scripture beyond that. Establishing a vast multitude of policies is unwise on theological issues. Where do we stop?
Tim Sweatman
on Aug 2nd, 2006
@ 2:42 am:
Art,
You’re slipping; I posted a rather lengthy assessment of this interview a week ago. I’m surprised that you didn’t catch the original series of articles in the Witness when they came out last week. I guess that a pastor who’s just settling in doesn’t have as much time to follow the news as a pastor who’s on his way out! ;)
That being said, your thoughts are much more concise than mine, and you emphasized some different parts of the interview. And as usual, your analysis is right on the mark.
**********
Alan,
I agree wholeheartedly. That was one of the biggest disappointments I had with Page in the interview.
torrence kulguye
on Aug 2nd, 2006
@ 8:58 am:
Art,
Please clarify what you mean by “re-baptize.” If you mean that people who have been baptized as infants or baptized by sprinkling need to be baptized, I would agree with you. However, I would say that people in this category have NEVER been baptized. Therefore, we cannot say that they are being “re-baptized.” Holy writ does not have a category (expressed or implied) for re-baptism, only baptism.
I fear that you have fallen into the Landmarkist’s trap. They would have you to believe that baptism was given to the church in order for people to show their unity to a given local body. However, baptism is first and foremost a proclamation of faith in Jesus Christ. As such, it is a connection with the church universal and invisible. Only after someone is baptized may they be considered for membership into the local body. After they have been baptized, they have proclaimed their faith in the Biblically appointed way.
Since the Bible does not tell us that the purpose of Baptism is to show unity with a given local body, we must accept Baptism at the hands of, say, Arminians (defined here concerning the perseverance of the saints) as being a valid baptism. Thus, we should not hinder such people from going on missions with the Baptists.
I speak as one with a Baptist identity. 1) I was raised in an SBC church, 2) I have been a member of SBC churches since I was 8, 3) I will soon have a higher degree from a SBC institution, and 4) I work for an SBC entity. Yet, I cannot work with the IMB, which I and my father and my father’s father have supported throughout the years, due to the New Policy. Should I believe that being re-baptized (engaging in an act of worship that is not warranted by scripture) will make me have sufficient baptist identity or “heart” to serve?
torrence kulguye
on Aug 2nd, 2006
@ 9:11 am:
Art,
Two matters:
1. I apologize for the tone of my previous post. I was not kind.
2. Worse, I fear that I have mis-read your post. It appears as though the antecedant to “this” refers to the trustee’s position, not yours. Are you for or against the new policy? Upon re-reading it, I believe that you are saying that the new policy is self-defeating due to the fact that it makes baptist identity (defined simply by baptism in an SBC church) a mere hoop through with to jump. I would agree, if this is what you are saying.
art rogers
on Aug 2nd, 2006
@ 10:44 am:
Alan,
Excellent points. I, too, am leary of going down the path of extra Biblical – or at the very least, extra BFM – policies or guidlines.
Tim,
The real reason for my tardiness is that I don’t have the internet at home. As is the case with most Baptist Blogger/pastors, I do my research and writing at the house. I will post at night sometimes, but mostly release what I write at night during the day. Now I am very busy at my new church with full office hours, but the hinderence is that I must stay in the office after hours to read and post, and I do that much less frequently.
I can and do read some with the Treo, which is cool, but it ill suits writing (small keypad tapped with my thumbnails) and posting (the browser that comes with it does not get along with blogger and it turns the blogger interface into a hodgepodge mess that is all but impossible to sort through – though I am getting better). The good news, though, is that we have a contract on our house in KY and it should close on or before Sept. 1, which is the day we were to first pay two mortgages – God is so gracious.
Sometime after we actually get the check for that, we will probably be signing up for the internet at home. Good thing, too. We have a really nice home office and I would hate to waste it.
Torrence,
No offense – thanks for re-reading. Your second thoughts are correct. I was referring to the IMB guideline that requires a second baptism of immersion based on whether or not the administrator of the Baptism was qualified as “Baptistic” in theology – specifically as it relates to eternal security. I am against the policy. You can search the archives for posts in Jan – May and find more detailed assesments.
Sorry I can’t highlight them for you, I just don’t have the time, right now.
art
art rogers
on Aug 2nd, 2006
@ 10:48 am:
Torrence,
Sorry not to answer your question more specifically the first time.
Yes, I am against the policy – I do think it is a hoop that has the opposite effect from its intended goal. I think it filters out those with integrity and allows those without to proceed to the pool of missionaries.
Jeff Richard Young
on Aug 2nd, 2006
@ 12:02 pm:
Dear (a-choo!) Brother Art,
Every time I hear (scratch, scratch) the non-word “re-baptize” I break out in an allergic reaction (wheaze, wheaze). Now we’ve heard it from the SBC President! Dr. Page is WAY off the mark here. The only reason for us to baptize someone who has already undergone a “baptism” ceremony is if that “baptism” was false, and no baptism at all. Just because the baptizing church’s or baptizing individual’s theology does not agree with ours at the point of eternal security, that does not make the believer’s baptism false/invalid.
“Baptizing” someone who has already been baptized is an idea left over from Landmarkism. If you accept the whole Landmark system, then it makes sense, because you believe the person has only received a false “baptism,” and still needs to receive true baptism. But if you do not accept the whole Landmark system, which most of us do not, then “baptizing” somneone who has already been baptized in another denomination does not make sense. You have to call it “re-baptism” (sneeze, wheaze, scratch) and give it some kind of man-made purpose like, “to identify yourself with the beliefs held by Southern Baptists,” or “to join the Baptist church.”
You were right that well-informed, sincere Christians cannot, in good conscience, perform or undergo a “rebaptism” (aaaaaa-choooo!). Sincere, but mis-informed Christians can do so, but not those who understand baptism well. (I guess I threw down the gauntlet there!)
Thanks for tackling this stuff, Brother Art, and for giving us a forum to discuss it.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
art rogers
on Aug 2nd, 2006
@ 3:15 pm:
Jeff,
Dude, you are funny – and articulate and right on the money.
P W Hatcher
on Aug 3rd, 2006
@ 10:41 am:
Pastor Rogers,
Good comentary on the article in BP. I enjoyed your analysis. Just a few comments:
On Baptism: The scenario that is often brought up is where someone is converted and baptized in an Assembly of God church, where eternal security is not held to. He subsequently joins a Southern Baptist church on “statement of faith” sometime along the way. If he were to want to serve through the IMB, he would have to be “re-baptized” by his hosting SB church to be eligible. Several of your commenters hit the nail on the head on this one. This is not scriptural, and yes, by any definition this is Landmarkism. Scripture requires only two things for baptism: 1. Someone who has first placed saving faith in Jesus Christ, and places no trust in baptism to aid in that salvation, and 2. Enough water to fully immerse said new believer. A church, a pastor, or a vote of the congregation isn’t necessary. Even Article VII of the BFM2000 gets it wrong by calling it an ordinance of the church. It is an ordinance of Jesus Christ, which, oddly enough, Article VI (accidentally) does get it right.
On Alcohol: You basically have it right by calling it the very definition of “pharisaical”.
On Calvinism: We are our own worst enemies. Yes, I am one, but I despise the term, and I dislike the acronym TULIP, because they both cause confusion from the start. Arminius was four years old when Calvin died, so Calvin never had anything to do with the -ism of Calvinism. Calvin never formulated those five points. Calvin did believe in a sovreign God who works all things after the council of His own will, but I think he would have denounced the man-made system that bears his name. Have you read Amazing Grace: God’s Initiative, Our Response by Dr. Timothy George? It is written with the layman in mind, but it is a good read even for pastors. Dr. George does an excellent job of correcting the erros mentioned above. Whether you’ve made up your mind or not, I believe this is an excellent book to help “mixed” congregations better understand and live harmoniously together.
Welcome to Tulsa. I hope you are enjoying the typical August weather we are having. God’s blessings on your new ministry here. I hope your house sells soon.
In Christ, Wayne Hatcher
Tim Sweatman
on Aug 3rd, 2006
@ 1:07 pm:
Art,
No Internet access at home! Oh my, I didn’t know you had it so bad.
I’m sure your wife and kids are glad you aren’t staying in the office until 10:00 every night just so you can bring us your insights and analysis. Glad to see that your prioroties are straight.
BSC
on Aug 4th, 2006
@ 5:45 am:
Art:
I’m ashamed of you. Didn’t you get the memorandum that we were not to be critical of Frank Page because he is our candidate? We only support him. We only say nice things about him. We only ascribe to him the noblest of motives. Whenever somebody attacks him, we only start rumors about them.
Don’t you remember that whole discussion in Memphis where we secretly planned this whole thing? Didn’t you realize that the Memphis Declaration was just a facade for our covert operations?
The thing people don’t realize about us is that our support is not for a person, but for the truth. We do not feel that a disagreement is a break in fellowship. We do not pull our endorsement over non-essentials.
Frank Page in 2007!
And after that…
The Dockery.
art rogers
on Aug 4th, 2006
@ 11:57 pm:
Tim,
My wife “amens” your comment.
Ben,
I say, “ha, amen and amen” to your comments.