Tammy Reed Ledbetter has just released an article through Baptist Press that raises quite a few concerns. The article, entitled, “Theology dean comments on SWBTS prayer language stance,” raises several concerns in my mind.
1. Let me just get this out there and out of the way… When a writer refers to Private Prayer Language, they can do just that. They do not need to add descriptors within the name. When you write, “Private Prayer Language,” every Baptist I know will understand immediately what you are talking about – even if they are oblivious to the current discussion within the SBC.
Therefore, adding the words “neo-Pentecostal/charismatic” in front of the term is not only unnecessary, it is intentionally pejorative. BP seems to have made purposeful strides in reporting in a neutral fashion recently. Unfortunately, this appears to be a step backwards in the process. BP articles on this topic this week have repeatedly used this type of description in simple reference to PPL.
Now that we have that out of the way, let’s move on to the meat of the article…
2. The process of weeding out anyone who believes in or practices PPL has, according to Dean Allen, been going on for years at SWBTS. “Prospective faculty members have been quizzed on the subject for years,” Allen said. Also, the article includes this:
“During the entire Hemphill time, as a board member, if a person articulated to me that they had charismatic leanings and inclusive of that was a private prayer language, it would be very unlikely I would have been supportive of faculty status.” However, a faculty member who privately discloses a sympathetic view toward the practice of a private prayer language won’t be hauled into the dean’s office, Allen said.
The implication here is that this type of exclusion is nothing new. If so, I am disturbed. Just because a problem (exclusion of certain ideas beyond the Governing theological document for SWBTS – the BFM) has been in place for several years, does not mean it is not a problem. This exclusion is a problem. Period.
3. As was argued on this blog last weekend, the concept of Academic Freedom is far from a reality in our Seminaries.
“As it concerns private practices of devotion, these practices, if genuinely private, remain unknown to the general public and are, therefore, beyond the purview of Southwestern Seminary. Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including ‘private prayer language.’ Neither will Southwestern knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices.””
There is no other way to interpret this other than if you publicly endorse any other belief than a belief that the Bible never allows for an “ecstatic utterance” you are unemployable at SWBTS. In fact, in the absence of any statement to the contrary, I believe that there is no such thing as a “Grandfather Clause,” either written or unspoken. In other words, it is certainly not written and I am sure that it is not an unspoken understanding. That means that if you are already employed as a professor at the Seminary and you publicly advocate convictions concerning PPL that are non-cessationist, then the SWBTS is now duty bound, by the action of its President and Trustees, to fire you.
This quote seems to be a reassurance that there will be no witch hunt:
Southwestern President Paige Patterson agreed. “As long as it remains private, it’s not problematic to me because I don’t know,” Patterson said. “If it does become known to some people, but is not a matter that is advocated or advertised and the reputation of the school is not harmed thereby, then it’s not a problem.”
This allows the President, however, to define what is problematic and what is not. That is a slippery slope, to be sure. Aside from that, now we have a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy at SWBTS, only with us, it is PPL. I don’t know anybody who thinks that this policy has worked well within the military.
Basically, that policy says: “We don’t like or believe in what you are doing. In fact, we are keeping the laws against this behavior on the books and if we find out, we will prosecute you. However, if you are good at keeping it a secret so that we don’t have to openly accept or reject you, we will let you stay. Just make it convenient for us so that we don’t have to deal with you and we will leave you alone.”
Let me hasten to say that the military had this foisted on them by President Clinton and an agenda that promoted the homosexual lifestyle. This is a policy not of their choosing. Why anyone would willingly impose such a double minded regulation on oneself?
Finally, let me reiterate this: Academic Freedom is anything but alive and well when it comes to this issue. It surely puts the conversation on this blog last weekend in a new light.
4. Student reaction:
Nor should the statement pose a problem for any SWBTS students, he added. “We have lots of students who aren’t Southern Baptists and some are charismatic. We do not expect our students to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Under no conditions would any such student be unwelcome here,” Allen said.
This has yet to be seen. I daresay, however, that the student reaction may be more negative than they realize. Of course, everyone is speculating here, me included. However, I am sure that if you are not a cessationist, especially if you are a REAL charismatic, and attending SWBTS (or considering it) then knowing that SWBTS’ official position, and the only position tolerated by its professors, is that what you believe is FALSE DOCTRINE would certainly not be seen as “welcoming.” I know that it will certainly affect the referral process as pastors and other men influential on young preachers help them make their decisions concerning their academic future.
5. “On the other side of the coin, we can be careful in whom we do hire. We will not hire anyone knowingly who affirms that which the vast majority of Southern Baptists disavow.” – Dr. Allen
Well, that’s not healthy. So we are going to let the majority opinion of pop-theology in the “Christian Culture” of the Southern Baptist Convention dictate what the scholars of our convention do and do not teach? I can’t think of anything less ideal – or less true. This is an appeal to what the SWBTS administration perceives to be the majority of the SBC. If the majority is behind you, then you can just outvote the minority, so this is seen as a trump card.
I am afraid, though, that they are mistaken. I am not arguing that anywhere near a majority of Southern Baptists practice a PPL, nor would they even necessarily believe it is Biblical, but I don’t think the majority are ready to throw out everyone who does. Of course, if certain people keep falsely reframing the issue as “neo-pentecostal/charismatic” then the majority may soon be on their side. The way that is framed, they might as well be called “snake handling wackos.”
If it is an academic issue, as they claim, then let it be so. Argue from Scripture and be done. It is foolish and dangerous to start calling on the majority opinion to be the sanctioning authority for what is taught by scholars at the Seminary. How is it that I can see the danger in this and they can’t? It certainly puts a squelch on “Academic Freedom.” Do all of our professors believe in a dispensational eschatology? Pre-tribulation rapture? Are any post-trib or amillenialists? If so, the argument above would say that they must be asked to leave if they publicly espouse these beliefs.
This is not an exhaustive list, but these things stand out to me as I read the article in question. Maybe other things stand out to you, or you disagree. Well, now’s your chance. What do you think?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Bob Cleveland
on Oct 21st, 2006
@ 10:18 pm:
Patterson said. “If it does become known to some people, but is not a matter that is advocated or advertised and the reputation of the school is not harmed thereby, then it’s not a problem.”
If word got out that God had sovereignly bestowed the gift of unknown tongues on someone at SWBTS, and the reputation of SWBTS had been harmed thereby, I’d have to wonder what sort of reputation they had before the event.
Naaah … I really don’t think I’d have to.
IMBLITS
on Oct 22nd, 2006
@ 7:36 am:
When I first read the Ledbetter piece I groaned in my spirit. (but don’t tell)
This battle of the seminaries, (or seminary heads) is going to cost Southern Baptists more than we’ll ever know. God knows and I would assume that He isn’t pleased.
Bob Cleveland
on Oct 22nd, 2006
@ 4:32 pm:
IMBLITS:
I prefer to think that God is doing some pruning. We’ll see what is pruned from what.
When we prune, we cut the end pieces off the good stuff so the good stuff will grow. God is also able to cut the good stuff off a bad tree and make the good stuff grow.
They call it a private prayer language. But Paul ok’d it for the Corinthians, if it was limited and interpreted. Apparently modern folks don’t even want that.
Like it or no, we in these days draw a distinction between a PPL and the gift of tongues. I do not see where God does that.
And it doesn’t seem to be stopping there. There’s baptism and then there’s baptism, too.
Rusty Mullins
on Oct 22nd, 2006
@ 6:03 pm:
Where is the idea of Priesthood of the Believer in all of this. While doing a long Wednesday night study with my congregation we agreed that PotB was surely one of the strongest “Baptist distinctives.” They, a group of 250 active Baptists, think that the Baptist theological idea of being able to read and interpret the scriptures on their own, without any outside help, is one of the primary things that sets Baptists apart from the rest of Christianity. I used to agree, but I can see that the SBC and specifically the SBC seminaries no longer agree.
It saddens me greatly, but the SBC is not what I was taught growing up and reading things from BP only makes me realize how out of touch the new SBC really is. I only read news from ABP normally; I have found it much less political and much more concerned with telling the story instead of coloring a story.
Paul
on Oct 22nd, 2006
@ 7:38 pm:
It is for reasons such as this that I actively steer prospective students away from SWBTS. I tried to get one to go to Southern, but he ended up going to Beeson. Good for him.
Bryant Sims
on Oct 23rd, 2006
@ 8:08 am:
I agree whole-heartedly that the BFM 2000 should be our sole test for fellowship within every SBC entity. But in the midst of all of the upset concerning PPL bans going above and beyond the BFM, doesn’t the abstract do that as well? I sense that we are headed for big problems as a denom. if each little faction continues to pick at every speck while ignoring every log. God help those of us stuck in the middle & longing for cooperation.
Timothy Cowin
on Oct 23rd, 2006
@ 8:18 am:
Great Post,
Did you read Caner’s White Paper? I do not know how this could even be called scholarly, it is more like polemical propaganda.
For example, in dealing with Paul’s exhortation to “not forbid speaking in tongues,” and how it relates to SBC Policy at SWBTS, IMB and NAMB, he merely casts the Bible aside by saying:
“A mature Christian clearly knows that this problem is not simply an argument over Paul’s command to “not forbid the speaking of
tongues.”
Typical Canerism, attack your enemy and belittle them. Sad,
Timothy
Todd Nelson
on Oct 23rd, 2006
@ 9:11 am:
Art,
Regarding your first paragraph above, I agree. The label “neo-Pentecostal/charismatic” in front of “private prayer language” is unnecessary and serves to alarm many Southern Baptists. We are talking about tolerance of a single devotional practice, not the whole package of Pentecostal or charismatic theology as if it were monolithic or as if all its distinctives must be unorthodox, unbiblical, or unbaptist.
But speaking of the Pentecostal-charismatic movement, and in light of its dramatic spread throughout the world (such that one-in-four Christians identify with this 20th century “renewalist” movement now — witness the recent Pew Trust study), perhaps it’s time that SBC theologians and pastors addressed the various streams of the movement with careful Bible study and respectful engagement with its theologians. I would single out the Vineyard (or “third wave of the Holy Spirit” acc. to Peter Wagner) as part of this renewalist movement yet distinct from the Pentecostal (first wave) and Charismatic (second wave) movements and worthy of Baptist study.
Theology is not a static discipline. Theologians and pastors must continue to engage culture, the Bible, and what the Spirit is saying and doing in each generation. For this reason, appeals to historic Baptist beliefs and majority practice, while instructive, are insufficient to answer today’s questions.
Personally, I would not support another edition of the BF&M. Instead, I would encourage Baptist theologians and pastors to do some investigation of the Vineyard’s theology and practice of “the Kingdom of God”. We may find that there are elements of this movement that are biblical and even compatible with Baptist doctrine.
If the majority of Baptists eventually decide otherwise through a new edition of the BF&M or a convention vote, then we have the question of whether or not those people holding to non-divisive minority views about spiritual gifts should be allowed to serve and teach in SBC agencies. Given the growth of the “renewalist” movement world-wide, I don’t see how we can avoid or ignore this issue, or legitimately decide it one agency at a time without further formal study.
Todd
art rogers
on Oct 23rd, 2006
@ 1:59 pm:
Rusty,
Priesthood of the Believer is a big issue in this debate. Specifically, it is about POTB and Sufficiency. Is the Word of God alone enough? Can God use it without using you to explain what it is?
Interestingly, the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy affirms Sufficiency as part of its core affirmation. (Article 5) To affirm Inerrancy is to affirm Sufficiency. This should be raising alarm bells in the minds of the great many who traveled and gave of their time and energy to vote at SBC’s past when the issue drawing them was Inerrancy.
Bryant,
The abstract predates any version of the BFM. [Gene, don't start with the Westminister and London Confessions. I am only talking about Southern Baptist confessions. ;) ]
James Pettigrew Boyce was the President of THE Southern Baptist Seminary (when there was only one – hence the name) and the Abstract is copyrighted to him in 1887. It was the theological standard for Southern before there ever was a BFM. In that sense, it has a more historic claim to authority for Seminary adherance in that, while more detailed than any BFM, it was written by the man who was THE head of Southern Baptist Theological education at the time. Therefore, the BFM actually constricted the Abstract, rather than the Abstract going beyond the BFM.
The Abstract, however, is not the theological governing document for SWBTS. The BFM is.
Timothy,
I did not read the White Paper to which you refer. When I get a spare moment, I might check it out.
Todd,
I think that you have precisely articulated somethings here that I would like to draw out.
1. You say that theology is not static. You are accurate. The canon of Scripture is what is closed – again, Article 5 of the Chicago Statement, but, obviously, the early church Fathers dealt with it as well and had the canon together before the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. (I know that Nicea was not called to address the canon, I am using it as a reference – just by the way).
In the mean time, what we believe and understand from God’s Word continue’s to grow. This is not about progressive revelation beyond Scripture, but understanding Scripture better and better by dealing with issues over time.
2. You say that we need to engage these divergent thought streams. That is exactly correct. These issues demand engagement, not dismissal.
Thanks.
Art
IN HIS NAME
on Oct 23rd, 2006
@ 2:42 pm:
Art,
Is SWBTS the only Baptist Seminary that “Does Not” Honor The Abstract of Principals, if so what does that tell you. When was this policy put into place?
In His Name
Wayne Smith
art rogers
on Oct 23rd, 2006
@ 3:25 pm:
Wayne,
I don’t think it is fair to say that SWBTS “does not honor the Abstract of Principles.” I think (but I am not sure) that the Abstract was never the theological standard at SWBTS. I don’t know which Seminaries use the BFM and which use the Abstract, but I think Southern and Southestern use the Abstract and the rest use the BFM. I am pulling that out of the air, so I am VERY open to correction on it.
Anonymous
on Oct 23rd, 2006
@ 6:14 pm:
SWBTS has never used the Abstract of Principles. The Abstract is a uniquely SBTS document. Since SEBTS was started as a work of SBTS, SEBTS also uses the Abstract. NOBTS also has its own unique confessional statement reflecting its origins.
At SBTS one must sign BOTH the Abstract AND the BFM2K. At NOBTS one must sign BOTH the NOBTS confessional statement AND the BFM2K. I do not know about SEBTS but I would not be surprised if they require one to sign both documents.
These seminary confessional documents are often found in the institutions’ academic catalogs, as well as the BFM2K. The catalog also spells out the institution’s policy for faculty to subscribe to the confessional statements. Often the institution makes a unique chapel celebration of new in-coming faculty signing the documents very early in each academic semester and adding their names to the luminaries of history who taught within the same guidelines.
I hope this helps.
Matt Snowden
on Oct 24th, 2006
@ 10:45 am:
Todd and Art,
I’m agree with you. I think it is a bit ironic that Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology is used so often is Baptist life today. It was the text of choice in Dr. Norman’s classes at NOBTS. He (Grudem) has connections to the Vinyard movement and has written some of their papers in their support. His treatment of the gifts is far from one that would be accepted at SWBTS. I think we should open the discussion – not close it.
Bill T. Brown
on Oct 24th, 2006
@ 6:45 pm:
Three comments, the first is, I think, gracious. The second may not be. The third is, but may not be taken that way by some of the more Reformed brethren. All 3 are I believe accurate and truthful.
1. Sufficient or not, the only doctrinal statement that SWBTS has is the BF&M of 2000. It is binding upon our agencies. Associations, state conventions, the SBC, and local churches are all autonomous. None has any authority over the other. That is not the case with SBC agencies. They are legally and ethically subdivisions of the SBC. No agency has the authority to impose theolgoical requirments lesser or greater than the BF&M 2000. It is wrong to require seminary professors to reject PPL since it is not in the statement. I personally am a cessationist and would not object to adding this to the BF&M, but until the messengers to a SBC annual meeting do so, no seminary president or anyone else has the right to assume papal authority and do so on his own.
It is the same with not enforcing certain sections. We conservatives decried for years the moderate presidents of yesteryear hiring seminary professors who taught against portions of the BF&M. Just one example the SBTS theology prof who rejected eternal security and it was deemed a “private interpretation.” He only had to say that the BF&M disagreed, but he thought it was wrong.
Today, there are many SBC seminary profs who reject the BF&M statement of 2 offices of pastor and deacon and teach the Presbyterian doctrine of 3 offices: pastor, elder & deacon. A minor point? Yes. Drop it from the BF&M? If the messengers so wish, but until it is done, be honest.
2. As for Tammi Reed Ledbetter research the articles she has written over the last decade starting with her defense of a president at another SBC seminary who was ultimately dismissed by the trustees forward until 2006. I will not characterize or judge her writing, read them and decide for yourself.
3. The Abstract of Principles was written at the founding of SBTS in 1857 because there was not SBC statement. It was adopted at the founding of SEBTS (by far the most theologically liberal SBC seminary at the time). It does not and has never had any SBC statuts. It is just a document chosen by the schools. Historically, the associations drew up and adopted statements of faith. There were several and certainly earlier ones, however, by far the most widely used in the South at the time of the founding of the SBC was the New Hampshire Statement of Faith of 1833. The BF&M series, 1925, 1963, and 2000 are basically the N.H. Still, many paragraphs are word-for-word the same. While technically true that the BF&M only goes back to 1925, it is misleading. Do not accept my word, find all 4 on the internet and put them side by side. I did this when someone objected to the BF&M 2000 dropping the reference to Jesus being the criterion of interpretation in 1963. He had been told by a DOM that the language had been in all earlier Baptist statements of faith. Of course, it was not. It was created for 1963, and has not been adopted by only statements that I have seen. Of course, there could be an obscure one out there that followed it.
art rogers
on Oct 24th, 2006
@ 8:01 pm:
Sorry about being out. I haven’t been able to even look at the blog the last two days.
Anonymous and Bill,
Thanks for the history.
Bill,
The agencies do belong to the SBC, but the SBC has also designated the governance of those entities to the Boards of Trustees. In that sense, they (NAMB, IMB & SWBTS, in chronological order) have the “right” to make the restrictions they have made, but they are not right when they do it.
I don’t think changing the BFM will actually bind them, though it would create pressure. I think that we will have to change the by-laws of the SBC.
The other alternative is to make sure that we have Trustees that share our perspective on going beyond the BFM. We all know how that is done.
Bill T. Brown
on Oct 24th, 2006
@ 9:12 pm:
Art (I think that is who responded):
Thank you for your response. I think we are both right, rather like the blind men who were describing the elephant. As to whether or not the BF&M “binds” institutions created in the SBC constitution and bylaws, there has been some debate. It has been recognized that the SBC messengers have the right to impose the BF&M, some have argued that they should not do so or have not done so. Certainly, they can.
You are correct that the actual governance of the agencies (IMB, NAMB, ERLC, EC, & the 6 seminaries) is vested in trustees elected by the convention. Those trustees have authority and discretion to set policy. To protect trustees from knee-jerk reactions, the bylaws provide that a motion made at an annual convention dealing with the internal affairs of an agency is to be referred to the trustees. Those trustees are required to report back to the next annual meeting. Presumably, at that time, the messengers could act upon the original motion.
The missing point, as I see it, is that the trustees are fiduciaries of the SBC. They are elected by the SBC to represent the interests of the SBC, not of the agency, if contrary to the SBC, and certainly not of the agency president. The president’s duty is to implement the policies adopted by the trustees.
Its been a long time since Business Law in college, but I am quite sure that a trustee has a duty to act in the best interest of the principal – the SBC – even if contrary to his or her own interests, or if contrary to the agency’s interest.
You would have to consult the blogging lady lawyer, but it might be that the SBC, or maybe even a messenger, would have standing to sue a trustee board for violating the its fiduciary duty. I don’t know, and in any case, I would not advocate a lawsuit.
There are 2 SBC/messenger checks on the trustees, I would support in a proper circumstance. The bylaws can be amended. More importantly, the messengers can remove 1 or more trustees by majority vote at any annual meeting. A motion to vacate the trustees of any agency would be in order, though (hopefully) seldom justified.
I believe that I. T. Tichenor insisted that the entire trustee board of the then Domestic Mission Board, later Home MB, and now NAMB, be removed as a condition of assuming the presidency of a board which had been moribund for over 2 years. It was done. I think it was 1881, but I am too lazy to look it up to be sure of the year.
The seminary presidents are aware of this. I do not remember the year, but not long ago (less than 5 years) the seminary presidents proposed that the power to elect trustees for the seminaries be taken away from the messengers and that trustees be chosen by some not very clearly spelled out mechanism involving the president of the institution and the sitting trustees.
At the time they claimed that it was necessary to preserve the school’s accreditation. Balderdash when the colleges use vacuous accreditation threats as an excuse to justify trying to stop the state conventions from electing their trustees. Balderdash when the seminary presidents tried it. A hue and cry went up from the other agency heads and EC executive staff and the idea was quickly shelved.
You have to admire their chutzpah. One of them had publicly condemned the trustees of a Baptist college the same week for making the same argument.
To Whom Ever Asked:
NOBTS and SBTS wrote their own statements of faith, because when they were formed the SBC did not have one. To my knowledge, SWBTS did not. I have no idea why. SEBTS adopted SBTS’s Abstract of Principles when it was formed, reportedly as a slap at the SBC (who really knows why?). Until very recently NOBTS, SBTS & SEBTS faculty signed ONLY the institutions statement of faith. SWBTS, GGBTS, and MBTS faculty signed the current version of the BF&M.
After one seminary president pushed both behind the scenes and much less publicly to have all IMB missionaries to subscribe to the BF&M (this was shortly after BF&M 2000) and to be subject to scrutiny as their fidelity thereto during the term of their service, IMB executives pointed out that 3 of the 6 seminaries did not require faculty to sign the BF&M. [That war has been going on for a long time, every since the current IMB president was elected.] The presidents then had the trustees adopt the BF&M as a secondary doctrinal standard and faculty had to sign both. Some have now adopted the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, as well as the Danvers Statement or another Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood statement as official positions of the institution, though none to my knowledge requires a signing ceremony.
GeneMBridges
on Oct 26th, 2006
@ 4:02 pm:
Today, there are many SBC seminary profs who reject the BF&M statement of 2 offices of pastor and deacon and teach the Presbyterian doctrine of 3 offices: pastor, elder & deacon. A minor point? Yes. Drop it from the BF&M? If the messengers so wish, but until it is done, be honest.
It need not be dropped from the BFM, because what is being taught does *not* differ with the BFM. All the BFM says is that there are two offices, pastor and deacon. It makes no stipulation about the way that is set up within a local church and that the office of pastor is reserved for males.
A. The Presbyterian idea is that there are 2 offices not 3, elder and deacon. To say there are 3 offices is a Baptist criticism of the way their polity functions (with which I agree), not what the Presbyterians actually affirm.
In their ecclesiology, the office of elder is subdivided into teaching elder/minister and ruling elder, so it is, technically: 2 offices, 3 roles. I agree that this is really 3 offices, but, to be fair, I’ll state what they teach not what I think their doctrine entails.
The eldership of the church also sits on the presbytery and in the General Synod/Assembly. In some Presbyterian circles of the past, there was a third office: Doctor of the Church. I’d also point out that the General Baptists affirmed 3 offices: elder, deacon, and messenger.
B. Those professors in the SBC to whom you are referring do *not* differ over the two offices, nor do they believe the “Presbyterian doctrine.” This is a common misconception of what they affirm.
Rather, they affirm that (1) there is a plurality of elders that govern and teach the church –and these must male–and (2) these all teach and have equal authority, so there is no division between a teaching elder and a ruling elder, not even functionally. There are only 2 offices here and 2 roles: eldership and deaconship. The roles correspond to the offices: elder and deacon. There may be any number of either; generally, there is generally at least 2 of the former, preferably 3 to 4 or more. These professors are quite clear in teaching that the biblical words for “presbyter” and “pastor” (presbyter/poimen) and “bishop” (episcopos) are equivalent, as are their offices. “Elder” was a common term for “pastor” in Baptist churches well into the 20th century.
“Elder rule” and “ruling elder” are *not* convertible concepts. A “ruling elder” does not teach, he governs and adjudicates disputes, and may help adminster the ordinances. That’s a Presbyterian concept.
An “elder rule” Baptist church is a church in which the elders as a whole govern by popular consent. They rule, in that they do not require the assent of the whole congregation for everything they do, the way our Congress does not require assent over minutae. I’d point out that, in these churches, you will find decisions about budgets, etc. being handled no differently than in those run on congregational form. Typically, you find less committees and less red tape, but on the big decisions like this, the church, usually the men of the church as a whole are the check on the elders.
The elders are not self-appointing or self-perpetuating, and they may resign at any time. There may be room for a vote of no-confidence in an elder, but this takes the disciplinary process for elders in Scripture before it is enacted. Barring apostasy or discipline, retain their appointment as long as they remain at that church or until they resign/retire. It is generally considered a lifetime appointment, and some churches may even allow one elder to come to them as an elder from a sister church depending on the circumstances. They *all* teach and/or preach and they discharge the ministries of the church. Generally, the “senior pastor” is just the one that they agree is always a paid position and who is “in front” most Sunday mornings. He may come and go like any other senior pastor of any church. They may be drawn from the “professional clergy” of a denomination, but they may also be drawn from the “laity,” just as *all* Baptist pastor-elders have been drawn. If they are accepted by the church, they are usually required to get some type of continuing theological education, whether a degree or not. Not all paid staff are elders under this system in larger churches, although many or most are, because those nominated by the church body may accept or decline nomination. The congregation may most certainly question their decisions and overule their decisions with respect to the business of the church. The less strong version gives the congregation more control, but is functionally not very different. The elders’ primary responsibility is the adherence to the confession of faith held by the church, the discharge of the daily business of the church, and the discharge of the church’s ministries.
A couple of things can be said: (a) this model is functionally no different than the model employed in most large churches where the deacons run the church and the congregation rubber stamps their decisions, particularly in those where the paid staff functions as a de facto elder board and gets what they want from the diaconate (b) in the plural model, one, sometimes two or three elders may stand out as spokespersons for the church in their inter-church/denominational affairs. The elders or the congregation may select them. (c) No single elder’s authority is greater than the others; (d) just as in multi-staff churches, the elders may have specific ministries. None of this is alien to the BFM.
The Abstract of Principles was written at the founding of SBTS in 1857 because there was not SBC statement. It was adopted at the founding of SEBTS (by far the most theologically liberal SBC seminary at the time). It does not and has never had any SBC statuts. It is just a document chosen by the schools. Historically, the associations drew up and adopted statements of faith. There were several and certainly earlier ones, however, by far the most widely used in the South at the time of the founding of the SBC was the New Hampshire Statement of Faith of 1833….
Actually, when the SBC was formed, each and every church held to the Philadelphia/Charleston Confession, not the NHC. The use of the NHC in the SBC was a later development.
The Philadelphia Confession of Faith was transplanted to the Charleston Baptist Association in South Carolina. It soon became the most widely accepted, definitive confession among Baptists in America both North and South. Each of the 293 “delegates,” as they were then called, who gathered in Augusta to organize the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845, belonged to congregations and associations which had adopted the Philadelphia/Charleston Confession of Faith as their own. (Timothy George, Baptist Confessions, Covenants, and Catechisms, edited by Timothy and Denise George; Broadman & Holman, 1996)
The Abstract was written by Dr. Manly Jr. with Dr. Boyce’s and Broadus’ approval because it is an Abstract of the Philadelphia/Charleston Confessions and thus the LBCF2. What’s more, as early as 1833, SC Baptists were voting that any adjudication of missions funds be handled by churches that held to the Charleston Confession. The daughter associations of the Sandy Creek Association itself adopted the Philadelphia Confession in both TN and GA. The Tuscaloosa Association, according to the writing of Basil Manly Sr. was using an associational Abstract that he recognized as derivative of the Charleston. In fact, his writing is quite clear that the shorter confessions used in the South were all based upon the Philadelphia/Charleston and articulated the ideas that went back to 1689. The New Hampshire Confession was adopted by some, because of this same recognition of identity. If I recall, the association that slipped up and granted Alexander Campbell and his church an exception to the associational rules was using the Philadelphia Confession or an Abstract of it. Of course, giving them this exemption was *not* a good idea, as it gave them room to breed the Campbellite movement.
NOBTS and SBTS wrote their own statements of faith, because when they were formed the SBC did not have one.
Not quite. The reason the denomination did not have a confession when the Abstract was written was because everybody knew that the Abstract accurately represented the parent confession, to which everybody already ascented in 1845, and such Abstracts were common at the time. Confessions are more complex than Abstracts (which are summaries of parent documents or a parent document) and are generally drawn up when there is a need to articulate the content of a group’s beliefs in order to (a) teach the people, (b) establish legitimacy in the eyes of outsiders, or (c) set out the boundaries of orthodoxy against those who differ from inside or outside. The use of a denominational confession in the SBC mirrors this same process. The 1925 was adopted because, in 1925, there was a clear need for (c), given the rise and spread of theological liberalism.
To my knowledge, SWBTS did not. I have no idea why.
B.H. Carroll and his faculty chose the New Hampshire Confession to which Carroll himself was already appealing when teaching anyway. Some believe this is because its ecclesiology is quite limited and can be interpreted broadly to exclude a belief in the universal church, which he was known to deny.