This Resolution was presented to the Roundtable. The mechanisms of the SBC allow for each member of a Southern Baptist church, in good standing, to submit to the Resolutions committee up to three Resolutions for consideration. There may only be one name on each resolution. If you would like to submit a resolution, you may do so by electronically by email, with your credentials sent in by mail, or you may send everything in by mail to the Resolutions committee.
We encourage you to write a resolution and submit it according to the guidelines you can find at sbc.net under the bylaws (bylaw 20) and under the extremely helpful guideline page.
RESOLUTION ON PARTNERSHIP AND FREE RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION
WHEREAS, the unique and historic contribution of Baptists has been the articulation and affirmation of principles of religious liberty, defined as the protection of the freedom of individual conscience from doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to God’s Word or not contained therein, as well as the freedom to form and propagate beliefs within the sphere of religion; and
WHEREAS, Southern Baptists have labored to protect the freedoms of religion in every context, both internationally and within the United States, even when those religious beliefs were contrary to the generally accepted confessions of faith adopted by Baptists;
WHEREAS, there has been a general willingness among Southern Baptist churches to respect the religious opinions and practices of non-Baptist churches, with the recognition that mutual respect and religious tolerance does not imply endorsement or affirmation of those religious opinions and practices; and
WHEREAS, among Southern Baptist churches there remains since the original founding of the Southern Baptist Convention a respect for freedoms of religious expression and a diversity of religious practice in matters related to public worship styles, the use of musical instrumentation, liturgies, Bible translations, and preferred forms of public proclamation of the Holy Scripture; and
WHEREAS, the guarantees of free religious expression among Southern Baptist churches extend to the individual members of those churches who may, under the leadership of the indwelling Holy Spirit and in accord with the Word of God, choose to worship privately in their personal devotion through songs, prayers, and other expressions of spiritual discipleship consistent with the pursuit of personal holiness; and
WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention has refrained from adopting any restrictive parameters on expressions of public or private worship and has preferred to recognize confessional and experiential latitude among member churches as an intentional effort to maintain a commitment to religious liberty and ensure peace and harmony among member churches; and
WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention recognizes a greater strength in cooperative missionary ventures by the participation of churches with every liturgical preference, whether contemporary, blended or traditional; and
WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention recognizes that the task of world evangelization and church planting is a much more important component of our obedience to the Great Commission of Jesus Christ than is a prolonged discussion among Baptists about acceptable and unacceptable worship practices, whether those practices take form in public or private expressions;
NOW BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in San Antonio, Texas, June 12-13, 2007, reaffirm our fundamental Baptist distinctive as advocates of religious liberty, especially as it relates to free expression in the public and private worship of followers of Jesus Christ; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we are opposed to any attempt to narrow the parameters of cooperation among Southern Baptist churches to limit the full recognition, participation, and partnership among member churches on account of preference for worship styles or acceptance of spiritual practices consistent with the teachings of Holy Scripture; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we reaffirm our belief that the individual conscience is free under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God to worship the Lord accordingly through acts of private devotion and spiritual discipline, service to the church through spiritual gifts, and public testimony of Christ’s redeeming work in their lives for the sake of the Great Commission; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that we recognize the full partnership of all Southern Baptist churches in our global mission endeavors through their contributions to the Cooperative Program, their prayer support for convention work, and their consistent witness for the advance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Bart Barber
on Dec 6th, 2006
@ 2:03 pm:
Art,
So, you regard “advoca[cy] of religious liberty” to be “our fundamental Baptist distinctive”?
Tim Rogers
on Dec 6th, 2006
@ 2:35 pm:
Brother Art,
Was Priesthood of the believer[s] ever discussed?
Blessings,
Tim
Art Rogers
on Dec 6th, 2006
@ 3:49 pm:
Bart,
That paragraph is not intended to read as “our ONLY fundamental Baptist distinctive.” I reaffirm it as it is the subject of the resolution, but not at the exclusion of any and every other Baptist distinctive. Good question, though.
I think the concept is best expressed in the first paragraph as the unique and historic contributions of Baptists. Wouldn’t you agree?
Tim,
While Priesthood of the Believer was not articulated by that name, the entirety of our concern is centered on the Priesthood of the Believer. In one sense, the answer is, “No, we never said the words, ‘Priesthood of the Believer.’” In another sense, the answer is, “Yes, in everything we discussed, ‘Priesthood of the Believer’ was central.”
Blessings back on ya.
Art
Bart Barber
on Dec 7th, 2006
@ 12:28 pm:
I would indeed agree that religious liberty is one of the great contributions made by Baptists. I do not think that the word “unique” in the opening sentence is accurate, whatever it means. If it means that the idea of religious liberty is unique to Baptists, then you have to explain Pennsylvania (Quaker). If it means that, among our distinctives, religious liberty is the one uniquely by which we (among others) have contributed something to the world, then you have to explain other contributions among our distinctives, such as credobaptism.
I also think that the distinctive of religious liberty is a specious one upon which to build this argument. Nobody’s religious liberty is in any danger of infringement by the Southern Baptist Convention no matter what course it takes. If I were declared persona non grata by official convention action, it still would not amount to an infringement of my religious liberty. I would be ticked off. I would think it a bad idea. But it would not be a violation of either my church’s autonomy or my own religious liberty.
Rather, the right of the SBC to define its own parameters of cooperation; to determine and express its views regarding worship, spiritual gifts, baptism, or any other theological matter; and to select its own leadership based upon whatever criteria the messengers desire (what color tie the candidate wears?)—those rights are a fundamental part of “the freedom to form and propagate beliefs” that I accord to everyone. If there were a way for us to prevent any denomination of Christianity from ever coming to a conclusion about charismania or acting upon such a conclusion, then that would be a violation of religious liberty.
So, the question is not really one of religious liberty; it is a question of whether the convention believes in “scolybobo”; if it does not know the answer to that question, whether it considers the question worthy of the energy to make a determination; and if it does make a determination, how important is deviation from the majority view, and how, if at all, should the SBC limit such practices by its employees? That is a question upon which people may hold different views.
So, it seems to me that the ideological basis for your argument (what your WHEREASes ought to contain) is the idea that babbling is biblical, that differences over the whole matter are not really that important, and that the SBC ought not to bother to care about “speaking in tongues” among denominational employees.
Art Rogers
on Dec 8th, 2006
@ 12:54 pm:
Bart,
The babbler stuff and other phrases are pejorative and makes your argument a straw man. Ad hominem as well.
You are calling one who believes in the continualist position, specifically one who practices PPL, a babbler. This means that they are a fool or mentally ill. At the least it means that they aren’t as smart as you. It’s an attack on the man and creates a mockery of their argument. There are NO respectable theologians who are continualists?
This is what you imply, and it is a straw man.
As for my colleagues engaging your critique as you mentioned in your email, I assume you saw Ben Cole’s Response.
Malcolm Yarnell
on Dec 8th, 2006
@ 2:15 pm:
I have to agree with Bart Barber on two counts.
First, the argument from religious liberty to diversity in private worship styles does not make any sense. The battle for religious liberty has always been about protecting people and their churches from any type of coercion by the state. An argument within a church or a denomination of churches has nothing whatsoever to do with religious liberty.
Second, “babble” is a biblical concept describing what occurred in Genesis 10. It refers to the confused and stunted communication in language that separated men from one another. Similarly, the proponents of private prayer languages have been unclear as to exactly what they are communicating. In other words, to those seeking a rational communication of ideas, there happens to be none in the practice of private prayer languages. Bart’s argument is indeed well taken.
On another issue, I would encourage you to read the Bible with regard to the priesthood of the believer. That doctrine cannot be found in Scripture.
Finally, this argument concerning private prayer languages is not about continualism or cessationism. It is about whether or not a doctrine of private prayer languages can be identified in Scripture as a spiritual gift. It cannot.
In Christ,
Malcolm Yarnell
Bart Barber
on Dec 8th, 2006
@ 2:55 pm:
Art,
I saw Ben’s response, and we had a good conversation in the wee hours of this morning. Thanks.
Art Rogers
on Dec 8th, 2006
@ 3:13 pm:
Dr. Yarnell,
Thanks for lending your thoughts to my blog.
Point taken concerning Religious Liberty and the defense of the populace from coercion by the state. I believe the general thought that we have always been the advocates for the rights of others to have equal standing regardless of their religious beliefs has bearing on our internal issues today. To be the ones who say that others have equal rights despite theological disagreements and then turn and say to fellow Baptists that they have less rights because of theological disagreements makes us double minded.
I certainly agree on the origin of the word “babble,” but the word takes on a pejorative tone when used as Bart did. I do not read him to be saying that those who believe they are practicing legitimate glossolalia according to Scripture are experiencing an intentional confusion authored by God. Nor do I understand Bart to say that there is simply stunted communication. I understood him to be uncomplimentary with that use of the word, and it is to that act I wrote.
As to Priesthood of the Believer, I assume you are not arguing for a more Roman Catholic ecclesiology? If not, then does not the individual Christian, taught by Scripture and led by the Holy Spirit have relevance in the discussion of beliefs? Surely so, given our structure of cooperative missions.
Finally, I respectfully disagree that the issue is about the doctrine of a PPL being found in Scripture or not found in Scripture. I recognize your position, and respect the scholarship that is behind it. Nevertheless, the issue is about whether or not Southern Baptists with whom you disagree are denied full participation in our joint efforts of global evangelization and theological education based on their disagreement with your very particular viewpoint. Of course, while PPL has the spotlight now, division over Reformed doctrines, worship styles and authorized baptism are still issues in the current discussion.
I hope that you are able to present your views at the Conference. Again, I thank you for your thoughts.
art
Art Rogers
on Dec 8th, 2006
@ 3:17 pm:
Bart,
I read your comment section about the kiddos. Man, I do not miss those days.
Blessings.
Art
Malcolm Yarnell
on Dec 8th, 2006
@ 3:23 pm:
Now, who is being pejorative and making a straw man argument?
Again, Art, I challenge you to compare the biblical teaching with regard to your doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. Don’t trust your liberal Baptist tradition of the priesthood of the believer. After all, that is indeed what the Roman Catholics do, trust their tradition alongside the Word of God. Return to the Word of God, and then we can talk.
Benjamin S. Cole
on Dec 8th, 2006
@ 4:05 pm:
Malcolm:
I’m really jealous. You visit Art’s blog and leave comments, but you won’t leave comments on my blog. This is unfair, and I object.
I promise, though, if you’ll take some time from publishing your pink papers and stop by my blog over the next few days, you’ll find some very interesting things to read.
Here’s hoping your sabbatical is much more about producing a scholarly book for publication than it is about lurking on blogs. You do realize that the amount of time you spend here is in direct conflict with the amount of time you spend going after souls, don’t you?
Art called me and asked me if this was really from Malcolm Yarnell. He was suspicious because the IP address registers from St. Louis. I told him that I thought you were in Texas, but you might be in another state interviewing for a college presidency. Like I’ve told you before, it’s just a matter of time before another one of those opens up.
One more question, Malcolm. Have you ever had occasion to discuss the matter of private prayer languages with your pastor?
BSC
Art Rogers
on Dec 8th, 2006
@ 4:29 pm:
A few things…
First, my tradition starts in Pascagoula, Mississippi and travels through FBC, Bellaire, TX – hardly bastions of liberalism. That’s a bit inflammatory, don’t you think? It does not surprise me when certain people begin to paint others with the “liberal” brush, but I raised my eyebrows when I read that word from you. Frankly, throwing the word “liberal” around is the act of lesser minds than yours.
Second, as to the straw man of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, fair enough. I know, and think that most everyone germane to this conversation knows, that you do not espouse that. My attempt was to merely point out that as Baptists, we believe in the Scripture as revelatory and the Spirit as divine instructor, hoping this, at least would provide common ground. Surely we all agree that these two things are found in Scripture and that they apply to our working together, even if any doctrine of Priesthood of the Believer is rejected as common ground.
I would have thought with all of the other terms of respect included in my comment, you would not have read that as pejorative. My apologies.
Thirdly, it would appear that I now have to jump through the theological hoop of proving Priesthood of the Believer to someone (anyone, really) before discussing the fact that some Southern Baptists are not allowed to cooperate fully. I note that nothing else I said was addressed.
I am not sorry to state that my opinions on cooperation do not need to be vetted as theologically sound by anyone to make them valid, particularly those with whom I disagree on the subject.
Also In Christ,
Art Rogers
Bart Barber
on Dec 8th, 2006
@ 10:47 pm:
Art,
I don’t think that Dr. Yarnell is speaking of the personal tradition of Rev. Art Rogers. I think he is speaking of a general way of thinking to which we have all been exposed. Just as one might speak of the influence of English Separatism upon John Bunyan or the Enlightenment upon John Gill, one might speak of a view about Baptist distinctives and Baptist history that enjoyed hegemony for quite a while and to which everyone on every point of the spectrum from Bart Barber to Aaron Weaver has been exposed. He is not calling you a liberal; he is suggesting that a concept has its roots in the liberal tradition. There’s a difference.
If you’ll note the number on the phrase in question (believer or believers?) and dialogue with Dr. Yarnell about exegesis of the biblical passages in question, you guys might find a way forward. It is a biblical phrase, so we shouldn’t define it just any way we wish. Our definition of the doctrine ought to match what the passages say from which we have drawn the language. But frankly, the first definition of the doctrine I ever heard didn’t even make any effort at all to interact with the biblical passages. And I suspect that the definition I was first taught is a definition to which most of us have been exposed.
That, I think, is what Dr. Yarnell is saying.
Malcolm Yarnell
on Dec 9th, 2006
@ 5:52 am:
Dear Art,
Yes, it is me. Normally, I refrain from reading the blogs, especially from responding to them. (After all, I have been the subject of too many ill-formed critiques on blogs, and I have mourned over the use of blogs to slander good leaders.) However, your blog concerned Baptist theology, and that is important to me.
Please do not take my theological ruminations and terms too personally. I try to operate at a biblical and historical level, and I believe it is helpful for us to call each other back to Scripture. If you see me arguing only from an historical perspective to a theological conclusion, please feel free to correct me. Indeed, please correct me. Finally, I really appreciate your theological commitment with regard to the Word and the Spirit, and pray you will speak more of that.
Bart Barber is correct in his first paragraph. I was referring to the liberal Baptist tradition to which all of us were exposed in the 20th century, through the influence of Mullins, and ultimately behind him, Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of theological liberalism. Please do not take the “liberal” tag personally, unless that is you actually agree with its theology, which I doubt you want to do. However, a succession of churches will not convince either one of us of being conservative. What will convince is a surrender to Christ and immersion (pardon the intentional Baptist pun) in Scripture.
Again, Bart Barber is correct in his second paragraph. We should garner our doctrine of priesthood from Scripture, not from the liberal Baptist tradition. And he has indeed pegged a major part of that, the distinction between the corporate and individual priesthood. Moreover, I would ask you to consider whose priesthood is stressed in the New Testament, for it is definitely not yours, nor mine, nor even the church’s. I hope that this will perhaps point out a good direction for furthering your personal theological development, personal devotion to Christ, and the subsequent power of your preaching.
As for you, Monsieur BSC, it is so good to see that you are actively interested in theology for the SBC, and that you are considering my personal welfare. No, I am not in Saint Louis. I am in Germany. How the computer registration of a Gastdozent fur Historische und Systematische Theologie, Bonn, Deutschland was routed through the heartland of America, I do not know. What I do know is that Art’s blog was worth reading and considering, for Art shows interest in theology for the sake of the church, and in that pursuit, I heartily agree with him, even when I disagree with his conclusions and his politics.
Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, Art had that interesting resolution available in full, and I am always interested in resolutions. Finally, I was excited to learn more good Baptist theology from a faithful pastor-theologian like Bart Barber.
Per your criticism, which, by the way, is well taken though perhaps slightly misinformed with regard to temporal matters, I return now to my writing. Sometimes, responding to requests for public debate on somebody else’s terms requires time to craft an appropriate response. Then there is the teaching responsibility in Germany, which detracts from writing. And, then there is this matter of the unbiblical practice of private prayer languages, which initially was a distraction I would have preferred not to address, but sometimes God calls us to tasks we were otherwise not considering. Of course, there is also the addition of a fifth child to the household to consider (I understand your pain, Bart). Alas, these previous responsibilities which have all detracted from my writing responsibilities will preclude my acceptance of your kind(?) invitation for a perusal of your blog.
Auf Wiedersehen,
The “White” Papers Editor
Benjamin S. Cole
on Dec 9th, 2006
@ 8:40 am:
Malcolm:
Wow. You’re in Germany. Stop by Nuremburg and get a piktur for me if you will. Are you wearing lederhosen? Eating sausages? Drinking Lager? I think they have non-alcoholic beer around those Bavarian pubs.
Stille Nacht,
The “Pink” Papers Critic
Art Rogers
on Dec 9th, 2006
@ 12:02 pm:
Bart,
Blessed are the peacemakers… ;)
Dr. Yarnell,
I appreciate the further clarification and the kind words.
You are quite correct that the New Testament Priesthood “stressed” is that of Christ. I appreciate that point greatly.
My apologies if I overreacted to the word “liberal.” It was loosely thrown around in days past (accurate in places, not so in others) and has made a comeback of late. I admit a sensitivity to it.
As to it being really you, I am convinced having talked to both Ben and Bart (thanks for letting me call you last night, Bart) and they have assured me it is you. Regular readers of my blog know that I dislike anonymous posting, preferring, of course, for people to own their words. I can not stand and will not tolerate someone impersonating another. My concern was to be sure to protect your integrity, and my peace of mind, by being confident that words attributed to you came from you.
As to the Conference of the Holy Spirit, I can assure you that your voice is sought because it is among the leading and most scholarly opinions advocating the absence of a PPL in Scripture. I personally, and I think the others also, really want the best minds on the subject represented.
I understand if you are skeptical. If I were in your position, I certainly would be as well.
As to any terms of your speaking, please let us know what you desire. I think you will find us very open to hosting you.
Art
PS Ben, you know full well that there is no non-alcoholic beer anywhere in Germany. ;)