Author: art rogers
The Myth of the Majority, revisited
Thursday, May 31st, 2007 @ 9:54 am
I wanted to revisit an article I wrote a few months ago, entitled the Myth of the Majority.
For the last year or so, I have advised that sections (any section) of the Southern Baptist Convention would do well to quit claiming to represent the “majority” of the SBC. After all, there was a time when it could have been claimed, with some feeling of legitimacy, that moderates represented the “majority” of the SBC. Whether or not that was true may still be something to debate. My point is that it shouldn’t matter whether or not it is true.
The positions of Southern Baptists within the discussion should be based on whether or not the position taken is Biblical and whether or not the words and actions taken in defense of that position are befitting that of a child of God addressing his or her brother or sister in Christ.
As I mentioned in the referenced article, there is no such thing as a uniform majority within the SBC. No one group of people believe “the same” about even 75% of the issues and total, themselves, more than 50% of the total populace of the SBC.
This is problematic when the “majority” becomes the “authority” for any particular point of view. If, on any given subject, the SBC does have a majority consensus of one opinion, does that make that opinion right? I have often been perplexed by the claims of some at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary that the restrictions on PPL (otherwise known here at 12 Witnesses as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Non-Policy Policy on Private Prayer Languages” see the 8th paragraph or read Many Concerns or A New Hill) at that institution is in keeping with the majority opinion of the SBC.
When a Seminary begins to claim popular opinion as the basis of its theological standards, they, and we, have a significant problem. It seemed so silly to do so, given that the vast majority of our professors will disagree with the vast majority of our laity on several subjects, the most obvious of which is eschatology. Best to stick to Scripture, rightly divided, as the authority for such decisions and given that Resurgence Architect Paige Patterson is the President there, one would assume that the Biblical foundations for such decisions would be the only moorings needed.
I will reiterate that I have said that the Board of Trustees, led by their President, have the right to make such a decision, although I think it is unwise and such actions will lead us into division and irrelevancy. The same thought applies to the Boards of Trustees at the IMB and NAMB as well.
The majority of the SBC doesn’t exist as a homogenized voting block. Moreover, the majority of the SBC is occasionally wrong about things and I know that pro-Conservative Resurgence SBC pastors and laity would support that statement. That is why it is so wrong to lay the claim that the majority of the SBC should be the reason for doing anything.
I have argued that the case for cessationism is not a strong one, and yet it certainly falls within the realm of orthodox Christianity. The case for continualism (I am a continualist - though I do not practice glossolalia of any kind) is also an orthodox interpretation of Scripture.
I have concluded that the appeal to the majority is strictly a response to the inability to legitimately state that the opposing view is unorthodox, or even heretical.
Don’t get me wrong. I know that it’s been tried. Tammy Reed Ledbetter and other authors for the SB Texan and Baptist Press have repeatedly called PPL and its practitioners “neo-Pentecostal” in an attempt to downgrade that view point and practice. Still, that just hasn’t stuck as most people in the conversation have minds that are capable of earnest critique.
So, there is an appeal to the masses. The majority will believe as we do. If we can’t argue it to the exclusion of all other viewpoints biblically (and no one can - no matter which side they are on), then we will claim to represent the majority of the SBC.
——————-
BTW, I know that this applies to the Baptism guideline at the IMB as well. The reason that the Baptism Guideline is not the subject of such debate, I believe, is that it is solely an IMB issue, while PPL now involves both mission boards and one of our seminaries.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Posts with related content
Church, General Christian, SBC
May 31st, 2007 at 10:39 am
Art,
Jerry Corbaley, on Robin Foster’s blog yesterday, said that he believed that 95% of Southern Baptists agreed with the IMB’s take on speaking in tongues, meaning that it was always in known human languages and that a private prayer language was unbiblical. When questioned on that, he admitted that it was just his opinion and he didn’t have any stats to back it up. I appreciated the humility of that admission. But, have the trustees of the IMB just assumed that, because they surround themselves with people of like minds, that everyone believes like they do?
May 31st, 2007 at 11:03 am
Excellent points. If we need a word picture to describe part of this situation it is the idea of a soldier being trained and sent out on a mission. In this case his training has led him to know that Scripture is the authoritative Word of God. As he is in the heat of battle he gets conflicting commands that seem based on either “spur of the moment” decisions or dependence on “tradition” or in this case the “will of the majority” rather than the overriding command for his mission. This breeds a lack of trust in the leadership and training he has received.
The soldier will never, or should never, leave his allegiance to the overriding command but it sure mkes it scary to share a foxhole with someone you are not sure you can trust.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:40 am
Art
Appreciate the comments, but I believe you are wrong with only labeling two camps in this discussion. I am neither a cessationist nor a continualist. I believe the Bible does not speak to when the gift of tongues will cease, only that they will cease on their own. So it is quite possible that they can be practiced today. When I refer to tongues, I mean known human languages that are unknown to the speaker. Not non-human utterances. Concerning PPL, I don’t believe the Bible states that it is a practice of Paul or anyone else nor does it support the modern practice of such. I don’t want to argue these points, I already have. I just state them so as to show of the gifts, my different understanding.
Generalized statements or labels will not help in defining what Southern Baptists believe. My beliefs are different from Mac Arthur’s or Gaffin’s as well as Storms and McKissic. If we frame our argument on only these two points, those who are between them will be left out.
Don’t want to sound like I am chastising, just giving a thought as I read your post.
Blessings.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:58 am
Art,
Permit me to highlight something you touched on. Whether or not there is a majority opinion on any of these tertiary issues, the majority opinion on tertiary issues should not be the basis of doctrinal parameters or institutional policy–at least, not within a Baptist convention supposedly devoted to soul competency.
Thanks for the post, Art.
Grace and peace,
Emily
May 31st, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Art,
Your don’t-speak-of-the-majority rule is well-founded and helpful, even if I find it difficult to observe in an iron-clad fashion (sort of like the no-sweets-after-8:00 rule).
Indeed, I have broken it already today in a post on my blog.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:05 pm
BTW, forgive me for posting in the wrong thread, but that last video contribution of yours was, indeed, seriously funny.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Art,
About as clear as it can be said in my opinion.
Robin, again, in my opinion, no need to fear your correcting him, you’ve proven his point. There are not even just two camps, must less a majority that can be identified in Baptist life.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:43 pm
To take off from Marty’s blog today, Paul Burleson is definitely an older brother that I can respect!
Well said, Paul. The truth is that there are many different perspectives on this issue. Perhaps we should heed the wisdom of the Baptist Faith & Message and leave it alone and regulate behavior that is divisive, as the previous policies did instead of regulating people because of their beliefs.
Maybe one day we’ll get back to that.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Robin,
I agree about the labels and the many points of view. This post, however, is not about PPL but only uses that issue illustratively.
This discussion is about the claim that one viewpoint represents the “majority” of the SBC. I say that the reason the claim is made is because no one side can legitimately claim authoritative Scriptural interpretation on the issue(s) at hand.
The claim of majority is made because although they cannot discount all other views as clear heresy (despite trying), they would still like to “win” - otherwise known as the need to control.
Moreover, it is unhealthy and divisive to part our body over a need to control - and I know that is a supreme statement of the obvious, but perhaps it is not as obvious as it should be.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Art,
I think you have touched on the main thing in your response to Robin: “the need to control.” Thanks for your perceptiveness.
- Emily