The Recent Disputes Over Baptismal Regeneration And The Southern Baptist Convention

There's been a lot of discussion lately about how Southern Baptists view the reference to baptism in the Nicene Creed. I've seen the usual false claims about how everybody in the early church believed in baptismal regeneration, all of the church fathers believed in it, nobody opposed it before the Reformation, and so on. Few opponents of baptismal regeneration say anything significant about the extrabiblical evidence for their position, and the few who speak up typically only mention a small percentage of that evidence. For example, it's seldom mentioned that the ancient sources who held some kind of highly efficacious view of baptism widely disagreed about the nature of that efficaciousness. Christians of the patristic era disagreed about the meaning of "baptism for the forgiveness of sins". That's not a later development. There's a major need for opponents of baptismal regeneration to improve their handling of the issue. Here are some resources to that end.

Mohler purges seminary

http://www.worldviewconversation.com/2020/04/breaking-al-mohler-fires-conservative.html

"Pronoun hospitality"

https://jdgreear.com/askmeanything/when-talking-with-a-transgender-person-which-pronoun-should-you-use/

i) Bracketing other issues, a basic problem with "pronoun hospitality" is that many trans feign gender dysphoria as a political wedge tactic. Consider drag queens at public libraries. They don't suffer from gender dysphoria. They are pedophiles using transgenderism as a ruse.

ii) Another example is biological male athletes feigning transgender identity to beat girls or women in female sports. They don't suffer from gender dysphoria. Rather, it's easier for male athletes to compete with female athletes. A calculated ploy. 

iii) Another problem with "pronoun hospitality" is that it dishonors real men and women. It's like comparing your mother to a drag queen.

iv) Another example is people like Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill who indulge in resume inflation to game the system. Does Christian hospitality require us to play along with their bogus minority status? That dishonors bona fide minorities.

v) Or what about political candidates and job applicants who lie about military service. Should they be accorded the same respect as actual servicemen?

vi) Shifting to people with genuine gender dysphoria, compare that to someone on an acid trip who believes he's invulnerable to harm because he's a superhero. If everyone plays along with his delusion, he will get himself killed.

The big squeeze

The Founders trailer has generated a lot of fallout, including:

https://founders.org/2019/08/01/resignations-from-founders-ministries-board/

To an outside observer, it looks like the squeeze was put on board members by power brokers in the SBC. If so, that ironically demonstrates the need for the very documentary at issue. 

I'm also puzzled by James White throwing Ascol and his colleagues over the back of the sled (on the DL). 

By what standard?

A trailer by the Founders ministry is getting a lot of buzz:

https://founders.org/cinedoc/

I'll make a few comments on the trailer, then make some comments on the backlash:

A. I wonder if the title was inspired by the title of an old book by Greg Bahnsen.

B. Some of the critics of the SBC infiltration are currently employed at SBC seminaries, so they are to be saluted for their courage. They are taking a risk by implicitly criticizing the boss. 

C. I agree with everything Ascol says in the trailer. 

D. Rod Martin misframes the issue by casting it in terms of guilt, regret, and forgiveness. On the one hand the white slave masters, Klansmen and other suchlike died impenitent. On the  other hand, the younger generation isn't complicit in that to begin with, so there's nothing to forgive.  

E. There's a clip of James Merritt. I believe he's the father of homosexual activist Jonathan Merritt. 

F. SBTS prez Al Mohler tweeted that he's "alarmed at how some respected SBC leaders are represented".

https://twitter.com/albertmohler/status/1153759362990714881

Ironically, that reinforces the image of self-important leaders who maintain a system of cronyism. 

G. SWBTS prez Adam Greenway's tweet conveys the same blue wall of silence: "I will not…be part of any agenda seeking to divide Southern Baptists unnecessarily".

https://twitter.com/AdamGreenway/status/1153771415214145537

H. For his part, MBTS prez Jason Allen tweeted: "This trailer is either a click-bait promo piece or it foreshadows a movie that's uncharitable & unhelpful". 

https://twitter.com/jasonkeithallen/status/1153773326470406144

The problem is that SBC leaders have been accused of positively facilitating the infiltration of identity politics into the SBC generally and SBC seminaries in particular. They can't be trusted to solve the problem if they actively support it. 

There's nothing wrong with a grassroots movement in the SBC  to oppose identity politics. The SBC isn't supposed to be the Church of Rome, where the hierarchy makes all the key decisions. It's not insubordinate for SBC laymen or pastors to challenge policies promoted by the SBC Mandarins. 

I. SEBTS prez Danny Akin had the most substantive response to date. Among other things, he said: 

I sat down with an interview for what I understood to be a discussion about the authority of Scripture for an upcoming documentary…Today I was disappointed to see the trailer for that documentary. What I saw was edited footage that I believe to be misleading, which misrepresents important issues and what leaders in the SBC actually affirm…I have requested that my association with and contribution to this film be removed.   

https://twitter.com/DannyAkin/status/1153760946814251008

That raises some ethical issues:

1. Was he interviewed under false pretenses? Since Ascol does think it's about the authority of Scripture, it wasn't conducted under false pretenses from his perspective.

2. Perhaps, though, the objection is that he was interviewed under false pretenses in the sense that Akin wasn't apprised of the use to which his statements would be put. In principle that could happen in one of two ways:

i) He was not informed about the use to which his statements would be put.

ii He was misinformed about the use to which his statements would be put.

3. (ii) is ethically more serious than (i). Mind you, there are exceptional situations in which I subterfuge justifiable. Take the sting operation on Planned Parenthood. Undercover investigators interviewed PP employs under false pretenses because that was the only way to make them own up to their activities behind-the-scenes. 

4. Regarding (i), an interviewer might not be forthcoming about his agenda because, if he told the prospective interviewee what the purpose of the interview was, the interviewee back out or refuse to give straight answers. Is the interviewer to blame? Or is it blameworthy that the interviewee won't give honest answers about what's going on if the interviewer tips his hand, forcing the interviewer to be vague about his intentions to make the interviewee drop his guard and level with the interviewer? I'd say it reflects poorly on the interviewee if the interviewer must be stealthy to get information which the interviewee shouldn't be hiding from public scrutiny. Is it the interview or the interviewee who ought to be more forthright? 

5. Even assuming (ex hypothesi) that the interview was conducted under false pretenses, that doesn't mean the quotes misrepresent the position of the interviewee. I'd add that Russell Moore and Matt Chandler are target rich spokesmen. They could be quoted more fully, and that would be just as damning or more so. 

6. Of course the trailer uses edited footage. It's a trailer. By definition, that consists of teasers and excerpts. That by itself doesn't mean the quotes were taken out of context. 

7. Is it wrong to put someone's statements to a use they didn't intend or approve of? Not necessarily. Once you said something you lose control of what you said. Now it's out there. You can't turn the clock back. You can't obligate people to act like you never said it. The moment you say it, it's out of your hands. People can now do with it whatever they wish, whether or not their intentions mesh with yours. The fact that the four SBC seminary presidents are so preemptively defensive is revealing. 

2019 Southern Baptist Convention on Critical Race Theory and intersectionality

http://www.regularreformed.com/2019/06/19/episode-64-resolution-9-from-the-sbc/

Open letter to SBC President, J. D. Greear

Dear Dr. Rev. Greear,

Congratulations on your likely reelection as SBC President later today. I appreciate so much of what you preach. I have four concerns that I wish to express to you.

First, please stop trying to argue about homosexual practice both that all other sins are "equally depraved" in God's eyes (a manifest falsehood) and (in a self-contradiction) that "quite a few other sins are more egregious in God’s eyes than homosexuality," all in an effort to make homosexual practice "not that bad." Presumably you wouldn't argue that way about man-mother consensual incest, a comparable case of severe sexual immorality. Indeed, such incest is, if anything, a somewhat less severe form of sexual immorality since only homosexual practice is a direct assault on what Jesus regarded as the foundation of sexual ethics: "Male and female he made them" (Gen 1:27) and "For this reason a man ... may become joined to his woman and the two shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24).

The fact that any sin can exclude someone from the Kingdom of God if personal merit is the means of salvation does not mean all sin is equal in all respects. A good health care plan should cover all injuries equally but that doesn't mean that all injuries are equal.

Not only is it bad exegesis and bad logic to make such arguments about homosexual practice, leading to the harmful consequence of accommodation and eventual acceptance of homosexual unions in the church, but it is also bad pastoral theology. In the story of the sinful woman who washed Jesus’ feet with her tears, wiped his feet with her hair, and kissed them with her lips, Jesus explained to the Pharisaic host that the one who was forgiven more, loves more. One doesn’t have to lower the severity of sin in order to reach out to an offender.

If you still persist in insisting that the Bible supports these contentions of yours, please read my article “Is Homosexual Practice No Worse Than Any Other Sin?” If you have any further questions after doing so, I would welcome a discussion.
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/is_homosexual_practice_no_worse.htm

A related concern: Please stop saying that "we have to love our gay neighbor more than we love our position on sexual morality” as if love and truth were a zero-sum game where love increases only as truth decreases. We can't truly love anyone by discarding the commands of God. I know that you know that, but statements such as the above undermine the importance of truth in loving others.

Another corollary: You like to say that “God doesn’t send people to hell for homosexuality,” i.e., for committing homosexual practice in a serial, unrepentant way. Paul says otherwise in 1 Cor 6:9-10 where he lists "men who lie with a male" with others who will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9). I agree with you that what ultimately sends us to hell is "refusing to allow Jesus to be the Lord and center of your life." Yet to say that serial-unrepentant homosexual practice can send one to hell is not materially different from saying that rebellion against Jesus manifested in serial-unrepentant homosexual practice can send one to hell.

Second, please stop saying that we should not “stigmatize sexual sin,” claiming that such action “shows extreme ignorance of the gospel." And please stop saying that we should not put “sexual ethics … at the center of Christianity." You would presumably never make the same remarks in connection with mistreatment of women or racism. To do so would undermine the church's resistance to matters of genuine concern in the church and society at large. The male-female foundation of marriage is anything but a peripheral matter in Scripture. It is established from creation on and made the basis by Jesus for extrapolating other principles in sexual ethics like the limitation of two persons to a sexual union (monogamy). We don't need less stigmatizing of sexual sin in society. We need more.

Third, please stop insisting that Evangelicals should be “among the chief advocates against … discrimination against the gay and lesbian community in our society." Expressed in this unqualified way, it sounds like you are urging Evangelicals to support "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" so-called "non-discrimination" laws. Such laws have been used in local and state venues, and (if Democrats have their way) will be used on a national level, to beat every Evangelical in America and destroy our civil and religious liberties.

You say: "One of the reasons that we stand against any discrimination or bullying and will count ourselves among the fiercest advocates for the preservation of their dignity and rights [is] because we recognize gay and lesbian people are just like us--made in the image of God ... and deserving of all the dignity and respect we desire." Yet the kind of "rights," "dignity and respect" demanded by "LGBTQ" advocates include "drag queen story hour" for children, mandatory "LGBTQ" indoctrination in schools and at work in order to achieve a "safe" environment, and the "right" to require people to contribute their professional talents directly in support of "gay weddings" and men dressing like women and entering women's restrooms, locker rooms, and sports. Any actions that promote homosexual expression or transgenderism are by definition effacing, rather than enhancing, the image of God stamped on male and female. Just think of the immorality that would be promoted if Christians were called on to be the fiercest advocates against discrimination of persons in an adult-consensual incestuous union and ask yourself whether that would be an appropriate ethical stance on the part of Christians.

Fourth, please stop saying that it is "great" if an Evangelical votes for the candidate of the Infanticide, GenderQueer, and Mandatory Speech Party. Such civic behavior is not excusable for a Christian so long as one is "clear about the wickedness of abortion" and "the preciousness of religious liberty and the right of conscience." It makes no sense to say that abortion is wicked and religious liberty is precious but it's fine and dandy to vote for candidates who make abortion and "LGBTQ" coercion their twin idols. If a person votes for such candidates, obviously that person considers abortion and LGBTQ-coercion at best only marginal concerns, if concerns at all.

I am glad that you have come out against homosexual practice, as would be expected of any SBC leader. I am glad too that you want to love persons who experience homosexual impulses and even engage in homosexual practice. We need more of that. Nothing I have said here should diminish that love. Jesus reached out in love to the biggest economic exploiters of his day (tax collectors) while intensifying God's demand for economic justice. Likewise, he pursued sexual sinners while intensifying God's demand for sexual purity and warning of eternal consequences for those who did not repent.

Blessings,

Rob

Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

Professor of Theology 

Houston Baptist University

https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-a-j-gagnon/an-open-communication-to-sbc-president-j-d-greear-61119-11-am-est/2760975323973562/

Mutiny at SBTS?

An OT prof. at SBTS has signed the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel:

https://reformationcharlotte.org/2019/04/20/despite-rumored-threats-of-career-risk-sbts-professor-signs-social-justice-statement/

That's significant because it's been reported that Al Mohler privately threatened to fire faculty who signed the statement (a report Mohler denies). So this will be a test. 

The Statement on Social Justice is a poorly-formulated manifesto, although it says mostly good things. Is there a duty to sign it?

Insofar as the evangelical ruling class has drawn a line in the sand over this document, there's something to be said for signing it, even though it's a flawed document, as a statement of protest and defiance. The hostile reaction to the document lends it a significance above and beyond the document itself. It has become a symbol. 

An analogy would be saying and doing things that Muslims find provocative or offensive just to prove that you still have the freedom to do so (e.g. satirical cartoons of Muhammad). Occasionally, if someone dares you not to do something, that's a reason to do it. Sometimes you need to put it to the test. If you're afraid to exercise your rights, for fear of reprisal, then you already lost your rights. Likewise, the only way to keep your rights or reclaim your rights is to stand up to bullies.

I've been told that Mohler can fire faculty without due cause because SBTS uses at-will employment. At-will employment should be abolished at SBC seminaries. It subverts doctrinal standards. Termination of employment should be based on violating the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message and/or ethical misconduct. In effect, at-will employment replaces the statement of faith with the seminary prez. The seminary prez. becomes the operating creed. It reminds me of something Roger Olson said about ORU. ORU had no formal creed because Oral Roberts was the creed. Whatever he taught from one day to the next was the de facto statement of faith.

Evangelical Jainism

This has been kicking around for 4 years already:

https://erlc.com/resource-library/press-releases/evangelical-coalition-releases-statement-on-responsible-care-for-animals

Signatories include Albert Mohler, Russell Moore, Richard Land, Daniel Akin, and Bill Hybels (because nothing says moral authority like Bill Hybels). Here's a sample:

We resolve to rule and treat all animals as living valued creatures, deserving of compassion, because they ultimately belong to God, because He has created them, declared them good, given them the breath of life, covenanted with them, and entrusted them to our responsible rule. So while animals have been given into our hand and for food this does not mean we can treat them as objects or act cruelly towards them.

http://www.everylivingthing.com/sign-the-statement/

i) Does that include termites, cockroaches, deer ticks, head lice, fire ants, tape worms, bot flies, Tsetse flies, and mosquitos? 

ii) What about rats? 

iii) What about venomous snakes in residential areas? Or reticulating pythons in residential areas?

iv) What about dangerous predators in residential areas, viz. wolves, cougars, crocodiles, grizzly bears? 

v) God didn't say every species is good. Gen 1 refers to the natural kinds that God created in the beginning. 

vi) What about all the animals God destroys in natural disasters and mass extinctions? 

The Every Living Thing site links to a video in which vegan open theist Gregory Boyd waxes sentimental about animal rights. 

It has a girl who pats herself on the back because she volunteers at an animal shelter. What about volunteering to visit shut-ins, nursing homes, and hospices, full of lonely or dying people? What about abandoned street kids around the world, some of them quite young. Or child trafficking? 

The video has a guy making the demonstrably false statement that "in treating animals more respectfully we will treat people more respectfully." To the contrary, lots of folks treat their pets much better than they treat strangers. Consider all the polls in which many respondents say that given a choice between saving their dog and saving a stranger, they'd save the dog. On the one hand we have laws against animal cruelty while, on the other hand, there's abortion, infanticide, and voluntary and involuntary euthanasia for the elderly, depressed, and developmentally disabled.  

Comparative abuse scandals

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2019/02/why-sexual-abuse-within-baptist-churches-is-not-the-same/

I don't think SBC leaders can be let off the hook quite that easily. Given that SBC leaders have so many contacts within the SBC, I find it hard to believe that they had no idea what was going on–even if they couldn't be cognizant of the scale. 

However, Olson does make some important points about how decentralized the SBC is compared to the Catholic church. So that's a mitigating factor (but not an exculpatory factor). 

What did they know and when did they know it?

Regarding the SBC abuse scandal, I wonder about major players like Al Mohler. He rose through the ranks at rocket velocity. He's held top positions in the SBC for many years now. 

Did he have no inkling what was going on? Never heard rumors? Nothing through the grapevine? No victims or friends of victims ever confided in him?

When the Cardinal McCarrick scandal broke, people asked "What did they know and when did they know it?" How could some of his associates and superiors not know what he was up to? And it turns out that they did. The SBC needs to ask itself the same hard questions.

Perhaps some people did confide in Mohler, but no one who spoke to him was prepared to go on record.

The SBC scandal

Conservative Catholic pundit Matt Walsh made a poorly worded comparison:

A new report finds that over 300 Southern Baptist church leaders have been accused of sexual misconduct since 1998. To put that in perspective, the Catholic sex scandal in Pennsylvania implicated 300 Catholic clergy -- over a period of 70 years.

I'll revisit that momentarily. He made a number of follow-up comments;

Sex abuse is not a problem unique to Catholic churches. Other churches need to look at themselves. I tried to make this point months ago and a lot of people got mad at me. Well, here you go.

This is nonsense. Stop making excuses. You don't end up with 700+ victims if the situation is being handled well. And how could you possibly know that the "vast majority of offenders are caught"? That again is nonsense. By definition you cannot know the number who aren't caught

When you have efforts to silence victims -- which is the case here, and is always the case with these things -- you can be sure that "700 victims" is easily twice that number or more. Only the ones who weren't successfully silenced are counted.

When you read the report on the sex abuse crisis in the Southern Baptist Church, remember that this is the tip of the iceberg. It only counts the victims who spoke up. There are always more.

Catholics were the same way for a long time. It is sad to see other Christians making the same mistake.

I think some people are absolutely in denial about the sex abuse problems in their churches and denominations.

Not a competition. There are clear parallels between the SBC situation and PA (hundreds of abusers, cover ups, victims silenced, etc). Everyone was rightly outraged about PA. We should be outraged about this. The problem is bigger than one church. That's the perspective.

I tried to make a point about the severity of the sex abuse crisis in the Southern Baptist church today. A lot of people have reacted with outrage (against me, not the abuse), apparently unwilling to face it. Please don't make the same exact mistake that Catholics made.

For a long time, a lot of good Catholics were resistant to the idea that there was a real crisis in the church. They thought the media was fabricating or exaggerating. They were more loyal to the institution than the truth. I see some SBC Christians making the same mistake today.

i. I think his explanatory comments are reasonable or indisputable. In addition, he's a harsh critic of his own denomination on sex abuse, so I don't think he's trying to divert attention away from his own denomination. 

ii) Naturally Catholics are going to comment on the SBC scandal. That's only fair. I don't take umbrage at that.

iii) But let's go back to the initial comparison. A comparison needn't be exact to be relevant. That said:

iv) From what I've read, there are some direct parallels. 

v) The basic issue is whether there's a pattern, and the source of the problem. From what I've read, the scandal in the SBC is not a case of isolated incidents, but more systemic. 

vi) The point critics like me have made is that in the case of the Roman Church, the specific problem is homosexuality. That includes the homosexual abuse of minors as well as homosexual activity between consenting adults (priests, bishops). And that's endemic in the contemporary Catholic church. We've also argued that there's a plausible link between mandatory priestly celibacy and a homosexual culture in the Catholic priesthood and hierarchy. 

To point to heterosexual misconduct in the SBC is a bait-n-switch. That's not a straightforward comparison. That's a different kind of misconduct, although it may involve similar mechanisms, viz. witness intimidation, hush money, confidentiality/nondisclosure agreements, coverups, reassigning abusive clergy. 

That isn't to minimize the gravity of heterosexual clerical misconduct, but it's equivocal and evasive to say evangelical denominations have the same problem. No, they have a different problem. 

It would be interesting to know if there's an underreported problem of homosexuality in the SBC. 

vii) If evangelical denominations have a ban on homosexual clergy, then (assuming the ban is enforced) that minimizes clerical misconduct of a homosexual nature. And from a biblical standpoint, homosexual conduct is misconduct. So that largely eliminates one type of sexual misconduct. 

Suppose you had a denomination that, as a matter of policy, ordains homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. Then you're going to have both kinds of sexual misconduct. If you can minimize one line of sexual misconduct through a screening process, that's better than having a pattern of homosexual and heterosexual clerical misconduct alike. 

And in fact many Catholic conservative pundits take the same position. They agree that the central problem in the Catholic situation is rampant homosexuality in the priesthood and hierarchy. There's disagreement on whether that's linked to mandatory priestly celibacy. 

viii) As I've mentioned before, we also need to distinguish between a necessary risk and a gratuitous risk. A policy of ordaining homosexuals is a gratuitous risk. There's no justification for having homosexual clergy in the first place.  

Having straight clergy carries the risk of heterosexual misconduct, but that's unavoidable. You can't eliminate straight clergy. Clergy are supposed to be straight. So that's a necessary risk. 

ix) I'm not sure if there's a policy solution. The problem with policy solutions is that policies must be enforced by the people in charge. If, however, the people in charge are the abusers, then the policy will be flouted. 

At a policy level, the best you can probably do is to have lay oversight. And that includes women. But lay oversight is not a failsafe, since that's susceptible to cronyism. 

x) Predictably, progressives imagine the solution is to ordain women. But women are just as willing and able to abuse their authority as men. 

xi) Evangelicals don't make the same lofty claims for our denominations that Catholics make for theirs. It's quite possible for a denomination to become terminally corrupt. Indeed, that happens with some frequency. Sometimes you have to abandon the burning hulk and start over again. 

The old duffer code

Denny Burke has conveniently posted a time-stamped edition of Mohler's position regarding The Statement on Justice and the Gospel:

http://www.dennyburk.com/albert-mohler-answers-questions-about-social-justice/

I draw attention to this because Mohler is one of the grand muftis in the SBC. His position is influential, and representative of other power brokers in the SBC. 

Unlike Russell Moore, who's a weasel, I think Mohler is a good guy. I disagree with his reasons for not signing the statement.

You might call it the old duffer code: "When I was a boy…" Folks like Mohler have the provincial notion that when and where they grew up should be the frame of reference for the younger generation. Mohler and I are just about the same age (he's two months younger than me), but I don't chain the younger generation to the experiences of my generation. They have their own duties and challenges. 

Is the SBC drifting?

Recently, the SBC elected a new president with progressive tendencies. In a way, that says more about those who voted for him than the candidate himself. Tells you something about the state of SBC leadership. Those in a position to vote for SBC president. This reflects a typical disconnect between the elites and the rank-and-file.

I suspect a source of the problem is evangelical leaders who spend more time hobnobbing with each other than with the laity. As a result, they become increasingly out of touch with the pulse of the laity. Here's Gagnon's analysis of the new SBC prez:

That said, Rev. Greear does have at least four other positions that are either incorrect or misleading, besides (1) the remarks about “loving our gay neighbor more than we love our position on sexuality” and “more than being right,” making five in total. These could unintentionally produce some slippage in the church’s historic stance, that in turn other Christians who are less firm on this issue than Rev. Greear could use to create still further slippage in the future.

(2) Rev. Greear’s claim that "homosexuality [sic; homosexual practice] is not a 'worse' sin than other sins," implying that all sins are equal. This is a false view even if held with the best of intentions by many Evangelicals. No one could possibly believe in real life the claim that all sins are equally severe in all respects. It is certainly insupportable from a biblical standpoint. The fact that any sin can exclude someone from the Kingdom of God if personal merit is the means of salvation does not mean all sin is equal in all respects. A good health care plan should cover all injuries equally but that doesn't mean that all injuries are equal. Some are clearly more catastrophic than others. I understand the reasons for Rev. Greear contending that "all sins are equal": Lest we become arrogant and graceless, we should remember that we were all under sin and continue to struggle with sin in our inward members. Those who experience and acquiesce to same-sex attractions are not irredeemable moral werewolves. Well and good. Yet these reasons are not justifications for distorting the fact that Scripture treats homosexual practice, like incest, as a particularly severe sexual offense. If it were otherwise, people could rightly argue (as, for example, Jonathan Merritt does) that since the church has given some ground to remarriage after divorce, it should do so as well with committed homosexual "marriages." See my article here: http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/is_homosexual_practice_no_worse.htm

(3) His contention that we must be “among the chief advocates against … discrimination against [sic] the gay and lesbian community in our society.” Obviously the “LGBTQ” community counts as discrimination many things that Christians classify as support for immorality. Moreover, “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” “non-discrimination” laws are used to discriminate against Christians, as was already obvious back in 2014 and prior. The evidence now is so overwhelming nowadays that any Christian leader who in an unqualified manner says that we should be "the chief advocates against discrimination" of "the gay and lesbian community in society" is exposing the church to great deception. The church should reach out in love to self-affirmed homosexual and "transgender" persons, of course. Yet let's not kid ourselves into thinking (as Rev. Greear seems to do at points) that this will make us great "friends" of the "LGBTQ" community. The true church will always be out-compromised by the false church in pandering to the "LGBTQ" agenda. See my article here: http://virtueonline.org/sleeping-gethsemane-robert-j-gagnon.

(4) His claim that “God doesn’t send people to hell for homosexuality,” i.e., for committing homosexual practice in a serial, unrepentant way. He gets this point from Rev. Tim Keller. This view is misleading at best and I attempted to show why here: http://www.robgagnon.net/TimKellerHomosexuality.htm (point 2). Paul does warn self-professed believers that "men who lie with a male," among others, will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9). Does Rev. Greear disagree?

(5) His assertions that (a) we should not “stigmatize sexual sin,” which action he adds “shows extreme ignorance of the gospel," nor (b) should we put “sexual ethics … at the center of Christianity” I understand what Rev. Greear is trying to say here: We need to find a way for the church to reach out to "LGBTQ" persons who view the church's stance against homosexual practice and transgenderism as an obstacle to checking out Jesus. Yet he would never make the same remarks in connection with mistreatment of women, as the sometimes excessive, recent treatment of Paige Patterson indicates. Nor would he make the same remarks about racism. Imagine the (justifiable) uproar that would ensue if he said: "We should not stigmatize clear cases of racism and mistreatment of women because to do so would show extreme ignorance of the gospel; nor should we put concerns about racism and mistreatment of women at the center of Christianity." If he had said such things, then all the people commending him for saying the same things about sexual sin in general and homosexual practice in particular would have worked vigorously against his candidacy as SBC president. The reason would be obvious: He would be undermining the church's resistance to matters of genuine concern in the church and society at large.

Why then say the same thing about sexual ethics when this is even more under siege in society? Add to this the fact that the second thing Paul typically warned converts about, after getting the proscription of idolatry squared away, was abstention from porneia (sexual immorality). And Rev. Greear wants to diminish the significance of that in church discussion? The church should be talking more about sexual ethics, including homosexual practice, not less.

The male-female foundation of marriage is anything but a peripheral matter in Scripture. To seek to remove altogether from the church a stigma associated homosexual acts ends up harming the church in a cultural context mandating full approval. Not even Rev. Greear can consistently maintain the view of not stigmatizing particular sexual sins. Are we to infer that Rev. Greear thinks we should not stigmatize adult-consensual incest and polyamory, to say nothing of pedophilia? Everyone knows that polyamory or polygamy is stigmatized in a manner greater than remarriage after an invalid divorce. This is as it should be since polyamory is a worse offense. Are we saying then that polyamorists are beyond the pale of the gospel. Of course not. The same thing applies to incest of even an adult-consensual sort, which is worse than polyamory or polygamy. Would anyone take seriously the argument that we should.

Again, I wish to reiterate that I am convinced that Rev. Greear does not want to undermine the church’s position on homosexual practice, even if some of his views may unintentionally contribute to slippage. He is stronger on the issue than the OneNewsNow article suggests but not as strong as he could be.

https://www.facebook.com/robert.a.gagnon.56/posts/10160742713405045

Another nail in the coffin

https://swbts.edu/news/releases/statement-kevin-ueckert-chairman-board-trustees/

Time to call the exterminator

One problem is that most folks who have the goods are Patterson are SBC/SWBTS employees, so they haven't been at liberty to divulge all the incriminating evidence. Those in the know are afraid to speak out because their jobs or employment prospects are on the line. It's like the Syndicate. His power protected him. Now that he's fallen from power, we'll see if more accusers come forward.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Kinda like getting Capone on tax evasion. Much more serious problems with Patterson than what got him booted, but it gets the job done. I don't really care what the "official" reasons were. Patterson is an extortionate bully. Good riddance!

No doubt "Progressive Christian/evangelical feminists" are bilking this particular allegation against Patterson as a pretext to advance their own social agenda. That's an unfortunate consequence of thugs who bring a legitimate principle into disrepute through flagrant abuse of power. Thugs like Patterson make it harder for good people to defend a legitimate principle. 

Patterson has given the "Progressive Christian/Evangelical feminists" an opening. They blame it on "the Patriarchy". Patterson's their current poster boy for "toxic masculinity". Sure, that's a non sequitur, but it makes it harder for the good guys to defend complementarianism with Patterson around. That's one more reason to call in the exterminator to clear the rats out of the attic.

Patterson apologists like Gagnon and Geisler are perpetuating the SBC culture of corruption that made these scandals possible in the first place. A microcosmic parallel to the clerical abuse scandal in Catholicism. 

Ironically, Patterson apologists as well as "Progressive Christian/evangelical feminist" critics are two sides of the same coin. Both treat the message and the messenger as if they're inseparable. His "progressive" critics act as though his misconduct delegitimates complementarianism. Yet when apologists like Gagnon and Geisler stick up for him, they, too, are acting as if the message and the messenger are inseparable, only they reject the characterization of the messenger. 

The fact that complementarianism is a hill to die on hardly makes Patterson a hill to die on, just because he's complementarian. Not to mention that he's detrimental to the cause. We shouldn't act as if these individuals are indispensable to the cause. By removing corrupt Christian leaders, that provides an opportunity for better leadership to take over. Patterson is far from irreplaceable. God isn't stuck with Patterson. We need to periodically cleanse the temple (as it were). We need to oust corrupt Christian leaders even when they back the right policies. We need to oust corrupt Christian leaders even if it hurts the cause in the short-term. It can't be moral blackmail where we support immoral Christian leaders in exchange for them supporting our agenda. That doesn't even work at a pragmatic level, because they discredit good policies by association. The positions become unfairly tainted if spearheaded by scoundrels. 

Patterson is like Marshal Pétain. Pétain was a WWI war hero who became a WWII war criminal. From patriot to Quisling.

Likewise, many people remember Patterson's role in helping to reverse the liberal drift in the SBC. But a good start doesn't mean you can't become a villain. 

And the fact that he spearheaded a worthy cause doesn't necessarily mean his motives were ever pure. He used that to march through the corridors of power. The noble cause and self-aggrandizement conveniently coincided. 

The Christian race is a marathon, not a sprint. What matters isn't how you begin or how you're doing on the backstretch, but whether you cross the finish line. 

Golden parachute

Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler collaborated to reclaim the SBC from liberal drift. That's been more successful at the level of SBC seminaries than colleges. 

Unfortunately, there's a historical pattern of insurgents who become (or always were) as corrupt as those they supplant. Turning parts of the SBC into personal fiefdoms and piggybanks for self-aggrandizement. That happened at First Baptist Dallas under W. A. Criswell, as documented by Joel Gregory, and it's happened again under the tenure of Paige Patterson at SWBTS:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/paige-patterson-southern-baptist-rape/

A subplot in this squalid drama is whether Pressler is a closet sodomite who hit on men:

http://www.miamiherald.com/article209104689.html

If so, did Patterson cover for him over the years? 

The battle for Baptist identity

There are some battles in the SBC over the direction of Baptist identity. One concerns a tug-of-war between Calvinists and "traditionalists". That's theological. But another has a political and cultural center of gravity:

Robert A. J. GagnonFollow

March 15 at 11:31pm · 

This article by David French, a figure whom I admire and appreciate on many levels, is more than a tad one-sided. I understand his desire, as a fellow former no-Trumper, to rally to Russell Moore's defense in a discussion currently taking place in the Southern Baptist Convention. However, in the process he caricatures and smears Dr. Moore's critics. It's a bit too easy. The point of this post is to say: There are legitimate concerns. Not everyone will agree with David's comparison of Dr. Moore with a Jeremiah or Isaiah in relation to his fellow Southern Baptists. If you are reading between the lines the comparison makes Dr. Moore's critics out to be rebellious against God's will and possibly apostate.

I think David misses the main point. People aren't upset merely that Dr. Moore has been a critic of Trump (the vast majority of evangelicals have expressed strong disapproval of Trump's past sexual comments and practices, for example) but that he has repeatedly held up to contempt and ridicule the "Old Guard Religious Right," as he puts it, thankful for their demise while elevating himself at their expense. Of course, the older generation was not perfect (neither is the younger generation) but they do not deserve to be thrown under the bus. It is disrespectful and, frankly, self-serving.

An op-ed by Dr. Moore in the Washington Post last October 8 (posted in the comments section below) was particularly scathing and intemperate. Dr. Moore attacked the alleged "moral relativism," "disgrace," and "scandal" of any evangelical who disagreed with him on the question of voting for Trump, even as a means to averting the policy disaster of a Clinton/Kaine administration. "The old-school political Religious Right establishment" he dismissively characterized as driven only by a "doctrinally vacuous resentment over a lost regime of nominal, cultural 'Christian America.'" Nowhere in the article did Dr. Moore take a swipe against Clinton.

He has given the impression (and indeed has acted in such a way) that he would much rather have preferred Clinton become President (although he has said that he supported neither candidate, the lopsidedness of his critique speaks for itself). Naturally the WashPost was overjoyed to use Dr. Moore to attack the "Religious Right" in the strongest terms possible and to serve the WashPost's ultimate goal of getting Clinton elected. Apparently Dr. Moore was happy to be so used and to be applauded by the political Left for doing their bidding. His op-ed certainly wasn't designed to depress the vote for Clinton.

Dr. Moore has since stated in what comes close to a non-apology apology: "There were also pastors and friends who told me when they read my comments they thought I was criticizing anyone who voted for Donald Trump. I told them then, and I would tell anyone now: if that’s what you heard me say, that was not at all my intention, and I apologize."

Read the aforementioned WashPost Oct. op-ed by Dr. Moore and judge for yourself. To me the "apology" doesn't wash. I've read and reread the op-ed and every time I do so I see over and over again that, according to Dr. Moore, anyone who still expressed support for Trump's candidacy over Clinton's (especially in light of then-recent revelations about his abusive comments toward women a decade earlier) was guilty of a "horrifying" action:

"These evangelical leaders have said that, for the sake of the 'lesser of two evils,' one should stand with [Trump].... Some of the very people who warned us about moral relativism and situational ethics now ask us to become moral relativists for the sake of an election.... The cynicism and nihilism is horrifying to behold."

See? Not even someone who advocated voting for Trump as a lesser of two evils escaped Dr. Moore's indictment. (Note too that Dr. Moore was not the only Christian leader making this claim. Just two days later the executive editor of Christianity Today, Andy Crouch, insinuated that even Christians who voted for Trump "reluctantly," in hope of good Supreme Court appointments, were flirting with idolatry.)

And that is not all.

Dr. Moore has thoroughly mischaracterized sexual orientation change therapy as anti-Christian, thereby playing into the hands and game plan of homosexualist zealots to outlaw such therapy for consenting youth. He has done his best to exclude from speaking at ELCA events any Christians who see some limited good coming from such therapy. But he did meet in secret for a couple of hours with some homosexual activists at the 2015 ELCA Conference on homosexuality. Moreover, he has personally villified those who call into question his critique of such therapy (and this statement is not based on hearsay).

According to Dr. Moore, reparative therapy is “severely counterproductive." In an astonishing misrepresentation of reparative therapy he added: "The utopian idea if you come to Christ and if you go through our program, you’re going to be immediately set free from attraction or anything you’re struggling with, I don’t think that’s a Christian idea" ("Evangelical Leader Russell Moore Denounces ‘Ex-Gay Therapy,"” by Sarah Pulliam Bailey for Religion News Service, 10/28/14).

Reparative therapists do not believe that a primary goal *of the Christian faith* is that homosexually oriented persons must become heterosexually oriented. Nor do they operate on the premise that homosexual desire can be changed easily and quickly or eliminated entirely for most. The recently deceased prominent reparative therapist, Joseph Nicolosi, described RT as “a collaborative relationship [in which the therapist agrees] to work with the client to reduce his unwanted attractions and explore his heterosexual potential…. No outcome can be guaranteed…. [Outcomes range] along a continuum from complete change, to partial change (management and reduction of unwanted feelings), to, for some people, no change at all.”

Dr. Moore has also stated that while Christians should not attend a "gay marriage" ceremony they could attend the reception following the ceremony. No word yet on whether Dr. Moore would also commend attendance at a wedding reception for a marriage between a man and his mother, a woman and her brother, or three or more persons simultaneously (in a "loving" adult-consensual relationship, of course). Douglas Wilson has perceptively noted about Dr. Moore's position: "Now when you refuse to attend a wedding ceremony, but then are willing to attend a reception that celebrates the event you could not attend, this .... tells me that you disapprove initially but are willing to try to make it work after the fact."

Dr. Moore seems to have no problem with investing himself politically in adopting the Democratic position on illegal immigration (a position that he appears to elevate over everything else) while calling on Christians to take a much less active political approach in overturning "gay marriage."

He criticized Judge Roy Moore for not complying (while he held the office of Alabama Supreme Court justice) with a federal judge's unconstitutional overturning of Alabama's natural-marriage standard. He justified his position by appeal to respect for "the rule of law" even though rogue justices in imposing "gay marriage" have dispensed with the rule of law by treating the Consitution as little more than a cipher for their own leftwing sexual ideology, usurped the legislative role, and circumvented the process for amending the Constitution. Oddly, we don't hear Dr. Moore calling so much for "the rule of law" when it comes to doing something about illegal immigration.

His "Here We Stand: Declaration on Marriage" statement criticized anyone who expressed outrage over the Obergefell decision (I thought the reverse: There was insufficient outrage by many evangelicals). Yet Dr. Moore apparently had no problems with expressing repeated outrage over Trump's stances on illegal immigration and the prospect of Trump's election over Clinton. Dr. Moore's statement on marriage contained not a single mention of supporting and voting for candidates who would both strive to undo the Supreme Court's rogue decision and fight for our religious and civil liberties. Apparently for Dr. Moore vigorous political action on the "gay marriage" issue comes under the heading of "doctrinally vacuous resentment over a lost regime of nominal, cultural 'Christian America.'" Yet Dr. Moore has repeatedly advocated for political action favoring an Obama-like illegal immigration policy.

Of course, it would be equally wrong to do to Dr. Moore what he has so frequently done to the older generation of so-called "cultural warriors"; namely, to broadbrush Dr. Moore in a completely negative light. There are a number of things that Dr. Moore has done and said over the years that I appreciate, especially as regards the issue of abortion.

Yet there are also real problems with the way Dr. Moore conducts himself and the ERLC that need addressing. It is not at all unusual that those who fund the ERLC would like Dr. Moore, as its head, to represent them better than he currently does, since after all they pay for the whole operation, including his very generous salary. When one runs continually on the platform "I'm not like those other Southern Baptists that society hates," one should expect some justifiable opposition from the same caricatured circles. People will take only so much parody of themselves before they reach the conclusion that it is counterproductive to fund it. I doubt that David French would be advocating for Dr. Moore to stay at ERLC, much less supporting the ERLC financially, if Dr. Moore's position toward No-Trumpers was that they were unfaithful Christians who had abandoned much of the gospel. Nor would he be designating Dr. Moore a prophet.

Many people in the Southern Baptist Convention are afraid of speaking about these problems in ERLC leadership for fear of retribution from Dr. Moore. I have heard from a number of them privately over the years.

Many people outside the SBC are also afraid to speak up out of fear for being blacklisted by prominent Evangelicals and conservative Catholics with whom Dr. Moore has worked hard to cultivate influence. He is a major player in the evangelical Gospel Coalition and a darling of the Catholic renewal publication First Things, two organizations that I respect greatly.

However, it should not be acceptable for Dr. Moore to beat up on others harshly with his rhetoric while his influential friends argue that he himself should be exempt from major criticism. (David French ironically refers to evangelical "snowflakes" who can't take Dr. Moore's criticism.) For some in these groups Dr. Moore can do no wrong. This is not a healthy environment.

[Nota bene: Lest it be thought that I am writing from the vantage point of a strong Trump supporter, let it be known that I backed Ted Cruz, spoke out vigorously against Trump during the primary season, mourned his nomination for several months (and, to some extent, still do), and voted for him for the sole reason that a Clinton election would have resulted in a significantly greater cataclysm on a host of key issues (the courts, transgenderism, the definition of marriage, the fate of the unborn, and religious liberty protections, inter alia). I remain a critic of Trump, albeit one generally relieved that Clinton does not occupy the White House.]

https://www.facebook.com/robert.a.gagnon.56/posts/10158522891040045