Homeschooling - Our Freshman Curriculum

Homeschool continues to grow in popularity. Some of this is due to curriculum concerns. Some due to COVID protocols and the unpredictability of schools that continue to alternate between in person and remote learning. Others, I think, have leaned toward homeschooling because the homebound instruction during the earliest stages of the pandemic showed them that parent-led learning was possible.

There are many reasons to homeschool, but I think the best reasons include it being a form of learning that fits the needs of the student. So, for example, it may be better for a student with special needs to get the attention available from a local public school. Or, for a parent and child whose personalities clash, it may be better to commit to a private religious school. For those of us that have options, it is good to consider which one serves the student the best.

My family committed to homeschooling early on and it is has worked well for us. One of the enjoyable parts of the high school experience has been shaping a curriculum that fits the personality of our eldest and will push her to grow as a person as a student.

Since she is very verbal student, there is a lot of reading in her curriculum. We value the Great Conversation, so I have made an effort to begin her high school with ancient cultures and texts, with the intention of getting her into the modern era when she is a senior.

In case some might find it helpful, I am going to describe her freshman curriculum here.

Math and Science

We purchased Math and Science curricula off the shelf. Math has been a source of parent-child stress over the years with our oldest student, so we used Thinkwell’s homeschool honors Algebra I material for the freshman year. It has tended to make the learning process much less stressful and it is a solid, interactive mathematics course. For science, our homeschool co-op was doing the Marine Biology labs from Apologia’s catalog. The community support for that worked well for us.

Critical Thinking

The learning outcomes for this course are:

1. Learn to think well, fairly, honestly, and clearly about big ideas.

2. Consider how thinking well supports living a moral life.

These outcomes will follow through all four years of this approach. In support of this, our student had to read volumes that were selected to get her thinking about the world, about ideas, and about how thinking takes place. I had her read:

C. S. Lewis, “On Reading Old Books”

Lloyd Alexander, The Gawgon and the Boy

Epstein and Kerberger, Critical Thinking

Bluedorn and Bluedorn, The Thinking Toolbox

Bluedorn and Bluedorn, The Fallacy Detective

Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences

Dorothy L. Sayers, “The Dogma is the Drama”

C. S. Lewis, “Religion and Rocketry”

Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks

Dorothy L. Sayers, “The Creative Mind”

Most of these resources are either directed thinking and logic explicitly or are from a friendly perspective. As she matures, the intention is to put more challenging perspectives into this mix.

English Literature

Freshman English was intended to hit some of the high point English literature. This was intended to complement another course in the homeschool co-op that ended up cancelled. I will probably revise this for the next two, but this is how the year went. I had her read six novels over the course of the year. Given the extent of the reading for the Great Conversations portion of the curriculum, the brevity of this list did not seem problematic.

The learning outcomes for this course were:

1. Read significant works of English literature for familiarity and to engage with our shared culture.

2. Improve writing reading, thinking, and writing skills by summarizing books as they are read.

3. Appreciate the beauty of the written word in the English language.

4. Critically engage with literary themes in major works of fiction by writing essays that draw together themes and ideas.

The books selected were:

William Golding, Lord of the Flies

John Steinbeck, Of Mice and Men

Mark Twain, Tom Sawyer

Ernest Hemingway, The Old Man and the Sea

Willa Cather, My Antonia

Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Ernest

I had her do a little research on the historical context of each novel, a biographical summary of the author, and a brief summary of the work. Additionally, I assigned a 500-1,000 word essay on each novel.

The writing was supposed to be covered by the co-op class. So I hadn’t thought the essays through. This was a bit frustrating because of the quality of the work was not very good. Over the course of the year, I figured out this was because the student did not understand how to arrive at a thesis, and instead continually defaulted to attempting to compare and contrast works. I think my vision for these assignments was ahead of where she was developmentally. If I had this to do again, I would assign a thesis, which is what I did for Sophomore literature. For the Sophomore curriculum, I also made “literature” a parallel track to Great Conversations, to get more of the volumes from the same time period but read them from a more literary angle.

Spiritual Disciplines

One of the major reasons we homeschool is so that we can make spiritual disciplines a part of the curriculum. The learning outcomes for this course are:

1. Grow toward Christlikeness by reading and meditating on important books, both contemporary and historical.

2. Develop the practice of journaling as a discipleship tool.

As a result, the assignments were to do the reading and write a journal each week. The texts for the course were intended to reinforce Christian doctrine and faithful practice of spiritual disciplines. They included:

J. C. Ryle, Holiness.

Augustine, On Christian Teaching (or On Christian Doctrine).

Brother Lawrence, Practicing the Presence of God.

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.

Dorothy L. Sayers, “Strong Meat” in The Whimsical Christian, 17-23.

Gloria Furman, Alive in Him.

Athanasius, On the Incarnation.

History

We have followed a basic 4-year cycle for much of our time homeschooling, though one year we substituted in a year-long study of the Eastern Hemisphere. The plan is to do another 4-year cycle through high school, this time including reading that accompanies the time period.

I chose Susan Wise Bauer’s The History of the World series to use as a backbone. We had already purchased all four of her The Story of the World books and encouraged the kids to read them as supplements, so taking the step to the next level seemed appropriate. Additionally, Bauer seems to deal more fairly with Christianity than some approaches without slipping into pandering as do some of the overtly Christian approaches.

Bauer’s History of the World books have accompanying curriculum, which we purchased. In addition, I created a Google Classroom for this course with a topic per week. In the classroom, I linked a lot of the CrashCourse YouTube videos and other videos that help provide visual stimulation and additional support for the ideas in the curriculum. Each chapter also had an objective quiz in the classroom, so that we could monitor whether the reading was being done well enough without having to hover.

I scheduled about eight exams for the course of the year. Each of the exams was an essay question, with essays selected from a pre-published list of the long form questions in the History of the World student curriculum. It was an introduction to the Blue Book exams that were the torment of many college students.

The learning outcomes for Ancient History were:

1. Gain a sense of the trajectory of history, the development of human culture, and how motivations and ideas shape human responses to events.

2. Meditate on why studying history is a vital discipline for a virtuous life.

3. Think critically about politics, society, science, and culture to better engage a diverse world.

These learning outcomes will be common for the four years and are the target of the high school history program, not the focus of this year, only.

Old Testament

Again, one of the reasons we homeschool is to include religious instruction in our curriculum. Therefore, one of the subjects this year was a survey of the Old Testament. Once I figured out how the Google Classroom thing worked, I decided to give homemade Old Testament instruction a try.

In the past, I haven’t been as engaged in the teaching aspect of homeschool because I’ve been at work. However, by created a weekly video of me lecturing on a given topic or book of the Old Testament, I could be directly involved in instruction without being present during normal school hours or having to have energy on a given night.

And so, I put together a robust reading list, a set of standard objectives for each book of the Old Testament, a weekly quiz, and a video of me, filmed in my basement office. Additionally, I included one of the Bible Project videos for each book, and sometimes lectures or sermons on a specific verse or book that were helpful and instructive. To kick off the year, I had the student watch David Platt’s Secret Church videos where he goes through all of the Old Testament in about 4 hrs.

There were weekly quizzes, chapter exams, and self-reported Bible reading reports this year.

The Old Testament Learning Outcomes were:

1. Explain the overarching themes and message of every book in the Old Testament.

2. Gain a deeper appreciation for the gift of special revelation, particularly the Old Testament.

3. Defend Christianity against basic cultural criticism based on the nature and content of the Old Testament.

4. Explain the historical contours of the Old Testament History.

The reading list was extensive. There were selections from several other volumes, but the following books were assigned in their entirety (except for only reading the OT portions of Schreiner):

Mark Dever. The Message of the Old Testament. Wheaton: Crossway, 2006.

Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Thomas Schreiner. The King in His Beauty. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013.

Michael Cosper. Faith Among the Faithless: Learning from Esther How to Live in a World Gone Mad. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2018.

C. S. Lewis. Reflections on the Psalms. New York: HarperCollins, 1958.

Francis Schaeffer. Genesis in Time and Space. In The Collected Works, vol 2. Downers Grove: Crossway, 1983.

_____. No Final Conflict. In The Collected Works, vol 2. Downers Grove: Crossway, 1983.

_____. Joshua and the Flow of Biblical History. In The Collected Works, vol 2. Downers Grove: Crossway, 1983.

This amount of reading only works because the student is a high-level reader and because the reading makes up the bulk of the course content.

Great Conversations

The summer before starting high school, I assigned Sophie’s World to provide an introduction to the intellectual history of the West. Along with that, I assigned a list of names for the student to research and write a paragraph about, so the list of new characters would be diminished over the course of this first year.

Inspired by C. S. Lewis’s essay “On Reading Old Books” this curriculum represents an attempt to go back to original sources. I decided it was better to try to hit some of the major works in full rather than trying to do selections of a wider range of sources. The readings were generally sorted in chronological order. I ordered standard English translations, usually from a recent source to try to get the best reading experience possible.

The course learning outcomes were:

1. Engage in the “Great Conversation” by reading books written by men of women of diverse backgrounds and eras to better understand the human condition.

2. Enrich the understanding of the history of ideas by reading primary sources to support the readings in history.

3. Meditate on why studying history is a vital discipline for a virtuous life.

4. Improve writing reading, thinking, and writing skills by summarizing books as they are read.

The assigned readings included:

Myths from Mesopotamia (Gilgamesh and Epic of Creation)

Homer’s Iliad

Homer’s Odyssey

OUP Presocratics volume, intro only

Finn, History: A Student’s Guide

Plato’s Republic

Plato, Defense of Socrates and Other Essays

Aristotle, The Art of Rhetoric

Aristotle, Politics

Virgil, Aenid

Sima Qian, The First Emperor

Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics

Confucius, The Analects

The Bhagavad Gita

Plato, Gorgias

Cicero, The Republic

Cicero, The Laws

Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe

Cicero, On Life and Death

Ovid, Metamorphoses

Aeschylus, Agamemnon

Aeschylus, Libation Bearers

Aeschylus, The Eumenides

Euripides, Medea

Sun Tzu, The Art of War

1-2 Maccabees

Josephus, War of the Jews (Selections)

Early Christian Writings

Many of these were referenced in Bauer’s book in History, especially the non-Western texts. It wasn’t possible to line this reading up exactly with History, but there was enough overlap so there was plenty of interplay.

In addition to the reading, the only other assignment was to keep a notebook with a summary of the historical context, a biographical sketch of the author, and a summary of the work. I would check in with the student periodically to see how the reading was going. The written work was not always exemplary, but was good evidence through discussions that the reading was happening and things were beginning to come together. Many of these volumes could be the study of a lifetime, so the goal for this course is exposure and increasing appetite rather than getting everything from them on the first pass.

There is no question that this is a Western-heavy reading list. Since we live in the US and since many of these books have been so influential through history, this seems natural. I did, however, make an effort to include some significant texts from other ancient cultures. Ancient cultures of every sort are so foreign to ours that even the Western canon is a form of multi-culturalism, but these is something to be said for having read The Bhagavad Gita and Confucius’ Analects in addition to a fair amount of Plato and Aristotle.

Some experts in education will probably tell me that this volume of reading is excessive. Looking back, I would have cut a couple of volumes from this list. However, when you recall that this is both homework and class, the volume makes more sense.

Concluding Thoughts

This post is already too long, so I will save discussion about my philosophy of curriculum development for another post. This approach was possible largely because my student is a very motivated reader.

Raising kids and homeschooling is a decades long experiment with no control group. We will see how it goes, but this is part of the approach I’ve been using and I offer it for your information.

Jesus, the Firstborn of All Creation

Colossians 1:15 tells us that Christ is “the firstborn of all creation.” This is a challenging phrase for some and there continues to be a great deal of confusion over it, even among self-described Bible-believing evangelicals. The problem is more pronounced in a couple of American-made religions, which often rely on excessive literalism in their interpretation. One of the dangers of not understanding Colossians 1:15 rightly is that it allows Christians to be picked off by cults.

Manning the Watchtower for Jehovah’s Witnesses

The Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, in an official publication argue:

“From [several] Biblical statements [including Col 1:15] it is reasonable to conclude that the Son of God is the firstborn of all creation in the sense of being the first of God’s creatures. . . . There are many who object to the idea of Jesus as being a created person.  They argue that since “in him all things were created” (CB)—during his prehuman existence in heaven—Jesus himself could not be a creature. Such individuals believe that Jesus is himself Almighty God, the second person of a “trinity” of three coequal, coeternal persons in one “godhead. . . . . Since Jesus as the firstborn of all creation is a created person, he cannot be Almighty God.”

Houston, we have a problem.

The argument they posit, based on their commentary on this passage, is that Jesus is “the first creation by Jehovah God. Seven of the eight occurrences of the Greek term for “firstborn” (pro·toʹto·kos) in the Christian Greek Scriptures refer to Jesus. The usual Scriptural meaning of the term “firstborn” is the one born first in order of time, such as a firstborn child.”

But contrary to this assertion, there are a number of times in Scripture that firstborn is not meant literally, but used to refer to the heir who was chosen in place of the chronologically first son.

In Exodus 4:22, God says to Moses:

“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son”

Israel was once called Jacob. And Jacob was second son who gained the birthright––the status of firstborn. Thus, the firstborn was not literally the first to be born, but the one who was prominent in the family and through whom the line would extend.

Isaac was not Abraham’s firstborn, Ishmael was. But it was Isaac who was the one God chose to be the heir.

In a Messianic prediction in Psalm 89:27, the psalmist writes,

“And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.”

That was not about David, who was also not the literal firstborn who became the prominent son by divine action, but about Jesus himself who was the long-expected Messiah.

Mormon Misunderstanding

But the Jehovah’s Witnesses are not alone in their misunderstanding of this passage. The Mormons also believe that Jesus Christ is a created being.

In Joseph Smith’s Bible Dictionary, he notes that,  “Jesus is the firstborn of the Spirit Children of our Heavenly Father.”

Bruce McConkie, who was a theological authority within the LDS religion makes clear that “firstborn” in this sense means chronologically first: “Christ is the Firstborn, meaning that he was the first Spirit Child born to God the Father in pre-existence.”

But lest we let that error pass, let us flip over to the entry in Smith’s Dictionary for “Spirit,” where we read, “Every person is literally a son or a daughter of God, having been born as a spirit to Heavenly Parents previous to being born to mortal parents on the earth.”

There are a number of errors all wrapped up in Mormon theology. They believe that God the father has a physical body and that we have potential of becoming like gods—one might say gods ourself—if we do enough good works. Jesus is not the product of a truly virgin birth, but of a literal union between God the father and Mary who would later become the wife of Joseph. All of that is problematic in addition to their belief that Jesus was a created being.

Beware the leaven of the Mormons. When I was a kid they emphasized their distinction from Christianity because they were the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” But recently they have asked everyone to refer to them as “The Church of Jesus Christ,” and are thus claiming the mantle of true Christianity when they have replaced the true Christ with a semi-divine being of their own choosing.

Theology matters. Biblical interpretation matters. It’s a dangerous world out there and you can ill afford to be ill–informed.

Seeking Clarity

Because biblical interpretation takes work, Colossians 1:15–20 is a passage that has led people on a dark pathway away from truth and an unwillingness to hold two truths at the same time:

(1)          Jesus Christ was fully human.

(2)          Jesus Christ was fully divine.

We need to interpret Scripture with Scripture and hold all the truths of the Bible together at the same time.

That’s why we understand that Jesus is co-equal with the other two persons of the Holy Trinity and there was never a time when he was not. As question 3 of the New City Catechism tells us: “There are three persons in the one true and living God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are the same in substance, equal in power and glory.”

The second person of the trinity “became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), but he has always been God without dilution of his divinity.

Don’t be fooled when the Jehovah Witnesses or Mormon missionaries come knocking at your door. They are not carrying salvation, but deception. There is no question and no negotiation on that fact. There is no common faith between a Christian and either of those groups.

And yet, there are troubled signs within self-described “born again believers” who actually affirm important “Evangelical Beliefs.” A 2018 study by LifeWay Research in partnership with Ligonier Ministries showed that 78% percent of those with “Evangelical Beliefs” Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the statement: “Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God.”

That is a significant theological error, which is not consistent with Scripture.

As the Chalcedonian Definition tells us:

….Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

The Chalcedonian Definition is a faithful summary of the teaching of Scripture, handed down for generations, which should serve as a summary of biblical doctrine, as we seek “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3b) As we read Scripture and interpret it, we should look at how the body of Christ has interpreted it in the past.

While that interpretation does not override the actual content of Scripture, it should help form our reading as we communicate with those Spirit-filled believers who have sought to faithfully exegete God’s Word in the past. That will help us avoid being picked off by errant teaching, like that offered by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Latter Day Saints.

SBC Politics, the Sexual Abuse Investigation, and Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

In June of 2021, nearly 15,000 messengers from Southern Baptist Churches from around the country voted overwhelmingly to commission an independent, 3rd party investigation into the handling of sexual abuse allegations by the Southern Baptist Executive Committee officers for the period of 2000 to the present.

It should be clear that the investigation was not into accusations of abuse by the SBC’s Executive Committee officers, but that members of the Executive Committee had handled accusations about local churches poorly and in some cases potentially bullied or manipulated those who claim to have been abused in a local church.

One particular accusation in the past few years turned into a lawsuit against the SBC with a former LifeWay (an SBC entity) employee who made a public accusation of abuse that was misrepresented as a consensual affair. The fallout of that misrepresentation was public abuse (with names hurled that should be unthinkable for confessing Christians) leading to her resignation from LifeWay. The misrepresentation was compounded by an unwillingness to correct the misrepresentation in the SBC-controlled newspaper long after the misrepresentation was identified, which contributed to the abuse hurled at the woman. After a change in leadership, the report was corrected and an apology issued, but a great deal of financial, emotional, and spiritual damage had already been done.

This case, a Houston Chronicle article detailing over 700 cases of sexual abuse in SBC churches over a period of 20 years, along with evidence of serial abuse by individuals who had bounced from local church to local church, often as paid staff, raised concerns that the SBC was doing too little to curb abuse. All of this came at a time when sexual harassment and abuse were a particular public concern in society, but there is little question that concern about abuse is more than a secular movement being imported into religious clothing. These sins should not be tolerated among Christians! (1 Cor 5:1–2)

The Polity Issue

Given the loose association between churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, there has been resistance to many movements of reform on the basis of our polity and local church autonomy. It is true that some actions are not possible for the SBC. However, as Keith Whitfield has argued:

“We’ve hidden behind false fronts and convenient excuses. Appeals to the autonomy of Southern Baptist churches have derailed various proposals, like creating a Southern Baptist offenders' registry. While our polity may render some proposals nearly impossible to carry out, the appeal to autonomy doesn't justify inaction. Rather, we must use our autonomy to covenant with one another, “to stir one another to love and good deeds” (Heb. 10:31). Our family of churches must find a meaningful and culture-shaping mechanism that leads us to commit to best practices as we strive to prevent abuse in our churches and entities.”

There is little doubt that many critics of the SBC will be dissatisfied with the efforts to curb abuse within the association of churches. This is largely because they misunderstand the nature of the SBC. However, the fact that the demands of some critics cannot be satisfied should not prevent the organization from taking what steps are appropriate within our context. After all, if the SBC can disfellowship a church for ordaining a female pastor or affirming ungodly forms of sexual practice, then the SBC can disfellowship churches for failing to deal with gross sin in their midst. There are likely additional steps that can be taken to prevent or, at least, minimize serial sexual abuse that can be facilitated at the national level without violating basic Baptist polity.

A Turning Point

The June 2021 meeting of the SBC seemed to be a turning point toward addressing concerns over sex abuse in our churches, given the overwhelming vote by the messengers, who are the sole members of the SBC and its entities.

Getting the independent investigation underway has proved difficult for the Executive Committee because of concerns over legal and financial exposure due to the investigation. One contentious aspect of that motion as approved by the messengers was the request that the Executive Committee waive attorney-client privilege for the investigation.

Waiving attorney-client privilege is, indeed, a big step. On the one hand, it provides unimpeded access to documents that may be legally damning, but which could have been kept out of the public eye because they were protected by the confidential relationship between an attorney and her client. There is legal and financial risk to waiving this privilege, which may include the Executive Committee’s insurance company refusing to pay out on settlements related to cases whose evidence is exposed by this waiver. Additionally, evidence may become publicly available (as through the investigator’s report) that would have otherwise have been hidden to litigants or prosecutors. If there has been wrongdoing, it may well be exposed and bring penalty that could have been prevented by non-disclosure.

On the other hand, waiving attorney-client privilege exposes issues to the light of day that would otherwise be left to fester and left unaddressed. It would leave the investigators without all the information needed to bring problems to light, uncover weaknesses in practices, which could lead to greater liability down the line. It would diminish the trustworthiness of the final, public report, because the world would be left wondering what secrets remained hidden behind the veil.

Contributing to the need to waive attorney-client privilege on this issue, the long-time general counsel for the SBC Executive Committee has been in the midst of many of the controversies within the SBC. He has, for example, been part of a plot to misappropriate money from one SBC seminary and has been subsequently banned by judicial order from serving non-profits within the state of Texas or any Southern Baptist entity. The same individual has been deeply involved with another major figure within SBC life who was eventually terminated for mishandling his stewardship of an SBC entity along with public accusations related to covering up abuse. Some of these accusations have not been corroborated, but the risk that communications related to the issue would be kept confidential due to one of the key individual’s role for the Executive Committee made this selective waiver of attorney-client privilege essential to having a transparent, independent investigation. Given that the same individual testified as a character witness for a convicted abuser using his SBC official title, and also called the concerns over abuse a “satanic plot,” there is a reasonable basis for assuming his correspondence may be important to the investigation into handling of sexual abuse.

The Will of the Messengers

In June of 2021, the messengers voted to have the Executive Committee waive attorney–client privilege and form a separate (not approved or appointed by the Executive Committee) task force of Southern Baptists, who would hire a firm to conduct the third-party investigation. This vote was a rare move for the Southern Baptist messengers. Unlike resolutions, which do not have normative force, the motion from the floor was a directive to the members elected to the Southern Baptist’s Executive Committee.

(For those unfamiliar with the polity, the Southern Baptist Convention exists for two days each year from the first gavel to the last gavel of the annual meeting. It is comprised of “messengers” who are sent by their local congregations to vote on issues raised at the meeting. The Executive Committee exists to oversee the budget of the Cooperative Program, improve cooperation between SBC entities, and make arrangements for the annual meeting. The Executive Committee is comprised of people nominated by the Committee on Committees and elected by the messengers of the convention.)

The expectation of many of the messengers was that at the first Executive Committee meeting after the SBC, which is normally conducted in September (~100 days after the SBC), they would vote to waive attorney-client privilege, approve the funds for the investigation, and empower the Task Force (appointed by the President of the SBC, elected by the messengers at the SBC, who is also a voting member of the Executive Committee) to do the investigation.

Many onlookers were disappointed when the Executive Committee failed to waive attorney-client privilege and approve the third-party investigation as directed, when they met in Nashville on the 21st of September. Although the Sex Abuse Task Force had been named, had identified a reputable group to do the investigation (whom the Executive Committee had tried to hire to do a private investigation without a public report prior to the annual meeting of the SBC), and had the contract prepared for approval, the investigation was stalled. A significant faction within the SBC had worked with some leaders within the Executive Committee to argue against waiving attorney-client privilege, which threatened to put the brakes on the contract and the investigative process.

Though the full reasons for the issue may never be known, much of the information the members of the Executive Committee needed to make their decision was not presented until shortly before the meeting, with insufficient time to review it. Additionally, members of the staff of the Executive Committee had contracted with legal firms to attempt to convince the Executive Committee members not to fulfill the direction of the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention by refusing to waive attorney-client privilege. However, a motion was made and approved to meet again in seven days to discuss it again.

At the second meeting, on September 14, the motion to waive attorney-client privilege was again defeated. Another motion was made to allow another 7 days to negotiate. The key to the negotiation for the Executive Committee was maintaining control of the investigation, having veto power over the material made available to the investigation, and the ability to control the content of the final report.

The Real Risks of Waiving Attorney-Client Privilege

There are some significant risks associated with waiving attorney-client privilege, especially from a purely financial and legal angle. If the investigation uncovers illegal behavior by members of the Executive Committee in communications that were made regarding legal advice between those EC members and their attorney, then that information would be admissible as evidence in court. Legal advice and surrounding conversations involving an attorney acting in his or her legal capacity can generally be hidden behind attorney-client privilege. The individuals responsible would lose that protection with this waiver. Additionally, in civil lawsuits, potentially compromising communications would no longer be protected legally.

Compounding this legal and financial risk, institutions typically carry robust liability insurance policies to protect them from lawsuits. Waiving attorney-client privilege for a case can become grounds for the insurance company refusing to pay out for damages awarded, because the insured institution failed to defend against lawsuit with full vigor.

The biggest risks here are that the SBC Executive Committee could be open to lawsuits that, if the evidence supports, they will have pay for out of pocket. The current budget does not support those sorts of expenditures and it might bankrupt the Executive Committee or cause funds to be diverted from the Cooperative Program (i.e., away from actual missions and ministry) to keep the Executive Committee afloat.

We should note that these risks are conditional upon (a) there being evidence of wrongdoing, (b) victims of wrongdoing bringing civil suits, and (c) the insurance company electing not to cover the damages. Our best hope—and the one I really want to be true—is that there is no evidence of wrongdoing beyond what has already been settled.

Advantages of Waiving Attorney-Client Privilege

A 2019 Houston Chronicle article about widespread, serial abuse within SBC-affiliated church changed the perception of the SBC inside and out. Since that issue was revealed, I have had people who were otherwise unconcerned about Baptists (or Christianity) make the connection between the SBC and abuse when they found out my connections to the SBC. There have concerns raised by laypeople within local churches (mine included) about why we should remain affiliated with the SBC based on the perception that abuse is widespread and pervasive.

Until we begin to take steps that are appropriate within our context and polity to curb sexual abuse, we will never be able to shake the accusations. The fact is that the abuse happened, we have not taken action to mitigate it, and no complaints about political motivations of #metoo, social justice, or polity will ever change that. Failing to take action makes the offensiveness of being an SBC church something other than the gospel. It sets up barriers to evangelism. Especially outside of the Bible Belt, it makes ministering as an SBC-affiliated congregation more challenging.

The first step in addressing an issue is figuring out the extent of the issue. But we have to be willing to really explore. Waiving Attorney-Client Privilege and publishing a public report are important steps in determining the nature of the problem. “Ripping the Band-Aid off” is painful, but likely the best way to move beyond the issue.

We may also find evidence of ungodly behavior among some leaders in the SBC which, if not illegal, is disqualifying from leadership. In any large organization there will always be shenanigans and insider trading, but there is already public evidence of behavior that does not belong in an organization devoted to getting the good news of the gospel to the nations. This investigation may help reveal that problem, as well, as it relates to the handling of sexual abuse.

Another advantage of having an open investigation with clear access to privileged communications is that it will functionally close the door on spurious lawsuits. If an independent, respected firm has full access to all pertinent records are determines the bounds of the issue (if any exists), then other accusations and lawsuits that may not be defensible will be much harder for accuser to pursue. If we expose some wrong doing, but the process and the final report remain behind a veil, then people who may feel wronged (and may have been wronged, if not by the SBC Executive Committee) but who do not actually have standing (because, perhaps, they had never contacted anyone) would have opportunity to sue the SBC and the SBC would have to defend afresh each individual suit. The open investigation provides both a present vulnerability (if any wrong doing is discovered) and a future defense (we’ve ruled out evidence of certain claims). So, while it may make present lawsuits more damaging, it may reduce risks from future ones.

Finally, we need to remember the reason the SBC exists. It’s not to be a self-sustaining club of Baptists, kept sacred in perpetuity and handed down to future generations. The SBC is a funding mechanism for cooperative ministry—education, disaster relief, political engagement, international missions, and church planting. As such, if the SBC ceases to live up to its calling as a Christian organization, it’s time to disband and find another better way. I believe we will come through this, but it’s always good to remember that if the SBC does not exist after this, then God will raise up another means of getting the gospel to the nations. The SBC can be effective, but it is not essential to God’s mission.

The Waiver

As one of the thousands of messengers that affirmed the call for an open, independent investigation, including the directive to the Executive Committee to waive attorney-client privilege, I am grateful that on October 5th the Executive Committee voted to do so. The margin of the vote was narrower than it should have been, but it is a step in the right direction.

A note of caution is in order here, though. Obviously, I am in favor of having waived attorney-client privilege. There are some members of the Executive Committee who voted no, but did so because they honestly believed it was their duty to do so. There are risks associated with the waiver. The EC members are tasked with protecting the interests of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Executive Committee of the SBC in particular. There are good reasons for having voted no, though I believe the reasons to vote yes outweigh them. I fear that some supporters of the waiver will harass well-meaning, conscience-bound individuals for doing what they believed to be right. That should not be.

We will see how the investigation plays out. It is a sad thing that the investigation is necessary, but, in my view, it is a good thing that both the process and the final product will shine light in some dark places and help the SBC move forward into the future with better practices or reallocate resources to do the mission God has called all Christians to more effectively.

Dignity for Back Row America

God created humans in his own image. (Gen 1:26–27) There is a great deal of honor and dignity that comes with that blessing. We all subconsciously recognize our status as made in the image of God, which gives everyone an innate desire for dignity.

In 2019, former Wall Street trader, Chris Arnade, left his day job to photograph and interview people from what he calls “Back Row America.” This group includes individuals on the political left and right, but who have all been effectively left behind by polite society and the economy.

Arnade’s journeys took him across the United States to areas with mixed histories, ethnicities, and economic struggles. As he notes in his introduction:

“What they had in common was that all were poor and rarely considered or talked about beyond being a place of problems. All had been described as left behind, despite some, like Hunts point, being adjacent to rich and successful neighborhoods. Residents growing up in these communities faces immense structural obstacles, and some, like minority neighborhoods, had for a very long time.

Despite their differences––black, white, Hispanic, rural, urban–they were all similar to Hunts Point in one important way: despite being stigmatized, ignored, and made fun of, most of the people I met were fighting to maintain dignity.

They feel disrespected––and with good reason. My circles, the bankers, business people, and the politicians they supported had created a world where McDonald’s was often one of the only restaurant options––and we make fun of them for going there.”

And if you’re reading this, you (like me) probably fall into the category who have fallen into unfounded assumptions about people and ignorant attitudes toward them because they looked down and out, were at a McDonalds, especially if they were a bit loud or out of place in public. Very few middle class and up individuals are exempt from having experienced this in themselves.

Dignity is a raw look at the desire for respect. It’s a reminder that everyone has a story. There was a commercial that ran when I was a kid during the height of the drug wars. It reminded the audience that “no one wants to be a junkie when they grow up.” The message was clear: if you use drugs, you are a loser and the way you get there is by making bad choices.

There is some validity in that argument, but it fails to take into account social and cultural pressures. It neglects the influence that the frustrations about systems that are designed for people with resources.

Think about how it is nearly impossible to apply for a job without a home address. Or consider what it is like to fill out a background check application when you’ve bounced from apartment to shelter to relatives’ homes for the past three years. Furthermore, ponder what it must be like not to have a working smart phone, tablet, or computing device in a timeframe when apps, websites, and email are primary means of communication. There are many people who live close to the line of success and failure, where a blown-out tire, a medical problem, or a couple of mistakes between paydays can start ripples that spread into disfunction. Eventually, the comfort of a drug-induced high can seem like a blessing that takes away the pain and stress for a little while. It doesn’t make anything better, but it can make someone feel better for a little while.

Arnade reminds us that the person who has fallen into the hole of addiction may not have known anything different or may have been set on the path by a personal disaster. They are worth respect. They deserve dignity. They are made in the image of God.

There are unhealthy aspects of this book. Arnade admits that his involvement in the night life of the streets contributed to his own drug issues and problems within his family. There is also a level of voyeurism in reading the accounts of prostitutes, drag queens, dealers, unemployed, and underemployed. If voyeurism can be justified, at least Arnade’s Dignity carries out the purpose of reminding readers that the weathered, bedraggled, odd-behaving individuals we often avoid in public are people, made in the image of God who have stories, hopes, dreams, and a desire to be recognized for the goodness of being human.

Dignity should help remind readers that the unwashed “other” are not a problem to be dealt with, but people to be engaged with as worthy of respect and honor. As well, Arnade issues a warning that the same group is not a social project that exists to make the middle class feel good about their beneficence. There aren’t a lot of particular solutions in Dignity, but recognizing the inherent value of those on the edge of society is a big step toward spanning some of the fissures in our divided country.

Dignity: Seeking Respect in Back Row America

By Arnade, Chris

Buy on Amazon

Why Doesn't Everyone in the SBC Simply Reject CRT Openly?

In the tribal warfare of the internet age one of the hot disputes is over Critical Race Theory (CRT). In my own circle—evangelical Christians in general and Southern Baptists in particular—the fire of war over CRT is hot, though little light has been produced.

In this brief post I will tackle the simple, but repeated question, “Why doesn’t everyone within the SBC simply reject CRT openly?”

The answer to that question seems relatively simple and obvious to me. However, since people don’t seem to see it, I am going to try to explain it without getting myself caught in the blaze of controversy.

What is CRT?

The heart of the debate over CRT should be the definition of CRT. The problem with the debate is there are many definitions of CRT. I will list two of the edge definitions, but there are a million shades between.

Some proponents define CRT as method of studying the outcome of racially biased laws and cultural trends that have had and continue to have a disparate impact on ethnic groups. That is what proponents like Delgado set out to expose. It’s simply the attempt to ask the question, “How have laws intentionally or unintentionally led to poorer outcomes for ethnic minorities?” or “How has race (or ethnicity) impacted social outcomes and why?” Let’s call this “CRT A”.

To others, CRT is the process of explaining why contemporary American Whites are uniquely responsible for current ethnic disparities and ought to continually repent of their privilege that explains the majority of their positive outcomes. To be White is to be tainted. One must repent of being White. Capitalism is White. Western Culture is White. Being White is bad, therefore we must adopt Socialism, reject classical literature, and continually repent of being born White or supporting Whiteness (even if we aren’t actually ethnically Caucasian). This is a caricature of many versions of CRT, but the internet will reveal enough cases of people who say they are advocating CRT proclaiming these things that we need not exclude them from the discussion. Let’s call this “CRT Z”.

One need not agree with either of these definitions to accept that there are people who describe their position as CRT that hold to them. In other words, neither of these may be “true CRT,” but there are proponents of “CRT” that argue these positions.

Recognizing the Difference

It doesn’t take a genius to see that there is a world of different between the first definition and the second. It also does not take much discernment to accept that the first approach may frame a legitimate (even if not correct) mode of inquiry, while the second is another form of racism.

There is, in short, terminological confusion.

Sometimes this confusion is used by the intelligentsia in a Motte and Bailey approach, where they throw out some controversial racial analysis or critique of that analysis and retreat to the safer ground of their polar definition when challenged. Sometimes, I think, people discussing CRT have read so narrowly (not to say they haven’t read extensively) that they legitimately haven’t encountered another perspective or one that represents the harmful extremes. Or, in other cases, they have granted too much grace to “their side” of the debate that they don’t see the encroachment into the unreasonable.

At the very least, as we think about the issue, we should recognize that definitions are the key. CRT is not monolithic, so we should seek to understand before we argue.

Why Not Just Reject the Term?

After the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention affirmed Resolution 2, On the Sufficiency of Scripture for Race and Racial Reconciliation, there has been an outcry in some subsections of the SBC that the statement does not include a clear rejection of “CRT.”

The statement itself is sound, biblical, and resonates with the various statements on race and racial reconciliation that the SBC has adopted in the past. For those that care to read it, it quickly becomes clear that “CRT Z” and many variants on that side of the spectrum are out of bounds based on that description.

The complaint among some is that “CRT A” is not as clearly anathematized by the statement. Therefore, when individuals ask questions like, “How has race (or ethnicity) been used unjustly in society or resulted in unjust outcomes?”, it is not clearly out of bounds. Of course, it is also not clear that someone asking such a basic question about race (or ethnicity) is necessarily reliant upon the tenets of CRT.

“That Sounds Like CRT”

And that is exactly the reason why it was good to issue Resolution 2 without an explicit rejection of CRT.

In some corners of the internet, it has become increasingly common to argue that any analysis of society, data, or theology that includes a consideration of race or ethnicity is a form of CRT. This is, whether intentional or not, an error that conflates the problems of “CRT Z” with any discussion of race or ethnicity, or its lingering effects.

In opposition to these discussions, some have absolutized statements like Paul’s Galatians 3:28 (There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus), arguing that it means that there should be absolutely no consideration of differences created by or resulting from race or ethnicity. However, Paul wasn’t arguing that those categories did not exist (otherwise why did he differentiate the circumcised from the uncircumcised in Col 4), but that they should not impact unity in the body of Christ.

It would be funny if it were not so painful, but some of those most vocal about using Gal 3:28 to outlaw any discussion of racial (or ethnic) differences are also the most careful to differentiate the roles of men and women in the church. To be logically consistent, if Galatians 3:28 means that we can never talk about racial disparities in the church, then those that hold that position should not recognize a different function in the church between men and women. In other words, they should be willing to accept female pastors. Most often they do not. That would reflect a consistent, though incorrect, application of Gal 3:28.

Because there are longstanding social impacts due to race—one need only look at the existence of distinct African-American denominations (which were largely formed in response to overt racism in predominately white denominations)––some critics paint any theological or social analysis that recognizes the actual differences related to race (or ethnicity) as a form of CRT, whether or not the accused has any knowledge of or intent to use CRT.

The existence of real and obvious racial (or ethnic) differences means that there are times that examining those differences is necessary and warranted.

The Bigger Problem

The bigger problem with the CRT debate, and a reason why we should not try to anathemize “CRT” wholesale, is that the some of the loudest voices against “CRT” are also the ones who argue that any analysis that includes racial (or ethnic) differences are using “CRT,” whether any form of actual CRT is actually in play. Often, it seems that these accusations are made more on political grounds (i.e., someone supports a different economic or social policy) than on the basis of careful understanding of the ideas under discussion.

Let me simplify: The logic of some of the loudest anti-“CRT” argumentation goes like this:

1.       CRT is a form of analysis that considers racial (or ethnic) disparities.

2.       Scholar or pastor X has cited analysis or made a declaration that takes into account racial (or ethnic) disparities.

3.       Therefore, scholar or pastor X advocates for CRT.

Anyone who has taken basic logic will recognize the problems with this line of reasoning.

Unless ALL discussions that take into account racial (or ethnic) disparities are CRT, then the logic doesn’t follow. And even that logic is based on the assumption that all versions of CRT are irredeemably bad (or at best unhelpful) and inconsistent with the gospel. Some argue that “CRT A” and some similar versions are relatively benign and may actually help illuminate the current situation, but that is a different discussion for a different day. However, it shouldn’t be impossible for us to imagine that an individual may recognize that “CRT Z” is bad, while still being able to glean something of value from “CRT A” even if, in the end, the individual rejects the policy proposals of those who use “CRT A.”

It’s also possible to ask questions similar to those who use and advocate for “CRT A” and yet not be dependent upon their ideas. Simply because one things sounds similar to another does not mean those things are the same.

Sometimes arguments about who is “using CRT” play out in these obvious terms, but often it is more subtle. And yet, many of the attempts to combat “CRT” among inerrantist evangelicals amounts to:

a.       That individual used language or addressed a concept that could be associated with CRT.

b.       Therefore, that individual advocates for CRT.

c.       CRT is bad.

d.       Therefore, that individual must be ridiculed and abused publicly and, if possible, fired.

If we’re being honest, we’ll recognize this pattern. It isn’t universal, but it is fairly common. And, if we’re being serious about being thoughtful, we’ll recognize why it isn’t helpful.

We should also recognize statements that absolutize rejections of “CRT” are a tool for vocal groups within our communities to prevent discussion about important issues, because once the accusation is made that someone is advocating “CRT,” whether true or not, then the person will be forced to defend themselves or risk losing their job. There is an element of McCarthyism to the whole situation.

Conclusion

I set out to answer the question, “Why doesn’t everyone within the SBC simply reject CRT openly?”

There is no question that more discussion is needed, but I think I’ve begun to explain why absolute statements on CRT are unhelpful, especially when “CRT” means radically different things to different people and that, for some people, simply raising questions about race lead to accusations of “CRT.” The kind of pseudo-thoughtful analysis that has replaced honest engagement with ideas, especially around concepts like “social justice” and “CRT,” is not helpful.

Significantly when some voices assume CRT is at the root of any discussion of race (or ethnicity) that arrives at different conclusions than those of another group, we have a problem. Additionally, if the simple recognition that one’s cultural background shapes one’s understanding of a context is a version of CRT, then it is an unhelpful label.

Since the label “CRT” is so ambiguous, it is better to identify the aspects of “CRT” that are objectionable and explain why they are inconsistent with Scripture. Then we can all examine the statements of scholars and pastors in comparison to those tenets and argue against objectionable content rather than making accusations of things that “sound like” or “are not sufficiently opposed to” whatever “CRT” is in the mind of this or that cultural commentator. Based on the statement of those on the SBC resolution committee, this sort of action—to make clear what is inconsistent with biblical orthodoxy—is exactly what was being attempted with Resolution 2.

Will this scratch the itch of the culture warrior? No, but usually they live for the denunciation and the battle rather than the truth. But for those that are being honest and careful in their pursuit of truth, statements like Resolution 2 are a step forward in identifying the guardrails for civil discussion.

Why We Can Trust the New Testament

Without a doubt, there have been times within human history when it has been difficult to get access to high quality resources about important topics created by experts. People used to have to go to universities or ticketed events to get access to the experts.

The internet has, of course, changed that. Not only has it provided us easy access to an endless supply of cat videos, but it has also provided opportunities to get easy access to legitimate experts with a few clicks and the right key words.

The problem with this free and open information society is that it can be hard to differentiate the hacks from the heroes. In some cases, the hacks make videos with better production value, which makes them seem more authoritative, even as they are really ignorant.

The Trustworthiness of the New Testament Text

The actual point of this post is not to discuss the media ecology of the internet, however, but to provide some resources on the text of the New Testament and its trustworthiness.

One of the main challenges raised to belief in Christianity is the trustworthiness of manuscripts of the New Testament. The accusation leveled against the Bible is that we cannot really know what the New Testament teaches because of variations in the available manuscripts. Daniel Wallace has dealt with that very effectively.

The Reliability of the Gospels

Another significant question is why there are differences between the various Gospels. In a lecture, Mike Licona helps explain the genre of the Gospels, the literary conventions of the day, and why we can trust the Gospels as authentic and faithful, even when they don’t match modern standards of documentation.

Peter Williams presents another approach to the reliability of the Gospels that deals less with the literary attributes and focuses on the content of the Gospels. This is a complementary perspective to the one that Licona presents.

The Formation of the Canon

Also significant is how the canon of the New Testament was formed. Some critics like to claim that a power struggle between church leaders led to certain books of equal value and authority being excluded from the canon, so that we should be just as open to the truthfulness of the Gospel of Thomas as we are to the canonical gospels. Michael Kruger helps dispel that notion.

Conclusion

These men are each expert in their field and respected in their academic disciplines, even among those who do not agree with their theological conclusions, because they have demonstrated proficiency in their discipline. That we live in an age where such resources are readily available is amazing. That we often fail to take advantage of this level of expertise is a shame. Taking a few hours to watch these videos (even with your family) would be an excellent means of discipleship for yourself and your family.

Are Ethics More Important than Theology?

Why do some Christians love theology more than people? After all, from an eternal perspective, people matter more than ideas. It does not matter what you believe as long as you are doing good things in the world. Some people who do not even believe in Jesus are better Jesus-followers than Christians—these people are the real Kingdom of God.

If you read progressive Christian blogs or follow left-leaning Christian pundits on social media, you will have likely heard some of the assertions in the previous paragraph. Some form of them is repeated often enough to be recognizable at a glance.

The basic claim of those who make these claims is that practical Christian ethics is the heart of Christianity, while Christian theology is mere speculation about things that are largely unknown and mostly unknowable. Ethics is reality; theology is speculation. Therefore, ethics is more important than theology.

As a Christian ethicist, I heartily affirm the importance of Christian ethics. However, faithful Christian ethics presupposes a foundation of orthodox Christian doctrine. An authentically Christian ethics is the superstructure on a foundation of an orthodox, biblical theology. We cannot do ethics apart from theology.

In her excellent essay “Creed or Chaos?” Dorothy L. Sayers argues,

It is worse than useless for Christians to talk about the importance of Christian morality unless they are prepared to take their stand upon the fundamentals of Christian theology.

She goes on to explain that Christian morality without a doctrinal foundation quickly becomes humanism, which eventually fails to motivate right action.

Doctrine is the very heart of ethics. Unless you believe the right things, there is little hope that you will do the right things. If someone does not believe that humans have inherent value, they are unlikely seek to relieve their suffering or may justify doing harm while calling it good. Proper concern for the wellbeing of other humans is not self-generated; it arises from an anthropology that values people as made in the image of God. When anthropology fails, so does true compassion for other humans.

For example, movements that advocate for voluntary euthanasia are often couched in terms of individual autonomy and alleviation of suffering. Assisting in the suicide deaths of the old and the infirm is ethical if your anthropology presumes that humans have a right to self-determination and that human suffering is purposeless. A deep theological sentiment lies behind a pro-euthanasia ethic. Ethics springs from a foundation of those doctrines that are believed.

Jesus is clear about belief being the basis for human action. Luke records him explaining the relationship between the act of speech and the beliefs of the heart: “A good man produces good out of the good storeroom of his heart. An evil man produces evil out of the evil storeroom, for his mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart” (Luke 6:45, HCSB). Bad beliefs will lead to bad character, which will lead to bad actions.

Those who seek to affirm ethics over theology are wrong to diminish the importance of doctrine. However, a fairer critique could, at times, be that theologically sound Christians sometimes fail to live out the ethics that are demanded by their theology. Such was Carl F. H. Henry’s criticism of early evangelicalism.

The core theme of Henry’s brief volume The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism is that doctrinally orthodox evangelicals (i.e., those who held to the fundamentals of the faith) often fell into the trap of repudiating social ethics simply because social activism was associated with modernist, theologically liberal Christians. This led faithful and theologically sound Christians to reject just action to mitigate harms, though those actions would have occurred in ways that were consistent with and even demanded by a doctrine faithful to Scripture. Such failures, Henry argued, caused early evangelicals to have an uneasy conscience.

Henry’s indictment of his own theological tribe should come as no surprise, since Jesus’ words about the overflow of the heart are followed immediately by a sharp rebuke of those who have a proper faith, but fail to act on it (Luke 6:46-49). Or, in perhaps the most misunderstood verse in Scripture, James 2:14-17 reminds Christians that faith that does not lead to ethical application is dead.

The problem in these situations is not that people were concerned about right doctrine, but that they failed to act upon it. Perhaps they understood the theological propositions, but did not have a living faith to drive them to live the ethical implications of those doctrines. These critiques are reasonable. However, the assertion that doctrine is unimportant is untenable.

The assertion “ethics matters but doctrine does not” requires a presumption that theology is abstract while action is concrete. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ethics is abstract to the extent that even our good actions are tainted by sinful motivations and have unknown consequences. Theology—the study of God and his works—is concrete inasmuch as its object is known and knowable. Orthodox doctrines are not arbitrary constructions that satisfy the desire for completeness and intellectual attainment of theologians and exegetes. Most theology is done in the crucible of real-life concerns in an attempt to discern what is right and godly, which is the only possible foundation for a Christian ethics. Again, Sayers is helpful as she describes the formulation of doctrine:

Dogmas are not a set of arbitrary regulations invented a priori by a committee of theologians enjoying a bout of all-in dialectical wrestling. Most of them were hammered out under pressure of urgent practical necessity to provide an answer to heresy.

This is no less true about the doctrines that undergird human sexual ethics than it is about teachings that deal with Christology. The church has often had to specifically codify previously assumed or unconsidered doctrines in the face of innovative challenges that threaten to undermine the doctrinal core of Christianity. This does not represent a failure to love the people who hold faulty doctrine: it is a sign of faithfulness to the one who calls Christians to love people. Paul’s admonishment is to speak truth in love, not to reject truth in the name of love (cf. Eph. 4:15).

Christians would do well to live out their faith. They would also do well to ponder Jude’s words to the church, which include a call to contend for the faith—the sound doctrine—that was given to the saints because those who rejected those teachings led others to practice bad ethics (Jude 3-4). Christianity is not merely about right doctrine, but orthodoxy cannot be rejected without a grave cost to ethics.

NOTE: This article was previously posted at the B&H Academic Blog, which has since been archived due to a change in media strategy.

Endless Wars in the Southern Baptist Convention

Next week thousands of messengers from local churches associated with the Southern Baptist Convention will meet in Nashville, TN for our annual meeting. This is predicted to be the largest SBC meeting since the watershed moment in 1985 when the long effort to shift the SBC back to its doctrinal roots was culminated.

The Conservative Resurgence and the News

In 1985 the battle lines were clear. There were leaders within the SBC and professors at our seminaries that did not affirm the authority and truthfulness of the Bible. As with all such debates, there was a mushy middle, too, who did not have particularly strong opinions or didn’t see the issues at the heart of the debate as worth dividing over.

People reading the news would not know there was a difference between arguments from several decades ago and today, even though the distance between the sides are much closer together. Proximity doesn’t mean the issues are insignificant, but it seems that it should temper the tone of the debate if the doctrinal issues are really the issue.

I’m pretty confident that the debate is more about different visions of the nature of the SBC than any doctrinal issue.

Power vs. Cooperation

The biggest problem with the SBC is a fundamental understanding of what the SBC is. Common misunderstandings about the nature of the SBC have created a winner-takes-all perception for complete domination of the SBC power structures.

And that struggle illustrates the root of the problem.

There should be no SBC power structures (or, at least, as small a one as practical).

The SBC is a loose association of doctrinally similar baptistic churches who have agreed to cooperate to fulfill the Great Commission.

Encouraged by the shifts of the Industrial Revolution and the flattening of society due to technology, the SBC has become more centralized in its structure and apparent function over the last century. The SBC has come to look more and more like a denomination.

But the SBC is not a denomination.

What is the SBC?

In purist terms, the SBC exists for two days a year when messengers get together and talk, sing, pray, and vote (probably a bunch of eating in there, too) about how to fulfill the Great Commission.

In reality, based on the need for logistics and the pace of busy work, there has been a necessary growth of the Executive Committee, the entities of the SBC (ERLC, WMU, seminaries, IMB, NAMB, LifeWay), and their ongoing, daily role. Sometimes we (and they) forget it, but the people that fill these positions are not the authorities in the SBC.

At the heart of the SBC’s current woes is a lack of clarity regarding the organizational structure of the SBC. The confusion is somewhat understandable among outsiders who deal with denominations and have little background in the weird history of the SBC. However, similar confusion is even more problematic when it is pervasive in the pews and even fostered by leaders who ought to know better.

Diagnostic Questions

There are some pertinent diagnostic questions that I’ve found clarifying as I’ve wrestled with my own tendency to quarrel.

What does it mean when the President of the SBC (or a member of the SBC Executive Committee) disagrees with me politically?

Absolutely nothing other than that I have a personal disagreement with someone. They may be a social media influencer, but they have not spiritual or temporal authority over me. Because the SBC President has responsibility to appoint personnel to appoint members to the Committee on Committees, which has trickle-down effect on the leanings of those nominated as trustees and appointed as convention staff, the SBC President has the ability to influence the future, but the steering mechanism is slow and complex, so that personal opinions a few shades to the right or left of mine should not be a major cause for concern. (The history of the Conservative Resurgence taught us both the importance of and the limitations of the SBC President’s influence.)

What if a professor at a seminary says something foolish publicly? Why does that individual get to represent the SBC?

If an individual that works for an SBC entity says something foolish publicly, that individual represents themselves and, if speaking in the role of their office, maybe the entity they are employed by. That individual never represents “the SBC,” because the SBC is a collection of loosely affiliated churches that meets for two days each year. The messengers of the SBC elect trustees for the entities who are charged to make sure the seminaries remain true to their mission and calling.

If an individual feels embarrassed that a professor (or other spokesperson) at an SBC entity “misrepresents them,” they should remember and remind others that those individuals do not represent them. The organic linkage between entity employee and church member is long and convoluted. We shouldn’t assume or accept that it is close or direct.

Why doesn’t the SBC fire pastors that are accused of abuse or its cover up?

The simple answer is that the SBC has no ability to hire or fire any pastor. Nor should it. However, if the local congregation fails to adequately deal with a public problem like abuse, then the messengers of other local congregations have the authority and responsibility (and the right to delegate if so agreed upon) to disfellowship a local congregation that has not maintained its public, gospel witness.

To use a biblical analogy, the SBC is like the people of Israel during the time of the judges. The reality is that “everyone does what is right in his own eyes.” This is a feature and not a bug. It comes with blessings and curses. Our hope and prayer should be that the Holy Spirit moves within local congregations and individuals to draw people more in line with clear teachings of Scripture for their life and practice. If they don’t, then the other congregations of the SBC have the responsibility to call them to repentance and expel them from our midst if they refuse to comply. Setting up a credentials committee with the delegated authority to determine whether or not to seat messengers from a particular church or call for investigation into the handling of abuse is a matter of policy that does not fundamentally change our polity.

What is the real heart of the unending street brawl within the SBC?

One of the major issues in the ongoing SBC civil war is that a large portion of the most vocal folks on either side of the battle either think we actually have a king (the defacto judges of the day often see themselves as such) who should have the ability to appoint his own heirs. Among those that don’t think we currently have a king, there people who are clamoring for a king to lead us into battle.

I’m in the camp that believes that having a king will only make the unending struggles within the SBC stronger and more vicious. We should be looking for ways to decrease the significance of our central entities, not consolidate their power, real or perceived.

What is the solution?

Ha! If I had a perfect solution, I would be a much more important person than I am.

My responsibility as a messenger to the SBC from my local congregation is to represent my congregation as well as I can, to vote my conscience on matters theological or practical, and to try to persuade other to emphasize the importance of the local church over the convention entities.

In an ideal world, I would only know the names of the Executive Committee members with whom I am personally related. In a good world, my chief contact with pastors of other churches affiliated with the SBC would be in discussing methods of cooperation to fulfill the SBC. In other words, the task is to decentralize the SBC again and see the committees and entities of the SBC as a means of cooperation rather than a power lever to control.

I can’t make this happen for everyone else, but I can certainly work to change my own perception and the way I talk about the SBC in all venues.

How Rigged is the Economy against Individuals?

One of the prevailing themes in contemporary American public discourse is that the economy is irredeemably rigged against the little guy. The theory runs that the richest 1% have so much money that they are keeping the rest of us down.

That is a powerful story. It feeds on examples of cases where there are excessively wealthy people who do not have financial concerns that some anywhere close to the ones that ordinary citizens have. There are legitimate cases of harassment and discrimination prevent some people from achieving their potential.

However, the more complete story seems to be that despite inequalities in wealth, the potential for people to gain moderate levels of wealth is still present, even for people with median incomes.

In the FIRE community (Financial Independence/Retire Early) one of the more common targets for net worth prior to checking out of the workforce is $1M USD. Given that about 40% of American adults claim they can’t cover an unexpected $400 expense without borrowing or selling something, some argue that breaking into a seven-figure net worth is impossible.

Considering that the median household income in 2018 was estimated to be about $63K, which doesn’t include non-cash benefits like the company portion of insurance benefits, I’m more inclined to believe the people that tend to be optimistic about economic opportunities. Thomas Stanley and Sarah Stanley Fallaw’s recent book, The Next Millionaire Next Door, tends to support general optimism.

The first and most obvious allowance we must make in the whole debate, however, is that not everyone can get to the point of having a large net worth. There are people who have disabilities or medical conditions that will prevent them from engaging fully in the workforce and whose assets are regularly depleted by needed expenses. There are others who have, due to little or no fault of their own, been left in a precarious economic position because of poor choices by others or have had to leave a situation due to abuse. And, to be fair, half the households in the United States fall below the $63K income threshold, which makes it more difficult (though by no means impossible, down to a certain level) to create a large net worth.

But many in the top half of earners are not millionaires and never will be. In fact, according to Forbes in 2019, 18.6 million Americans have a net worth over a million. That means that approximately 1 in 17 people in the US are millionaires. That’s 5.6% of the population. Not bad when you think about it, but not as much as you would think.

The Next Millionaire Next Door is a follow up to Stanley’s 1996 book, The Millionaire Next Door, and basically asks if the economic system is really so rigged that no one can get ahead. He began the work with his daughter (Sarah Fallaw), and she completed the book alone due to his untimely death in 2015. The conclusion is that the basic patterns of behavior of millionaires has not changed in a fundamental sense in two decades.

The recipe for growing your net worth into the seven figures is the same as it was in 1996 and basically the same as it ever has been. Find work that uses your talents and do it vigorously. Live below your means by avoiding “status wars” with people at and above your income level. Invest your money; don’t just let it sit in a coffee can or a savings account. Do this for an extended period of time.

The upshot is that the path to becoming relatively wealthy is extremely simple. It has a lot to do with hard work and frugality. In fact, both the 1996 book and this latest book emphasize frugality as a central element of financial success. Even in 2019, the vast majority of millionaire’s surveyed had never spent more than $300 on a watch. Most of them drive Fords, Toyotas, Hondas, or Chevy’s that were purchased used, and very few of those surveys had ever spent more than $40,000 on a vehicle. Although they can “afford” to purchase more expensive products, they chose not to because the increase in value did not match the increase in price.

Also important to note is that those who accumulate wealth tend to be much more generous with their wealth. Individuals and families that have a high income, but a very low net worth do not tend to give much away. However, those that tend to save much of what they earn at whatever income level are, statistically speaking, more generous than your average American. Many of these next-door millionaires give away more than 5% of their income per year to registered charities, in addition to gifts to family.

To some this may seem counter-intuitive. Why should the savers be better givers? However, it makes sense when we consider the question from a different angle. High spenders don’t hang onto their money, but they have been mastered by their money and take pleasure in its spending. They, therefore, have a stronger love for money because of what it can get them. In contrast, the savers have mastered their money. They see it for its good beyond immediate consumption. They are also much more likely to want to see those funds invested into their community in a way that will cultivate hope for others.

The Next Millionaire Next Door leads me to believe that the majority of the “rich” are not the ones that are featured in the tabloid news or that are constantly scrabbling greedily for wealth. Rather, many of those who have obtained wealth in our society have, in some form or fashion, heeded the principles of 1 Tim 6:8–10:

But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

Though the political left, especially young socialists, tend to demonize those that have worked within the American economic system for decades to slowly accrue wealth, that demonization appears to be unwarranted. Those Christians who demean others, especially other Christians, for building businesses, working hard, participating in the community, giving regularly, and still managing to cultivate relative wealth are missing the fact that many of the next-door millionaires have done so by not loving money.

This is an interesting reversal. Next-door millionaires tend to be those who are generally content with food and clothing. They did not desire the wealth, but when they acquired wealth, they were good stewards of it. Statistically speaking, they give generously, live modestly, and work diligently. In fact, for most of those highlighted in this book, becoming wealthy was a secondary result of living wisely with those behaviors.

This sort of study might be helpful in overturning some negative perceptions and hostile rhetoric toward a portion of the population that has been diligent and, often, less self-interested than others in their pursuit of the good life. In this case, the good life being defined not as the unending accumulation of wealth, but of working hard, loving family and neighbor, and stewarding resources to have a reasonably secure future. In the United States that sort of lifestyle is often (but not always) rewarded with an abundance of resources over time.

The Humane Economy of Wilhelm Ropke

To some people, free market economics is the worst social evil of our age that is responsible for every other social evil. What causes Racism? Capitalism. Child abuse? Free market. Objectification of women? The market economy. War? Economic liberty. Poverty? The same. Bad hair days? Definitely capitalism, too. You get the idea.

On the other hand, there are others for whom free market economics are akin to the good news of Jesus Christ. Andrew Carnegie did, after all, write a book called, The Gospel of Wealth, which largely extols the market economy. There are others to this day who see capitalism as not merely permissible by God, but actually required by a correct reading of Scripture.

In reality, liberty, including economic freedom, is a necessary condition for human flourishing, but it isn’t a sufficient condition. The free market economy the cleanest dirty shirt we’ve got. Like any human system, it has sinful people involved, so it is subject to abuse and distortion. Unlike other human economies that have been envisioned, it has the best means to keep people’s natural tendencies toward evil and oppression in check.

One of the most careful proponents of a free market that I’ve read in Wilhelm Röpke. He was a German who emigrated to Turkey in 1933 because of his resistance to the National Socialist regime. Early in his life he was inspired by socialism, later by the Austrian school of economics, and finally landed on a position that encourages a free market with targeted and limited government interventions. Röpke argued for what might be described as a humane capitalism. Röpke was one of the main thinkers that inspired the creation of the West German economic system after World War II, which helped to shape its balance between social welfare and free market, a system that resulted in West Germany rapidly recovering and developing into an economic power, with East Germany lagging behind, mired in socialism.

Röpke’s classic book, A Humane Economy, is an important book for socialists and libertarians to read so they understand both the needs for and perils of a free market.

One of Röpke’s concerns is over “mass society.” It was the enmassment of human activity that Röpke had witnessed in the rise of fascism in Europe before the war. Like other forms of socialism, the National Socialists ceased to recognize people as individuals or small units, and pursued global solutions with a faceless homo economicus as the actor. This faceless stand in for humans sometimes makes a good generalization, but it fails to take into account the goodness of owning a business, of small firms being able to compete in a grand economy, and of individual craftsmanship. At the extremes, unfettered capitalism and socialism lend themselves to aggregating humans into the faceless mass. Röpke was just as opposed to corporate monopolies as he was to state monopolies. Unlike some contemporary neoliberals, Röpke recognized that the power of the state was essential in preventing any sort of monopoly from forming.

What makes Röpke particularly significant is that he honestly represents the damage that redistributive programs like welfare can have as they encourage inflationary economics and can reduce the incentives to engage in meaningful economic activity. At the same time, he demonstrates that well-designed welfare systems can be essential to provide a safety net and can actually prevent the worst cases of abuse by the state and by corporate entities. Röpke is exactly the sort of thinker that will make people on both poles of contemporary social and economic debate uncomfortable, which is one of the best reasons to listen to him.

Another important aspect of Röpke’s perspective is that he emphasizes the necessary balance between collectivism and individualism. Both ideas in the extreme are debilitating to society. Röpke writes, “Man can fulfill his nature only by freely becoming part of a community and having a sense of solidarity with it. Otherwise he leads a miserable existence and he knows it.” A more apt criticism of most forms of socialism and the contemporary economy in the United States could not be written. In socialism, one is forced to assimilate with the mass, to contribute as the authorities deem necessary and to receive in exchange only that which the collective deems warranted. In late post-industrial capitalism, one tends to be isolated from the collective, set to gain what one can earn on her own, and catechized to believe that individual freedom is something of a summum bonum. To some degree, at least, Röpke seems to offer a golden mean.

In A Humane Economy there is resistance both to state totalitarianism and the totalitarian utilitarianism of some economics. But he is unquestionably opposed to the ravages of Communism. Röpke argues:

“Totalitarianism gains ground exactly to the extent that the human victims of this process of [social] disintegration suffer from frustration and non-fulfillment of their life as a whole because they have lost the true, pre-eminently non-material conditions of human happiness.”

He continues,

“What the free world has to set against Communism is not the cult of the standard of living and productivity or some contrary hysteria, ideology, or myth. This would merely be borrowing Communism’s own weapons. What we need is to bethink ourselves quietly and soberly of truth, freedom, justice, human dignity, and respect of human life and the ultimate values. For these we must set our course unerringly; we must cherish and strengthen the spiritual and moral foundations of these values and vital goods and try to create and preserve for mankind such forms of life as are appropriate to human nature and support and protect its conditions.”

This sort of attitude is what makes Röpke so helpful. He recognizes the horrors of socialistic economics, but also sees the abyss that is a purely materialistic utilitarian capitalism. Röpke reminds us that at the heart of the economy is the human. We are not graphs and statistics alone. Those things can be helpful, but they are not enough. We need to be more humane by treating people around us like humans. Economics can only function when it is constrained by virtue.

A Humane Economy: The Social Framework of the Free Market

By Röpke, Wilhelm

Buy on Amazon