A Quick Thought

“I can stand heresy because I don’t have to not stand it; God doesn’t stand it for me. However, creative mediocrity I will not suffer. Is there anything worse than someone who defiles the image of the creator by creating an image that falls short of the glory of man’s God given ability to create? No, nothing!”

The Book of Daniel (Anchor Bible)

A few months ago I came across caustic comment concerning the Anchor Bible Commentary on the Book of Daniel by Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella. Since this is one of my favourite commentaries I thought I would respond.

I am shocked at modern scholarly commentary. First the dating was amazing, dating this book to be from around the time of 180 B.C., some three hundred to four hundred years later than previous believed. Then I quickly realized why, for the prophecies to be true in Daniel 11, one must have faith and realize how awesome and perfect and holy the Bible is for history to be predicted so precisely, or one can simply say the prophecies were written after, making void the gorgeous genius of the Author and Savior Jesus Christ.

I suspect that because Jesus Christ is referred to as “The Word” that this person holds that Jesus is, in some spiritual sense, the author of the entire Scriptures as well as the other human authors. This is certainly an issue of contention but not one which I shall comment upon.

The book of Daniel is historically accurate in very many places, indeed. However, unfortunately for many who have a particularly hermeneutical and preconceived notion of what the Bible is supposed to be like, there are some significant sections of the book of Daniel which are not “historically” accurate. Theologically, they are completely accurate and there is little question about that.

However, in (post)modern times, on this side of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the Conservative Resurgence, it becomes difficult to discuss the nature of the Scriptures with evangelicals to any varied degree of intellectual honesty. The fundamentalist appropriation of the proclamational and educational leadership in evangelical circles has severely limited the debate on Scriptural “inerrancy”.

-For hundreds of years among Protestant and Baptist theology and confession, the Scriptures were said to be concerned with “salvation” and “Christ” only.

-“Inerrancy” was not a theological term until developed by Princeton professors in the second half of the 19th century. Only in 1905 does the term begin to surface in any standard confessions. For 75 years, there were at least 6 competing definitions of what “inerrancy” meant. It wasn’t until 1978 that a formal definition was agreed upon by the 300 signers of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and then made mandatory for all believers and evangelical educators everywhere. Of course, now, anyone who has a position on inerrancy that departs from this recent document is considered suspect and not in line with that great tradition that extends back to the fist century Church.

-Today’s Christians are so afraid of limiting the scope of their ministry by angering other believers with an individualistic understanding of the Faith and so afraid that any deviation from the majority of evangelical believers means apostasy of the Faith and thus a severe damage to their spiritual life, that the vast majority of “ministerial” believers cannot even entertain positions not traditional to the particular body of believers to which they belong, even if that tradition is only a quarter century old.

-As I have stated elsewhere, there is a significant percentage of evangelical leaders and educators who fear both dissent and deviation from their own individual understanding of the Faith. Because of this, the Christian student seeking an intellectual education of the faith will not find a well-rounded and thorough presentation of the faith given at many evangelical schools. Many Christian educators are not presenting every answer to every theological question raised. At most, the educator will present the standard evangelical answer and then the antithetical answer which tends to be radical liberalism to the average evangelical student. That there are numerous other examples in between these two polarities is ignored by the educator and oblivious to the student. Therefore, the Christian student will only ever be given one conceivable answer to any theological question and never give serious consideration to any other conceivable answer. “Why should they? There is only one answer to this question and it was given by my professor as the only answer.” In this, evangelical schools are rendered as mere indoctrination mills ill-equipping students for practical ministerial lives. THEREFORE, the majority of evangelical “ministers” and “laity” are never told standard theological options which intellectually satisfy the presented theological question and conform to the essentials of their faith. The only way one can find these answers is to go looking for his or herself.

To this, the contemporary evangelical believes that the historicity of the Scriptures is synonymous with their contemporary understanding of history because they have not been told any other option. Therefore, the beginning student of the book of Daniel can become quite shaken when he is confronted with the facts of the matter.


What are some of these?

- The book of Daniel states that the Deportation to Babylon occurred in 606 BC. It states:

In the third year of the reign of Jehoi'akim king of Judah came Nebuchadnez'zar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoi'akim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.
This appears to be a description of the first siege of Jerusalem in 597 BC, which occurred in the twelfth year of Jehoiakim and into the reign of his son Jehoiachin. (see 2 Kings 24 and 2 Chronicles 36). The third year of Jehoiakim (606 BC), saw Nebuchadrezzar not yet King of Babylon, and the Egyptians still dominant in the region. Advocates of an early date of Daniel generally explain this by positing an additional, otherwise unmentioned, siege of Jerusalem in 605 BC, shortly after the Battle of Carchemish.
[This would be the equivalent of saying that the United States of America entered the WWII when Hideki Tojo, prime minister of Japan launched an attack on Pearl Harbor in 1931, 10 years prior to the actual event and a decade prior to Tojo becoming prime minister.]
-The book of Daniel states that Nebuchadnezzar went mad. However, this event does not appear in any other historical record. In the Dead Sea Scrolls a fragment known as The Prayer of Nabonidus (4QPrNab) discusses a disease suffered by Nabonidus, and it is thought that the insanity of Nebuchadnezzar discussed by Daniel is actually evidence that an oral tradition of one strange disease was actually transmogrified through retelling into a tale mistakenly recorded by Daniel.

[This would be like saying that President Franklin Roosevelt was impeached from office instead of Richard Nixon.]

- The book of Daniel states that Nebuchadnezzar is succeeded by a "son," Belshazzar, presented as the last king of Babylon. The disembodied hand appears writing on the wall to warn Belshazzar of doom. Daniel 5:30 says Belshazzar died that night when "Darius the Mede" captured Babylon. However, the last king of Babylon was Nabu-na'id, commonly called Nabonidus. He ruled from 555 to 539 B.C.E., when Babylon was captured by the Persians under Cyrus the Great -- not Darius and the Medes. Nabonidus had a son called Belshazzar (or Bel-shar-usur in Babylonian) who apparently ruled for a decade as crown prince while Nabonidus was in Arabia. What Nabonidus did in Arabia is unknown, but the story of "Nebuchadnezzar's" insanity may be a reference to a bout of insanity or lengthy depression in Nabonidus, who apparently was very unpopular in Babylon -- or so the victorious Persians later claimed. In short, Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar.

[This would be the equivalent of saying that George W. Bush is the son of Jimmy Carter and not George H.W. Bush.]

-The Book of Daniel states the following succession of nations: Babylonian, Median, Persian and Greek. However, the Median Empire was destroyed by the Persian Emperor Cyrus the Great in 550 BCE, a full 6 years prior to Nabonidus becoming king of Babylon. In 539 BC, Cyrus, not Darius, defeated Nabonidus (not Belshazzar) and occupied Babylon.

[This would be the equivalent of stating that Hitler defeated the Turkish Empire prior to invading the Soviet Union when, in fact, the Turkish Empire was defeated prior to Hitler coming to power.]


-Besides these interesting “historical inaccuracies”, there are numerous words, phrases and subject matters which point to a 164 BCE date of composition, not 564 BCE.

[This would be the equivalent of reading a play by William Shakespeare and seeing the words and concepts: “computer”, “email”, “nuclear weapon”, “triple heart bypass surgery” and “two planes will fly into two buildings one hundred levels high.” Even if one states that these are prophetic events (which can happen by the Holy Spirit) it would be incomprehensible to anyone for 4 hundred years. “What’s a plane?”, “What’s a computer?”, “What’s triple heart bypass surgery?” but told in a matter of fact way without explanation or the hint that any explanation is needed.]


These issues are not slight. There are numerous ancient documents from various people and places at different times that unanimously confirm that something is historically different about the history of the book of Daniel. When can either consider that maybe this particular book is not historical but contains apocalyptic truths quite different from straight forward historical facts … or we must similarly argue that George W. Bush is indeed the son of Jimmy Carter.

We live in a time of modern science and modern historical and literary studies. We assume that our modern and Western ways of understanding history is the best and only way of doing so. Because we believe that our way is the best and only way, anything historical document that does not conform to such modern precision is deemed inferior. Therefore, many evangelical believers, claiming to have much disdain for modern historical and critical studies, refuse to accept the belief that historical documents written two to three thousand years ago would be different from documents written two to three years ago. How odd? We hate modern history because it proves that Biblical history is not like the modern history that we hate. We expect that all historical recordings must carry the objective and factual precision that we ourselves have come to apply to the historical task since the Enlightenment period. Therefore, when the Biblical documents do not conform to our cultural expectations we attempt to discredit those who are pointing out these unfulfilled expectations and then try to prove how these documents do indeed fulfill our expectations. What are we doing? Eisegesis. We are reading into Scripture what we think Scripture should say. We are not letting Scripture speak for itself. We want it to confirm what we think should be the truth. In this manner, we are no different from the liberals who neglect the Scriptural teaching about homosexuality, fornication, the exclusivity of Christ and any other doctrine they do not believe in. How close you are to each other!

Also there are many more things shocking about the edition, saying that the Son of Man written about wasn't referring to the Lord Jesus Christ at all.

This person has got it backwards. The author of Daniel, by mentioning the “Son of Man” was not referring to Jesus; Jesus by mentioning the “Son of Man” was referring to Daniel. What this person is referring to is a hermeneutic employed by Jesus that almost all fundamentalists and many conservatives without seminary education have always stumbled. The “Son of Man” mentioned in Daniel as it was originally written did not refer to Jesus but referred to “collective Israel”. All who originally read this section of Daniel understood this metaphor. They understood that the author was using the “Son of Man” to refer to “collective Israel”. No one thought this image referred to Jesus because Jesus did not yet exist. However, when Jesus did come into existence, He took the image of the “Son of Man” from Daniel and claimed it as His own and began to refer to Himself as the “Son of Man.” The “Son of Man” in Daniel did not predict Jesus but the “Son of Man” does describe Jesus because Jesus used it as a self-reference. Jesus is compared to David, Moses and Elijah but He isn’t anyone of these people and no one who first read the OT thought so. Now this does not mean that we should not understand Jesus in terms of the “Son of Man” from Daniel. Far from it!

What? My question is summed up in the opening title. If you believe that the Bible is just some loose collection of historical annotations by pious man, then why bother reading it?

The authors of this commentary are Christians, they are believers. They do believe in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on the Book of Daniel and its writers. In short, they do not believe that this is just some loose collection of historical annotations by pious men.

If this book is not the infallible and Holy and Perfect Word of the One and Only God Almighty then why waste the energy?

The authors certainly do not believe that this book is fallible. Far from it! However, what is interesting is that while these authors are not questioning the authority of the book of Daniel, the individual commenting here believes that they must believe that. Why? Obviously because this individual has a particular idea of what it means to be “infallible”, “Holy” and “Perfect”. The commentators do not share the same definition of what it means to be “infallible”, “Holy” and “Perfect” as this individual, so, according to him, they must then not believe the book of Daniel to be “infallible”, “Holy” and “Perfect”.

If the truth isn't the truth then I want nothing to do with it; I'll quit all things to do with the faith and spend every waking minute finding earthly pleasure and committing crimes. Why not?

How interesting. This person is stating that if the “truth” as he sees it is not the “truth” as he sees it, then he would abandon the Faith and seek a life as a hedonist.

We are often told by preachers that we should not turn from the Faith as soon as we hear a hard teaching. We are told that we should not lose faith in the doctrines of the Church as soon as we hear one we cannot believe to be true. We are so often encouraged to have faith in the teachings of the Scriptures even if they seem incredible. Why? Because we are to have faith in the God that the Scriptures proclaim. And yet, this individual is threatening to abandon the Faith when it does not conform to his own view of what should or should not be.

As Paul said, if we believe these things in vain, we are most to be pitied above all men. It's crazy to follow a religion you don't believe in, but if you do believe, Aristotle's law of contradiction applies; i.e., the Word of God cannot not be the Word of God, and if it is the Word of God, then it must be treated as such, and to question every prophecy, dumb-down and pragmatize every allegory and mysterious thing, to give some scientific explanation for anything awe-inspiring, is to assert that a finite man knows more about the book then the One and Only God knows, the very One who created trees, ink, the universe, Daniel the man, Daniel the book, heaven, and hell.

And yet this individual assumes that he knows more about the book of Daniel than others. The commentators have a view of the book of Daniel which does not conflict with their view of its authority and truthfulness or their faith in God.

This individual appears to be somewhat scared of serious historical criticism and literary analysis. He appears to fear that if anything is less than “magical” or “mysterious” then it must not then be from God. How odd is this? “If the book of Daniel does not appear to be “miraculous” to us then it is not from God.” Why does he believe this? Because he has been told by atheists and others that if a logical explanation is available then it must not be from God … and this individual believes them! But why? Why believe them? But, he does, and then he spends the rest of his ministry attempting to make sure that no one understands any aspect of the Faith. This has been the same thing with theories of evolution. “If man was not made by some “miracle” then God didn’t do it.” Why do we think this? The rain that falls from the sky isn’t “miraculous”; meteorologists now know how rain is made. Does this mean that God doesn’t create rain? Of course not! All of us were born from a woman by means of a human sperm and egg that grew for nine months. Scientists know how humans are reproduced. Were any of us not created by God? Does anyone believe that God couldn’t have created us because we know how we were created? Of course not!

Just because something can be explained does not mean that God didn’t do it. Not everything that God does is beyond our comprehension. Some things that once were beyond our comprehension no longer are. Is God any less miraculous? Of course not!

If every single solitary miracle of the Bible was rationally and scientifically explained beyond a shadow of a doubt then it would mean not effect the Christian Faith or in our belief that God caused these “miracles” one iota.

Jesus the Savior said call no one on earth father, for one is your father (God), no one on earth leader, for one is your leader (Jesus), and no one your teacher, for one is your teacher (the Holy Spirit, and the Three are One). John said in 1 John that the anointing you received (i.e., the Holy Spirit) causes you to have need to be taught by no one. Forget scholarship, commentary, priests, pastors, popes, and the like, buy an interlinear copy of the Greek New Testament (such as George Berry's with Strong's numbering and two Greek dictionaries in the back),

But was not John teaching them when he wrote those words in John 1?

I hate to post such statements because I know that no almost no Southern Baptist or evangelical agrees with him but I do want to put everything he says in his context.

have faith that Jesus wrote every word, and be taught from the great and Eternal Spirit of Truth and Love and Knowledge and Wisdom; for you are to answer to Him on the day of Judgment, and not to earthly scribes. The Pope claims to be infallible [also note in the book of Matthew at the ordaining of the first pope, i.e., Jesus calling Peter the Rock and giving him the keys of the kingdom(if you believe that to be the interpretation), that a few verses later He called Him Satan- Matt. 16:23, showing that even if there was such a thing as a Pope, we wouldn't be infallible], but the Bible isn't?

So are the letters of 1 Peter and 1 Peter fallible?

So Peter wasn’t infallible because of what he said in Matt. 16:22, but what is written in 16:22 is infallible?


As Paul said, they wish to shut you out, so that you will seek them. Do not seek them, seek Jesus, "for whoever confesses with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believes in their heart that God raised Him from the dead, shall be saved" (Romans 10:9). And again, "everyone, whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Joel 3:5). I love you all very much in Jesus; sincerely, a concerned brother -Col. 1:9

Well, I would listen to what he was saying but I don’t need to be taught by anyone except God … and God is teaching me that I should listen to the authors of the Anchor Bible Commentary on Daniel.

At some point in my ministry, I intend to teach a class on the Book of Daniel (even though my particular emphasis is on the New Testament, I would like to teach on Daniel, Genesis, Jonah and Ecclesiastes). When I do so, I will give my students all of the various interpretations of the book and give them the various proposed solutions to different questions about the book. I will tell the students what is the preferred interpretation by their particular body of believers and identify it as such. I will tell the students what interpretation I hold to and identify it as such. In this way, I am being open, honest, equitable and giving the student various options with which to consider as they consider their own faith AND preparing them for the varied opinions which they will encounter in the real world beyond the pews of evangelicalism … if they ever decide to venture that far.

The Tale of Lady Godiva

... from the Deflores Historiarum, as chronicled by Roger of Wendover.

The following dialogue as recounted by Roger of Wendover, including:

John of Wallingford (abbot of St Albans Abbey)
Matthew of Westminster (Benedictine monk and English chronicler)
Adso of Melk (Benedictine novice)
Roger of Wendover (English chronicler)


Incipit comedia Deflores Historiarum

John of Wallingford: May 12th, 1006 .... Coventry, England. The people of that town were suffering grievously under the oppressive taxation of Leofric III, Earl of Mercia and lord of Coventry. His wife, the fair Lady Godiva appealed again and again to her husband, who repeatedly refused to remit the tolls. At last, weary of her entreaties, he said he would grant her request if she would ride naked through the streets of the town. Lady Godiva took him at his word, and after issuing a proclamation that all persons should keep within doors or shut their windows, she rode through nude, with only a clothed lady attendant leading the horse by the reins.

Matthew of Westminster: On that day, everyone in town obediently kept within their houses with their doors, windows and curtains shut. As Godiva and her attendant came down the center street towards the town square, they passed the tailor’s shop. Now they passed the tailor’s ... [cut to the Zapruder tapestry] ... the attendant leading the horse …

John of Wallingford: A moment later, something happened that changed the town of Coventry in a deep and profound way from that day forward.

Adso of Melk: What was it?

Matthew of Westminster: Tom the Tailor peeped .... and Lady Godiva screamed out, "Someone’s peeped!"

John of Wallingford: Then her attendant turned to her mistress and saw Tom the Tailor peeping through his recently procured Venetian shutters.

Matthew of Westminster: That instant, Tom the Tailor was struck blind by God.

Adso of Melk: What a tale!

Roger of Wendover: Unfortunately the immutable laws of Aristotelian physics contradict the whole premise of your tale - entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Allow me to recreate this story by scholasticism - via disputatio - if I may for young Adso as I've heard this tale recounted numerous times.

Father John, Brother Matthew, if you'll permit me. According to the tale you tell Lady Godiva is riding pass the tailor’s shop and then you say that she was peeped upon from the back right side. The attendant, leading the horse out front, quickly turns backs towards her mistress, and sees a peep coming from the tailor’s shop on the right, just behind them. The peep would then have had to have been seen by Lady Godiva facing frontward on the horse and also the lady attendant who having turned backward to face her mistress, sees the peeper, causing her to drop the horse’s reins. A peep seen from two opposing directions at once? That is one magic peeper.

John of Wallingford: That's the way the story is told.

Roger of Wendover: What happened to Lady Godiva’s head when she noticed the peep?

Matthew of Westminster: Well, uh, well, in embarrassment, her head went back and to the left.

Roger of Wendover: Again.

Matthew of Westminster: Back and to the left.

Roger of Wendover: Back and to the left. Back and to the left.

Adso of Melk: What are you saying?

Roger of Wendover: I am saying that the peep could not have come from behind ... that there had to have been a second peeper behind the bushes ... at the dirty stable. If the peeper was behind Lady Godiva, as you tell, it that would have caused her head to turn away forward in embarrassment.

Adso of Melk: So the peep could have only come from the front and to the right.

Roger of Wendover: But that is not what they would have you believe - quod erat demonstrandum.

John of Wallingford: I shall tarry no longer! Roger is a heretic! [begins to depart slowly]

Matthew of Westminster: Father John, Father John! [goes after]

Roger of Wendover: The sad ending is that, in this life, we may never know the real truth.

[Matthew of Westminster takes John of Wallingford by the arm and leads him out]


Translated by PC from the Codex Godivae (or The Godiva Code), 11th century manuscript in the Bodleian Library (Douce manuscript 207).

Arthur's Seat, Edinburgh

In my humble opinion, the top of Arthur's Seat is the most beautiful place on God's Earth. It is my favourite place and I greatly desire to return there soon.

To the Graduates ...

The Dissent of Man: Cliff Notes Version

Yesterday I was asked by one of my pastors for a cliff notes version of my article The Dissent of Man: Where We Currently Stand With Regards To The Conservative Resurgence. I rarely refuse such a request. Also, there were a few other people who have stated that while they thought the post was well thought out, they were unable to read through it all. Therefore, I edited the essay and cut the length down to over half the content. It now stands at just under 6 pages. That's the best I can do at this point.

The Dissent of Man: Where We Currently Stand With Regards To The Conservative Resurgence

or, "You say you want a resolution."

SBC narrowness calls for repentance, reform, disgruntled conservatives say

Proposal “On Dissent” stirs exchange

Conservatives concerned with SBC to meet in Memphis May 1-2

Baptists from diverse backgrounds issue ‘Memphis Declaration’

The Memphis Declaration

I have spent several weeks now thinking about the dissension issue, reading and re-reading the resolution and Baptist news articles and perusing the SBC blogosphere. My objective in pursuing such thoughts was to determine whether or not I would support such a resolution. I have decided to take the opportunity of this BP news article in order to voice my conclusion and opinions on the matter.

First, what are the issues that the dissenters are addressing? I see them as follows:

1) The right of dissent.

2) The extent of the authority given to trustees by the convention delegates to define and enforce church doctrine.

3) The extent of missionary qualifications and missional cooperation.

None of these points are necessarily theological. Perhaps the doctrines of second-degree separation and charismatic gifts were a point of contention among IMB trustees at first, but these were simply theological issues that prompted action regarding the above. When we look at the resolution concerning dissent, we do not see any mention on these doctrines. We certainly do not see any hint of the issue of "private prayer language". What then do we see?

The Official Resolution On Baptist Dissent

"Be it further RESOLVED, that we affirm dissenters both within our denomination and without who raise objection to articles of our confession, policies of our institutions, and governance of our agencies when that dissent has been voiced in a manner consistent with the teaching of Jesus Christ; and

Be it finally RESOLVED, that we wish to continue the tradition of welcoming principled dissent and protecting religious speech as the bedrock upon which a diverse people, such as Southern Baptists, may continue to cooperate for the greater good of evangelism and missions to every tribe, tongue, people, and nation of the world.”

I think that it is these two above stanzas that have the most importance and force.

However, I see this resolution as primarily symbolic in nature without any measure to insure that the resolution, if agreed upon by the majority, is actually honored by the convention leadership and the agency trustees. The fact that it is such a principled point without the normal safeguards that normally would insure general acknowledgement makes it such a sublime effort and (dare I say) subversive (i.e. Christlike) tactic. Those who are advocating this resolution are not demanding allegiance but requesting a good faith measure completely within the bounds of Christian brotherhood. No one is to be removed from positions of leadership. No one is to be told that they cannot continue to seek their agenda (i.e., the trustees can continue to make up rules by their convention-given authority and others can continue to try to change the rules by principles dissent). In reality, the Conservative Resurgence and the SBC leadership have nothing tangible to lose. In reality, this measure, if enacted, would allow them to continue to pursue their agenda without any realistic restraints ... save for the allowance that other people can publicly disagree with them. And it is for this latter allowance which will cause them to fight tooth and nail to keep this resolution from being successfully appoved. This is why, if passed, they will seek to circumnavigate this resolution in the most atrocious and dubious manner.

THEY CANNOT AND WILL NOT ALLOW DISSENT.

They will always try to silence dissent, criticism and anyone who disagrees with them, their goals or their methods.

Many of the current Resurgent leadership talk about how true are their beliefs and how certain they are about how right are their beliefs and how wrong are the beliefs of their opponents. However, I have always suspected that they are either uncertain about the validity of their beliefs or they are uncertain about their ability to convince others of their beliefs. Why do I say that? Sure, they talk a good game in expressing their own certainty, but their actions are always the actions of those on the defensive and those somewhat uncertain about effectiveness of truth to make itself known.

1) They never want to debate their beliefs with those who disagree with them. They avoid honest discussion about disagreements. In fact, they attempt to defend their beliefs only when know other option is available. The IMB rule changes are an example. Only after the general outcry did they seek to explain and justify their actions. And, as Dr. Pearle states (see below), when the trustees make a decision everyone else is supposed to get behind them. If I was certain that this was an opinion unique to Dr. Pearle (a very nice and competent pastor and man with an extremely charming wife) then it could be chalked up to an isolated matter totally removed from the prevailing opinion of the SBC and its leaders. Alas, the opinion stated by Dr. Pearle (see below) is the common assumption by the SBC leadership. (I’ve often wondered if the problem with the Conservative Resurgent leadership and the SBC leadership in general is that they have an incorrect and unscriptural view of pastoral leadership that they practice in their own churches which is then practiced in the convention and its agencies they lead.)

2) They are very afraid of allowing people who disagree with them to be heard. They have always tried to silence disagreement. The most noticeable case is the Wade Burleson incident but this also includes the seminaries, the Baptist colleges and the Baptist news outlets. The “moderates” never attempted to silence disagreement but took the opportunity to express why they believed their views were correct and why the opposing view was wrong. The “conservatives” never wish to discuss the matter; they prefer to silence opposition. They prefer to keep other arguments from being heard, especially in the colleges and the seminaries. I have always thought this was odd; they do not want people hearing arguments and beliefs with which they disagree. Why? Are they so uncertain about their own beliefs that they are afraid that they cannot withstand a counter-argument? If so, maybe their arguments are then not very sound. I myself am so confident in my beliefs that I would never dream of silencing those who disagree with me. Let people who disagree with you speak up. Let their beliefs (however wrong) be aired and then publicly proven to be wrong, if that is the case. But what if I believe I am right but am actually wrong? Wouldn’t I want to be publicly proven wrong in order that no one else falls into the error I myself fell into? Of course! Or am I so uncertain or so prideful that I am afraid to be proven wrong and even more afraid that I will be done so publicly?

They cannot and will not allow it. To do so would be to undermine all that they believe and all that supports their belief. I actually fear that this resolution, if passed, will do great damage to the Conservative Resurgent movement. But it will do so by methods completely Christlike and antithetical to those employed by the Conservative Resurgence leadership. The only reason that I would not support this resolution is because I am sure that it is going to cause the Resurgent leadership to "stumble".

Let us look at the BP article.

A proposed resolution “On Baptist Dissent” generated a measure of that dynamic in an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

The proposal, submitted by a Fort Worth-area pastor to affirm “principled dissent” among Baptists, is a response to a policy adopted by the International Mission Board’s trustees stipulating that an IMB trustee cannot criticize board decisions.

The policy is “an unprecedented action in Southern Baptist life,” Benjamin Cole told the Star-Telegram. Cole is pastor of Parkview Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, which is part of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. Cole cited the IMB board’s efforts to “silence” trustee Wade Burleson of Oklahoma over the pastor’s airing of his IMB-related opinions on an Internet blog. Burleson blogged about his opposition to IMB policies adopted last year on private prayer language and baptism. The new policies exclude missionary candidates who practice a private prayer language (or hold that conviction) and require nominees be baptized in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone; does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative; and embraces the doctrine of eternal security of the believer.

IMB trustee Bob Pearle, pastor of Fort Worth’s Birchman Baptist Church, defended the policy, telling the newspaper, "What we are talking about is that when trustees vote on something, then the whole body needs to get behind it."

One of the leaders of the Conservative Resurgence is currently pastored by Dr. Pearle. Is this a coincidence?

1) Many of the IMB trustees have dismissed Pastor Cole as only pursuing this issue in order to get back at this Resurgent leader. But how could they think that this was Pastor Cole’s agenda if that leader wasn’t involved?

2) When defending the new IMB rules, the lead IMB trustee cites an unpublished article by this Resurgent leader. Of all the sources to cite with regards to these issues, how is it that the lead IMB trustee refers to an UNPUBLISHED article?

3) This Resurgent leader preaches on this subject just at the time when this issue is at the forefront; a sermon which is in complete agreement with IMB policy changes.

4) And, again, one of the IMB trustees (and now Baptist Press reference) is the pastor of this Resurgent leader.

Are these all coincidences? Yes, they are all coincidences which is why we need to examine such incidences carefully. I believe in coincidences, but I am always suspicious of them.

Now that I know who is behind all these IMB rule changes I now understand the fear and panic of the SBC leadership over Wade Burleson and his blog. Many SBC leaders do not like blogs because they are practically uncontrolable. They can control the Baptist Press, seminary public relations, and Baptist state news agencies, but blogs are out of their control (see Dan Rather). During the 1980s, the Conservative Resurgent leadership spent a lot of effort taking control of the Baptist Press and other news agencies so that they could control the information that the average Southern Baptist received. Now any joe-schmoe can send his evidence and opinions to everyone in the world without money, time, effort and the entire SBC behind him. Let’s be honest, the SBC leadership looks at SBC bloggers like the mainstream media looks at the Drudge Report. The SBC leadership looks at SBC bloggers and the internet like the Latin Roman Catholic Church looked at Luther and his use of the printing press and the common German tongue. They fear bloggers and other dissenters because they themselves know how effective such actions can be because they themselves were successful with them.

Pearle, in rhetorical fashion, asked, "If these so-called Baptist leaders he [Cole] has in mind are silencing dissent, why isn't he being silenced?"

Of course, Pastor Cole is not a IMB trustee and cannot be silenced. However, if he was one, then he could be silenced and prevented from publicly voicing his criticisms. Furthermore, if the majority of the trustees agreed with Pastor Cole, then Dr. Pearle could be silenced and prevented from voicing his complaints about Pastor Cole.

Also notice this: 1) Dr. Pearle states that when a SBC agency makes a decision that the "whole body" should support that decision or remain silent (whether he is referring to the trustees in particular or the SBC in general, I do not know). Perhaps this is how some churches are run, perhaps this is how all churches should be run, but this is not necessarily how a convention or agency should be run. If it were, then the Conservative Resurgent leadership violated this principle by their own dissent and takeover. 2) Dr. Pearle says that no one should dissent but then says that no one is being silenced. I can understand how he can believe these two things. He means (I believe), “Dissenters are not being silenced even though they should not be dissenting publicly.” This in of itself from an IMB trustee is more reason than anything to express the need for such a resolution of dissent. Let us assume that Dr. Pearle is correct and that dissent is allowed by the SBC: 1) Then there would be no harm in codifying such a practice because it is simply acknowledging the current practices of the SBC. 2) If dissent is currently allowed but there are trustees that believe dissent should not be allowed then this would be a good opportunity to safeguard the practice of dissent lest future trustees decide to codify their own personal opinions about dissent to prevent anyone from questioning their actions.

Cole’s proposed resolution states in part, “Every tributary of Baptist identity includes an era of dissent from institutions, policies, political oppressions, and systems of belief that violate the individual conscience....

“Both our Anabaptist and English Separatist forefathers knew the power of the dissent to shield the soul from compromise on matters essential to faith, church polity, and the ordinances, often suffering ostracism, exile, and even death for their principled refusal to compromise their unpopular and inviolable convictions....”

Cole’s draft cites various resolutions adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention over the years, including a 1992 resolution titled, “On the Right of Religious Freedom for All Human Beings.”

Clever, Pastor Cole.

Among his “be it resolved” clauses:

-- “that we regard all attempts to silence principled dissent by fellow Baptists within our denomination, or of any religious minority, as a compromise of our cherished Baptist witness and an egregious disservice to the Kingdom of God.” Dissent should be affirmed when it has been “voiced in a manner consistent with the teaching of Jesus Christ.”

-- “that we wish to continue the tradition of welcoming principled dissent and protecting religious speech as the bedrock upon which a diverse people, such as Southern Baptists, may continue to cooperate for the greater good of evangelism and missions to every tribe, tongue, people, and nation of the world.”

Now I have some personal experience with the people involved in and promoting the IMB rule change (Full disclosure: I also have some minor personal experience with those leading the charge for the resolution on dissension). Let me tell you: from the 1960s thru the 1980s, these people (those involved in and promoting the IMB rule change) were not in power in the convention and its agencies and dissented all over the place and encouraged such dissent by pastors and students both in the seminaries and the agencies. However, they did not dissent and encourage dissent because of any principles they wished to address but because they desired to take over the convention and its agencies in order to enact those principles. Of course, those who were then in charge did not put any restrictions upon such dissent and see what happened to them. And this is why these former dissenters are now so dead-set against any dissension from their leadership, from their decisions and of their beliefs: they are scared of such dissension because they know it can be used to achieve power. That this is not the aim of the current dissenters is irrelevant because the SBC leaders cannot take that chance.

Also, they do not believe that the aim is to address such principles. If, for example, one were to criticize a school for how it fires its employees, such criticism is not viewed as an honest complaint but as an excuse to attack their leadership and the movement they are spearheading. Because they believe your intentions are not honorable, they 1) ignore your complaint because they do not believe that is the issue of concern and 2) take your criticism as extremely dangerous because they believe your intentions are malicious and subversive. Therefore, the punishment for such dissension is more severe than it would be normally because they believe the intentions behind the criticisms are more severe.

And they believe this is the case because they themselves acted this way. The Conservative Resurgent leadership used the issue of inerrancy as a criticism in order to gain control of the seminary. Why do I not believe that this is issue was not genuine?

1) They themselves wrote articles and books that contained stances on the Scriptures that do not pass their own definition of inerrancy.

2) They accused their political opponents of holding to errancy when such individuals steadfastly held to a stricter form of inerrancy than their accusers.

3) People were fired not because of theological errors but because of “wrong” political associations and allegiances.

4) People who did have known views of errancy in the Scriptures escaped unscathed from the mass firings if they had “right” political associations and allegiances.

But how about those leading the charge for the resolution on dissension? What kind of people are they? With reference to the Memphis meeting: at this point, I must say that any fear of their intentions is quickly and totally evaporating. Everything that the dissatisfied are voicing and doing has been completely open and public. They did not meet behind close doors and did not formulate takeover strategies in a New Orleans “coffee” house. They invited convention leaders and trustees to join the meeting and invited the press to cover it. There appears to be no double-dealing or under-the-table negotiations at work. And the reason for why this is the case is because of who these people are that are meeting. Who are these “dissenters”?

1) They're not liberals. They're not even moderates. They are conservative, bordering on fundamentalism. They certainly aren’t charismatics, but perhaps charismatic sympathizers. At most, we can say that they are non-Landmarkist evangelical conservatives.

2) None of them have any problem with the BFM 2000. All of them readily support it to the utmost. In fact, one of their main bugaboos is that the IMB trustees are exceeding the authority granted to them by the BFM 2000. They desire greater conformity by the SBC agencies and agency leaders to the document, though acknowledging the principled right to disagree with it.

3) They have been appointed to positions of leadership by the SBC leadership AND Conservative Resurgent leaders, including the architects of that movement. These are not outsiders like the Resurgent leadership trying to enter into the convention hierarchy. They are insiders with a lot of experience working within the Resurgent denomination and with the Resurgent and Convention leadership. They are actively seeking help and guidance from the SBC leadership concerning their grievances and concerns.

4) They agreed with the Conservative Resurgence in both its goals and much of the methods applied. At most, they are like much of the conservatives of my generation who were unable to experience the Resurgence of the 70s and 80s: they agree that the Resurgence was then necessary but that it has gone too far.

5) They are mostly Gen Xers which means that the SBC Boomer leadership is going to have to address their concerns to some degree because they are the general concerns of the majority of a generation that has and is about to assume leadership of the churches and ministries of the SBC. They may never have leadership of the convention hierarchy and agencies (there are other Xers who will be appointed to those positions), but others will have to address their concerns. If not, the SBC will become further isolated and further irrelevant which is what these dissenters are trying to prevent.

But let's look again at the Resurgent leadership:

"If these so-called Baptist leaders he [Cole] has in mind are silencing dissent, why isn't he being silenced?"

I think we can take from this statement of Dr. Pearle that, if the resolution on dissent is approved by the convention, the plan of action will be a continuation of the same. Again, there is nothing in the resolution that expressly enforces or insures acknowledgment by the convention leadership. Furthermore, the convention leadership is stating that this resolution is net needed.

“There is no need for this resolution on dissent because no one is being silenced. People who have been disciplined are not being disciplined because of their public dissent but for matters unrelated to their criticism."

Firings and dismissals are the common and prevalent punishment for dissenters. I can name several individuals from recent memory whom everyone would recognize and who were critical of the Conservative Resurgence but who were all dismissed from their SBC positions because of “unrelated matters”.

For students, firings, probation or expulsion are the general actions. If there is not rule preventing you from dissenting, then they will find some “sin” they can accuse you of and for which they claim they are punishing. In Wade Burleson’s case it was “breaking trust” and “not submitting to accountability”. If there is no recent “sin” they can pin on you, then they will find a “sin” in your past of which they say you haven’t been punished. I will refrain from giving an example. Failing all this, they will punish you for a rule that they have yet to make but will so shortly. There are plenty of examples of this but the most immediate one I must also refrain from mentioning.

So if the Resurgent leadership can so easily ignore and “get around” the resolution if passed, then why should they not simply allow the resolution to pass without much ado and then continue on as normal as if nothing has occurred?

1) They do not want any resolution with which they disagree that has been approved by the majority of convention delegates however binding to be a precedent for future action. One of the clever points of the Resolution on Dissension is that it references previous resolutions about this subject. This particular resolution may be merely rhetorical, but a future resolution of a far more binding nature could be enacted and buttressed by this current resolution. The Resurgent leaders would rather not allow potential future problems to incrementally manifest themselves.

2) One of the primary themes of the Conservative Resurgence has been against any lack of conformity: soul competency is disliked, everyone must agree to the 2000 BFM, individualism is generally frowned upon, anything that is regarded as other than the standard cannot be allowed to remain. This was the driving mindset of the Resurgence and the quarter century purge – a purge that continues even today. Furthermore, as I have argued elsewhere, the trend in the SBC continues to be towards greater conformity to the BFM 2000 in particular. While not all the Resurgent and Convention leadership supports such a trend, there are many in the convention (both leaders and “laity”) who do. Some groups are trying to have all Baptist state colleges and their professors adopt the BFM. Other groups are working towards having all churches in a given county association adopt the BFM in order to remain a part of that association. Still another contingent of the BFM-happy is arguing that every seminary student (who receives Cooperative Program money) is under obligation to affirm the beliefs of the 2000 BFM. A resolution of dissent runs antithetical to this particular strand of creedal conformity.

3) The incident that instigated this dissent movement was the attack on Wade Burleson. This attack was a huge miscalculation and it’s still hurting. Any resolution attempting to prevent such an attack from happening again only points back to this generally recognized error. The Resurgent leadership wants that incident forgotten and a resolution by Burleson supporters is not a welcome development.

4) When looking at Pastor Burleson, Pastor Cole and the rest of the Memphis 30, the Resurgent Leaders see a threat and a big one. Why are they considered a threat?

a. They are criticizing the Resurgent Leaders and proposing the possibility that more criticism should be welcomed.

b. They are a few people in this group who are considered suspect for both practical and personal reasons.

c. The manner in which this Dissent Movement is unfolding is eerily familiar to many of the Resurgent leaders who (as stated above) have been paranoid about the possibility that a disgruntled group of Southern Baptists (like themselves) will use the tactics they used to wrestle control away from the convention (just like they did). The Conservative Resurgence took practical control of the convention in 10 years. Another group could do the same in the same amount of time. It is always the fear of usurpers that they themselves will be usurped.

(This latter point is why any change in the SBC by reformers must not seek to wrestle power or apply secular, political methods. Such methods are unChristlike for one and only temporary for another. The process of change must be the submissive and often slow process of repentance of individual by individual. This method takes time and much patience but it permanence lasts and is just as difficult to overthrow. God took millions and billions of years to sculpt His planet Earth by means of water, wind, lava, gravity and plate tectonics. The Church as the body of Christ is now God’s means of sculpting humanity. We are the water, the wind, the lava, the gravity and the plate tectonics. )

d. The Resurgent leaders do not really yet know how to deal with these people. How so?

i. The Memphis 30 are mostly bloggers and the Resurgent leadership is baffled by such means even while knowing its effectiveness to both inform and persuade.

ii. These dissenters cannot be categorized as either moderates or liberals. They cannot be considered either outsiders or necessarily overly disgruntled individuals seeking revenge. The Resurgent leadership does not yet know how to properly label them in order to have them discounted by the rest of the SBC.

iii. It took the Resurgent leadership almost a year to drum up enough support to have the SBC withdrawal from the Baptist World Alliance. With the dissenters, they have 6 weeks.

iv. They know that the Wade Burleson incident is one of the biggest P.R. debacles in recent memory and one which caught the attention of many in the SBC, including those quite unfamiliar with the Conservative Resurgence. The Resurgent leaders do not simply have to persuade neutral delegates that the Resolution on Dissent is a bad idea (like the BWA issue) but actually first dissuade delegates partial towards Burleson that they should not be partial towards him and his current goals … and do it in 6 weeks! A monumental task for anyone.

v. The Resurgent leaders are going to have to persuade the SBC and its delegates that, the dissenters are incorrect and the convention agencies and trustees do not need greater supervision and accountability by the convention. But such an argument runs counter to the initial claims and expressed goals of the Conservative Resurgence. Before they gained control of the SBC, the Resurgent leadership claimed that the actions of the Pre-1979 Convention did not reflect the will of Southern Baptists and that the SBC should be held accountable. But now that they themselves are in positions of convention leadership their claim is that they know best, they do not need to be held accountable to the delegates and that everyone should back them when they make a decision. They are now stumbling to justify their new position but, at this point, they do not realize the contradiction they are in.

What then can the Resurgent leadership do to foil this perceived threat?

1. Currently, since there is only a short time to the convention meeting and there is greater sympathy in the convention for Burleson, the leadership is publicly ignoring the movement. They are burying the news articles about the resolution in SBC digest articles and removing them completely the next day. They are ceasing to comment about the Burleson incident any the proposed resolution. Furthermore, while not mentioning the opposition, their grievances and proposed solutions to those grievances, the leadership has begun to bolster their own stances and the specific elements of their leadership (agencies and trustees) that are under attack. See here.

2. Expect a surprise at the convention prior to the vote, ala the October Surprise. I can recall a similar such surprise prior to a crucial vote concerning the BWA in 2004. Off of the top of my head I can think of two possible lines of attack and accusation.

But what should be done about the SBC and its current leadership? How should the concerned respond? What is the purpose of the dissension resolution? What should the plan of action be to solve problems in the SBC?

1) The goal of any movement to address the problems of the SBC should be that and that alone and should not be an effort takeover of the convention. As of yet, such an effort is not underway and has not been advocated by anyone critical of current SBC practices, nor should it ever be. The movement to protect dissension should be that and that alone. It should not be used to hurt or damage or divide the convention or bruise the SBC leadership. Any effort to use dissension for political means should be identified as such and dismissed.

2) I myself am not interested in taking control of the SBC and I will not support any action designed to do so. While I think the Conservative Resurgent leadership has been unwise, I also think that they are increasingly irrelevant and have made the positions they hold increasingly irrelevant. While I believe they are doing extreme damage to the SBC, they are so unimportant and immaterial that it is best to leave them alone in their lonely castles while the rest of Christendom and the Kingdom of God passes them by. In effect, they have made themselves irrelevant and it would be more dangerous to the Church to remove them from their current positions of irrelevancy than to keep them shut up in their own little corners.

3) If I have such a huge problem with tactics of the Conservative Resurgent leadership, then how could I justify the use of such actions against them? This matter for me has never been about control of the SBC. While I disagree with theology and goals of the Conservative Resurgence, I did not and do not care about them. To me, they are irrelevant and ultimately unimportant. Again, I disagree, but I don’t mind. However, the methods of the Conservative Resurgence are a problem. I have always believed and continue to believe that such methods are unscriptural, un-Christlike, should not be practiced and it is with this that I have ultimately staked my criticism. MY PROBLEM WITH THE CONSERVATIVE RESURGENCE IS HOW IT HAS TREATED PEOPLE. This has always been my issue of complaint and it continues to be so.

4) Therefore, I will never support any movement that adopts such methods and practices however much I am in agreement upon the goals of the movement. To this end, if the SBC leadership and Conservative Resurgent leadership are ever treated like they treated the previous convention leadership, I will defend the SBC and Conservative Resurgent leadership with all the power at my disposal regardless of their previous actions. It is unfortunate that the Conservative Resurgent leadership and architects do not believe that someone can disagree with the movement but also not care. It is unfortunate that they cannot separate criticism of methods with criticism of goals. Of course, in my case, it didn’t help that I disagreed with the goals. But, as I have said, “I disagree, but I don’t mind.”

Therefore, I am resolved to throw my humble and somewhat insignificant support behind the proposed resolution on dissension even though …

1) It appears to be an unenforceable and mostly symbolic declaration of principles.

2) I am somewhat concerned that the reaction by the Resurgent leadership will be somewhat severe, enough to cause them to stumble.

3) My own theology and method of implementing the kingdom differs from that of the dissenters such that, while they themselves are loyal to the traditional convention system and honestly pursuing measures that they believe will continue its effectiveness, I myself am somewhat indifferent to the continuation of this method of missions and am perfectly happy to shrug off the fact that the SBC as an organization is continually advancing towards irrelevancy and ineffectiveness. The advancement of the kingdom progresses without or without the SBC.

4) As of yet, I feel that the "private prayer language" issue has not been properly addressed by anyone in the SBC, including the Memphis Dissenters.

But, again, I am in support of this resolution and its principle backers because …

1) The attitude, methods and openness of the resolution’s principle backers gives one confidence that their public expression of intended goals is legitimate. As of yet, none of the aspects of this particular group conflicts with my sense of how the kingdom is to be implemented.

2) I am no “moderate” and let us never shrink from doing the proper thing out of fear that it will aggravate others (like some Baptist Neville Chamberlain) or cause the spiritually immature to stumble.

3) I am not against the SBC becoming increasingly relevant and effective if whatever effect they have is positive and well within the proper bounds of its stated mission and the approved Scriptural parameters. This resolution may in fact be the beginning of a resuscitation in the life of the SBC which leaves this current period of Landmarkist and Fundamentalistic leadership and their tendencies as a brief and bizarre period of Baptist life. Sort of like a Southern Baptist version of the British Protectorate under Cromwell between the monarchy under Charles I and the Restoration period under Charles II.

4) The IMB rule banning "private prayer language" among SBC missionaries was an inexcusable and heinous intrusion into the personal worship between an individual and his God. While (as stated above) I do not think the Memphis Dissenters (or anyone else for that matter) is properly addressing the private prayer language issue, I can see how the stated goals of these dissenters can perhaps either rectify the issue down the road or at least prevent such egregious abuse of power from happening again in the future.

I honestly hope that nothing divisive or “underhanded” occurs in the next two months or that the current events with respect to Burleson lead to regrettable incidences of inter-Baptist persecution and further trends towards conformity and hierarchal control. I have been praying about all these events since they began at the IMB and ALL those involved. While I am very pleased about the reinstatement of the Dobbs as missionaries to Guinea, I am still somewhat pessimistic about what will be occurring. I really do pray that I am wrong about all my predictions.