Denominational Discourse & the Future of the SBC

Klemens
von Metternich was one of Europe’s greatest statesmen during the 19th
Century. Both as foreign minister, and then for nearly three-decades as chancellor
of the Austrian Empire, his statecraft shaped Europe and prevented numerous
wars. Most consequentially, Metternich presided over the Congress of Vienna in
1814-15, which determined the post-Napoleonic configuration of Europe. His era
came to be known as the “Age of Metternich.”

Metternich
observed that nation-states are motivated to act in their own best interest.
That principle outlasted the man himself and, during the Cold War, it informed
the United States’ posture toward the Soviet Union. The doctrine of Mutually
Assured Destruction surmised that neither superpower would force a direct
confrontation, knowing there would be no winner. In other words, it was in both
countries’ best interest to avoid war in light of the destruction it would
surely bring.

This
foreign-policy calculation was upended by the Age of Terrorism. With terrorism,
there often is no state sponsor, thus, no identifiable nation-state against
which to retaliate. The loss is imbalanced. A nation, like the United States,
has everything to lose while an extremist, in a cave plotting an attack, has next-to-nothing
to lose.

With
the arrival of the internet and, in particular blogging and social media, a
similar scenario has developed in the online world. There’s an imbalance of
loss when public accusations are made. The one who leads a public ministry has
everything to lose, while an anonymous blogger has nothing to lose.

This
new reality is causing chaos in the Southern Baptist Convention. False
accusations are circulated online daily. Ironically, some of these instigators
aren’t even Southern Baptist. Nonetheless, they malign SBC ministries and sully
the reputations of those who lead them. And, for Southern Baptists, our
cooperative work is being threatened.

To Respond or Not to Respond? The Minister’s Catch-22

Complicating
matters is whether or not one should to respond to a false accusation. It is simply
a catch-22. The larger the ministry platform one has, the greater the dilemma. Whichever
way you choose to respond, you lose. There is no upside.

If
you choose to respond, you give oxygen to the story. You’ll draw more attention
to the false claim and protract its news cycle. You’ll extend both the range
and the duration of its reach. You’ll generate more clicks for the website,
which is often exactly what the accuser is after anyway.

Additionally,
responding (and all that response might entail) takes time, and that’s time
most Christian leaders don’t have to waste. Even worse, to respond can be
dirty. As Adrian Rogers warned, “You can’t wrestle with a skunk and come out
smelling like a rose.”

Yet,
if you don’t respond, onlookers may conclude the article is accurate. People
may interpret your silence as a tacit admission of guilt. What is more, the lie
may continue to be repeated. And, as Adolf Hitler famously reflected, “If you
tell a big enough lie, and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

When it Happens
to You

In
recent days, I experienced such an attack. It’s not the first, and it won’t be
the last. Inexplicably, an anonymous website published an anonymous article
that cited anonymous sources. From start to finish, the article was a complete
lie. It wasn’t a misunderstanding or even a slight misrepresentation. It was a
complete fabrication. It was entirely apocryphal, a total lie. Its intent was
to slander me, to impugn me, and to do me harm. 

Thankfully, the accusations were relatively benign. The blogger wasn’t accusing me of scandalous behavior or immoral activity. Thus, the substance of the accusations didn’t alarm me much. Rather, the fact that the accusations were so patently untrue did. Thus, I chose not to ignore this one. I chose to engage the article head-on.

I
demanded this person produce evidence or retract the article and publicly
repent. After 24 hours of pressure, the article was retracted and something of
an apology was issued. It was a small, qualified victory in a larger struggle
the SBC seems to be losing.

Accountability Yes,
Accusations No

Yet, we must be careful not to unwittingly suppress means of accountability, especially when it comes to matters of doctrine. As Southern Baptists, we know the high price of assuming doctrinal integrity. We dare not be asleep at the wheel theologically. Thus, I’d rather serve in a confessional community too concerned about doctrinal compromise than one apathetic about the same.

Moreover,
Southern Baptists have a right to know what their leaders believe, how their
entities operate, and why they make the decisions and take the positions they
do. Most especially, they have a right to know what their seminaries teach. And
it’s actually easy to know.  Look to the
confessional statement(s) the seminaries require their faculty to affirm. There
might be more work to do, but that’s the right place to start.

As
a Southern Baptist seminary president, I’m fully aware the churches own their
entities. As a seminary president, I serve Southern Baptists; they don’t serve
me. I work for Southern Baptists; they don’t work for me. Southern Baptists
hold me accountable; I don’t hold them accountable. I report to Southern
Baptists; they don’t report to me.

When in Doubt, Ask
Questions

The
primary context of my accountability within the SBC is the Midwestern Seminary
Board of Trustees, but it doesn’t end there. I field questions from Southern
Baptists regularly and, of course, before the gathered convention every June as
well.

And
ask questions of our leaders we should. No entity or national leader is above
accountability. To ask honest questions isn’t launching an attack, it’s being a
responsible Southern Baptist stakeholder. 

I’m
always happy to hear from Southern Baptists, and I often do. I work to respond
to their correspondence in a timely and forthright manner. At times, my answers
may be less-than-satisfying, especially if personnel or other legally sensitive
matters are involved.

For
inquirers, the best way to express concerns, especially if you don’t personally
know the leader, is by writing them a letter. A letter arrives with a certain
degree of formality, which prompts a response. A letter has a name associated
with it, a return address and, hopefully, a cogent statement of the question or
concern.

If
you write a letter to a ministry leader, especially a Southern Baptist leader,
I’m confident you’ll receive an answer from them or their office. If not,
you’ll have a legitimate complaint, and perhaps legitimate cause to escalate by
writing the entity’s chairman of the board or even drawing public attention to
the matter.

In summary, questions are always in-bounds. Accusations are always out-of-bounds. Honest inquirers should be treated with respect. Direct questions should receive direct answers. False accusations should be dismissed, and those who traffic in such should be called out.

In Conclusion

The
Southern Baptist Convention’s organizing principle is that our churches can
accomplish more collectively than we can individually. Within the boundaries of
the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, we choose to partner for missions,
evangelism, theological education, and the like.

The
SBC’s lynchpin is mutual trust, which is built upon shared convictions and
shared mission. When false accusations abound, that mutual trust is weakened.
No organization can long survive, much less thrive, if that trust is daily under
assault. Southern Baptists are a great people, but if we are able to maintain doctrinal
accountability while rejecting false accusations, we’ll be even greater.

Winston
Churchill purportedly said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world before
the truth can get its boots on.” If the Southern Baptist Convention is to
endure, we’re going to have to get our boots on more quickly.

The post Denominational Discourse & the Future of the SBC appeared first on Jason K. Allen.