Editorial

Trying to decide what to editorialize about following the conclusion of the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in Greensboro last week is like trying to drink water out of fire hydrant. Undoubtedly, this year’s annual meeting was the most news-packed SBC in many years and included many items ripe for editorial comment.

I could praise outgoing SBC President Bobby Welch for his masterful and good-natured presiding over often contentious debates and difficult motions. Welch was at most times irenic and long-suffering, always attempting to allow messengers the widest latitude in expressing their views, while keeping the Convention on track and unfailingly bringing us back to our priority concern about a lost and dying world.

Click on image for related coverage

I could note the messengers’ contradictions on the Cooperative Program — convincingly choosing for president Frank Page whose church’s exemplary CP support clearly propelled him to victory even while messengers chose as second vice president a pastor whose church has an incredibly poor CP track record. Although the beneficiary of the most entertaining nomination speech in a long time, it was sad that the Convention elected a man more known for his microphone-hogging, self-indulgent and almost always out-of-order motions than for his serious support for the work of the Convention through the Cooperative Program. But, we laughed, and that’s what seemed to be the most important qualification for this office.

Further, even while the SBC affirmed the importance of the Cooperative Program in choosing its president, messengers turned back an effort to strengthen the Executive Committee’s CP report by re-inserting language holding up the 10 percent ideal for churches and for those elected to lead the Convention.

I could write about the often overstated role of the so-called “bloggers,” the Internet diarists/activists/politicians who indeed impacted this year’s meeting — especially the introduction of motions, the Resolutions Committee debate and less clearly the presidential election. The bloggers are eagerly pointing to The New York Times and TIME Magazine stories crediting the movement with the new president’s election, even though the secular media — as in this occasion — are almost always wrong in their evaluations of SBC annual meetings.

The idea that Weblogs that are read by a very small number of people was definitive in the presidential election grossly fails to appreciate the fact that the annual meeting was held in the winning presidential candidate’s hometown and in the state neighboring his current place of ministry. It also fails to recognize the overriding factor Cooperative Program giving played in the outcome. I know many messengers who voted for Page who most definitely did not take their cues from the bloggers.

Alternatively, I could editorialize about yet another Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting with Florida Baptists again at front and center in leadership — from Bobby Welch’s final Convention as president to Forrest Pollock of Bell Shoals Baptist Church in Brandon nominating the winning presidential candidate to Guy Sanders of First Baptist Church in New Port Richey shepherding the Convention through the Committee on Nominations report to three Floridians — Pollock, Dwayne Mercer of First Baptist Church in Oviedo, and Darrell Orman of First Baptist Church in Stuart — as members of the much-talked about Resolutions Committee to Hayes Wicker of First Baptist Church in Naples being elected president of the 2007 Southern Baptist Pastors’ Conference. Southern Baptists turn every year to Florida to find the best and brightest of the SBC.

Finally, the meaning of the presidential election outcome and the referral of Wade Burleson’s motion calling for an investigation of the International Mission Board are also worthy of editorial attention — and may yet be subjects of future editorials.

Nevertheless, I choose instead to turn to the bewildering debate on the alcohol resolution. For the Baptist Press article on the resolution, see page 7.

I’m sympathetic to my brothers who argued against the resolution on the grounds that it pressed an “extra-biblical” standard on Southern Baptists — after all, who wishes to be accused of adding to the Scriptures? Still, I cannot fathom how this resolution can be categorized in such a manner and I’m incredulous that some would argue so strenuously against this wise, thoughtful resolution.

The key resolved clause in the resolution states that Southern Baptists “express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages.” The resolution also — after it was amended from the floor — urges that those who serve in leadership positions in SBC life not be alcohol consumers. Finally, the resolution urges Southern Baptists to support legislation curbing alcohol uses, educate students and adults about the dangers of alcohol and commend ministries that treat alcohol problems.

There is not one, single word in the resolution arguing that consumption of alcohol in and of itself is a sin. As noted in the debate on the resolution, it’s clear from Scripture that wine was consumed during biblical times — and that it is even encouraged in moderation in select passages of the Bible.

But the idea that adopting a resolution which calls for total abstinence of alcohol is anti-biblical fails to take in account the full biblical witness — as well as the pernicious influence alcohol has had in our society and in the lives of countless individuals.

In a helpful tract, “The Bible Speaks on Alcohol,” the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission reviews how the Bible treats this important matter, honestly noting that alcohol was consumed in biblical times, citing passages which consistently condemn drunkenness, but also reviewing passages which warn Christians against causing others to stumble (Rom. 14:13, 21; 1 Cor. 8:9) and those which require Christians to always be in control of their minds and actions (1 Thess. 5:6; 1 Pet. 1:13; 4:7; 5:8).

The ERLC tract concludes: “Alcohol is treated in the Bible somewhat like slavery and polygamy, which, though not universally condemned, were undermined and ultimately doomed by the high moral principles set forth in the Scriptures. Similarly, while total abstinence from wine with its relatively low alcohol content was not demanded in Bible times, both general Bible principles and specific Bible teachings encourage today’s Christians to abstain from this dangerous drug. In place of a life controlled by the mind-numbing, destructive influence of alcohol, the Bible presents a model of a lifestyle characterized by inner peace, joy, and love through the Holy Spirit. Additionally, the Bible encourages Christians, as salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16), to deliver society from alcohol’s devastating personal and social effects.”

However, the critics in Greensboro and especially since the annual meeting assert that those supporting the resolution are guilty of legalism.

Texas pastor Ben Cole’s pretense of respect for the Resolutions Committee by calling the resolution merely a misstep during the debate was dropped on his blog, where Cole has viciously assaulted the resolution as a “case study in absurdity,” “careless” and “silly,” and credited the “Pharisees of fundamentalism” for the resolution, even though Cole’s presidential candidate, Frank Page, was a member of the Resolutions Committee which produced the alcohol resolution.

Cole blogged, “…my support for Frank Page was built on my intense disdain for the narrowing trends of doctrinal and social rigidity and a desire to see those concerns addressed. My opposition to the alcohol resolution is built upon the same goal: to end the days when Southern Baptists draw lines in the sand on doctrines and traditions that are not essential to Christian unity, witness, or the proclamation of the Gospel.”

There you have it: Cole, a frequent and loud critic of International Mission Board trustees’ new policies on baptism and “private prayer language” for missionary candidates, unashamedly packages his opposition to the alcohol resolution with his agenda about narrowing theological boundaries in SBC life tied to the ongoing controversy at the IMB. So, this is the kind of Christian liberty that is desired of missionaries and other leaders in Southern Baptists life — the right to drink booze, speak in tongues and hold as valid baptisms at churches believing in baptismal regeneration? I cannot imagine that the vast majority of grassroots Southern Baptists agree with this notion of Christian liberty.

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president Paige Patterson — the subject of much criticism of Cole and other bloggers — nicely summarized the alcohol resolution debate when he told me, “Sadly, I would never have believed that I would see a 45 minute debate at the Southern Baptist Convention on a resolution on abstinence from beverage alcohol. When one considers that the alcohol industry devastates more lives and homes today than any industry other than the pornography industry, such a question is doubly unthinkable. Positively, the resolution was adopted by 90 percent of the messengers, a critically important resolution in light of some pastors who now openly boast of imbibing alcohol.”

In short, I say, three cheers for the alcohol resolution.