In a nutshell, the existence of the CBF and articles like this one make me really glad I am a Southern Baptist. If you haven’t read it yet, please take a moment to do so before reading on. It is very telling.
David Roach of the Baptist Press has written an excellent article here highlighting the presence of heretical teaching at this year’s CBF meeting. I don’t use the word “heretical” lightly. I don’t use it to describe just any difference of opinion within orthodox thought, but I reserve it for only the strongest misrepresentations of bliblical truth. Though many readers will have critical comments about the BP and question whether or not this article is a fair representation of the CBF overall, if the substance of the article is true (and I believe it is) then there are some serious questions about the doctrinal integrity of the CBF. In short, it appears that the organization is fostering the teaching of outright heresy. Many have suspected this for years, but I cannot see there being any question about it after this.
I said in my title that I am thankful for the existence of the CBF and I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but please follow my point. For all of our in-fighting and problems as a convention, Southern Baptists should read this article and be thankful to God for a few things that this information brings to our mind.
First, we should be thankful for and reaffirm the importance of the key principles of the CR (conservative resurgence). Now if you have read any of my previous postings or know anything about me personally, you will know that I am critical of a number of things concerning the CR. I question whether or not the methods used during the heat of the CR were always proper. I also question whether or not the CR corrective movement is currently seeking to carry things too far in SB life through continual narrowing. But one thing that I cannot question at all is the emphasis of the CR to bring Southern Baptists back to a fundamental understanding of orthodox Christian faith as presented in the inerrant, infallible Word of God. We should thank God that today we are truly holding to “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” As Dr. Mohler pointed out during his SBTS report this year at the convention, we should be thankful that as Southern Baptists, the things we are debating include regenerate church-membership, missiological methods, and a firm stance against same-sex marriage rather than the deity of Jesus Christ as presented in the Word of God.
I am glad that true theological liberalism was rooted out of our seminaries and institutions. I am thankful that today, as a doctoral candidate at SBTS, I am being taught by those who affirm without reservation the deity of Christ and the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Shouldn’t we be thankful for that at the very least?
I mean, for heaven’s sake, Killinger was standing at a meeting of Baptists and questioning the divinity of Christ and the divine nature of the gospel of John! At times, I have been mildly sympathetic to the cries of many CBF supporters as they lamented the “takeover” by the CR guys, but I cannot in good-conscience be much sympathetic to any group of Christians who allow this kind of rhetoric to transpire at a national meeting without voicing serious opposition and denouncing it outright. If someone had presented such heresy at a SB meeting, I am sure that many voices would have arose and denounced it as outright heresy and pointed out that it in NO WAY represents the doctrinal leanings of our convention.
As of tonight, in spite of my efforts to find any, I have not found any official statements from CBF leadership denouncing Killinger’s propositions. Though I may still have my critiques, I thank God for the CR. (*note: in fairness, if any readers find an official pronouncement from CBF leadership, please send me a link.)
Secondly, this article helps to put true “liberalism” into perspective for us SBs who spend so much time fighting among ourselves. It seems that anymore, the “L” word is tossed around to describe basically anyone who is somewhat left of one’s own position. It’s funny how “liberal” is used to define anyone who is to the left of where you are at personally on the “liberal to conservative” spectrum. This becomes very subjective, very dangerous, and often very unhelpful in our argumentation. This article helps us to recognize that true liberalism is that which seeks to undermine the very foundational elements of the Christian gospel according to the inerrant Word. As Machen argued long ago, theological liberalism results in a new religion that is not even recognizable as orthodox Christianity. (J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 1923)
A “liberal” is not necessarily someone who ordains female deacons. A “liberal” church is not really one which holds open communion as opposed to your church which holds “closed” (or close, depending on your terminology) communion. A “liberal” is not someone who uses the HCSB rather than the ESV or NKJV. A “liberal” is not even someone who holds a different view of accepting members in to their congregation (immersed, of course!) than you. Even if you disagree with some of these positions, it is hardly fair to accuse someone who subscribes to the BFM and affirms the inerrancy of Scripture as a “liberal” just because they disagree with you on such issues.
This article helps put into perspective that which the apostle John referred to when he wrote in 1 Jn 2:22, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.” At its heart, true “liberalism” in the theological sense, seeks to unseat Jesus Christ from his rightful place as God incarnate, the eternal Son who came as redeemer and rose as Lord of all creation. To be sure, there are other theological areas which liberalism seeks to attack, but we must be careful about attacking other BFM-affirming Southern Baptists as “liberals” simply because they disagree with us on some secondary or tertiary issue (I know…the Baptist Identity guys will hate the fact that I believe any doctrines are secondary or tertiary, but that is an argument for another day!). I have personally heard and read the use of such language to describe other cooperating Southern Baptists. It is very convenient to use, because it has a way of rallying immediate sympathy to one’s cause, but it is simply not accurate. This article reminds me to be careful and reserve the use of the term for those who truly deserve to be called theologically “liberal.”
So in a nutshell, I am glad that I found this article and came to read about this gross misrepresentation of Christian doctrine at this CBF meeting. It helped me to chase away my gloomy, pessimistic tone towards all things Southern Baptist and remember, once again, that there is much to be thankful for in Southern Baptist life today. We may have a long way to go before we right the ship again, and there is still much need for humility, repentance, and correction, but at least we have a solid foundation from which to build. And gathered around the fellowship of the Word of God and the person of Christ, we have a fellowship with other believers that is strong and hopefully determined to stand against false doctrine of all shades, so that the true gospel of Jesus Christ is trumpeted throughout the world.
As for the CBF as an organization…all I can offer are my continued prayers.
OK- I read the article and found it biased. The basis of the article rests upon the voracity of Killinger himself. He claims to have spoken with pastors and claims to represent their beliefs about the afterlife, other religions and the deity of Christ. Killinger himself is not Baptist, but comes from Congregational and Presbyterian roots.
That the CBF would have him speak is shameful, no doubt. But to question the whole of the CBF based on a speaker at a conference is probably not a great idea. I’m sure someone could find a bad speaker at some point at a conservative Baptist meeting as well.
Just some thoughts,
Brian