David Rogers on Baptist Autonomy and Solidarity/Hull, SBTS

The place to discuss four centuries of Baptist history and heritage, from Thomas Helwys and Roger Williams to the present.

Moderator: Bruce Gourley

David Rogers on Baptist Autonomy and Solidarity/Hull, SBTS

Postby Stephen Fox » Sun May 09, 2010 1:34 pm

Having an interesting discussion with Adrian Rogers son David about Baptist Autonomy and Solidarity.
Have invoked the BHHS published book by Bill Hull on SBTS and Honeycutt and Duke McCall.
Thought I would bring Rogers effort here as kind of a historical marker of sorts, as it comes couple weeks after the passing of Cecil Sherman and practically simultaneous with Larry McSwain's review of Hull in May issue of Baptists Today


153David Rogers said:
Stephen,

Another traditional core value of Southern Baptists has been a commitment to doctrinal soundness. If, however, not all agree on the parameters of how you define doctrinal soundness, there will also be a tension between this value and both those of autonomy and solidarity. In my opinion (and evidently, that of the majority of Southern Baptists in the early 80’s, and an even greater majority today), the value of commitment to doctrinal soundness trumps the other two. If you compromise on key points of doctrine, you have “sold the company store,” as it were.

The problem is defining what are the “do or die” issues of doctrinal soundness. That is where the current discussion in much of Southern Baptist life centers today – dividing correctly between so-called “tier two” and “tier three” doctrinal issues. For many Southern Baptists (probably most), the doctrine of biblical authority (and the corollaries of verbal inspiration and inerrancy), are more of a “tier one” issue than “tier two” or “tier three.” A de facto denial of God’s sovereign authority transmitted by way of divine written revelation leaves us bereft of “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), and of any reason to sacrifice our autonomy in order to join together in solidarity with others.

If we are not agreed on even the most basic issues, what sense does it make to try to cooperate on a common project of Christian ministry? How, otherwise, do you avoid constant in-fighting and bickering regarding the desired end-results of all joint ventures? And, if that is the case, the end-result will be a lessened efficacy in our stewardship. Would it not be better, in such a case, for those who have one set of core values to work together on one project, and those with another set of core values to work together on another project?

And, pretty much, that is what has ended up happening. Was the way it took place ideal? Probably not. But what’s done is done. And, there was probably no way of avoiding it. Oil and water don’t mix. Those who are wholly committed to biblical authority (at least, as they understand it) don’t have a common cause with those who are willing to compromise on these issues (or those who have a totally different understanding of what it would mean to compromise on these issues).

What we have left in the SBC today are, by and large, folks that pretty much agree on this point. Maybe you (and Hull and Honeycutt and McCall) might tend to think we have compromised on the values of autonomy and solidarity. But, as I said before, we who are now in the majority feel the value of commitment to doctrinal soundness trumps them.

That still leaves those of us who agree on this to sort out among us where we are going to divide between “tier two” and “tier three,” and how we are going to apply the values of autonomy and solidarity correctly, together with good stewardship, and a healthy commitment to Christian unity (at least, as we understand it). But, at least we agree for the most part on how we define “tier one” issues of doctrinal soundness.

# May 8th 2010 at 7:22 pm
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 9156
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:29 pm

Re: David Rogers on Baptist Autonomy and Solidarity/Hull, SBTS

Postby David Rogers » Mon May 10, 2010 8:40 am

Stephen,

It would have been helpful to have at least given the context for my comment you quote here.
David Rogers
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:46 pm

David's Comments in Context

Postby Stephen Fox » Mon May 10, 2010 1:19 pm

http://www.sbcimpact.net/2010/05/05/pen ... cr-report/

David's comments on solidarity and autonomy are in a discussion about the GCR at the link above.

He, Dave Miller and I have a sequence of exchanges starting about comment 150.
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 9156
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:29 pm


Return to Baptist History and Heritage

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron