“The World is Watching”

Like Rice, Litton seems more concerned about the appearance of a disagreement about “hard things” in the eyes of the secular world or is he more concerned about the content of the “hard things” which is focusing on maintaining sound doctrine. Litton uses the “Christianese” language of “I apologize” (ask for forgiveness) and “I will do it differently” (repentance or turning away from sin) but NEVER clearly identifying what he did wrong and how he will do things “differently.”

Is this where the church wants to be today? Should this vague statement to do things “differently” be the new normal? Within the current context of the SBC, we see a deliberate overall attempt to maintain the status quo and not even dare to be perceived by the secular world as standing firm on Scripture, particularly when God’s Word directly contradicts cultural norms. This unwillingness to stand firm on the infallibility and sufficiency of Scripture is exemplified by the far too often repeated phrase during the 2021 Convention:

“The world is watching”…

On the Conversations that Matter podcast, former professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Dr. Russell Fuller correctly assessed:

This what you heard at the convention by the way consistently the world is watching us the world is watching us how about the lord is watching us and what we do should be consistent with God’s Word but we’re trying to get as close to the world as we can that’s what we’re trying to do.
“Russell Fuller on the State of the SBC.” Youtube, June 18, 2021. Last modified June 18, 2021. Accessed August 22, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4AhDr3vVxI. 29:43.

In this way, Christians attempt to get the world to like us by trying to portray, “Hey, we’re not bigots. We love everyone. No one sin is any particularly big deal. We are all sinners.” This sentiment has also caused the SBC to drift into current pentecostal/charismatic trends within the church. One example is observed through the subtle but intensifying allowance of worship music from such heretical sources as Bethel Music (Bill Johnson’s Bethel Church), Hillsong Music, Hillsong United, Hillsong Young and Free (Brian Houston’s Hillsong Church, Vertical Worship (Harvest Bible Chapel) and Elevation Worship (Steven Furtick’s Elevation Church). While each of these groups have produced some songs where the lyrics are basically theologically sound, there is a subversive connection between these songs and their origins within churches laden with false teachers.

Both the sermon and the worship both “preach,” though in different ways. Thus, both shepherding roles must guard against improper messaging while remaining aware of God’s use of imperfect vessels to relay His Word. We have to wonder, though, if there may be a way to guard against the new or maturing believer possibly misunderstanding the fine distinction made between the careful selection of a Bethel (…etc) song on its Biblical merits and a blanket condoning of the overall theological framework where they originate. There appears to be a distinct difference between referencing and directly suggesting something. For example, Home Depot and Walmart companies financially support gay rights with their profits but to shop at such stores does not directly correlate to support for gay rights. The automatic response to seeing someone walking out of such a store after buying an item is usually not assuming that person supports gay rights or whatever other sinful acts the business supports. This seems to be different than a church encouraging and assisting congregants to actively participate in singing solid songs orginating from sources based on false teaching and, therefore, either indirectly or directly leading someone to participate in the heresies of Bethel Church, Elevation Church and others. There are obvious yet differing consequences between the suggestions that lead someone to buy a hammer from such as Home Depot or to follow the teachings of such as Bill Johnson, Brian Houston, Steven Furtick, etc.

Another example of drifting into Pentecostal/charismatic trends is the recent deceptive and dangerous, “Prayer on the Mountain.” The SBC appears stuck between wanting to be known for catering to ultra-liberal ideologies such as CRT and egalitarianism and being known for being Spirit-led and ultra-charismatic. Again, the focus in on “the world is watching,” regardless of Scriptural mandates and the historical orthodoxy of the church. This is a blatant attempt to appease both the ultra-secular as well as the ultra-”spiritual” crowds.

The “Prayer on Mountain” was held on May 5, 2020 and was moderated by Ronnie Floyd and orchestrated by Pastor Fred Lunsford. Lunsford, then 93 years old, claimed he had a conversation with God where he told God he was ready to die then God told him he was leaving him on earth to pray. This conversation was preceded by seeing visions of Jesus in a gap in the mountains and three weeks of prayer. This experience led Lunsford to share this vision and conversation and his childhood experiences with other pastors and teachers. Everyone he told focused on these events and quickly moved to organize the 2020 event. The actual event lasted nearly two hours and was replete with various SBC pastors and seminary professors who took turns in lauding Lunsford, emphasizing a new “move of God” and “listening” to what God is saying through this meeting. The stated goal was a call to “spiritual awakening.” (https://www.prayingonthemountain.org)

As a former ordained Pentecostal minister, I recognized the overwhelming majority of the substance of this meeting as typically Pentecostal/charismatic overemphasis on personal experiences above the sufficiency of Scripture (and recorded it in book form, https://www.healingthebreach.wordpress.com). These SBC leaders claimed a desire to return to a reliance on Scripture and initiating a prayer conference to emphasize sound doctrine and repent for doctrinal errors. Instead, they latched on to the extra-biblical personal experiences of one man, focused on repeating his “conversation” with God and emphasized an “awakening” to “spiritual things” through “listening” to the voice of God. This failed to emphasize the sufficiency of Scripture as the source of or result of their efforts. As is too often seen in the modern church, personal experiences are elevated far above Scripture and Christians are encouraged to believe in a false Gospel. This display of man-centered hero worship and denigration of the sufficiency of Scripture should provide a stark warning of pending collaborations. On the one hand, the SBC desires to collaborate with the secular world even at the cost of the Gospel. On the other hand, the SBC desires to partner with and perpetuate modern-day Pentecostal/charismatic false teaching also at the expense of the Gospel. The goal is to finance all of these endeavors worldwide. The latest scheme is to implement a required at least 10% tithe.

Can we find hope in the SBC for dealing with church decline? YES! Is it likely? Well, that may very well be another story. It seems the SBC remains more concerned about perceived tone in the eyes of the secular world rather than proclaiming the truth of the Scriptures. What have we learned thus far regarding tithing in the SBC and church decline that could shed light on the intensifying focus on tone?

The Church often focuses on the symptoms of decline rather than the cause- man’s willingness to doubt what God has clearly said and do what is right in his own eyes.

The SBC uses the fallacies of making texts prescriptive, proof-texting, piecemealing, guilt trip, compulsive giving and equating with the Great Commission to validate and insist on adherence to a required at least 10% tithe.

Tithing was not even introduced until 1873 and it was rejected.

Not tithing is not a sin.

Tithing has not been included in any Baptist Faith and Message.

The local church has always functioned effectively without tithing.

The majority of church budgets focus on salaries and building maintenance.

The required at least 10% tithe is based on a work(tithing)/reward dynamic and is not grounded in Scripture.

It appears the executive SBC leadership is ignoring the fact that there is a growing dissatisfaction regarding certain developing trends within their associated local churches.

This disconnect appears to be resulting in an increasing number of local churches deciding to not just limit their giving to national SBC programs but to leave their affiliation with the SBC.

There is no clearly identifiable correlation between tithing and church decline.

National trends point to an overall decline reflected in dwindling church attendance and overall religious affiliation.

There is a direct correlation between a failure to teach sound doctrine and church decline.

Nearly half of all adults believe Jesus is not God, the Bible is not true and to believe either is just your opinion.

Far too many Evangelicals believe Jesus is not God, science is superior to the Bible, all people sin and most people are good and God accepts all religions equally.

National trends are not going to be reversed through forcing adherence to the religious rule of tithing not grounded in Scripture.

In light of these observations on the false teaching of tithing and erroneous attempts to deal with church decline, why is there such an obvious push within the SBC to enforce tithing as a means to combat such decline? If there is any doubt regarding the increasing central emphasis of an at least 10% required tithe in the SBC, at the time of writing of this work, the sbc.net website main page includes a link to obtain your own copy of Floyd’s work we reviewed earlier. This insistence clearly defies Biblical, historical and demographic pieces of evidence that there is absolutely no correlation between tithing and decline. So, in light of this absence of correlation, why a continued emphasis on tithing? Is there more of a correlation between an insistence on tithing to combat church decline or between tithing and funding a global denominational growth effort?

The reason for this tithing emphasis may very well be reflected in the newly revealed, “Vision 2025,” presented by Dr. Floyd to the SBC Executive Committee February 17, 2020 as, “A unified Great Commission vision that unites us.” (Program, SBC Cooperative. “Vision 2025 – Dr. Ronnie Floyd.” Vimeo, 20 Feb. 2020, vimeo.com/392831573) This vision includes the following five strategic actions: 1) “Increase our total number of full-time, fully funded missionaries by a net gain of 500, giving us 4,200 full-time, fully funded missionaries through the IMB”, 2) “Add 6,000 new churches to our Southern Baptist family, giving us more than 50,000 churches”, 3) “Increase our total number of workers in the field through a new emphasis on “calling out the called, and then preparing those who are called out by the Lord”, 4) “Turn around our ongoing decline in reaching, baptizing, and discipling 12- to 17-year-olds in the prime of their teenage years”, and 5) “Increase our annual giving in successive years to reach and surpass $500 million given through the Cooperative Program to achieve these Great Commission goals.” (“Vision 2025.” Home – SBC Executive Committee, vision2025.mailchimpsites.com)

During this presentation, Floyd makes some revealing statements. “People don’t give to a program, they give to a vision.” He suggests that the Cooperative Program needs to have an annual increase of at least 1.25% to meet these five actions. Out of 47,500 churches, 19,000 churches have “no record” of giving to the program in 2019 and less than 40% give to any national program at all. Describing a “stewardship crisis” Floyd contends, “our churches need to be called upon, like never before, to step up and answer the call.” He insists, though, “we should honor God with at least 10% of all that He has entrusted to us and giving through these resources through our local churches weekly.” Floyd proclaims, “Either we believe every person needs Jesus or we do not believe every person needs Jesus. But, Southern Baptists, people need Jesus and people need Jesus now. And this is why we should unashamedly and unapologetically call upon our churches to prioritize, elevate and accelerate their giving to the Cooperative Program.”

So, there it is- the piecemealing of Old Testament laws fallacy, the guilt trip fallacy, the compulsive giving fallacy and the fallacy of equating the Great Commission with tithing- all simultaneously. The fallacy of proof-texting is not observed here because Floyd offered ZERO Scriptures to support his assertion on the importance of tithing in achieving the goal of increasing giving to the Cooperative Program as a means to reach the world with the Gospel.

So, suppose a required at least 10% tithe is required and the Cooperative program is the vehicle to funnel the tithe into ministry efforts. In that case, there must be evidence in Scripture for the Cooperative Program, right? WRONG! Not only is there no Scriptural evidence, but there is also little historical evidence that the Cooperative Program is valid. The SBC was supported largely through local fundraising from its inception in 1845 and the creation of the Cooperative Program in 1925. This was during the political era of the New Deal and progressivism. The SBC largely accepted the centralized approach of local churches sending funds to this general fund to be controlled by a small group of leaders and theologians. This practice continued through the Conservative Resurgence of the late 1990’s where liberal progressives were largely removed from the Convention. As Dunn summarizes:

The conservatives who took control of the convention pushed for strong doctrinal standards but maintained the liberal progressive way of funding the convention. It funds their power and influence. It funds their vision, whatever it may be.”
G. Seth Dunn. The Cooperative Program and the Road to Serfdom. 2018, p. 16. Kindle.

Dunn also contends that the Cooperative Program is outdated and not mandated:

Church members are obligated to support their local congregations. However, their ecclesiastical fiscal responsibility stops there. There is absolutely no scriptural prescription for giving to the Cooperative Program or any other denominational cause. There is a biblical mandate for good stewardship, however. Since all local Baptist churches are autonomous, church members have the right and responsibility to consider whether or not it is a good stewardship to give undesignated funds to the Cooperative Program. Such funds will be spent at the discretion of convention leadership or a denominational agency. Despite the protests that may come from denominationally indoctrinated pastors, it is not the responsible of a Southern Baptist church to give away money to a relic of 1920s era progressivism, especially when the information age makes giving directly to a specific cause so much easier than it was to do in the 1920s.
G. Seth Dunn. The Cooperative Program and the Road to Serfdom, p. 50.

There is no correlation between tithing and church decline, but there is growing evidence of a correlation between tithing and maintaining status and international stability and growth through the Cooperative Program. If there appears to be no evidence that tithing is really being used to address church decline, there must be other pieces of evidence beyond tithing where the SBC is changing their practices to deal with decline, right? RIGHT! It is becoming painfully questionable whether the insistence on a required at least 10% tithe is to develop a stable funding source for maintaining this global status and growth.

Following along the same trajectory as their recent tithing campaign, we see direct evidence of a growing correlation between this attention on global influence in how the SBC has been dealt with sexual abuse issues. In its June 2008 report, “Responding to the Evil of Sexual Abuse” the Executive Committee declared sexual abuse a “crime” and a “sin” but were against creating a database of sexual predators claiming it is impossible to include every convicted predator on a list and predators “frequently migrate from one victim field to another.” Most directly, they concluded that “Baptists do not recognize any ecclesiastical authority outside the local church.” Citing Article IV of the SBC Constitution on local church autonomy, the committee commented:

Neither the Executive Committee nor the Convention itself claims, or has a right to claim, the ecclesiastical or legal authority to take those actions which would be required to adjudicate a charge of abuse in an autonomous local congregation and to determine whether or not such a charge is credible. This precludes the Convention having any authority to require local churches to report instances of alleged sexual abuse to their local association, their state Baptist convention, or the national Convention. In fact, the Convention does not have the authority to create a centralized investigative body to investigate whether an individual has been “credibly accused” by someone within a local church in regard to any matter.
Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. “Responding to the Evil of Sexual Abuse.” June 2008, sbcnet.wpengine.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/
2008ReportSBC.pdf.

So, the committee asserts they have no authority for a database or an office to receive abuse reports and that the ERLC is best suited in “determining the proper construction, prioritization, and provision of ministry called for by sexual abuse victimization.” Likewise, they advise the following:

The Executive Committee strongly encourages local congregations to devise policies and execute strategies (1) to be diligent as they choose and supervise their ministers, employees, and volunteers, (2) to be vigorous in their investigations of known or suspected sex abuse within their ranks, and (3) to be honest and forthcoming in revealing the facts to their sister congregations when asked about former ministers, employees, and volunteers.
Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. “Responding to the Evil of Sexual Abuse.”

While they advocate for funding for counseling and legal aid for victims of abuse, training seminary students to identify and address abuse, local churches use background checks on potential staff and volunteers and insist that local churches not to hire known sex offenders, they reiterate, “We do not support amending the Southern Baptist Convention’s governing documents to add laundry lists of conduct deemed reprehensible in the Scriptures.” They also insist, ”The Southern Baptist Convention has no authority to bar individuals from ministry. Local autonomous churches and ministries determine who they will and will not employ for service.” This follows similar advice from the 2002 SBC resolution, “On the Sexual Integrity of Ministers,” where there is an obvious commitment to dealing with legal and societal ramifications of sexual abuse but failing to require direct disciplinary action from the national leadership. (“On the Sexual Integrity of Ministers.” SBC.net, 1 June 2002 <https://www.sbc.net/resource- library/resolutions/on-the-sexual-integrity-of-ministers/>)

Then, something changed! On February 10, 2019, the Houston Chronicle disclosed nearly 700 sex abuse victims over a 20-year period where the SBC seemingly covered up knowledge of such cases and refused to create a database of offenders. (Robert Downen, et al. “20 Years, 700 Victims: Southern Baptist Sexual Abuse Spreads as Leaders Resist Reforms.” Houston Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, 10 Feb. 2019, www.houstonchronicle.com/ news/investigations/article/Southern-Baptist-sexual-abuse-spreads-as-leaders-13588038.php.)

This prompted the following statements from the June 1, 2019 SBC resolution, “On The Evil Of Sexual Abuse”:

WHEREAS, We affirm that sexual abuse is not only a sin to be disciplined in the context of the church, but also a crime to be prosecuted in the context of civil government;

RESOLVED, That we call on all persons perpetrating and enabling sexual abuse to repent and to confess their sin to Jesus Christ and to church authorities, and to confess their crimes to civil authorities; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we implore all persons to act decisively on matters of abuse, to immediately report allegations of sexual abuse to civil authorities according to the laws of their state, to intervene on behalf of the abused, to do everything possible to ensure their safety, and to exercise appropriate church discipline upon abusers; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we urge churches and their leaders to develop partnerships within their communities to serve the abused, calling on government officials to strengthen laws that maintain justice and protections for the vulnerable in our society. (On the Evil of Sexual Abuse – SBC.Net.” June 1, 2019. Accessed August 26, 2021. https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/on-the-evil-of-sexual-abuse/)

This Houston Chronicle article also prompted the 2019 SBC convention in Birmingham, AL to vote on including as criteria for determining a local church to be in “friendly cooperation” to include proper handling of claims of sexual abuse. (Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. “Responding to the Evil of Sexual Abuse”. June 2008, sbcnet.wpengine.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/2008ReportSBC.pdf.)

So, let’s recap these developments. In 2002, abuse is acknowledged as a problem but no response was required by national leadership. In 2008, the problem is again acknowledged but the national leadership is forbidden from any direct response. Then, in 2019, public attention was given to a cover-up of national leadership in failing to deal with growing sexual abuse claims within the SBC. Low and behold, NOW there is an urgent need to include proper handling of sexual abuse claims within a local church as specific criteria for inclusion within the national organization. Wasn’t this provision explicitly declared both impossible and against the primary SBC tenant of local church autonomy?

All under the guise of maintaining ever-changing criteria for local church autonomy, the SBC has chosen to focus their attention on growing the impact and influence of the organization worldwide by insisting on a required at least 10% tithe. All of this seeming power grab directly ignores the expressed concerns of local church leaders and members regarding general liberal drift, evidence of specific disregard for addressing specific sins, general inattention to doctrinal errors among the leadership and discounts actual statistical trends. All of this while simultaneously sacrificing the command of Scripture to preach sound doctrine.

What, then, should be our response to church decline? Barna asserted the following two statements regarding the results of “American Worldview Inventory 2020 – At a Glance AWVI 2020 Results — Release #2: Faith and Worldview” by the Cultural Research Center:

As we look to the coming decades, we should be concerned that adults under the 6 age of 30 are both the least likely to have a biblical worldview and to engage Christianity through churches that believe the Bible is the true word of God. To reverse the declining incidence of a biblical worldview, new strategies for teaching and spiritual accountability are required.
America desperately needs a full-court press to facilitate the widespread respect for, appreciation of, and acceptance of the value and veracity of the Bible. Without that as a foundation we will not get people to intentionally and purposely develop a biblical worldview.
Cultural Research Center. American Worldview Inventory 2020 – At a Glance AWVI 2020 Results — Release #2: Faith and Worldview. Arizona Christiian University, Apr. 2020, www.arizonachristian. edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/CRC-AWVI-2020-Release-02_Faith-and-Worldview-1.pdf.

These comments make two explicit assertions regarding a correct response to decline: 1) “teaching and spiritual accountability are required,” and 2) people must “intentionally and purposefully develop a biblical worldview.”

In light of these assertions, a brief look into the recent June 15-17, 2021 SBC convention in Nashville, TN reveals whether or not the Southern Baptist Convention is appropriately dealing with decline and whether we can continue to find hope within the convention. This was the largest SBC convention in twenty-five years. It turns out that specific aspects of this recent convention demonstrate this direct ignoring of local church leaders and members AND an apparent willingness to sacrifice the command of Scripture to preach sound doctrine. It can be observed in both what was directly said during the convention and what was not said.

Despite of all the hype on the crucial importance of tithing to the spiritual health and temporal effectiveness of the Church in dealing with overall decline, there was not one (yes, not one) single mention of tithing throughout any portion of the convention. This omission is a glaring example of how sound doctrine continues to be ignored and is being supplanted by socio-economic whims and external cultural pressures to focus on anything but sound doctrine. Not one messenger, speaker or entity even brought up the importance of tithing. Not one resolution was proposed. Not one amendment to any proposed resolution included it. Neither sermons given hinted at it. Nothing. So, there it is- doctrine is elevated in rhetoric but it is actually ignored and even demeaned.

We have already established that there is no Biblical support for insisting on an at least 10% tithe. That is not the point here. The SBC has tried to establish tithing as a sound doctrine. The SBC that has elevated tithing and asserted its essential nature to the existence of and the future effectiveness of the SBC in dealing with overal church decline. Now, it is being ignored. That is the error- the elevation of man-made doctrine in rhetoric then ignoring and dismissing it to focus on something else.

Certainly, since there was no direct or indirect reference to the “all-so-important” issue of tithing, there must have been some clarity on other financial matters such as local church budgets and executive salaries. Right? Wrong! Pastor Joey Hufstedler of Poplar Grove Baptist Church in Trenton, TN spoke from the convention floor asked NAMB President Kevin Ezell about concerns he had regarding waiting three months to receive the salary structure for NAMB. He stated he was previously told to ask at the convention and so there he was doing just that. (Lifeway Christian Resources. “Lifeway on Demand.” North American Mission Board Crossover, Report & Presentation. Apple App Store, Vers. 1.2 (2021), 28.53) Ezell responded that they do provide “structures,” but this question regards something that is “salary related,” so he deferred the question to the chairman of their trustees, Eric Thomas. Thomas then explained that they want to communicate “as much as we possibly can to the Southern Baptist Convention.” He then explained that the board of trustees has “set up a compensation committee that oversees compensation matters” that uses a third-party that “assists in setting up all compensation ranges” and “the compensation is well within the ranges identified.” Thomas then explained how they have “established appropriate procedures for limited access to compensation information and we will respond to any questions for information on a case-by-case basis.” Thomas tried to soften the blow of this blatant refusal to answer a direct question from the messenger. He claimed that Ezell has not received a salary increase since 2018 and only received a 5% increase in salary when initially brought in to lead the NAMB as compared to his salary of the church he was pastoring at the time. All of this was said while not providing any direct context to begin to ascertain the salary of Ezell or any other NAMB staff. Thomas concluded his so-called answer to the question by asserting that Ezell is a “tremendous model of faithfulness when it comes to stewardship and that matter.”

If this is true, is it a policy at NAMB that all staff are not be given a salary increase? If this is true, are we to be impressed by Ezell’s personal choice to accept new employment where he knew he’d make more money than his current role? If this is true, are we to believe that Pastor Hufstedler is a liar and he did not recently receive the “run around” from NAMB trustees?

This public line of questioning by SBC members regarding executive salaries is not new. For example, during an hour-long town hall meeting of nearly 150 people at “Jericho ‘92” then Home Missions Board president Larry Lewis answered a question regarding discrepancies between the salaries of missionaries and entity employees:

We would all wish that all missionary salaries would increase,” Lewis responded. “But the truth is we’re having to rely heavily on bivocationals.” Much of the home missions enterprise is being carried out by bivocational workers and Mission Service Corps volunteers, he said. “Thank God that he’s raising up these people,” Lewis said. “Let’s pray that more and more funding will come.” As to the salaries of agency personnel, he said, “The truth is, in our agency, when we call anyone to a position, we’re asking them to take a pay cut. We are way under what is generally considered to be market value.
Karen Benson. “Baptist Press August 1992.” Baptist Press, August 1992, http://media.sbhla.org.s3. amazonaws.com/7220,03-Aug-1992.pdf

It seems the story behind high executive salaries remains consistent. The general membership of the SBC should honor those in power for NOT taking MORE MONEY than they actually do while being happy with not being given any Scriptural justification for such salaries.

Dealing with the issues of sex abuse, racial strife and even abortion received prominent attention, while the issue of reigning in growing false doctrine received not only a little attention, but those who brought it up were directly and indirectly scorned for mentioning it in the first place. There were ten resolutions passed in 2021. Resolution 3 reflected opposition to an appeal of the federal Hyde Amendment that prohibits tax dollars used in abortions. Resolution 4 reflected opposition to the federal Equality Act that would elevate gender identity and sex orientation above general religious liberties. Resolution 6 reaffirmed “sole membership” or the legally binding status of each SBC entity being owned by the messengers. Resolution 7 was to be a statement against the riots at the capital on January 6, 2021 but was tabled by the Resolutions Committee. Resolution 8 established support for the Uyghur people and condemnation of their genocide by the Chinese government as well as urged the United States to actively allow them access as refugees. Resolution 9 addressed the Covid-19 pandemic and the lives lost in its wake. Resolution 10 offered appreciation to Nashville officials for hosting the convention. The “On the Abolition of Abortion” resolution was also passed and is now the strongest of twenty-seven anti-abortion statements since 1971.

It is Resolutions 1, 2 and 5 provide essential insight into any assessment regarding finding hope within the Southern Baptist Convention and will be the focus of some attention here. Resolution 2, “On the Sufficiency of Scripture for Race and Racial Reconciliation,” attempted to provide clarity to the alarming language seemingly supporting Critical Race Theory (CRT) in 2019’s Resolution 9, “On Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality.” Although it affirms the sufficiency of Scripture, it is there that we find the strongly opposed assertion that CRT and Intersectionality are “analytical tools.” Before 2020 being canceled due to Covid-19, that year’s convention was anticipated as highly attended to address this statement.

Resolution 2 failed to even mention CRT or Intersectionality and did not even attempt to address the “tools” objection. However, James Merritt, former SBC president and current chairman of the 2021 Resolutions Committee scolded anyone objecting to critical race theory with: “It’s time to find out who we are and where we’re headed. I’m gonna say this bluntly and plainly. If some people were as passionate about the Gospel as they were about critical race theory we’d win this world for Christ tomorrow.” This assertion insists on choosing between opposing CRT and supporting the Gospel. Since we clearly established CRT is diametrically opposed to the Gospel, opposition to it is, naturally, support of the Gospel.

On “The Sword and the Trowel” June 29, 2021 podcast, Tom Ascol reflected on Merritt’s claim by calling it a “silly argument” and that it is “indicative of what is wrong at so many levels, at deep levels, within the SBC is that we give lip service to the bible we say, oh yeah, we believe the bible we’ve all signed the baptist faith and message we look at our confessions of faith we sign look at my signature on here and we just don’t really care about a lot that the bible actually says.” Ascol continues to aptly summarize these of ongoing problems:

It’s not who’s the president it’s not who’s the head of this entity it’s not these these resolutions that were adopted or not adopted brothers and sisters we got fundamental problems with God and God’s Word and if we don’t own up to that we’ll just continue to play games over here on the surface.
“TS&TT: #SBC21 Shenanigans: Resolution 9, President Ed Litton, Whistleblowers and a Watching World.” YouTube, YouTube, 29 June 2021, www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L_0z3AoDds, 18:35.

As it turns out, there was obviously more attention to racism and sexual abuse than doctrinal integrity. On the same podcast, Jared Longshore addressed the sins of racism and sexual abuse: “I’m convinced that the Christians that assemble there for the Southern Baptist Convention abominate both of those sins and should abominate them.” (“TS&TT: #SBC21 Shenanigans: Resolution 9, President Ed Litton, Whistleblowers and a Watching World, 45:59) Resolution 5, “On Abuse and Pastoral Qualifications,” clearly asserts, “any person in a position of trust or authority who has committed sexual abuse is permanently disqualified from holding the office of pastor.” (“On Abuse and Pastoral Qualifications.” SBC.net, 21 June 2021, www.sbc.net/resource- library/resolutions/on-abuse-and-pastoral-qualifications/)

Thus, Resolution 5 elevates sexual sin above all others and references 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, where it refers to church leaders being “above reproach.” What the resolution fails to acknowledge is that BOTH of these passages ALSO include the criteria that leaders be “able to teach.” Why is sexual abuse elevated above sound doctrine in pastoral qualifications? A couple of messengers attempted to address this glaring omission and the committee on resolutions failed to admit to this inappropriate elevation.

While 1 Timothy 3:2 briefly includes “able to teach,” Titus 1:9 clarifies with, “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.” This resolution also fails to reference the command in Titus 2:7-8 that leaders be examples for younger leaders in sound doctrine:

In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

The phrase in v. 7, “in your teaching show integrity,” or ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀδιἀφθορίαν means, “in your teaching/doctrine show uncorruptness.” It also describes this teaching/doctrine as showing “gravity/seriousness” or σεμνότητα and “sincerity/purity’ or ἀφθαρσιαν. The phrase in v. 8, “sound speech,” or λόγον ὑγιῆ, means “solid/whole speech/words.” Here, Paul clearly elevates the importance of sound doctrine. Yes, “above reproach” clearly would include sexual abuse as a disqualification for leadership, but ALSO YES, not to “hold firm” to sound doctrine is also disqualifying. So, why does the SBC elevate sexual abuse concerns over adherence to sound doctrine?

The elevation of sexual abuse above sound doctrine continued with a proposed and adopted amendment to Floyd’s earlier referenced “Vision 2025.” It was amended with a unanimous voice vote by the Executive Committee to include a sixth step: “Prayerfully endeavor to eliminate all incidents of sexual abuse and racial discrimination among our churches.” This new step is not SMART as is the other five and is aspirational. SMART goals are typically referred to as those that have five characteristics: 1) S- Specific. Stating adding 5,000 new churches is specific, 2) M- Measurable. Did we reach 5,000 or not? This goal is easily measured to see if goal was reached, 3) A- Attainable. It is reasonable to attempt to plant 5,000 new churches by 2025 rather than set a goal of 5 million, 4) R- Relevant. Does this step support the overall goal to “reach every person”? Yes. Wanting to make sure every local church’s grass is cut to 3 inches weekly, for example, would not, 5) T- Time-sensitive. Does this goal have a date set to reach the stated result. Well, 2025 is definitely specific. The amendment is not SMART and is merely aspirational. So, why include it here? It does nothing to support Vision 2025 and does absolutely nothing to help any attempt to reclaim an insistence on the teaching of sound doctrine:

Increase the total number of full-time, fully funded missionaries by a net gain of 500, giving the SBC 4,200 full-time, fully funded missionaries through the International Mission Board (IMB).
Add 5,000 new churches to the Southern Baptist family, giving the SBC more than 50,000 churches.
Increase the total number of workers in the field through a new emphasis on “calling out the called,” and then preparing those who are called out by the Lord.
Turn around the ongoing decline in the SBC in reaching, baptizing and discipling those under the age of 18.
Increase SBC-wide annual giving in successive years to reach and surpass $500 million given through the Cooperative Program.
Prayerfully endeavor to eliminate all incidents of sexual abuse and racial discrimination among our churches. (Timothy Cockes. “Vision 2025 Amended, Adopted by Messengers.” Baptist Press, 15 June 2021, www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/vision-2025-amended-adopted-by-messengers/)

There seemed to be a brief glimpse of hope when a messenger at the 2021 convention challenged such a lapse in sound doctrine. During the question and answer portion of the joint seminary reports on Wednesday, an unidentified messenger asked the President of Southern Seminary, Dr. Albert Mohler, whether his seminary taught that “the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are parts of God.” (Lifeway Christian Resources. “Lifeway on Demand.” Joint Seminary Reports. Apple App Store, Vers. 1.2 (2021), 56:19) The messenger prefaced his question with encouraging Mohler that he has always taught that “theology matters.” He concluded his inquiry with the claim that the first paragraph of the doctrinal statement on the website for Ed Litton’s church, Redemption Church, had that very phrase. The messenger ended, claiming Litton has two degrees from Southern seminaries. After Mohler initially stated, “So far as I know, and I cannot speak to my brother, the newly elected and soon to be President of the Southern Baptist Convention, but Southern Seminary cannot claim him as an alumnus.” (Lifeway Christian Resources. “Lifeway on Demand.” Joint Seminary Reports, 57:05)

Then, just as SBC President Graaer attempted to proceed to another messenger, Mohler admitted he had made a mistake and realized that Litton had a D.Min from Southern Seminary. Then, unprompted, Mohler reiterated, “I still stand by my statement, I am sure he will want to make that very clear, I’m not sure what’s on his statement but I’m sure he’s faithful.” (Lifeway Christian Resources. “Lifeway on Demand.” Joint Seminary Reports, 57:21) Graaer immediately reminded everyone, “Let’s make sure we direct our questions to Dr. Mohler about Southern Seminary.”

Immediately following this warning, the next messenger to speak was Ed Litton himself. Rather than address the allegation just made about his possible heretical statement found by the previous messenger on his own church’s website, Litton began with, “Dr. Mohler, I want to affirm your incredible leadership.” Litton proceeded to extol Mohler’s contributions to the SBC which were followed by a standing ovation and Mohler’s comments of returned appreciation for Litton. (Lifeway Christian Resources. “Lifeway on Demand.” Joint Seminary Reports, 58:10)

Before it could be changed on Litton’s church website, it was found that the statement in question indeed stated the following: God is One, the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. He has eternally existed in three persons: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These three are co-equal parts of God.“ (“Controversy and Questions Mark a Contentious SBC Day 2 Meeting.” YouTube, Unboxing God, 16 June 2021, www.youtube.com/watch?v=vizYbb5dty0, 19:56) Then, the following day, the same statement could be found but WITHOUT the incriminating phrase, “These three are co-equal parts of God.” (Controversy and Questions Mark a Contentious SBC Day 2 Meeting,” 21:50) Then, later, we find a different statement:

There is one and only one living and true God. He is an intelligent, spiritual, and personal Being, the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe. God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections. God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures. To Him we owe the highest love, reverence, and obedience. The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature,essence, or being.
N.d. Goredemption.Com. Accessed August 16, 2021, https://goredemption.com/ new-here/our-beliefs.

Unbeknownst to anyone in attendance at the convention, someone at Litton’s church was busy scrubbing the heretical statement supporting partiality from their website. Within one day, this errant statement was removed then fairly quickly thereafter, enhanced and clarified. Was the original statement an innocent oversight? Possibly, but no reason for the change was given. Was there such an outrage on the part of Litton at the mere allegation of a lapse in sound doctrine that he had to find a way to personally and publicly address the allegation? Nope. Litton had the floor at the convention immediately following the allegation and he, obviously, didn’t have an urgency to address it. Could he at least have indicated that he would, personally, investigate this alleged statement on the website of his own church? Sure, but he did nothing.

Well, surely Litton would use other public appearances to clearly stand for sound doctrine and provide clarity on his ability to rightly handle the teachings he received. On an appearance on MSNBC, host Joshua Johnson questioned Litton:

Before I let you go, I have encountered way too many Christians who show zero gentleness and zero respect when talking to people who do not share their views, whether it is atheists, agnostics, gay people like myself, or just people who don’t share their politics. That is not biblical. That is not scriptural. That is not what the Bible teaches believers to do. Before I have to let you go, What do you plan to do as President of the Southern Baptist Convention to make people of faith more palatable, less contemptible and maybe a little more Christ-like in the way they deal with the rest of the world?
Capstone Report. 2021. “Ed Litton Agrees with MSNBC That Christians Are Mean.” Capstone Report. June 20, 2021. http://capstonereport.com/2021/06/20/ed-litton-agrees-with-msnbc-that- christians-are-mean/36326/, 07:17.

Ed Litton responded:

Well, let me say this. First of all, you are right. Tragically, part of the whole culture seems to be struggling with giving honor and respect. I respect you because God created you. I respect you because Jesus paid a high price to redeem you. I respect you because the Word of God teaches me to respect you and to honor you. We are seeing a breakdown in our culture, which even impacts our churches sometimes. But, I will say this, people called Southern Baptists are a good people.
Capstone Report. 2021. “Ed Litton Agrees with MSNBC That Christians Are Mean,” 07:57.

This exchange brings more questions than it provides answers. Litton said to Johnson, “Jesus paid a high price to redeem you.” What “high price”? Death on a cross perhaps? “Redeem”? Redeem from what? Johnson’s homosexuality perhaps? Why was it so difficult for Litton to give a Gospel presentation here? Why was it so easy for Litton to agree with Johnson’s allegation that Christians are generally mean to gay liberals like him? Litton claims a “breakdown in our culture” “impacts our churches sometimes.” In the context of this discussion, he suggests this “breakdown” is a general lack of honor and respect shown by gays and liberals. Is this really the breakdown that Christ calls us to address? Litton insists that Southern Baptists are “good people.” Is this claim made to differentiate them from those other so-called “mean Christians”?

This brings us to Resolution 1, “On Baptist Unity and Maintaining Our Public Witness” where we find the warning, “That we protect the witness of Jesus Christ before a watching world by wise use of all forms of communication, whether in verbal speech, written word, or social media, so that others may see Christ in us and desire to know Him personally.” (“On Baptist Unity and Maintaining Our Public Witness.” SBC.net, 21 June 2021, www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/on-baptist-unity-and-maintaining-our-public-witness/) Interestingly, seemingly the most often repeated phrase during the entire convention was, “the world is watching.” The world is, indeed, watching.

The world just heard the newly elected SBC president basically admit Christians are generally mean to gay liberals, this “meanness” is part of an overall cultural “breakdown” and that, despite it all, Southern Baptists are basically “good people.”

Kevin Smith, Director of the Maryland/Delaware SBC Convention said this at the 9Marks roundtable at the end of the first day of the 2021 SBC convention:

…we always talk about being concerned about the witness of the gospel as brother HB said we had probably four or five times as many secular press agencies register for media permits because they wanted to come see us put on an asinine clown show and they did not get that today and I thank the Lord for that.
“State of the SBC.” YouTube, 9Marks, 9 July 2021, www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsFeuHqbr8Y, 21:03.

Since there seems to be an obvious shift in a focus on what the world thinks rather than what God thinks as expressed through His Word. So, here is a brief sampling of secular news headlines surrounding the convention where we were encouraged to be concerned with what the world thinks:

“Southern Baptists Narrowly Head Off Ultraconservative Takeover”- New York Times, June 15, 2021
“Ultraconservatives Aiming to Take Control of Southern Baptist Convention.”- Yahoo! News, June 15, 2021
“Southern Baptist Convention 2021 Offers a Trump and Critical Race Theory Litmus Test.”- MSNBC, June 15, 2021
“Southern Baptist Vote Signals Further Fractures in American Evangelicalism”- New York Times, June 16, 2021
“Why Southern Baptists’ Runoff Election Represents a ‘Watershed Moment’ for Evangelicals.”- PBS Newshour, June 16, 2021
“Moderates Win the Day in Close Vote Over Southern Baptist Presidency”- CNN, June 16, 2021
“Southern Baptist Convention Dodges Critical Race Theory Fight, Elects Moderate Ed Litton.”- Newsweek, June 16, 2021
“Narrow Election Wins Highlight Continued Rifts in Southern Baptist Convention. What’s next?”- USA Today, June 18, 2021

The SBC can attempt to hide the divisions within, but even the secular news media sees through the attempts.

Resolution 1 also includes the following:

WHEREAS, Our utmost devotion and supreme allegiance—including, but not limited to, political, cultural, ethical, and societal allegiance— should be to the kingdom of God and not the kingdoms of men (Joshua 24:15; Matthew 6:24, 33); and

WHEREAS, The Church’s mission, as defined by the Great Commission, is to spread the gospel and make disciples of all nations, language groups, and ethnicities (Matthew 28:18–20); and

WHEREAS, The Christian’s public witness is of utmost importance for the sake of Christ and His gospel. (1 Timothy 3:2, 4:12; Titus 1:5-7); (“On Baptist Unity and Maintaining Our Public Witness.” SBC.net)

Please, notice the “and” after the clear assertion that our mission is, indeed, the Great Commission as correctly referenced in Matthew 28:18-20. Then, notice the addition of our “public witness” and the verses to prove its “utmost importance.”

1 Timothy 3:2: Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1 Timothy 4:12: Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity.
Titus 1:5-7: The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.

Where do any of these verses equate “public witness” to the Great Commission? And again, why is there a willful disregard for the specific mentions here of being able to correctly teach and living with integrity correctly? Why is the Great Commission NOT ENOUGH? Why do SBC leaders seemingly continue to fashion Scripture their way?

Dhati Lewis, current president of the North American Mission Board (NAMB), insists on focusing on what he calls the “Great Requirement” consisting of the four pillars of Spiritual, Emotional, Economic and Social. Lewis insists the only way to “holistically make disciples” is to “address aspects” of these pillars to “build the framework of community restoration.” This insisted framework includes mandating the local church provide “accessible counseling” and “address systemic issues” by helping people find jobs, keep jobs, and advance in the work place.” This includes addressing “issues ranging from educational disparities to racial reconciliation and political issues.” Most disturbingly, Lewis includes this assertion regarding the “Spiritual” pillar:

Historically, the spiritual pillar is where the church spends the majority of its focus. Too often, churches have shifted the jobs of community restoration to only nonprofits, ignoring the fact that God has uniquely positioned churches to serve and restore systemic and community brokenness.
Dhati Lewis. “Restoration through the Great Requirement.” Send Network, 22 June 2020, www.namb.net/send-network/resource/restoration-through-the-great-requirement/.

All of this more closely resembles the demands of Black Lives Matter for “investments in housing, education, health, and environmental justice” (N.d. Blacklivesmatter.Com. Accessed March 21, 2021. https://blacklivesmatter.com/blm-demands/) and overall goals of the 2020 Democratic Party platform. (“Party Platform.” 2019. Democrats. July 12, 2019. https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/ party-platform/) RATHER THAN the actual Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20. Jesus commanded that we are to “make disciples” by “baptizing them” and “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Again, a return to sound doctrine is the cure NOT focusing the time, energy and resources of the local church on addressing societal issues.

Resolution 1 also states, “That we exhibit Christ-honoring patience and kindness upon those with whom we disagree.” (“On Baptist Unity and Maintaining Our Public Witness.” SBC.net) Pastor Willy Rice made a few striking remarks during the convention sermon and we quickly observe that this may be more aspirational than practical:

Our message is rooted in the authority of Scripture. We have an authoritative message because it comes from an authoritative source. And no movement that ever begins by diminishing the authority of God’s Word will ever end up exalting the majesty of Christ. Today, as in everyday, in this generation as in every generation, the issue of truth must be confronted. Do we really believe God has spoken or do we not. And if we do, do we possess the courage to take our stand on the truth regardless of the cost.
Lifeway Christian Resources. “Lifeway on Demand.” Convention Sermon and Closing
Prayer. Apple App Store, Vers. 1.2 (2021), 17:00.

YES! YES! And AMEN! But, this clarity quickly fades. Rice then belittles and insults those who stand up for truth by referencing what he called the difference between “honest debate and carnal controversy.” While not specifically detailing a specific issue at this point but seemingly pointing to tone rather than content, Rice then boldly asserted:

It is time we called it out and say to those whose voices seem constantly motivated to produce dissent and unrest that this will not go unchallenged or unchecked. We should not surrender this convention to strident voices who wanna play the playground bully behind keyboards tearing others down so they can build themselves up.
Lifeway Christian Resources. “Lifeway on Demand.” Convention Sermon and Closing Prayer, 24:21.

He soon clarified this by asserting the following:

Listen, CRT is a thing. Marxism is a thing. Socialism is a thing. Now, I’ll tell you what else is a thing. Being a jerk is a thing, too. And I don’t care how sound your doctrine or how razer sharp your intellect or how snappy your retorts are on Twitter. If you do not mirror the character of Christ then your words and your work are are nothing but wood, hay and straw.
Lifeway Christian Resources. “Lifeway on Demand.” Convention Sermon and Closing Prayer, 26:01.

Soon after this, Rice stated:

The Southern Baptist Convention doesn’t need Jesus to take a side, we need Jesus to take over. And while we’re at it, we should remember this, we did not build one of the largest missionary forces in the history of Christendom by telling Lottie Moon to “Go home.”
Lifeway Christian Resources. “Lifeway on Demand.” Convention Sermon and Closing Prayer, 31:30.

After claiming Christian women just want to obey Christ, he quickly summarized, “When we are more interested in protecting our turf than protecting our flock, is that not the very definition of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel?” (Lifeway Christian Resources. “Lifeway on Demand.” Convention Sermon and Closing Prayer, 31:30) Lottie Moon was a female missionary to China and the SBC has an annual international missions fundraiser named in her honor. The “go home” reference is a direct shot against the public statement from Dr. John MacArthur regarding former female SBC teacher/speaker/author Beth Moore.

So, was Rice dealing with potential harm from an errant tone here?

Could it be that references to “playground bullies behind keyboards” and “being a jerk” were intended to point to the tone of the speaker rather than the content of their objections? Surely, Rice was not referring to those who insist of the adherence to sound doctrine as “bullies” and “jerks.” Right? Well, how do we address his use of the phrase, “Go home”? (“John MacArthur Beth Moore Go Home.” YouTube, Reformation Charlotte, 18 Oct. 2019, www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeNKHqpBcgc, 01:02) Rice was obviously referencing a statement made by Dr. John MacArthur during a question and answer session during the 2019 “Truth Matters Conference” honoring the fifty years of ministry of MacArthur. As part of a panel, he was asked to give a pithy response to the words, “Beth Moore.” He replied, “go home.” MacArthur then clarified by saying, “There’s no case that can be made biblically for a woman preacher period paragraph end of discussion.” (“John MacArthur Beth Moore Go Home,” 01:05) Phil Johnson responded with:

The word that comes to my mind is ‘narcissistic.’ I think the first time I saw her I thought she she is this is a going back to the last session of what Mike said this is what it looks like to preach yourself rather than Christ and she she has said that she said I read the Bible and I try to find myself in the narrative I put myself in the narrative and that that is exactly what she does.
“John MacArthur Beth Moore Go Home,” 01:08.

There it is! Rice made a direct and unmistakable connection between what he earlier referred to a being a “playground bully” and being a “jerk.” Clearly, in Rice’s mind, MacArthur and Johnson (and many others as well) have “taken a side” and are therefore preventing God from “taking over.” So, what did Rice object to here? Was it merely their tone or presentation or was it actually the content of their assertions? Clearly it was NOT their tone but WAS CLEARLY THE CONTENT of their comments.

MacArthur further clarified:

Just because you have the skill to sell jewelry on the TV sales channel doesn’t mean you should be preaching there are people who have certain hawking skills natural abilities to sell they have energy and personality and all of that that doesn’t qualify you to preach we’ve done this a number of times and I’ve asked you a number of questions on pretty broad ranging issues I’m perceiving this is actually troubling you because I think the church is caving in to women preachers just the other day the same thing happened with Paula white a whole bunch of leading evangelicals endorsed her a new book she’s a heretic and a prosperity preacher three times married and what what are they thinking reclaiming ground in the church when the leaders of evangelicalism roll over for women preachers the feminists have really won the battle the primary the the primary the primary effort in feminism is not equality it’s not they don’t want equality that’s why 99% of plumbers are men they don’t want equal power to be a plumber they want to be senators preachers congressmen president the power structure in a university they want power not equality and this is this is the highest location they can ascend to that power in the evangelical church and overturn what is clearly scriptural so I think this is feminism gone to church.
“John MacArthur Beth Moore Go Home,” 02:30.

You would assume that Rice would be aware that the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 clearly states, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” (“Baptist Faith & Message 2000 – the Baptist Faith and Message.” https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/) Assuming he is aware, Rice was, indeed (despite all of his pontificating otherwise), clearly taking issue with the content of those who stand for sound doctrine rather than their tone. You would assume that Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Community Church would also be aware, but he ordained three women in his church just the month prior to the convention. (Bob Smietana. “Saddleback Ordains 3 Women, Leading to Another Mother’s Day Dust-up over Women Pastors.” Religion News Service, 11 May 2021, religionnews.com/2021/05/10/ saddleback-ordains-women-pastors-mothers-day-rick-warren-kay-warren-southern-baptists/)

Well, at least one of the messengers to the 2021 convention is aware of the agreement between the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and Scripture regarding women as pastors. Shad Tibbs from Fellowship Baptist Church, Trout, LA, attempted to address Warren’s ordinations and made a motion to “break fellowship” or “at the very least” that “the validity of this matter be looked into and a report given at the 2022 convention of action taken.” President Graaer quickly replied, “That is a credentials challenge and so we are going to file that with the Credentials Committee, so that’s how we receive that” and discussion was then closed on the issue. (Lifeway Christian Resources. “Lifeway on Demand.” Introduction to New Motions, Second. Apple App Store, Vers. 1.2 (2021), 07:38)

This continued willful disregard to hold pastors and leaders to maintaining sound doctrine is also evidenced through the SBC’s Lifeway Bookstores. Beginning nearly a decade ago, Lifeway began to refrain from selling materials from known false teachers such as T.D. Jakes, Joyce Meyer and Joel Osteen. Familiar to many of them were they were all primarily outside of the Southern Baptist Convention. They continued to market materials by some outside such as Sarah Young and Lysa TerKeurst. But they also continue to sell some deemed false teachers from within such as Beth Moore, Steven Furtick, Rick Warren and Andy Stanley.

Ben Mandrell, President and CEO of Lifeway Christian Resources, during his Wednesday report on Lifeway characterized their original vision proposed by James Frost in 1891 with, “What would it be like to create an organization that exists entirely to serve the churches with high quality content, doctrinally sound content, that’s easy to use.” (Lifeway Christian Resources. “Lifeway on Demand.” Joint Seminary Reports. Apple App Store, Vers. 1.2 (2021), 12:36) He stated Lifeway was returning to this vision of serving the local church and listed “content and resources and the tools they need.” (Lifeway Christian Resources. “Lifeway on Demand.” Joint Seminary Reports. Apple App Store,Vers. 1.2 (2021), 12:52) Mandrell asserted the new motto of Lifeway is “designing trustworthy experiences that fuel ministry.” (Lifeway Christian Resources. “Lifeway on Demand.” Joint Seminary Reports. Apple App Store, Vers. 1.2 (2021), 13:10) What happened to “sound doctrine”? Any mention of maintaining sound doctrine seems to be missing here. What happened to returning to the “original vision”? It appears that doctrine has been replaced with “experiences.”

Does Lifeway retain such false teachers’ materials because they are primarily affiliated with or currently lead within the SBC? The same deemed unapproved content from the banned authors is found within the retained works and many of the SBC authors endorse those deemed false teachers. So, does the continued sales of some while banning others point to a determined and clear attempt to maintain the original vision of Lifeway to provide “doctrinally sound content” or does it point to an unwillingness to hold their leaders accountable for the same false teachings denounced by those outside their affiliation or leadership?