Today's Religious Herald [Oct. 30] had several interesting articles dealing with a variety of subjects — giving to churches, politics and the BGAV program and reports for the upcoming annual meeting.
I was captivated by Marv Knox's excellent article recounting historian Bill Leonard's lecture series at Truett Theological Seminary on the subject of believers' baptism. In his usual thought-provoking style, Leonard highlights “two pressing problems” with baptism that must be dealt with in the 21st century. I was particularly interested in the first “problem” Leonard described, the requirement of many Baptist churches that long-term Christians from non-Baptist churches must be immersed before joining a Baptist church. My own church has a similar requirement. Unless the person coming to us from another Christian faith submits to immersion he/she can not be received into full membership and is precluded from holding church office, etc.
Leonard then poses a fascinating set of questions to guide a 21st-century study of Baptist baptism. His questions really challenge us to think. I only wish he had provided answers to the questions he posed, but that would simply provide a handy target for criticism of his thinking. Instead his questions leave us thinking about the problem. I happen to think my own church is too restrictive in this regard. As Leonard posits, the requirement for immersion of all members, even long-term Christians from other denominations, suggests that such members could be viewed as coming from “false churches” or “mere societies.” (Just an unsolicited editorial comment on my part for the benefit of my fellow church members.)
What really lit my fire was the article by Bob Allen of ABP on the next page, reporting that SWBTS professor Thomas White calls the use of birth-control pills a sin. I remember being amazed that an SBTS professor, in Louisville, recently supported the “Young Earth” concept that our earth is only 4,000 years old.
Now again I have cause to be flabbergasted by the comment of a professor at SBTS's sister seminary in Fort Worth. It was difficult enough to follow the rather tortured rationale White presented to reach his conclusions.
But then I was taken aback by the comments of Richard Land, head of SBC's ethics and public policy agency, reacting to White's remarks. Unlike White, Land says he would not oppose all birth control. However, once again he has the temerity to speak for all Baptists in the Southern Baptist Convention when he is quoted by WFAA-TV as saying, “The Southern Baptist Convention is not opposed to the use of birth control within marriage as long as the methods used do not cause the fertilized egg to abort and as long as the methods used do not bar having children all together unless there's a medical reason the couple should not have children.”
In the first place, I am not aware that the SBC meeting in convention adopted such a position and so Land can speak only for himself and cannot speak for the SBC on such an issue. Secondly, even if Land could persuade SBC messengers to adopt such a resolution, he and the convention would have no authority — biblical or otherwise — to impose their restrictive values on other SBC Baptists on such a private and personal matter. I fully agree with Dwight McKissic, former SWBTS trustee, who is quoted in the article saying, “This is fundamentalism run amok … All these aberrant views explain why the SBC is a denomination in decline.”
I close with a favorite quotation by Robert Nozick that regularly accompanies the editorial comments by Barton Hinkle, of the Richmond Times-Dispatch: “My thoughts do not aim for your assent — just place them alongside your own reflections for a while.”
Daniel A. Polk, Richmond