The State of the SBC
Colin Smothers:
Good evening and welcome to Kenwood Baptist Church. My name is Collin Smothers and I am the director of the Kenwood Institute, which is sponsoring tonight’s event. The Kenwood Institute is a ministry of Kenwood Baptist Church and it exists to strengthen Christ’s church by promoting and defending the whole counsel of God’s word in the Baptist tradition. You can learn more at kenwoodinstitute.org. And tonight we have the honor and great privilege of hearing from Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and I am joined by Denny Burk, who is a pastor here at Kenwood and serves on the board of the Kenwood Institute. So, thank you so much for both of you being here. And our goal tonight is to discuss the state of the Southern Baptist Convention, specifically, to hear from one of the foremost Southern Baptist statesmen on a variety of issues that are facing Southern Baptists as we approach our annual meeting in June. We’ve got a lot to discuss tonight, so without any further ado, Denny is going to kick us off with the first question.
Denny Burk:
Absolutely, and I’m going to go ahead and open us in a word of prayer. Father, thank you so much for your goodness to us through Christ. I do pray that you’d bless our time together and that you would help us to honor you in the way that we think about your work in this world. Father, we want to see your name made great. And Lord we pray that your name would be made great through the work of the Southern Baptist Convention, of which we are a part. We are thankful for what you’ve done. We pray that you would do more with us. So Lord, bless this time as we talk and we ask all this in Jesus’ name. Amen.
Alright, we’re going to jump right into the questions, and at last year’s convention in New Orleans, the messengers overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the SBC constitution, and the amendment says this: it says, “The Convention will only deem a church to be in friendly cooperation with the Convention” which, and here’s the amendment part, which “Affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.” In order for this language to become a part of the SBC constitution [it] has to be voted on a second time in Indianapolis at the upcoming annual meeting. And what I wanted you to do was just tell us where are you on this amendment and why?
Albert Mohler:
Well, I’m for the amendment. I see it not only as something that we need to pass, but we need to just have it as a part of our bylaws in such a way that it settles a question. Because basically the bylaws are the means by which cooperatively we agree to work together, and in particular, to seek messengers at the convention is this key question. And so, if this amendment were to fail, I don’t think the issue would go away at all. I think it would continue and then every single year there will be some call to take action on this, to clarify this, and I don’t see that as healthy for the convention. I think this is where the convention is. I think this is the logic of complementarianism. I think this is the actual logic of our cooperation, especially since the conservative resurgence, because this is such a crucial issue.
And so, for instance, you look at the press coverage after the, say, the adoption of the 2000 BF&M, nobody’s confused about this! You know, the confusion is–I’m not going to put blame on this–I’m simply going to say the confusion is fairly recent, and it is somewhat abstract. The concrete reality is Southern Baptists believe that the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. And so, once you get past the, say, senior pastor or the preaching elder, how does that apply? Well, the fact is if you want to argue about this at every Southern Baptist convention, ad infinitum, leave that an open question because it is not going to help Southern Baptists. I think this is where the vast majority of Southern Baptists are, and one of the reasons you adopt a bylaw is so that you don’t have to deal with this every year. And if it were convictionally out of step with Southern Baptist, I would say, well, that would be an overreaction. I think this is where Southern Baptists are, the vast majority, and I don’t think those same Southern Baptists want to have to deal with this issue every single year as if it’s an open question.
Denny Burk:
One of the reasons that we know it’s not an open question is because there’s a history to this. This isn’t the first time that we’ve had denomination-wide controversies over the role of women in ministry and who is qualified for pastor. Could you put this into context for us? Especially thinking about the last forty, fifty years since the conservative resurgence, what role has this played in Southern Baptist life? Especially, what I want you to communicate to listeners is that some people are just tuning in now here for the last nine, ten years and they don’t have a context for this.
Albert Mohler:
So, let me try to explain the context, and you may need to backfill a little bit here. But the context is this: If you go back to the sixties and seventies, that’s when in Southern Baptist life all of a sudden you have feminist arguments for women to serve as pastors. And theologically it’s not misidentified as egalitarianism. And so, it’s true that a lot of people hadn’t thought this through comprehensively, but the fact is, it was a movement, and when I arrived at Southern Seminary as a student, it was a major theme of the institution.
Denny Burk:
What year was that?
Albert Mohler:
1980, so you can do the math. So forty-four years ago, this was a major banner theme of Southern Seminary and of the kind of left wing of the Southern Baptist Convention. And there were others who weren’t ready to go there, which is by the way, still by and large true of main line Protestantism. The complaint of the women is, who are ordained, is that far too many churches in those liberal denominations aren’t calling women as senior pastors. But you look at that and you say, okay, so back in the eighties in particular, the issue was should a woman preach? And so, Southern Baptist had to think this through in the midst of other issues, especially during the eighties and the nineties. And by the time you get to the revision of the Baptist Faith and Message in the year 2000, everybody knows this is one of the issues that has to be addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message that wasn’t in 1963. Well why wasn’t it in 1963? It wasn’t a failure of nerve, it was the absence of necessity; no one would’ve understood what you’re talking about. But by 2000 it’s overwhelmingly adopted, and not only that, it’s not controversial inside the SBC. It was controversial in the press and controversial among those who were leaving or had left the SBC. But in the SBC, there’s a sense of relief. We said what we needed to say, now we’ve got the confession that clearly addresses this. And by the way, it wasn’t the only issue. Some of the LGBTQ issues and other things were there. Most importantly in 2000, the effort was to remove a neo-orthodox statement in the doctrine of Scripture. So again, that was all a part of it, but there’s a sense of relief–“ok, now we have that issue settled”–and yet it comes up again.
Now there is something new in all of this, and the new in all of this is not just kind of, to quote Calvin, “The transmogrification of the issue.” And I’m not talking about John Calvin, but Calvin as in Calvin and Hobbes. If you don’t understand that, you’re just illiterate; I can’t help you. But–he had a little box called the–and so the issue does transmogrify over time. And so, arguments are being made–you know, egalitarians and complementarians have had in another twenty something years to argue with one another–so, that at times has been clarifying, but the big development is that especially in some of the more pragmatically minded of our churches, there has been a somewhat intentionally blurred line when it comes, I think, to the teaching office. And so it’s not just the word pastor, but that’s the most important thing. And that’s the reason why I think the law amendment, just because that’s what we come to call it, I think it’s important because it immediately clarifies; it’s like Occam’s razor. Ok, we don’t have to deal with that. We understand that that expresses the conviction of the SBC and we will move on together.
Denny Burk:
You were on the committee in 2000 that pinned the Baptist Faith and Message. Was it unclear in 2000 what “pastor” meant?
Albert Mohler:
No, and this is a little bit of a frustration for me, in that I did not want just to use the word pastor in 2000. I think it’s fair to say that, I don’t think I’m violating any confidence. I liked the more comprehensive New Hampshire Confession of Faith language, but there were some, including the chairman of the committee, Dr. Adrian Rogers, who–absolutely dear friend, dear friend to me, and so I say this only the deepest respect–he didn’t like the word elder and because he associated it with the Bible church and that form of…
Colin Smothers:
Something not Southern Baptist…
Albert Mohler:
Well, and frankly, not something that most southern Baptists would see as an elder either.
Colin Smothers:
On this note though, for tonight, I was doing some research, and the 1925 BF&M uses that term. I don’t think many times…
Albert Mohler:
It’s because of the New Hampshire Confession tradition.
Colin Smothers:
Right, but it says that its scriptural officers are bishops, a word that Southern Baptist certainly would not today use, elders… bishop or elder…
Albert Mohler:
It’s safer as a Baptist to use episkopoi, just use the Greek.
Colin Smothers:
That’s right. And then it was 1963 that substituted the word pastor for bishop or elder. And then which the 2000…
Albert Mohler:
And the argument for that is usage–that’s what’s on the sign out front–that’s what you call… But the idea that you would have the word pastor applied to a woman in the Southern Baptist Convention, to the vast majority of Southern Baptist, I don’t think has ever made sense. And I would go all the way back to the seventies and eighties and say even then, I don’t think to the vast majority of Southern Baptist that made Biblical sense.
Colin Smothers:
Well, to follow up on that–so, bringing this vote that’s before us in June in Indianapolis–last year in New Orleans, we did vote out Saddleback and Fern Creek. And so some critics of the law amendment are basically saying, “Why do we need this? Look, our constitution and our confession, they’re working as they’re meant to.” So what’s your response to that?
Albert Mohler:
I would say the argument that the constitution and bylaws are working as they’re meant to was exactly right. The question is going forward, do we want to have to consider every one of these things on a case-by-case basis? Because, I think the answer to that has to be no. I don’t think any honest person says, I want us to come back to the SBC next year with six of these questions. I just don’t think Southern Baptists want that. I think without this amendment, that’s exactly what you’re going to have.
Colin Smothers:
Well, and if I’m correct, it was actually the credentials committee that had referred Saddleback, that came to the convention the year before and said, “We don’t know what a pastor is, we’re going to, we’re asking for a study committee,” which was overwhelmingly voted down at the floor of the convention,
Albert Mohler:
And I’m the one who made the main argument against it.
Colin Smothers:
I’m thankful for that.
Albert Mohler:
Well, would’ve done it again this year if I could have gotten a microphone. But I understand this is not ad hominem at all because I respect them all and love them all, but I think it’s just not accurate. I won’t say not honest, that’s a little too much. It’s not accurate to say that, “We don’t know who a pastor is.” Ok, I think we really know who a pastor is. And by the way, if we don’t know who a pastor is, that’s a great opportunity for some education on the use of the word pastor. So, I think again, the SBC has ways of dealing with things that do not set up this bylaw to be something you hit people over the head with, but rather, at least in part, certainly it’s a boundary policy, but it’s also a teaching statement. And so if an issue is ask about a church, there’s the opportunity for the convention to get clarification from that church and for the church to get clarification from the convention. And hopefully that would come out in a healthy way. I realize it will not every time, that’s what happened in New Orleans.
Denny Burk:
In that vein, some critics of the amendment have said, if this is passed, what’s going to happen is people are going to weaponize this and they’re just going to use this to go after churches and bully churches that are otherwise complimentarian. But maybe they’re a little mixed up in their terminology. And then that’s kind of a line of argument here. How would you respond to that?
Albert Mohler:
I do not believe that the Southern Baptist Convention as a body, and I’ve been going to that convention now for, I’ll just say between 40 and 50 years. But you look at that and you recognize, I don’t think Southern Baptists want nor would tolerate that kind of agenda on the floor of the SBC. I just think I know Southern Baptist as well enough to know Southern Baptists aren’t going to come if that’s what the annual meeting turns into, that’s not what they come for. So that’s one of the reasons I support the amendment as similar things such as the BF and M back in 2000. Let’s clarify what we believe. This is a very baptist act. This is voluntary Baptist associationalism. Let’s make clear the basis of that associationalism. And by the way, we’re going to have to clarify all kinds of things in the future.
We don’t have names for today, but let’s just get used to that. Let’s do it biblically. Let’s do it charitably. Let’s do it legislatively in the right way. But I just don’t think it’s going to be weaponized now. And by the way, you don’t have to have the law amendment, so to speak, for it to be weaponized. If someone wants to weaponize it, all you have to do is get a microphone. And when it comes to the report from the recording secretary or when it comes to the report from the committee and all some Southern Baptist has to do, or a thousand of them is go to microphones and say, I believe that this church is not in friendly cooperation with or contributing to the causes of the Southern Baptist Convention as messengers couldn’t be seated. So here’s something that I find very interesting. I find people saying, I oppose this because Southern Baptists need to say we’re not going to do X or Y. Well, here’s something about the Southern Baptist Convention evidently a lot of Southern Baptists don’t know: there are only three things by bylaw or constitutional arrangement. The SBC can’t do at an annual meeting with a super majority. If you get a super majority at the Southern Baptist Convention, you can do anything but start an entity shut down the convention or close an entity.
Unless I’m missing something, I don’t think there’s anything else you can’t do. Now, I don’t actually want to revise
Denny Burk:
Bylaws or constitution that takes,
Albert Mohler:
Right, right. That’s true. But I mean other than that, which is what we’re talking about. But I mean other than that, there’s just not much you can’t do with a super majority. Anyway, that’s my point. And someone may come up with another that I’m not familiar with. I don’t think so. But my point is the SBC, and by the way, you can’t bind a future Southern Baptist Convention. So in other words, the Southern Baptist Convention could not vote by a 99% majority to say that the Southern Baptist Convention will not apply this issue for the seating of messengers in 2027. That’s out of order. The SBC cannot bind a future meeting of the convention. So a part of this is just people don’t know how the SBC works.
Denny Burk:
Yeah, absolutely. Because really right now, if somebody wanted to weaponize our constitution, they could just do it. Right now, you don’t need the law amendment to bring up any church or any,
Albert Mohler:
Right. Four churches were removed from fellowship and by that specifically, were no longer qualified to seat messengers at the convention. And all four of those were successful. They went through the right kind of process and they were on grounds. The messengers understood, and the messengers knew it was an historic act. And I don’t think, again, they’re going to tolerate the SBC having to do this as if it’s never done it before year by year. And then they got on with the mission and the work of the convention. And so I don’t think Southern Baptists are amenable to weaponizing things. And the evidence of that, by the way, is the BF and M and how it’s operated now for 24 years. It has been clear, it has been a boundary. It has been a guiding document. I don’t know that it’s who would say that it’s ever been weaponized. It’s operated as it was intended to operate.
Denny Burk:
We want to ask you some questions about the co-op group, what we now call the co-op group at the convention in New Orleans. Dr. James Merritt stood with some other past presidents of the convention and made this motion. I’m going to read you the motion, Mr. President, I’m a complimentarian to the core. I am fully committed to every jot and tittle of the Baptist faith and message, but it’s become apparent to me that we are in desperate need going forward of two things, clarity and consistency. So I move that the convention authorized the SBC President to appoint a broadly representative task force from across our convention to study the issue of how this convention should deem churches to be in friendly cooperation on questions of faith and practice as laid out in Article 3.1 of the Constitution, referencing our adopted statement of faith and to bring back recommendations to the 2024 SBC annual meeting in Indianapolis for how we can move forward together in biblical fidelity, missional clarity and cooperative unity. That was the statement of the motion. And so now we have coming out of this, the messages approved this and we have what we now call the cooperation group studying how the BF and M should define Southern Baptist cooperation going forward. I just want your general thoughts on the cooperation group, this whole effort, and what would you think would be the best outcome for this group?
Albert Mohler:
Well, I guess I’ve already stated I was opposed to the formation of the group. It’s very similar to the same motion that was made in Anaheim that I opposed on the floor because I don’t like the idea of it. And I realize this is, I’m saying this in public, and so I want to be really, really careful. I believe it was formed in good faith. I believe it was adopted in good faith. I believe the committee is working in good faith. But if you think about how it’s set up, there are only a very limited number of options it can come back with. And I am very perplexed by how this is going to turn out. So I have to, in honesty, wait to see what the task force is going to propose. But before we even get there, as I said before it began or had its first meeting or it was appointed, I said, look, there are only really three options here.
Every word of the confession is important. No words of the confession are important or some words of the confession are important. It’s been that way from the beginning. That was a part of the argument that I made to SBC leaders in Anaheim. It’s all or none or some. Those are basically the only three options. I think none is just beyond comprehension. We won’t have a Southern Baptist convention. And then the sum I think is just untenable. I don’t know how in the world you would say, here’s our confession of faith, but we mean some of this we don’t really mean other parts of it, certainly in terms of our cooperation
Denny Burk:
Because that becomes the defacto confession, whatever the sum is. That’s your new confession.
Albert Mohler:
Yeah, I want to be really careful because I don’t want to give that confessional status, but it will effectively kind of operate as a way of reducing the confession of faith. And here’s where I also want to point out. If you do talk about reducing the confession of faith to something else, you better be really careful because I think the force of circumstances and the world as we know it today means you’re going to be adding to that list regardless of your own logic very, very quickly. Now, I also just want to come back and say, I just don’t think Southern Baptists want to go to every convention or for that matter, to any convention with the agenda of finding how many churches can be found to have shortcomings in any phrase or sentence of the confession of faith. I think what took place in New Orleans is a demonstration that what actually happens is it’s an egregious injury offensive to the denomination that causes its action.
The SBC loves happy endings. It’s part of the sweetness of the SBC. It loves when things are made right and in so far as things can be made right, that’s a wonderful accomplishment of the Southern Baptist Convention. But I hope I’m answering your question. I think there’s some things that this task force could do that could be very helpful in terms of even proposing, and I’m not even assuming what they might do here, but the current mechanism and the current committee structure I think is certainly open to review – structural review. I don’t think we’re open to confessional review. I hope that makes sense. As a distinction.
Denny Burk:
Could you talk to us a little bit about what do you think the role is historically of creeds and confessions in Southern Baptist life and how do you think, what should it be? I mean, we don’t know what the cooperation committee is going to suggest, but what should it be and what has it been historically?
Albert Mohler:
Well, that is one of those questions that has to be answered with, “it depends where you look sometimes.” So I want to be very honest. So there are times when you can find Baptists saying things that are rather minimally confessional, but even then you have to go back to the context and say, well, what’s going on here? So the address to the public of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1945 says, we take is the basis of our cooperation, no creed or it’s not a credal statement. And it’s because no one at that time thought that Southern Baptist Convention was going to be the main identity of any of these churches. The main identity was associational and state conventions and they had confessions. So at that point, the SBC didn’t have to have a confession simply because it could assume confessionalism at other levels. I’m not going to say lower levels, but other levels, general Baptist bodies in our polity.
But even that didn’t work. It didn’t hold for even 15 years. So at the special education convention of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1857 when what became the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is proposed, guess what? It has to be a confessional school. James Pettigru Boyce, in 1856 in three changes made very clear. One of the changes was it has to be confessional because otherwise it’s going to be theological disaster. And by that time you had already lost so many institutions in the North in particular. And remember both Boyce and Manley had studied in the north, and both of them had ended up at Princeton precisely because it was a confessional institution. And so by the time Boyce is making his argument in 1856, and it’s not just even just the founding board, it’s the education convention of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1857. They’re making a very clear statement that, okay, so we’re going to do theological education, then we have to be confessional.
But even then, it was more about what the school would have to have as this confession rather than the churches. Because the question wasn’t the fidelity of the churches, the question was the fidelity of the school. Okay, fast forward modernity brings all kinds of challenges. Theological debates in the northern denominations end up in what we would call the fundamentalist modernist controversy. Conservatives are made aware of the fact there are people that don’t believe in the trinity, don’t believe in the deity of Christ, don’t believe in the resurrection, deny the virgin birth, who are in their pulpits and in their seminaries. And so by the time this challenge and over evolution comes to the SBC, remember the year 1925 because in 1925, Southern Baptist changed the way we do business. The bottom line. That was a transformative year for the Southern Baptist Convention. First of all, it was the year of the establishment of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention.
And it’s really three things. Secondly, it was the adoption of the cooperative program, and third was the adoption of the Baptist faith. The message, it’s not an accident. All those things happened. And so by 1925, the SBC wasn’t going to survive without a confession of faith. And that confession of faith was more declarative in 1925 because the logic of the SBC was this is what we believe. If you join us, then these are those beliefs and you’re supporting them. And so there was kind of an intentional effort in 1925 to say, we’re not going to go interrogate the churches on this. But there was the understanding this is a positive and it’s attractive and educational, but by 1963 that wasn’t working. And so you basically had a revision of the Baptist faith and message. I would argue that weakened it and made it worse trying to avoid a stronger confessionalism. And guess what? That resulted in the conservative resurgence in the SBC and total reformation throughout the SBC. In other words, that did not work. That does not work.
Denny Burk:
You explain how it was weakened? Just a couple key things.
Albert Mohler:
Well, I would say one key thing just for the sake of time, the statement on scripture was modified to insert that Jesus Christ is the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted. And that sounds very sweet, but that is classic neo orthodoxy because it means, okay, now I can say this incident in first kings didn’t happen, but it doesn’t matter. Or this statement by God in the Old Testament inconsistent with what I believe to be my imaginary Jesus. And so I’m simply going to use this to nullify this text. And by the way, time I became a student, it was actually more routinely applied to Paul than to Moses.
Colin Smothers:
It seems like under this helpful reconstruction of the history, the Baptist faith and message 2000 then was a step toward Confessionalism in Baptist life and away from that kind of everyone doing what’s right in their own
Albert Mohler:
But there was a limit even in 2000. So when a statement was adopted, it was made very clear. This is obligatory upon the institutions. And even that had to be stated carefully because it was really officially, and this is because of our polity, it was really officially adopted by the convention. And the issue is, okay, now you’ve got all these boards trustees elected by the Southern Baptist Convention over a period of time they should bring their institution’s confessional accountability into line with this. And it happened very quickly. It happened very quickly.
Colin Smothers:
It seems like one of the boogeymen that’s being trotted out against a more robust confessionalism in Baptist life is that this step toward confessionalism violates church autonomy.
Albert Mohler:
Okay, now that is the most ridiculous statement. So I put up with all the nonsense you’ve said up front so far, but that as Churchill would say up with that, I will not put, no, I know exactly why you’re raising that. But autonomy functions within a voluntary association to say, we have no police power over you. We have no troops to send to occupy. You voluntarily cooperate with the SBC. We do not require you. We don’t send a bill. We don’t have a tax collector you voluntarily associated with us. So the principle of Baptist cooperation and associationalism is it’s a voluntary associationalism. So we’ve never violated the autonomy of local church because they don’t even have to answer our mail or take our phone call.
Colin Smothers:
Well, and that’s true even with the churches that were kicked out last year, Saddleback still has women pastors. They still are autonomous over their local body
Albert Mohler:
It was not a violation of their autonomy, nor was it a misunderstanding. It is really interesting to talk to a reporter not long ago who had talked to sources in California and simply said, “It said to me, evidently both sides understood each other last June.” I went, “Yep, that was exactly what happened.”
Denny Burk:
One key change that happened since the passage of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message was in 2015, the Southern Baptist Convention voted to make it a defining issue of friendly cooperation within the convention to closely identify with the Baptist Faith and Message, which was, I think, the first time that BF&M was ever mentioned in the constitution. That was a change though. Could you explain that, and what the implications are of that? And what are we supposed to think about closely identifying?
Albert Mohler:
Well, it was a change in one sense, but not in another. Because, in my understanding, a main impetus behind that was how a church would demonstrate that it is a Southern Baptist church as in a church that had not been in the past but now wants to identify with the SBC. Aren’t we glad to be a part of the denomination? People want to join us. So that’s a great thing in itself. And the charter language is “In friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention and contributing to its causes”, to the causes of the convention. And so if you’re just thinking about in friendly cooperation with and contributing to the causes too, contribution is pretty easy to document. That’s an accounting issue. The “in friendly cooperation with” requires a little conversation. And so one of the things that was said is that, “Okay, we’ve adopted a Baptist faith”, the message, now I want to back up and say here’s why, for another reason, this conversation is a bit artificial. Not the conversation with you two, the conversation in the denomination. So here’s the thing. I really don’t know any sane Southern Baptist. I’ll go back to all the confession is our belief. None of the confession is our belief or some of the confession is our belief. I really don’t know any sane person who says we can operate with none of the confession as regulative. I don’t think anyone actually means that.
And evidence of that is that we not only had to adopt that in 2015, but at least twice, we’ve also had to adopt other language related to L-G-B-T-Q issues, to make clear that a church that makes a positive statement about homosexuality is not in friendly cooperation with. So all I want to say is the ability of Southern Baptist churches and institutions, state conventions – but I’m really concerned about the institutions because I’m president of one – the ability of Southern Baptist institutions to operate in a hostile, modern world of litigation and DEI, ESG, title IX and all the rest, and a very aggressive culture, the ability of Southern seminary to maintain its integrity in this depends, or at least is not unrelated to, the willingness of the Southern Baptist Convention to make very clear that is exactly what we believe.
Those are the beliefs that regulate the body of the Southern Baptist Convention. I’m in a weaker position if the SBC comes behind me and says, “We’re happy for Southern somebody to do that, but it’s not important to us.” Now, this is why I don’t worry about this. Because if Southern Baptists figure out that that kind of logic is at stake, I have no doubt Southern Baptist get to the right place, real quick, and then go have lunch. Alright, so I just want to make clear that they understand these are the kinds of things that are invoked when you’re talking about confessionalism. We can’t play with this.
Colin Smothers:
At the risk of quoting your own words back to you, you were on the committee that produced the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. You were the clerk, I believe.
Albert Mohler:
Effectively.
Colin Smothers:
Okay.
Albert Mohler:
It was an assignment but not a title.
Colin Smothers:
Gotcha. So the same people that are worried about violation of church autonomy, they go to the preamble, and they cite this one phrase that it has the confession. Baptist Faith and Message 2000 “has no authority over the conscience.” But I’ve noticed, which we all agree.
Albert Mohler:
Nor, by the way, does anything I say that is not holy scripture.
Colin Smothers:
But I’ve noticed that they avoid the other parts of the preamble that speak to exactly what you’re talking about. Such as, the preamble also says that confessions are, “for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and that they are instruments of doctrinal accountability.” So it seems like by appealing to parts of the preamble, we’re not taking into account the whole preamble.
Albert Mohler:
I understand that some of that’s probably a willful misrepresentation. Part of it’s probably just an honest misunderstanding, because, I mean all of us have heard somebody say, we know the Baptist position is no creed, but the Bible. No, that’s Alexander Campbell, thank you. That is not Baptist. But frankly an awful lot of Baptists in the 20th century would’ve made that, and by the way, many other bad arguments. The question is, what’s right in terms of Baptist polity, what’s right in terms of biblical truth, what’s necessary for the SBC to operate as a convention of cooperating churches?
Denny Burk:
Can you tell us how the confession shaped your ability to do what you did at Southern Seminary, just as an example of why confessions are important?
Albert Mohler:
Yeah, so what happened at Southern Seminary, in the reformation of just one institution, and as you know, it was pretty comprehensive. So we had a tenured elected faculty that was not teaching in accordance with and not contrary to the confession of faith. So we had to take action to remove one faculty and hire another that was Confessionally committed. Okay, so notice how I said that. How in the world could I have taken this action if there was not an objective document that said, This is what we believe”? Now thanks be to James Petigru Boyce for putting that in the charter and, all the way back in his Three Changes address in 1856, and then the Charter in 1859. And look, that language is absolutely plagiarized from the Presbyterians. So anyone who says that’s not Baptist. Well it’s Protestant, it’s Westminster, it is exactly what the Baptist in London would’ve believed. Especially in the second London confession, it’s what Baptist here believed. The language is that all who teach, who agreed to take the teaching, because this office Boyce said, “This office is imposed upon no man.”
Nobody’s put on this faculty at gunpoint. There are no hostages. So that means you accept employment. So you do so, agreeing to teach “in accordance with and not contrary to all that is contained therein, without hesitation or mental reservation or private understanding with the one who invests him in office.” That’s the exact quote. And I need every one of those words. So there wasn’t a person on the faculty who had not agreed, as a condition of employment, “to teach in accordance with and not contrary to all that is contained therein without hesitation or mental reservation”. That last part was so important. If it wasn’t in the charter and in the original documents, I would’ve been on weaker ground. “Or private arrangement with the one who placed him in office.”
That meant no president had the right to give anyone a pass on the confession of faith. You could pull out a letter from a former president saying, “I understand that you disagree with Article X or Y, but we’re going to hire you anyway.” No, that was forbidden from the beginning. So without that confession of faith, I wouldn’t have been able to do this. Look, right now you’ve got Christian institutions on the LGBTQ, in face of the LGBTQ aggression, and some other things as well. But just in terms of that issue, where they are all of a sudden realizing, “If this isn’t in our confession of faith, how are we going to show up in court and say this is what our churches believe?” I’m just very, very thankful that Southern Baptists have done that. And I just want to give Southern Baptist a friendly reminder: Issues we don’t know to articulate today, you’re going to have to take a confessional stand on at some point in the future if Jesus tarries. I hope that answers the question.
Denny Burk:
Oh, absolutely. So when you look from 1845 to 2024, every single step along the way seems to be getting more and more confessional.
Albert Mohler:
Well except 1963.
Denny Burk:
Well, yeah,
Albert Mohler:
I mean, and that is what I think, in retrospect, really set up the massive change in the SBC, the conservative resurgence. I think if in 1963, when there are people denying the Mosaic authorship of Genesis and denying the inerrancy of scripture, the SBC had answered that clearly and confessionally in 1963. Well, let’s just say it would’ve been a very different history the next 30 years.
Denny Burk:
So you could take 1963 as a setback, but then Southern Baptist reasserted themselves,
Albert Mohler:
But even in 63 they knew they had to have a confession of faith
Denny Burk:
And they reasserted themselves through the conservative resurgence. So we get the Baptist Faith and message 2000. 2015, we’ve got Southern Baptist voting really without controversy that we want cooperating churches too closely at this time.
Albert Mohler:
How could you not say that? It is one thing if we haven’t said it yet. So this is one of the things I teach in historical theology. There’s a constant tension in the Christian church between what can be assumed and what must be articulated. Okay, so the reach is a point in which you could assume that, until now, but now you got to articulate it. And so that’s where the SBC is. The SBC didn’t have a position on X or Y until, all of a sudden, it had to articulate it. But once you articulated it, did you mean it? I think that’s the testing point for us.
Colin Smothers:
One other significant action that happened last year was we amended the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and we replaced the word pastor, particularly in the article on the church with the phrase pastor elder overseer, I think a doctrinal stance that we all agree with. But how concerned are you about the ability to change our confession so quickly from the floor of the convention?
Albert Mohler:
I’d say it’s a four-alarm fire. And it was I think an honest mistake. It should have been referred. It was not, I think understood by the governing authorities at the time as something that should require consideration, study, and a response at the very least from the executive committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. Now I’m pleased with the language, but I am not pleased with the fact that the next thing you know, we were lifting up ballots all in favor. That was a scary moment for me. And that is no way to maintain a confession of faith
Colin Smothers:
Because every entity is automatically bound by the new version of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
Albert Mohler:
That’s absolutely true. And it is just the kind of thing where we actually want the confession of faith as deeply embedded in the institutions as possible. And that often means in charters, and charters or state law issues. Let me just say that little trigger, I don’t know how much it’s going to cost Southern Seminary. We have to change a bunch of documents. Now, thankfully, thankfully, thankfully, we do have a protection we didn’t have before 2000. So in 2000 we were really smart enough to say that the Baptist Faith and Message, we revised our documents to say that the Baptist Faith and Message means whatever the Southern Baptist Convention says it means at any given time. But, still, I’ve got to reprint a lot of stuff. But all that to say it was a good change. It just was recklessly done.
Denny Burk:
We want to talk a little bit about the abuse reform implementation task force, but before we ask specific Southern Baptist policy things, the SBC has been in the national news over the past several years around the issue of abuse, with many outlets making comparisons to abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church. What are we to make of those kinds of comparisons? Is that fair? Is that, what do we make of that?
Albert Mohler:
Well, it’s not fair, but it is probably inevitable. It’s not fair because we do not see the kind of institutionalized abuse structures in Southern Baptist life that we have seen in some other situations, including the Roman Catholic Church. And, frankly, we could tie that to all kinds of issues including it’s not just priestly celibacy, it’s a sacerdotal priesthood. If you have a priesthood with priestly sacramental authority, you’re setting yourself up for an equation that’s meant for, and not to mention a mass with altar boys and all the rest, it’s just a different picture. But that’s not something that’s really, I think, very smart to say in public if it looks like we’re trying to minimize in any sense the horrors in our own situation nor our responsibility to deal with it. And, quite honestly, I think with every passing year we do come to a deeper understanding that there were a lot more problems in Southern Baptist life and in Southern Baptist churches than we knew.
Albert Mohler:
And so there is a corrective necessary. And I think part of that is shifting the mentality from how do we defend the SBC to how do we protect people? And that’s not as easy as just flipping a switch. But we also have a responsibility as a convention, as an institutions to operate as legal corporations. And so it’s a complicated thing in a fallen world. But, I believe that task force will come with recommendations about how Southern Baptist churches can be greatly assisted in understanding their responsibility, Southern Baptist entities understanding our responsibility, being very clear about how any knowledge of allegation of charge, of case, of any form of sexual abuse is to be addressed rightly with a concern to protecting all and in particular the vulnerable.
Colin Smothers:
So some background on the committee following those allegations in the press messengers of the 2021 SBC annual meeting commissioned an independent investigation first into the SBC executive committee’s handling of those sexual abuse claims. And, then in light of the investigation’s findings, the messengers created the ARITF, the Abuse Reform Implementation Task force to oversee the process of implementing reforms in June of 2022, which was then renewed last year. So what kind of recommendations do you might anticipate that are going to be before messengers to vote on in June of 2024 this year?
Albert Mohler:
I want to be very careful because I don’t want in any way to hamper the work of that task force nor to speak on its behalf. I have the right to do neither and the intention to do neither. But I would say look at their assignment. Their assignment was to come back as to how Southern Baptist can do several things. I think that’s what they’re going to do. And I think Southern Baptists will have time to look at these recommendations and deal with them. And so I would simply say, look at the charge that was given in 21, modified in 22. I really believe that task force is doing its best to respond to that assignment and to fulfill it on behalf of the SBC. And look, they’ve had to invest untold hours trying to figure some of these things out. And so I would also just cry out to Southern Baptist, assume that our fellow Southern Baptists are working in goodwill and in good faith towards bringing this about when they bring their recommendations. Southern Baptists have an opportunity to evaluate them. I don’t want to be evasive at all. I’m just trying to be careful and responsible.
Denny Burk:
Well, maybe you can speak to this or maybe not. One of the things they were tasked to do was to create a database of the credibly accused and the people that would be included on that list would be those who had made a confession in a non-privileged setting, those who had been convicted in a court of law of some sort of breaking law with respect to abuse, somebody that has a civil judgment against them with respect to abuse. And then this fourth category, a determination by an independent third party according to a preponderance of evidence. It seems like over the last couple of years it’s that fourth criterion which has been the most controversial. We don’t have the database yet. Is it possible to do it? Do we know can it be done or where are we on that?
Albert Mohler:
My commitment to you and to Southern Baptist is that I will never be reckless in how I speak. And so I’m not offended by the question, but I think it is really important as an act of integrity that I say we need to await the report of the task force and then respond to it. And so I want to try to honor that commitment.
Denny Burk:
In recent days, the SBC Executive Committee has settled out of court on allegations regarding Paul Pressler and abuse. Could you comment on the significance of that event?
Albert Mohler:
Well, I’ll do my best. So just to state the facts as we know them, there has been a settlement in the case. So a fact that the allegations in the case are beyond horrifying. As a matter of fact, they’re so horrifying that it’s actually very hard to imagine that they could be real. On the other hand, there was a settlement, and I think as a matter of record, there had been a previous settlement. And so I want to be careful to say at the very least there’s been a settlement in a case in which that was the allegation. And that means at the very least, we have what I think amounts to a massive scandal related to someone who had a lot of influence on the Southern Baptist Convention at some time, and obviously much direct involvement in the Southern Baptist Convention and served on the Executive Committee and on the International Mission Board and was so involved in the conservative resurgence of the SBC that his name is a part of the two name tandem.
And so you look at that and you go, okay, at the very least, this is humiliating to the Southern Baptist Convention. At the very least, the fact that there was not an absolute disavow and a determination here, I don’t want to overspeak, I’m in no position to know what happened. I know there was a settlement. And it is a scandal. So that’s the other thing. Biblically and in terms of church history, this is clearly a scandal. So even just judged by a minimal reading of the Pauline requirements, we’re talking about someone who is not beyond reproach. This is a reproach and it’s a horrifying reproach. And I think most of us who’ve been in leadership in the SBC are feeling the pressure and kind of the nausea of that reproach and trying to figure all this out. And I’ll say more, I can’t figure this issue out, and I’ll admit it. Because you’re talking about a man, Paul Presler, who’s lived a very public life and who had many enemies.
So I’m just old enough to remember that during the conservative resurgence and the great battles in the SBC, there were very prominent people who were very much opposed to Paul Presler and his agenda in the Southern Baptist Convention who were pastors of major, moderate churches in Houston. So I just want to state, here’s my assumption, they didn’t have a clue. They didn’t know, because it’s hard for me to believe that someone like a Ken Jin at South Maine Baptist Church in Houston who was a major moderate leader in the SBC, it’s just hard for me to imagine that if he knew or had heard a rumor or anything that it just wouldn’t have been addressed. I just find that implausible. Just also knowing some of the people I know in the SBC and have known for many years, I find it implausible that they knew anything like the truth of anything, like the allegations made in this report, in this lawsuit and just continued to do business as usual.
I find that implausible, and I’ll tell you what I find to be most problematic, and that is that in 1978 we’re now told, and I believe, I can’t say which report, but one of the documentary releases since say 2021, 2022, 2023, included reference to a 1978 action by a church, not a Southern Baptist church, but an independent church in Houston related to a similar situation. And in the release of documents, there’s an internal document from the First Baptist Church of Houston from I believe 2004 and references made to it again in 2017 in which someone knew something very troubling.
But I’ll just tell you honestly, I did not know about that Houston document until just a few weeks ago when it was brought to my attention by a colleague in the SBC who had not been aware of it until then. So I’ll just simply say, something’s broken in an SBC in which you can have someone fulfilling a public role when they have evidently some credible accusation that is known by people in a local church. One of the reasons why, yes. So if we need any evidence that we need some kind of structural system in the SBC, that won’t solve all the problems, but somebody’s got to be able to call somewhere and say, here’s a problem. So I’ll stop. But I want to say at least that much, if there’s something else I can say better point me in that direction.
Denny Burk:
Most of the people that I’ve talked to, including myself, I didn’t know about any of this until the allegations became public in 2017. I mean, that’s been the story that I’ve heard from most folks.
Albert Mohler
Well, and when the allegations are made public immediately, it was not clear what the response to them was going to be, and it was not known to many, I’ll say, I think probably to most of us, it wasn’t known to me that there was a background of some previous documentation. And so look, I mean we’re never going to resolve this in terms of having a perfect SBC made up of perfect churches with perfect policies, but clearly we’ve got some issues that genuinely do need to be addressed and I hope and pray that’s what we do.
Colin Smothers:
Perhaps related to the settlement, there’s been other settlements, there’s been reports about just general financial solvency with the SBC. I wonder if you could speak to, well, first of all, I think, like you said, it underlines the necessity of fixing this because there are some large sums of money
Albert Mohler:
That fixing the structural issues and educating and holding people accountable for their actions.
Colin Smothers:
Absolutely, absolutely. And I wonder if you would speak to just the financial realities of what’s facing the Southern Baptists Convention, not just as pertains to these issues, but just generally I think some people have questions about,
Albert Mohler:
I need you to point the question a little bit more because I’m not sure what you’re asking yet.
Colin Smothers:
Yeah, absolutely. We can pivot to the issues around the executive committee. For instance, just
Albert Mohler:
Ask me anything clear and I’ll try to give you a clear answer.
Colin Smothers:
Okay, I’ll try the executive committee. There has been some reports that potentially faces bankruptcy surrounding different liabilities and these kinds of things. Are those reports true? Is this something that we’re going to have to vote on in June? What are we to make of the financial realities of the Southern Baptists convention entities, particularly the Executive Committee? Some of
Albert Mohler:
These reports are public reports, so I’m going to very careful not to speak out of any private confidential knowledge. I’ll simply say some of those public reports include an auditor’s statement that the executive committee is facing a financial catastrophe simply because its liabilities are growing so large. And so yes, that’s something Southern Baptist is going to have to make some very hard decisions about going forward. And I have some strong beliefs and convictions about this. I think the Executive Committee right now, right now needs very competent, stable leadership that Southern Baptists will trust, who Southern Baptists will trust to guide that entity through a very difficult time and to help Southern Baptists figure all this out. I think structurally, and look, thankfully, I wrote an editorial when I was editor of the Christian Index with this title. So this is not based upon modern contemporaneous concerns or private information.
I published an article like in 1990 in which I referred to the executive committee as “a dangerous necessity.” That is what Messengers said when they adopted it in 1925. So it was necessary. Something was necessary in the sense that American corporate law had changed a whole lot. In 1845, the SBC could operate out of a simple Georgia charter, but it really is an entity that exists for a limited number of hours a year. And so by the time you get to the 1920s, the evolution and development of corporate law in the United States meant that a corporation had to be capable of suing and being sued. It’s a shorthand and had to have an operational existence. And so in 1925 Southern Baptist went from a corresponding secretary who basically had a desk and paper and wrote thank you notes to Southern Baptist with a fountain pen, had to go from that to having a corresponding secretary who became an executive secretary, the executive committee. I think there were two huge mistakes made in the executive committee. Number one, it is not an executive committee. It’s something like an administration committee. It’s an organizing committee, it’s a budget committee. It’s more than those things, but it’s not an executive committee. So for instance, people who get the executive committee, the SBC, they go, well, there’s the College of Bishops, there’s the Public Bureau of the Southern Baptist Convention. It’s not even close and it can’t be close. It’s not intended to be close.
Colin Smothers:
Is that because of mission creep or is that just a misunderstanding of what the executive committee is supposed to be charged with?
Albert Mohler:
I think it’s all that. It is mission creep. I think that’s going to be resolved. I don’t have any question that that’s going to be resolved because I don’t think the executive committee has any creep left. In all seriousness, they’re going to be very preoccupied with basic questions. And so I say that with sympathy and whoever goes there as president and whoever’s even right there right now, Jonathan Howe iss, interim president there right now, they’re bearing a very, very heavy burden on behalf of Southern Baptists. And frankly, it’s a thankless job. So I want to be the last person to throw a stone and the first to say, look, whoever takes these responsibilities is actually doing so in great and brave service to the Southern Baptist Convention. And so we need to work with them to try to make this work. I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I do believe there’s going to be some structural change necessary. I don’t think I’m a prophet in this. There’s going to some structural change necessary in a relatively short amount of time, not just in response to litigation, but just in response to the fact that now all of a sudden we’re in a different world in which the ongoing representation of the SBC 365 days a year is going to require a rethink of what that’s going to cost and how it’s going to be put together, and who’s going to lead it and what it’s necessary, but limited responsibilities are going to be.
Denny Burk:
Dr. Mohler, we invited you here because we feel like the Southern Baptist Convention
Albert Mohler:
Is because I answered questions so briefly.
Denny Burk:
Yeah, that’s exactly right. We invited you here though because we are just facing a lot of problems and we wanted a Southern Baptist statesman to come in and talk about the problems. But as we come to the end, can you talk about the possibilities for the convention and how we can get back to what we’re organized for, which is missions and theological education and church planting. What would you say?
Albert Mohler:
Yeah, I think there’s a moral point to be made, and I think especially here talking to you guys, you’ll understand why I need to say this. There’s a moral responsibility to say, we don’t just want to kind of get over the sex abuse issue. We want to actually deal with it rightly and then move on together as a better denomination, as a more holy denomination, as a more protective denomination of churches. So I think that’s important to say, but here’s the, not a but, but an and, here’s the great news about Southern Baptists. So you guys have worked with me a long time. So you know about my rules about the SBC and Mohler’s second rule of the SBC is Southern Baptists will always do the right thing given enough time.
I mean, it’s sort of like a family, right? Or a church. You guys are part of this church because you believe it’s going to do the right thing. It may take some while to get there, and part of that’s because we’re Baptists, we’re congregationalists, we’re sola scriptura people. We have a limited number of arguments we can make. We have a limited number of coercive powers that we have. So we just kind of have to work with one another, being persuaded by the word and persuaded by what the puritans are called, plain reason, and then expect the best out of each other. Mohler’s third rule of the SBC, Southern Baptists will deal with controversy, but they don’t want to live in it. And so you’re going to see Southern Baptists. Yeah, we have hard things to deal with, but Southern Baptists don’t like to live in a hard place.
I don’t think the local church does either and nor does the family. And so you have to deal with some hard things, but then you need to go take a walk and have lunch. And Southern Baptists are better at having lunch than taking a walk. But you know what I mean? It’s just like, okay, this was a really hard meeting. I think we did the right thing. We took strides towards doing the right thing. That was hard. Let’s eat. And you know what? I love Southern Baptists. I wouldn’t trade Southern Baptists for anybody. And I have lived my entire life inside the environs of the Southern Baptist Convention, and it has loved me and nurtured me, taught me, and educated me, employed me, and deployed me. And all I want to say is I do not love them less for that. I love them all the more. So I just want to say yes, we’re having a hard time. We’re having a hard time. Well, who isn’t?
We have a wonderfully functional United States Senate, United States House. We have peace in the world. No, we’re in a tough time everywhere. Why do we think the SBC gets a holiday from history? And I’d rather be with Southern Baptist than with just about anybody else. So I just hope I can say that. I’m talking too long, but just all I got to say is especially younger people, look, if your idea of what you’d want to belong to means avoiding all these things, then you better go live on an island, sit under a palm tree and read your Greek New Testament, because that’s about the only way you’re going to avoid these issues, and you’re going to get lonely and hungry.
Denny Burk:
Dr. Mohler, would you close us in prayer? Before you do that, everybody, would you thank him for coming tonight? Join me in thank him. Best thing we can do is in with prayer, and we’ll let you lead us.
Albert Mohler:
Yeah, it’s been an honor to be with you guys, and I really appreciate the intelligent, careful, and honest way you presented the questions, and I hope this has been God-glorifying and I hope it would be encouraging to the SBC.
Let’s pray. Father, we’re just so thankful for all you’ve given us, including the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention, including the people we know as Southern Baptists, including the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, including everything that is a part of our stewardship in the SBC. Father, we pray to be good stewards and Father, we know we are sinners, and we know we are limited in our perception. We know the wisdom to know what to do in all of this. It’s just not the case that our wisdom is sufficient. We need your wisdom. Father, help us to love each other, help us to speak the truth, really speak the truth clearly. Help us never to compromise the truth and help us to know what is wise every time we cast a ballot, every time we go to the convention, and every time we speak about these issues. Father, we entrust all this to you. I thank you for this church here, Kenwood Baptist Church. I thank you for its commitment to these truths and to Baptist identity and to the Southern Baptist Convention. I pray that you’ll bless this night and bless anyone who at any point in the future should hear what we have to say. May it simply glorify God and serve the cause for wish we exist. In Christ’s name we pray, amen. Amen.
Denny Burk
Amen. We are dismissed.