Last week I opened my discussion of Resolution 9 by suggesting that our cultural diversity has created much of the controversy that has surrounded it. I also encouraged you to review several web-links that give us a history of how we got to our current point of contention. Another area that has fueled the fire has been our definition of terms--and remember your culture informs your definitions.
 
     In the early first century, the accepted definition for the Hebrew word Messiah was that of a conquering king. However, after the execution of Jesus of Nazareth as a blasphemer and a heretical teacher, there arose a sect of Judaism called The Way. They believed that this man Jesus was also God and that He rose from the dead. They pointed to a multitude of OT passages that described the Messiah as both a suffering servant and a conquering king, and claimed that Jesus would soon be coming back as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
 
This teaching was also viewed as heretical and it drove a Pharisee by the name of Saul to zealously pursue men and women who had become involved in the group called the Way. Luke describes his attitude and actions in Acts 9:1-2:

Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem
As Luke continues his narrative, we read of a miraculous encounter that transformed the persecuting Pharisee Saul into the great missionary to the Gentiles we call the Apostle Paul.As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. (Acts 9:3-5a)
     Saul’s definition of the Messiah was forever altered. This self-identified Pharisee of the Pharisees began to tell everyone he encountered about The REAL Messiah. How we define things is important. Defining terms reminds me of my seminary days. Having enrolled in a Masters of Divinity program with my undergraduate Bachelors of Science in Agricultural Economics, I quickly discovered that my vocabulary was limiting me. I came to realize that the only college experience I had that really prepared me for seminary was the fact that I had learned the Greek alphabet when I pledged a Greek Fraternity. I found myself studying in the library and strategically positioning myself close to the thickest dictionary I have ever seen. The first year, I got a lot of exercise jumping up and walking to that dictionary. Unfortunately, there were times when the word I sought wasn’t there. A scholar had used a Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or German word “assuming” anyone who would be reading his thoughts would automatically know what the word meant. Sidebar comment: that dictionary had a ton of words, but I don’t recall a single one of them having only one definition.
 
    That experience helped me to see that every area of study will have its own vocabulary. Each field of study is filled with acronyms and insider insights with accompanying stories that are specifically related to their work world. Each discipline develops a unique culture and language. This complicates conversations especially when different areas of study use the same word but assign a very different meaning. Because all of us tend to “assume” that everyone defines words as we do, no one stops to define terms in the middle of a conversation. A couple of simple examples: For someone in the Audubon Society a crane is a bird in the waterfowl family. If you’re a construction worker a crane is a piece of equipment used to reach high places. For a doctor, the word arm is a noun referring to a part of the human anatomy. While someone in the military will use the word arm as a verb to describe the process of providing someone with military equipment.
 
    Let me suggest that part of our difficulty in discussing Resolution 9 is related to a difference in the definition of terms. Theologians are talking about terms developed and defined by Sociologists who are studying discriminatory laws: Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality. I am NOT saying that we cannot understand theories developed by another field of study. What I am saying is that we can easily develop an incomplete definition if we have not taken time to dive deeply into theories developed by another academic discipline.
 
    Pastor Stephen Feinstein submitted a resolution at the 2019 SBC Meeting which contained strong language stating his belief that “critical race theory and intersectionality (CRT/I) are founded upon unbiblical presuppositions descended from Marxist theories and categories, and therefore are inherently opposed to the Scriptures as the true center of Christian union.” Pastor Feinstein seems to view CRT/I as having been developed in the field of Political Science rather than Sociology. Remember, I suggested in an earlier article that politics DOES play a negative part in how Southern Baptists view current events.
 
    The resolution committee, which was a culturally diverse committee, modified his original resolution to include phrases like “Critical race theory and intersectionality have been appropriated by individuals with worldviews that are contrary to the Christian faith, resulting in ideologies and methods that contradict Scripture.” The final resolution, as approved, included four separate Whereas and four separate Be it resolved clauses that affirmed in one way or another the sole sufficiency of scripture. The strongest stated “That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, June 11–12, 2019, affirm Scripture as the first, last, and sufficient authority with regard to how the Church seeks to redress social ills, and we reject any conduct, creeds, and religious opinions which contradict Scripture.”
 
    My guess is that if you began reading this article with a strong opinion on Resolution 9, then you still hold that opinion. I would just encourage you to hold it with humility, and I would remind you of the provisos I mentioned in my first two articles. My prayer is that as we encounter difficult topics and conversations in the future that we are more careful and kind as we begin to clarify the definition of keywords we are using. All words have multiple meanings!Yours in Christ,
Mark R. Elliott, DoM

     
​     One of the four changes I mentioned in my opening article in this series is that Southern Baptists have become the most ethnically diverse convention of churches in America. The good news is that we have done a great job of celebrating that reality. The bad news is that we have struggled to embrace it. If you have not read my previous articles, let me ask you to stop right now and read the first two before you move to the next paragraph. For the sake of time and space, I will not repeat the significant provisos I laid out in those articles.
 
      The Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) is one of the most familiar of Jesus’ parables. In it Jesus describes a young man at a low point in his life: “He began to be in want. Then he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would gladly have filled his stomach with the pods that the swine ate” (14b-16a). My question for you is, “What caused him to be in such dire circumstances?”
 
     Having grown up in a culture that exemplified the Protestant Work Ethic, my answer has always been that “[He] wasted his possessions with prodigal living” (13). A few years ago I heard a missionary talk about how other cultures understand the same parable. It was only then that I was able to see that the parable actually contains three distinct reasons for his circumstances.

• I was familiar with the first one: Prodigal living, or as I was taught, because he did not steward his life and resources wisely.
• The second was that something happened that was out of his control: A natural disaster occurred. “There arose a severe famine in that land” (14).
• The third was he found himself in a situation that had no family or societal safety net.  “No one gave him anything” (16).

     The missionary indicated that as he experienced different cultures, the people would point to the one reason that best fits their life circumstances. He added that no one ever mentioned all three.
 
     In SBC life, we increasingly find ourselves engaged in debates and at times divisive conflicts because of the differences created by our diverse cultural views of issues. I believe that a significant portion of the debate on Resolution 9 that was passed at the 2019 SBC Annual Meeting has been caused by our cultural diversity.
 
     When I was sixteen, my family moved from northeast Wyoming to northeast Oklahoma. I had already accepted Christ and was an active church member and practicing young Christian, but I was quickly told that some of the things that were part of the social fabric in Wyoming were pagan and unacceptable activities for a Christian in Oklahoma. That experience and the privilege of serving the culturally diverse churches of Heartland Church Network have helped me to see that culture plays a significant role in how we view life and do church.
 
     Resolution 9 specifically addresses two sociological theories: Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality. For some of us, these were terms we had never heard before we read the resolution. For others, they were terms we had heard, but not topics that we have actually studied. For yet others, they are terms that evoke deep feelings; however, those emotions can be found at opposites ends of the debate. Cultural differences have generated vastly different definitions for the terms and thus reactions to the resolution.  
 
But before I jump into the already heated debate, let me remind you how we got to where we are today.  

• June 2019: the messengers at the SBC Annual Meeting in Birmingham, AL approved Resolution 9, “On Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality” (CRT/I). It was an edited version of a resolution submitted by Stephen Feinstein, pastor of Sovereign Way Church in California.
• February 2020: Because of concerns fueled by social media debates related to Resolution 9, a Baptist Press article entitled Q&A with the 2019 Resolutions Committee was published: https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/qa-with-the-2019-resolutions-committee-about-resolution-9/
• The 2020 SBC Annual meeting in Orlando, FL was canceled due to COVID so nothing could be addressed in a formal manner.
• The on-line debates continued and The Council of Seminary Presidents (the six presidents of our SBC Seminaries) issued a statement on Nov. 30
• Marshal Ausberry, who is president of the National African American Fellowship (NAAF), first vice president of the SBC, and pastor of Antioch Baptist Church in Fairfax Station, Va., issued a response Dec. 11 on behalf of NAAF.
• On January 6, a zoom meeting was moderated by SBC Executive Committee President Ronnie Floyd which included officers of the National African American Fellowship of the SBC, presidents of the six Southern Baptist seminaries, and SBC President J.D. Greear. An overview of that meeting and the joint statement made after it can be found at the following link: https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/naaf-leaders-seminary-presidents-hold-honest-and-open-conversation/

      My prayer is that as you review, or read for the first time, the information on the above links that you will begin to develop clarity and objectivity in the midst of a complex and emotionally driven debate. Remembering, as you read, that your understanding is through your own cultural lens. As is always my request, if I have said anything that has confused or offended you, please reach out to me for clarification and dialogue. My commitment to you, and before God, is to have an honest open dialogue using Biblical principles as the only bedrock upon which we can build an enduring relationship. 

Yours in Christ,
Mark R. Elliott, DoM

     Having laid out some principles we can use in sensitive situations in the last two articles, let me now begin to address the four major cultural shifts I mentioned. These changes provided us with opportunities that we have not always handled well. I will begin by addressing the impact that the huge political shift in the traditional SBC states has had on us.
 
     In those states, we moved from a convention whose church members were overwhelming of the Democrat Party to a convention with church members from both major parties. It wasn’t that many years ago that in the traditional SBC states you could not get elected if you didn’t have a D next to your name on the ballot. In recent presidential elections, those states have voted primarily for the Republican candidate. I believe some of the conflicts surrounding the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) are related to this major political shift.
 
     Remember, I said we would be talking about very complex issues in a relatively simplistic way. My purpose is to bring a broader perspective to avoid getting lost in the weeds, and my goal is to initiate constructive dialogue in emotionally charged contexts. I also admitted that my perspective is shaped by my life experiences. As a Wyoming native, my “heart language” is Mountain West. That means I will tell you what is on my mind and I expect you to do the same thing with me. And God is slowly teaching me how to say it with grace.
 
     To the above provisos, let me add that the president of every SBC entity has stepped into a role where his personal opinions must be filtered by his leadership responsibility to the entity he serves. Also, I learned from a wise leader an important leadership principle: the higher my position of responsibility and the greater my authority, the less I can and should say on certain topics. That’s wise counsel for all of us. Just because it’s in your mind, doesn’t mean you need to say it. One last comment: We live in a politically charged and deeply divided nation. Actions and statements that can be viewed as political in nature WILL create division.  
 
     With this background, let me state the mission of the ERLC as specified in The Organizational Manual of the Southern Baptist Convention:
     The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission exists to assist the churches by helping them understand the moral demands of the gospel, apply Christian principles to moral and social problems and questions of public policy, and to promote religious liberty in cooperation with the churches and other Southern Baptist entities.
      With that four-part mission in mind, I would suggest that if the ERLC or its president takes a position or makes a comment that will be seen as primarily political, then they have knowingly and willingly stepped outside of their mission assignment. Some of the more vocal among us who are very upset with the actions of the ERLC are upset because of political positions or political comments made by President Russell Moore and the ERLC. Years ago, those positions might have simply received a quiet “amen.” Today, those actions will stand in direct opposition to the political opinions held by many across the breadth of SBC life, as well as many church members in the traditional southern states.
 
     Because of an ongoing history of such actions, the SBC Executive Committee appointed a Study Task Force to “assess whether the actions of the Commission and its leadership are affecting Cooperative Program giving.” Six specific recommendations were listed in the Study Task Force’s report to the Executive Committee. (Click here to view the full report.)
 
For the sake of brevity I am listing the three that are most applicable to ERLC actions that have been viewed as political (emphasis added by me):

• That the Executive Committee request that the ERLC Board of Trustees, in an effort to foster greater unity among our churches, encourage ERLC staff to focus, where possible, on speaking where the Southern Baptist Convention has already spoken through resolutions and The Baptist Faith and Message.
• That the Executive Committee request that the ERLC Board of Trustees encourage the president and staff of the ERLC to refrain from opposing specific candidates for public office.
• That the Executive Committee request that the ERLC Board of Trustees work with the ERLC staff to develop an intentional plan to demonstrate a greater appreciation for how its positions, including social media usage, affect the spirit of cooperation among Southern Baptists.

     You will also want to note the opening words of each recommendation: “That the Executive Committee request that the ERLC Board of Trustees.” I will come back to the issue many have raised concerning the authority of the Executive Committee in a future article. But you should know that the ERLC Board of Trustees only meets one time a year—the least of any SBC entity. So, when someone questions the authority of the Executive Committee they need to also ask questions about how effective a trustee board can be in fulfilling its oversight duties if it only meets one time a year.
 
      Ultimately, when leaders continue to give personal opinions that are negatively impacting their organization, and they seemingly refuse to acknowledge those errors in judgment, then that leader’s personal agenda has risen above their leadership responsibility to that organization. In the long run, every organization will falter (church, association, state convention, or SBC entity) if it does not hold leaders accountable for actions that are negatively impacting their organization. There are times when a leader becomes such a focal point or lightning rod that an organization’s mission becomes severely compromised.
 
      I have intentionally avoided other issues that some people have raised concerning ERLC actions. My emphasis has been on the impact of political issues in the context of SBC life that is politically very different than it has been in the past. I also threw in some leadership principles that magnify the impact of such comments. My prayer is that all leaders will have a laser focus on the purpose of the organization God has called and equipped them to lead. And, if a time comes when their personal agenda becomes more important to them than the health of the organization, then the Holy Spirit will convict them so they will either amend their ways or find a place to serve where their agenda and the purpose of the entity are compatible.            
Yours in Christ,
Mark R. Elliott, DoM

      Last week I began to share my perception of what is happening in SBC life. In so doing I began to list some principles that will help us transform the “Bad News” that occurs when we become polarized into “Good News.” I began by listing a couple of principles that can help us generate “Good News” in ANY situation. The first two were to keep your focus on the main thing and the other was to use your existing relationships to create healthy dialogue. Some additional ones are:

• Listen with the goal of understanding. This requires us to actually LISTEN to one another. In the normal course of the conversation, we get distracted as we formulate our response to the first thing the other person says. We do this rather than listening intently until they are finished. What makes it worse is we have bought into the misconception that we can multi-task. When we attempt to, we will always lose focus and miss key statements and concepts. Before we respond with “our ideas,” it is always helpful to restate or rephrase what we think we heard. There are times when we get corrected and hear, “That’s not at all what I meant.” We need to be willing to LISTEN until we truly understand both the words and the meaning of what they said. One example of our poor listening skills comes from my seminary classroom experiences. I lost count of the times when a professor would open the last few minutes of class up for questions. Invariably the fourth or fifth question would be one that had already been asked and answered. Somewhere in our disciple-making process, we need to teach one another how to listen.
• Improve your self-awareness. The reality is that wherever I go, I’m there. As I navigate life in a very diverse world, I will constantly misunderstand people around me if I don’t realize that I bring my unique personality, passions, and perspectives into each situation. There was a day when being Southern Baptist could be clearly and narrowly defined even to the point of knowing what would be on the table at a potluck dinner. My perceptions are my realities, but my realities are not always truth. And yes, there is a knowable truth and His name is Jesus (John 14:6). Need I remind you that you are not Him?
• Realize that your conflicts will help you clarify your passion. What hills are you currently willing to fight, bleed, and die on? Are they really Biblical or are they personal passions? Are they culturally based or are they Biblical? Are they really big and important issues or are they trivial issues? Have you honestly discussed the issue and listened with humility to someone outside of your circle? Remember, “The first one to plead his case seems right until his neighbor comes and examines him” Proverbs 18:17.
• Admit your partial blindness. Because of a detached retina, I have limited peripheral vision in my right eye. And because I was born and raised in Wyoming, moved to Oklahoma when I was sixteen, and have served as a pastor and Director of Missions in Iowa and Nebraska for the past thirty-five years, my view of Southern Baptist life is limited by my experiences. At the meeting in Nashville, I visited with a very sharp fellow trustee whose perspective of SBC life is very different from mine. In fact, as I briefly described national issues that are impacting my world, he seemed to be completely unaware that they even existed. 

     In last week’s article, I mentioned four key changes that have radically impacted SBC life over the last 50+ years. I will begin to address the impact of them in the next article. Until then, let me encourage you to find ways to apply the principles above. As you do, God can and will provide Romans 8:28 results to transform “Bad News” into “Good News.” 

      These reflections come in the midst of me leading another small group through Henry Blackaby’s study Experiencing God, and my attendance at the  February 2021 SBC Executive Committee Meeting in Nashville as our state convention’s trustee. As I share my thoughts, I do so with some major disclaimers. First and foremost, you need to know that these are MY PERSONAL thoughts. I am not speaking in any formal capacity, nor on behalf of any other Executive Committee member, nor for anyone on the Executive Committee staff. Second, I share them with humility knowing that where you have three or four Baptists gathered together you have at least five or six opinions on any given topic. Chances are I could read this next week and wonder what kind of a nut wrote that! I also share them knowing that my reflections are an extremely simplistic way of viewing some very complex and integrally intertwined issues.
 
     During the Nashville Executive Committee meeting, Dr. Ronnie Floyd recast his Vision 2025—a clear and compelling vision that was to be approved at the 2020 SBC meeting in Orlando, which was canceled due to COVID. Dr. Floyd’s passion was bolstered by the fact that we could hear him in person, and that we have the expectation of meeting in person for the 2021 convention this June in Nashville. Having a clear vision is “Good News!” However, at that same meeting, we had to deal with several issues that fall into the “Bad News” category. Those issues are significant enough that even a clear and compelling vision can be drowned out by the cacophony created by unrecognized and unaddressed conflicts. That reality reminded me of an old Hee Haw skit that Archie Campbell did. In the routine, he contrasted the “Good News” and “Bad News” that can arise out of any given situation: Oh that's good.
 
    As I began to reflect on the Good News-Bad News contrast, I thought about the slogan General Motors used in their 1988 campaign to re-energize the Oldsmobile brand: “This is not your father’s Oldsmobile.” Stop and think with me for just a minute about some of the huge changes that have taken place in SBC life in the last fifty-plus years:

• Southern Baptists were transformed from being a regional convention of churches into a national body with churches in every state.
• Southern Baptists became the most ethnically diverse convention of churches in America.
• The southern states, where the majority of Southern Baptist churches are still located, shifted from being single-party states (Democrat) to two-party states and have consistently supported Republican presidential candidates in recent elections.
• All conventions and denominations in America have been deeply impacted by the growth of the mega-church, decline in denominational loyalty, as well as advances in communications (i.e. television) and technology (i.e. internet).     

    The changes mentioned above, and I’m sure you could add to my list, contain some “Good News,” but the “Bad News” is that they have also created tensions, fissures, and polarization. If we are honest with ourselves, we look more like the culture in which we live than we do the model of unity we are called to emulate as described in scripture (John 17:20-23, Romans 14:19, & Ephesians 4:1-6). Unless we address these challenges my fear is that Southern Baptists could go the way of the Oldsmobile. The last Olds rolled off the assembly line on April 29, 2004; however, there are still Oldsmobiles on the highway. I have been around church life long enough to know that there will be Southern Baptists in the world when Jesus returns. The question is “Will we be a thriving growing healthy body of churches or will we be merely surviving.”
 
    Before I suggest how the “Good News” in the changes I mentioned above are at the core of some of our “Bad News,” let me suggest some principles that can help us generate “Good News” in any setting.

• Keep your focus on the main thing. Some of our differences are caused by our focus on minor issues rather than major issues. Paul’s admonition in Romans 14 has direct application for us today—particularly verse 19 where he says, “Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another.” An old cliché comes to mind here: “We can’t see the forest for the trees.” We can become so consumed with minor issues that it is as if we are dissecting the underside of a leaf on a bush in the corner of a giant forest. And when we do that, we begin to lose all perspective. I listened to one individual during a break in my Nashville meeting who was consumed with what I would describe as a minor issue when compared to the huge issues facing one of our entities.
• Use your existing relationships to create healthy dialogue. Often times we have relationships or existing venues that can provide a natural connecting point during times of confusion and conflict. If leaders are willing to use them, they can generate honest healthy dialogue. However, if we don’t take advantage of them, we will invariably create frustration resulting in deeper division and disengagement. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 is a great example of men willing to use existing relationships to create an environment for honest dialogue. Nothing is ever accomplished by ignoring the elephants in the room.

    In the weeks ahead I will share some more principles that can help us generate “Good News” as well as give you “my take” on how the changes I mentioned at the opening of this article are at the heart of most of the “Bad News” issues we are facing today as Southern Baptists. As I do this, I will also listen to your perspective knowing that unless we discuss honestly we will not diagnose correctly. And when we don’t diagnose correctly, we WILL prescribe solutions that will only make matters worse. Let’s talk together and see if we can see and understand more clearly what God is saying to Southern Baptists today.