The SBC Scandal: A Few Thoughts

Like many of you, I am both saddened and horrified at the recently released report chronicling sexual abuse and subsequent cover-up in the SBC. My point in this post is just to get a few thoughts down on paper as we strive to pray for this situation and to be like our Lord in being a safe place for the vulnerable and abused. 

First, aspects of our polity seem to have been problematic in this regard. It seems to me that the Executive Committee has had too much power, at least in some ways. However, I am not sure what the answer to this issue is. I do not believe the NT is excessively precise on the ways to structure churches and denominations/conventions, but it does provide us with some key principles. It is also clear that simply having a more hierarchical structure will not solve the problem—examine the Roman Catholic scandals from a few years ago. 

Second, it is also clear to me that the culture of celebrity pastors and denominational "statesmen" needs to burn to the ground. Let's stop venerating one another and instead fix our eyes on Jesus. Sinners do not need stained glass windows of them, nor do they need buildings named after them. Men will fail us; Jesus never will.

Third, we must do better. We must be a safe place for everyone. To abuse anyone is so diametrically opposed to our Lord's character that it should boggle our mind that anyone could name the name of Christ and still engage in such heinous sins. Our churches and entities must take every step to protect others. 

Fourth, we must stress the Gospel. The Gospel is good news for the abused and the abuser. Even sexual abuse, as heinous as it is, is not beyond God's power to forgive in Christ. The pain and trauma experienced by the abused can also be healed at the cross. 

Fifth, we need to insist on maintaining a high character for our leaders. Those of us who are pastors should feel the weight of 1 Timothy 3 and the qualifications for elders we find there. Certain sins are disqualifying from ministry. We do not need to be quick to restore a fallen elder. Quick to forgive? Absolutely and every time. But that does not mean quick to restore to leadership.

Sixth, despite what some have suggested, the issue is not simply complementarianism vs. egalitarianism. As a (soft) complementarian, I find it unbelievable that those who share such belief would not feel strongly about protecting women and children. It is shameful. But I also would say that this debate is not at the core of our faith. Sexual abuse is a much bigger issue than technical debates about the roles of women in the church.

Finally, be encouraged. As I have seen written elsewhere, this scandal is not an SBC problem; it is a sin problem. We need to be encouraged that our messengers overwhelmingly supported waiving attorney-client privilege. We need to be encouraged by this fact. I believe our messengers will arrive in Anaheim ready to demand change. Let us pray and let us work for change. Let us demand better. But ultimately, let us find our hope in the Lord Jesus. 

The Question of Apostasy: A Plea for Rapprochement

One of the saddest realities facing us as believers is when those who profess Christ turn their back on him, seemingly forever. We usually call such defection "apostasy." We can see it happening all around us, on a scale I am not sure we've seen before. But my object in this post is not to lament this occurrence, although we should indeed do that. My point is more a theological question. 

    We all recognize apostasy. But we cannot wrestle with the subject without broaching the question of whether or not salvation can be lost. Traditionally, those of a Calvinist persuasion would say "no," and would view apostasy as those who were never truly saved abandoning the faith they merely professed. Those of Arminian persuasion would typically, though not always, say that at least some apostates were genuine believers who abandoned the faith and became lost. These people are not lost because they happened to sin too much, but because they completely abandoned the faith.* 

    These two positions—the classic Calvinist position that says true believers will in fact persevere, and the classic Arminian position that says that someone can choose to fully and finally abandon the faith—may be thought as occupying two positions on the middle of the spectrum. Others go further. Some have suggested that believers can lose their salvation because of sin, perhaps unconfessed sin, and then need to be born again again. Others, particularly those who zealously shout "Once saved, always saved," have taught that someone who believes remains saved even if they completely walk away from the faith. I would argue that both of these extremes are unbalanced and unbiblical. The only valid options for us are the two in the middle—the classic Calvinist and the classic Arminian positions. 

    I myself, while not claiming Calvinism in all its details, embrace the former option. I believe that true believers will persevere and that those who turn their back fully and finally on Jesus were never actually saved to begin with. That being said, I can understand how those of a classic Arminian persuasion arrive at their position, as well. Because I can understand their position, I'd like to suggest a potential avenue for rapprochement between these two middle positions. 

    The bottom line is that both positions end up arguing for similar things. Both positions say that those who fully and finally turn their back are not saved. Both positions say that true believers are secure. That is, those who are trusting in Jesus and persevering in the faith are secure. Those who are insensitive to sin and are wandering away from Jesus must be concerned about their eternal state. In issues of pastoral counseling, both positions will treat such a person as potentially an unbeliever who needs salvation. And none of us would declare the person beyond hope of repentance. Only our Lord knows that. 

    So, at the end of the day, why can we not have more unity on this question and even leave it open-ended in terms of fellowship? Those with different positions on election can worship and serve together; why not those with different positions on apostasy? Of course, those who believe you can simply "lose" your salvation through sin and those who think that even full-on apostasy does not jeopardize your eternal standing will not be able to fellowship beyond a certain point. But those of us who hold more moderating and biblical positions should be able to attain greater unity than has historically been the case. At least, those are my current thoughts on the matter. At any rate, let us pray and combat the rising tide of apostasy, and "let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God" (Hebrews 12:1–2 ESV).

*Interestingly, Arminius himself might be an exception. While he's famous for saying that he was agnostic on the matter, he also seemed to believe that David lost his salvation after the incident with Bathsheba and Uriah and would have died reprobate had Nathan not moved him to confession and repentance. See Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace (New York: Oxford, 2012).