SBC Politics, the Sexual Abuse Investigation, and Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

In June of 2021, nearly 15,000 messengers from Southern Baptist Churches from around the country voted overwhelmingly to commission an independent, 3rd party investigation into the handling of sexual abuse allegations by the Southern Baptist Executive Committee officers for the period of 2000 to the present.

It should be clear that the investigation was not into accusations of abuse by the SBC’s Executive Committee officers, but that members of the Executive Committee had handled accusations about local churches poorly and in some cases potentially bullied or manipulated those who claim to have been abused in a local church.

One particular accusation in the past few years turned into a lawsuit against the SBC with a former LifeWay (an SBC entity) employee who made a public accusation of abuse that was misrepresented as a consensual affair. The fallout of that misrepresentation was public abuse (with names hurled that should be unthinkable for confessing Christians) leading to her resignation from LifeWay. The misrepresentation was compounded by an unwillingness to correct the misrepresentation in the SBC-controlled newspaper long after the misrepresentation was identified, which contributed to the abuse hurled at the woman. After a change in leadership, the report was corrected and an apology issued, but a great deal of financial, emotional, and spiritual damage had already been done.

This case, a Houston Chronicle article detailing over 700 cases of sexual abuse in SBC churches over a period of 20 years, along with evidence of serial abuse by individuals who had bounced from local church to local church, often as paid staff, raised concerns that the SBC was doing too little to curb abuse. All of this came at a time when sexual harassment and abuse were a particular public concern in society, but there is little question that concern about abuse is more than a secular movement being imported into religious clothing. These sins should not be tolerated among Christians! (1 Cor 5:1–2)

The Polity Issue

Given the loose association between churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, there has been resistance to many movements of reform on the basis of our polity and local church autonomy. It is true that some actions are not possible for the SBC. However, as Keith Whitfield has argued:

“We’ve hidden behind false fronts and convenient excuses. Appeals to the autonomy of Southern Baptist churches have derailed various proposals, like creating a Southern Baptist offenders' registry. While our polity may render some proposals nearly impossible to carry out, the appeal to autonomy doesn't justify inaction. Rather, we must use our autonomy to covenant with one another, “to stir one another to love and good deeds” (Heb. 10:31). Our family of churches must find a meaningful and culture-shaping mechanism that leads us to commit to best practices as we strive to prevent abuse in our churches and entities.”

There is little doubt that many critics of the SBC will be dissatisfied with the efforts to curb abuse within the association of churches. This is largely because they misunderstand the nature of the SBC. However, the fact that the demands of some critics cannot be satisfied should not prevent the organization from taking what steps are appropriate within our context. After all, if the SBC can disfellowship a church for ordaining a female pastor or affirming ungodly forms of sexual practice, then the SBC can disfellowship churches for failing to deal with gross sin in their midst. There are likely additional steps that can be taken to prevent or, at least, minimize serial sexual abuse that can be facilitated at the national level without violating basic Baptist polity.

A Turning Point

The June 2021 meeting of the SBC seemed to be a turning point toward addressing concerns over sex abuse in our churches, given the overwhelming vote by the messengers, who are the sole members of the SBC and its entities.

Getting the independent investigation underway has proved difficult for the Executive Committee because of concerns over legal and financial exposure due to the investigation. One contentious aspect of that motion as approved by the messengers was the request that the Executive Committee waive attorney-client privilege for the investigation.

Waiving attorney-client privilege is, indeed, a big step. On the one hand, it provides unimpeded access to documents that may be legally damning, but which could have been kept out of the public eye because they were protected by the confidential relationship between an attorney and her client. There is legal and financial risk to waiving this privilege, which may include the Executive Committee’s insurance company refusing to pay out on settlements related to cases whose evidence is exposed by this waiver. Additionally, evidence may become publicly available (as through the investigator’s report) that would have otherwise have been hidden to litigants or prosecutors. If there has been wrongdoing, it may well be exposed and bring penalty that could have been prevented by non-disclosure.

On the other hand, waiving attorney-client privilege exposes issues to the light of day that would otherwise be left to fester and left unaddressed. It would leave the investigators without all the information needed to bring problems to light, uncover weaknesses in practices, which could lead to greater liability down the line. It would diminish the trustworthiness of the final, public report, because the world would be left wondering what secrets remained hidden behind the veil.

Contributing to the need to waive attorney-client privilege on this issue, the long-time general counsel for the SBC Executive Committee has been in the midst of many of the controversies within the SBC. He has, for example, been part of a plot to misappropriate money from one SBC seminary and has been subsequently banned by judicial order from serving non-profits within the state of Texas or any Southern Baptist entity. The same individual has been deeply involved with another major figure within SBC life who was eventually terminated for mishandling his stewardship of an SBC entity along with public accusations related to covering up abuse. Some of these accusations have not been corroborated, but the risk that communications related to the issue would be kept confidential due to one of the key individual’s role for the Executive Committee made this selective waiver of attorney-client privilege essential to having a transparent, independent investigation. Given that the same individual testified as a character witness for a convicted abuser using his SBC official title, and also called the concerns over abuse a “satanic plot,” there is a reasonable basis for assuming his correspondence may be important to the investigation into handling of sexual abuse.

The Will of the Messengers

In June of 2021, the messengers voted to have the Executive Committee waive attorney–client privilege and form a separate (not approved or appointed by the Executive Committee) task force of Southern Baptists, who would hire a firm to conduct the third-party investigation. This vote was a rare move for the Southern Baptist messengers. Unlike resolutions, which do not have normative force, the motion from the floor was a directive to the members elected to the Southern Baptist’s Executive Committee.

(For those unfamiliar with the polity, the Southern Baptist Convention exists for two days each year from the first gavel to the last gavel of the annual meeting. It is comprised of “messengers” who are sent by their local congregations to vote on issues raised at the meeting. The Executive Committee exists to oversee the budget of the Cooperative Program, improve cooperation between SBC entities, and make arrangements for the annual meeting. The Executive Committee is comprised of people nominated by the Committee on Committees and elected by the messengers of the convention.)

The expectation of many of the messengers was that at the first Executive Committee meeting after the SBC, which is normally conducted in September (~100 days after the SBC), they would vote to waive attorney-client privilege, approve the funds for the investigation, and empower the Task Force (appointed by the President of the SBC, elected by the messengers at the SBC, who is also a voting member of the Executive Committee) to do the investigation.

Many onlookers were disappointed when the Executive Committee failed to waive attorney-client privilege and approve the third-party investigation as directed, when they met in Nashville on the 21st of September. Although the Sex Abuse Task Force had been named, had identified a reputable group to do the investigation (whom the Executive Committee had tried to hire to do a private investigation without a public report prior to the annual meeting of the SBC), and had the contract prepared for approval, the investigation was stalled. A significant faction within the SBC had worked with some leaders within the Executive Committee to argue against waiving attorney-client privilege, which threatened to put the brakes on the contract and the investigative process.

Though the full reasons for the issue may never be known, much of the information the members of the Executive Committee needed to make their decision was not presented until shortly before the meeting, with insufficient time to review it. Additionally, members of the staff of the Executive Committee had contracted with legal firms to attempt to convince the Executive Committee members not to fulfill the direction of the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention by refusing to waive attorney-client privilege. However, a motion was made and approved to meet again in seven days to discuss it again.

At the second meeting, on September 14, the motion to waive attorney-client privilege was again defeated. Another motion was made to allow another 7 days to negotiate. The key to the negotiation for the Executive Committee was maintaining control of the investigation, having veto power over the material made available to the investigation, and the ability to control the content of the final report.

The Real Risks of Waiving Attorney-Client Privilege

There are some significant risks associated with waiving attorney-client privilege, especially from a purely financial and legal angle. If the investigation uncovers illegal behavior by members of the Executive Committee in communications that were made regarding legal advice between those EC members and their attorney, then that information would be admissible as evidence in court. Legal advice and surrounding conversations involving an attorney acting in his or her legal capacity can generally be hidden behind attorney-client privilege. The individuals responsible would lose that protection with this waiver. Additionally, in civil lawsuits, potentially compromising communications would no longer be protected legally.

Compounding this legal and financial risk, institutions typically carry robust liability insurance policies to protect them from lawsuits. Waiving attorney-client privilege for a case can become grounds for the insurance company refusing to pay out for damages awarded, because the insured institution failed to defend against lawsuit with full vigor.

The biggest risks here are that the SBC Executive Committee could be open to lawsuits that, if the evidence supports, they will have pay for out of pocket. The current budget does not support those sorts of expenditures and it might bankrupt the Executive Committee or cause funds to be diverted from the Cooperative Program (i.e., away from actual missions and ministry) to keep the Executive Committee afloat.

We should note that these risks are conditional upon (a) there being evidence of wrongdoing, (b) victims of wrongdoing bringing civil suits, and (c) the insurance company electing not to cover the damages. Our best hope—and the one I really want to be true—is that there is no evidence of wrongdoing beyond what has already been settled.

Advantages of Waiving Attorney-Client Privilege

A 2019 Houston Chronicle article about widespread, serial abuse within SBC-affiliated church changed the perception of the SBC inside and out. Since that issue was revealed, I have had people who were otherwise unconcerned about Baptists (or Christianity) make the connection between the SBC and abuse when they found out my connections to the SBC. There have concerns raised by laypeople within local churches (mine included) about why we should remain affiliated with the SBC based on the perception that abuse is widespread and pervasive.

Until we begin to take steps that are appropriate within our context and polity to curb sexual abuse, we will never be able to shake the accusations. The fact is that the abuse happened, we have not taken action to mitigate it, and no complaints about political motivations of #metoo, social justice, or polity will ever change that. Failing to take action makes the offensiveness of being an SBC church something other than the gospel. It sets up barriers to evangelism. Especially outside of the Bible Belt, it makes ministering as an SBC-affiliated congregation more challenging.

The first step in addressing an issue is figuring out the extent of the issue. But we have to be willing to really explore. Waiving Attorney-Client Privilege and publishing a public report are important steps in determining the nature of the problem. “Ripping the Band-Aid off” is painful, but likely the best way to move beyond the issue.

We may also find evidence of ungodly behavior among some leaders in the SBC which, if not illegal, is disqualifying from leadership. In any large organization there will always be shenanigans and insider trading, but there is already public evidence of behavior that does not belong in an organization devoted to getting the good news of the gospel to the nations. This investigation may help reveal that problem, as well, as it relates to the handling of sexual abuse.

Another advantage of having an open investigation with clear access to privileged communications is that it will functionally close the door on spurious lawsuits. If an independent, respected firm has full access to all pertinent records are determines the bounds of the issue (if any exists), then other accusations and lawsuits that may not be defensible will be much harder for accuser to pursue. If we expose some wrong doing, but the process and the final report remain behind a veil, then people who may feel wronged (and may have been wronged, if not by the SBC Executive Committee) but who do not actually have standing (because, perhaps, they had never contacted anyone) would have opportunity to sue the SBC and the SBC would have to defend afresh each individual suit. The open investigation provides both a present vulnerability (if any wrong doing is discovered) and a future defense (we’ve ruled out evidence of certain claims). So, while it may make present lawsuits more damaging, it may reduce risks from future ones.

Finally, we need to remember the reason the SBC exists. It’s not to be a self-sustaining club of Baptists, kept sacred in perpetuity and handed down to future generations. The SBC is a funding mechanism for cooperative ministry—education, disaster relief, political engagement, international missions, and church planting. As such, if the SBC ceases to live up to its calling as a Christian organization, it’s time to disband and find another better way. I believe we will come through this, but it’s always good to remember that if the SBC does not exist after this, then God will raise up another means of getting the gospel to the nations. The SBC can be effective, but it is not essential to God’s mission.

The Waiver

As one of the thousands of messengers that affirmed the call for an open, independent investigation, including the directive to the Executive Committee to waive attorney-client privilege, I am grateful that on October 5th the Executive Committee voted to do so. The margin of the vote was narrower than it should have been, but it is a step in the right direction.

A note of caution is in order here, though. Obviously, I am in favor of having waived attorney-client privilege. There are some members of the Executive Committee who voted no, but did so because they honestly believed it was their duty to do so. There are risks associated with the waiver. The EC members are tasked with protecting the interests of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Executive Committee of the SBC in particular. There are good reasons for having voted no, though I believe the reasons to vote yes outweigh them. I fear that some supporters of the waiver will harass well-meaning, conscience-bound individuals for doing what they believed to be right. That should not be.

We will see how the investigation plays out. It is a sad thing that the investigation is necessary, but, in my view, it is a good thing that both the process and the final product will shine light in some dark places and help the SBC move forward into the future with better practices or reallocate resources to do the mission God has called all Christians to more effectively.

Why Doesn't Everyone in the SBC Simply Reject CRT Openly?

In the tribal warfare of the internet age one of the hot disputes is over Critical Race Theory (CRT). In my own circle—evangelical Christians in general and Southern Baptists in particular—the fire of war over CRT is hot, though little light has been produced.

In this brief post I will tackle the simple, but repeated question, “Why doesn’t everyone within the SBC simply reject CRT openly?”

The answer to that question seems relatively simple and obvious to me. However, since people don’t seem to see it, I am going to try to explain it without getting myself caught in the blaze of controversy.

What is CRT?

The heart of the debate over CRT should be the definition of CRT. The problem with the debate is there are many definitions of CRT. I will list two of the edge definitions, but there are a million shades between.

Some proponents define CRT as method of studying the outcome of racially biased laws and cultural trends that have had and continue to have a disparate impact on ethnic groups. That is what proponents like Delgado set out to expose. It’s simply the attempt to ask the question, “How have laws intentionally or unintentionally led to poorer outcomes for ethnic minorities?” or “How has race (or ethnicity) impacted social outcomes and why?” Let’s call this “CRT A”.

To others, CRT is the process of explaining why contemporary American Whites are uniquely responsible for current ethnic disparities and ought to continually repent of their privilege that explains the majority of their positive outcomes. To be White is to be tainted. One must repent of being White. Capitalism is White. Western Culture is White. Being White is bad, therefore we must adopt Socialism, reject classical literature, and continually repent of being born White or supporting Whiteness (even if we aren’t actually ethnically Caucasian). This is a caricature of many versions of CRT, but the internet will reveal enough cases of people who say they are advocating CRT proclaiming these things that we need not exclude them from the discussion. Let’s call this “CRT Z”.

One need not agree with either of these definitions to accept that there are people who describe their position as CRT that hold to them. In other words, neither of these may be “true CRT,” but there are proponents of “CRT” that argue these positions.

Recognizing the Difference

It doesn’t take a genius to see that there is a world of different between the first definition and the second. It also does not take much discernment to accept that the first approach may frame a legitimate (even if not correct) mode of inquiry, while the second is another form of racism.

There is, in short, terminological confusion.

Sometimes this confusion is used by the intelligentsia in a Motte and Bailey approach, where they throw out some controversial racial analysis or critique of that analysis and retreat to the safer ground of their polar definition when challenged. Sometimes, I think, people discussing CRT have read so narrowly (not to say they haven’t read extensively) that they legitimately haven’t encountered another perspective or one that represents the harmful extremes. Or, in other cases, they have granted too much grace to “their side” of the debate that they don’t see the encroachment into the unreasonable.

At the very least, as we think about the issue, we should recognize that definitions are the key. CRT is not monolithic, so we should seek to understand before we argue.

Why Not Just Reject the Term?

After the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention affirmed Resolution 2, On the Sufficiency of Scripture for Race and Racial Reconciliation, there has been an outcry in some subsections of the SBC that the statement does not include a clear rejection of “CRT.”

The statement itself is sound, biblical, and resonates with the various statements on race and racial reconciliation that the SBC has adopted in the past. For those that care to read it, it quickly becomes clear that “CRT Z” and many variants on that side of the spectrum are out of bounds based on that description.

The complaint among some is that “CRT A” is not as clearly anathematized by the statement. Therefore, when individuals ask questions like, “How has race (or ethnicity) been used unjustly in society or resulted in unjust outcomes?”, it is not clearly out of bounds. Of course, it is also not clear that someone asking such a basic question about race (or ethnicity) is necessarily reliant upon the tenets of CRT.

“That Sounds Like CRT”

And that is exactly the reason why it was good to issue Resolution 2 without an explicit rejection of CRT.

In some corners of the internet, it has become increasingly common to argue that any analysis of society, data, or theology that includes a consideration of race or ethnicity is a form of CRT. This is, whether intentional or not, an error that conflates the problems of “CRT Z” with any discussion of race or ethnicity, or its lingering effects.

In opposition to these discussions, some have absolutized statements like Paul’s Galatians 3:28 (There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus), arguing that it means that there should be absolutely no consideration of differences created by or resulting from race or ethnicity. However, Paul wasn’t arguing that those categories did not exist (otherwise why did he differentiate the circumcised from the uncircumcised in Col 4), but that they should not impact unity in the body of Christ.

It would be funny if it were not so painful, but some of those most vocal about using Gal 3:28 to outlaw any discussion of racial (or ethnic) differences are also the most careful to differentiate the roles of men and women in the church. To be logically consistent, if Galatians 3:28 means that we can never talk about racial disparities in the church, then those that hold that position should not recognize a different function in the church between men and women. In other words, they should be willing to accept female pastors. Most often they do not. That would reflect a consistent, though incorrect, application of Gal 3:28.

Because there are longstanding social impacts due to race—one need only look at the existence of distinct African-American denominations (which were largely formed in response to overt racism in predominately white denominations)––some critics paint any theological or social analysis that recognizes the actual differences related to race (or ethnicity) as a form of CRT, whether or not the accused has any knowledge of or intent to use CRT.

The existence of real and obvious racial (or ethnic) differences means that there are times that examining those differences is necessary and warranted.

The Bigger Problem

The bigger problem with the CRT debate, and a reason why we should not try to anathemize “CRT” wholesale, is that the some of the loudest voices against “CRT” are also the ones who argue that any analysis that includes racial (or ethnic) differences are using “CRT,” whether any form of actual CRT is actually in play. Often, it seems that these accusations are made more on political grounds (i.e., someone supports a different economic or social policy) than on the basis of careful understanding of the ideas under discussion.

Let me simplify: The logic of some of the loudest anti-“CRT” argumentation goes like this:

1.       CRT is a form of analysis that considers racial (or ethnic) disparities.

2.       Scholar or pastor X has cited analysis or made a declaration that takes into account racial (or ethnic) disparities.

3.       Therefore, scholar or pastor X advocates for CRT.

Anyone who has taken basic logic will recognize the problems with this line of reasoning.

Unless ALL discussions that take into account racial (or ethnic) disparities are CRT, then the logic doesn’t follow. And even that logic is based on the assumption that all versions of CRT are irredeemably bad (or at best unhelpful) and inconsistent with the gospel. Some argue that “CRT A” and some similar versions are relatively benign and may actually help illuminate the current situation, but that is a different discussion for a different day. However, it shouldn’t be impossible for us to imagine that an individual may recognize that “CRT Z” is bad, while still being able to glean something of value from “CRT A” even if, in the end, the individual rejects the policy proposals of those who use “CRT A.”

It’s also possible to ask questions similar to those who use and advocate for “CRT A” and yet not be dependent upon their ideas. Simply because one things sounds similar to another does not mean those things are the same.

Sometimes arguments about who is “using CRT” play out in these obvious terms, but often it is more subtle. And yet, many of the attempts to combat “CRT” among inerrantist evangelicals amounts to:

a.       That individual used language or addressed a concept that could be associated with CRT.

b.       Therefore, that individual advocates for CRT.

c.       CRT is bad.

d.       Therefore, that individual must be ridiculed and abused publicly and, if possible, fired.

If we’re being honest, we’ll recognize this pattern. It isn’t universal, but it is fairly common. And, if we’re being serious about being thoughtful, we’ll recognize why it isn’t helpful.

We should also recognize statements that absolutize rejections of “CRT” are a tool for vocal groups within our communities to prevent discussion about important issues, because once the accusation is made that someone is advocating “CRT,” whether true or not, then the person will be forced to defend themselves or risk losing their job. There is an element of McCarthyism to the whole situation.

Conclusion

I set out to answer the question, “Why doesn’t everyone within the SBC simply reject CRT openly?”

There is no question that more discussion is needed, but I think I’ve begun to explain why absolute statements on CRT are unhelpful, especially when “CRT” means radically different things to different people and that, for some people, simply raising questions about race lead to accusations of “CRT.” The kind of pseudo-thoughtful analysis that has replaced honest engagement with ideas, especially around concepts like “social justice” and “CRT,” is not helpful.

Significantly when some voices assume CRT is at the root of any discussion of race (or ethnicity) that arrives at different conclusions than those of another group, we have a problem. Additionally, if the simple recognition that one’s cultural background shapes one’s understanding of a context is a version of CRT, then it is an unhelpful label.

Since the label “CRT” is so ambiguous, it is better to identify the aspects of “CRT” that are objectionable and explain why they are inconsistent with Scripture. Then we can all examine the statements of scholars and pastors in comparison to those tenets and argue against objectionable content rather than making accusations of things that “sound like” or “are not sufficiently opposed to” whatever “CRT” is in the mind of this or that cultural commentator. Based on the statement of those on the SBC resolution committee, this sort of action—to make clear what is inconsistent with biblical orthodoxy—is exactly what was being attempted with Resolution 2.

Will this scratch the itch of the culture warrior? No, but usually they live for the denunciation and the battle rather than the truth. But for those that are being honest and careful in their pursuit of truth, statements like Resolution 2 are a step forward in identifying the guardrails for civil discussion.

Together on God's Mission - A Review

The Cooperative Program is one of the most effective funding mechanisms for worldwide gospel ministry in the history of Christianity. Annually, autonomous local congregations give millions of dollars to support the advancement of the Great Commission at state, national, and global levels. Hundreds of pastors, missionaries, and lay people graduate from the six Southern Baptist Seminaries each year, better equipped for ministry and less financially burdened that would be possible if millions of people did not give to the Cooperative Program through their local churches. Missionaries go to language school, are transported to the field, and sustained in thousands of international locations because the gifts of small congregations are pooled with those of large ones to enable men and women from any sized church to dedicate their lives to getting the gospel to the ends of the earth.

Some might say the Cooperative Program is a wonder of modern missions. It serves as a catalyst for the spread of the gospel and offers a bright future for engaging the lost with the good news of Jesus Christ. Tragically, sometimes the purpose and fruit of Cooperative Program giving are invisible to people in the local churches. If Southern Baptists are going to continue to function in a collaborative manner to fund gospel ministry in the years to come, we must work diligently to celebrate the positive impact our cooperation can have and explore the shared theology that enables congregations who differ in their understanding of some doctrines to work together to advance the Great Commission.

The SBC has needed an updated simple, brief, and theologically informed case made for continued cooperation for several years. Together on God’s Mission: How Southern Baptists Cooperate to Fulfill the Commission, which released in early 2018, is a resource that fills that need.

Scott Hildreth’s recent book on cooperation in Southern Baptist life offers a concise history of the convention, with an emphasis on the Cooperative Program, and outlines a theological foundation for the ongoing collaboration of SBC churches in advancing God’s mission on earth. In less than one hundred pages, Hildreth significantly updates previous histories of the CP and makes explicit the ecclesiology that has for generations been assumed by cooperating Southern Baptists.

Part One of this volume consists of three chapters. The first chapter of Together on God’s Mission gives an overview of the early history of the Southern Baptist Convention as they shifted from mission society to a convention cooperating in ministry on multiple levels. Chapter Two traces the evolution of the early convention to a robust network of churches joined together to efficiently fund Great Commission activities. The third chapter helpfully informs readers how the Cooperative Program works.

In Part Two Hildreth shifts from history to theology. Chapter Four succinctly outlines a theology of mission. The fifth chapter offers a basic Baptist ecclesiology for cooperation which unites the many autonomous local congregations of the Southern Baptist Convention and enables them to work together with the other churches in the convention. In Chapter Six Hildreth outlines some of the ways the local congregations of the early church—that is, those documented in Scripture—cooperated, pooled funds for ministry, and sent personnel to accomplish the common mission of advancement of the gospel.

Part Three of the volume contains a single chapter. In the seventh chapter, Hildreth summarizes his arguments and offers some proposals for continued cooperation among Southern Baptists in the future. He commends churches to consider the theological implications of the Cooperative Program, evaluate cooperation in broader, non-financial terms, and celebrate the ability to participate in CP giving rather than viewing it as membership dues.

Together on God’s Mission was published by B&H Academic because it contributes to the academic conversation within the SBC about ecclesiology and history. However, the volume is written in plain English, with short chapters, and clear argumentation. These make the volume suitable for a popular audience. This book would be helpful to pastors who are not sure exactly what the Cooperative program does. It will also make a useful resource for prospective members of SBC churches who wonder what makes Southern Baptists distinct and unites them. As tensions continue to simmer over differences in ministry methodology, political persuasions, and doctrinal debates, this book can help recall to mind the good things that keep Southern Baptists working together. Together, the local churches of the Southern Baptist Convention can do a great deal more than we can do working alone.

This is a book that fills a void for the SBC at a time when a call to unity and recognition of the powerful way God has used the Cooperative Program to get the gospel to the ends of the earth. Together on God’s Mission deserves to be read broadly and discussed carefully as the convention marches toward two centuries of cooperative missions.

Together on God's Mission: How Southern Baptists Cooperate to Fulfill the Great Commission

By Hildreth, D Scott

Buy on Amazon

NOTE: This review was originally published at the B&H Academic blog, which has since been deactivated due to changes in strategy at LifeWay. I was provided a gratis copy of the volume with the expectation of an honest review.

Onward: Engaging the Culture without Losing the Gospel - A Review

If you are a Christian struggling with how to find a way to positively engage the world around you while remaining orthodox, then Russell Moore’s book, Onward: Engaging the Culture without Losing the Gospel, is for you.

Moore has been on various news outlets over the past few years as a spokesman for conservative evangelicals, particular for the Southern Baptist Convention. If this has caused you to wonder what he is doing and why he says the things he says, then this book will be helpful for you, too.

Avoiding Twin Dangers

Moore is outlining the twin dangers of Christian engagement in the public square. On the one hand, it is easy for Christians to become like grumpy old people telling kids to get off their lawn. On the other hand, it also easy for Christians to leave unexamined many of the ills of society as long as it doesn't directly impact them. We can’t afford to fall into either one of the errors if we are going to reach the world with the good news of the gospel.

The thing that keeps us from falling into either of these errors is a proper understanding of the gospel. Moore begins by discussing the culture shift that has pushed Christians from the center of the cultural conversation to the prophetic edges. He is careful to note this reality reflects the fact that the values coalitions of previous decades sounded very Christian without actually being converted by the gospel. As the conversation shifted away from something that resembled a Christian ethic, the Christians that remained faithful to the gospel seemed to have two options: either compromise or get left out of the conversation. This is a false dichotomy.

Gospel Foundation, Contemporary Issues

Early on in the volume, Moore digs into the meaning of the gospel. He makes it clear that the gospel isn’t about either personal salvation or social justice; it’s about both. If the Christian church loses its understanding of personal conversion and individual redemption, she loses one of the cornerstones of the gospel message. Salvation is not based on redemption of the whole, but on Christ’s atonement for the individual. At the same time, if Christian individuals miss the central redemptive themes of historic Christianity, which offers a strong dose of the pursuit of justice in society, then they miss out on some of the key implications of their own gospel conversion; redeemed individuals seek to redeem society.

With both these aspects of redemption in mind, Moore addresses a number of major issues that are central to the contemporary cultural discussion: immigration, religious liberty, and family stability. These are social issues that tend to divide Americans from each other and are the topics that commonly lead to calls for compromise and accusations of a lack of compassion.

Convictional Kindness

This is where Moore’s call for convictional kindness comes in. Convictional kindness is standing firm on ethical norms without shame, while confronting the angry accusations of the surrounding world with a gentle spirit. The conviction is birthed from confidence in the objective moral order in creation that is witnessed to by the special revelation found in Scripture. It requires rational, well-thought through positions that are both coherent and correspond to the truth in God’s creation. Kindness is built on the understanding of our own personal need for redemption. We, too, are growing, learning people who have pasts that we may have forgotten. Those that we disagree with, even those waving fingers and shouting in our faces, are people made in the image of God who deserve to hear the message of redemption. That’s a message they won’t be able to hear if we are shouting back. In fact, joining in the shouting will keep our “conversation partners” from hearing both our arguments on the issue and the message of the gospel.

Moore’s overall argument is hugely important as Christians seek to be salt and light in a world that (still) desperately needs the gospel. He also makes subtler points that are even more significant for Christians to hear. For example, in discussing the issue of gun control or gun rights he explains that there is no single Christian position. He has a position, which he does not articulate, but he notes more significantly that no one can speak for an official Christian position. There are certainly moral elements to the question, but at the same time the bulk of the argument is prudential and legal. It would be unethical to leave loaded guns within the reach of toddlers, but the capacity of a magazine and the process for background checks for weapons are prudential questions. This doesn’t mean that the question is not significant, but that we should be careful about promoting our preferred position as a gospel truth when it isn’t. Doing so encourages wrangling within the body of Christ and it largely discredits the message of the gospel because the faulty logic is apparent to any who care to see it. In this example, the Second Amendment is a benefit of being American, not a right imbued by the gospel.

Conclusion

Onward has been published at a time that conservative Christians in America feel like they are under assault because anything resembling a Christianesque ethic is being pushed farther toward the margins. Moore helps by explaining that Christianity has always been strange and that we should continue to cling to our strangeness. We have to articulate the gospel in our homes, in our churches, and in our culture if we are to have an impact. Moore’s book is an encouragement to continue to live faithfully in private and in public, but with a confidence founded on the truth of the gospel not fueled by a majority in the polls. 

Onward: Engaging the Culture without Losing the Gospel

$14.49

By Russell D. Moore

Buy on Amazon