Democracy is seen to be the great revolution of mankind. Paired with capitalism, democracy has sprung the entire planet from poverty into wealth never seen before. Even as democracy is one of mankind’s most brilliant creations, there is a superior form of government, and that is, oddly enough, the now antiquated monarchy. Why is this true when democracy has changed the world for the better? Because a good monarchy requires a righteous king, and mankind has not yet come across one of those. Except Christians know King Jesus is the righteous king, and he has already come, and he will come again. Christians know of King Jesus’ future return, and they have seen the failures of countless unrighteous human kings, so they flee into the arms of democracy for the time being. The SBC has relied heavily on democracy since its inception, and indeed, great things have come from the SBC. Through a democratic process specifically came the means for the conservative resurgence and the needed restoration of biblical truth. However, the conservative resurgence itself demonstrates it could have been the voice of conservatives pushed out of the denomination just as easily as it was the voice of the liberals. Or course, if conservatives had lost out by a majority, their theological arguments would have been different than their liberal counterparts, but conservatives were and remain in a precarious place. The SBC and Christians everywhere should recognize the pitfall of relying too heavily on democratic models to achieve God’s purposes.
The conservative movement was successful primarily because of the democratic model of the convention, and the documentary is largely right. Rather, solving serious issues, like those faced during their time, should be done directly in and through Scripture and not dependent solely on elections. Many arguing against the conservative resurgence were not eager to base their arguments on Scripture, and the few that did were included in the periphery. The opponents of the conservative resurgence had a clear viewpoint and goal. If these arguments were believed to be effective at persuading conservatives, then that silently speaks volumes of the conservatives in the debate. 1 Timothy 4:13 teaches Christians to be devoted to the public reading of Scripture, so Christians must be devoted to this in all settings, not just on Sunday mornings. Yes, this debate in the SBC was about the legitimacy of Scripture itself. Still, conservatives should have been demanding the conversation was primarily by and through Scripture long before liberal philosophy took hold of the SBC. Christians everywhere and in the SBC should learn from this and demand deep integration and reference to Scripture in every decision and not void this requirement for any reason whatsoever. This will ground future theology debates and the application of theology, and no future arguments will take the emotive form of argumentation the opponents of the conservative resurgence took.
The democratic model worked out for the leaders of the conservative resurgence, and godly reformation was achieved. Still, the conservative resurgence demonstrates how a simple majority is a powerful tool that can be weaponized. The liberal interviewees lament the conservative control of the presidency and the appointees from those presidents, and it is easy to gloat because the conservatives won. However, any Christian organization should not be at the mercy of a simple majority to overthrow Biblical truth. There are complexities of this in the SBC and in local churches that require more articulation than there is space for here. Still, without being overly reductionistic, the conservative SBC is fundamentally at risk in the same way the liberal SBC was at risk before the conservative resurgence. This can also be true for local churches that rely on democratic decision-making processes. Congregationalism has its values, and the argument for its basis in Scripture is honorable, but simple majorities of the congregations is not how early churches made decisions. In Acts 15:1-35, yes, the larger congregation is mentioned, but the larger congregation is not seen to collectively be coming to a resolution on the matter before them. Rather, it is the Apostles and elders who are gathered to deal with the theological matter before them.
Moreover, in 1 Peter 5:2, Peter calls his fellow elders to exercise oversight over their churches and does not imply they should be following the instructions given to them through democratic votes. 1 Timothy 5:17 reveals church elders are due a double honor, not because they are just a regular congregant, but because they are called out to lead the congregation. The SBC is no local church, but it places itself at great theological risk by not following an organizational and leadership structure closer to the model presented in the NT where men are called to the overseeing pastorate role by the requirements of 1 Timothy 3:1-7. Such a model will avoid being overwhelmed by a misguided or heterodox simple majority.
Of course, the SBC moving away from a democratic model is beyond unlikely, so the more useful stride is to instill Scripture into all debate and rhetoric. The empty platitudes of the liberals of the conservative resurgence cannot become convincing, and, worse, they cannot be allowed to be adopted as the rhetorical tools used today. Christians cannot be allowed to speak publicly using phrases the Bible uses to subtly communicate heresy or craftily weave in the culture. The way to inoculate against this is to personally be consumed with the Bible and for the Bible to be inextricably linked to all debate and rhetoric. If this is not done, evocative stories and emotional appeals will eventually win over truth, and the battle for the minds will eventually be lost in the SBC. Democracy is certainly of some value but what is of greater value is having faithful leaders imitating the righteous King, relying on the Scriptures, and acting with biblical oversight.
Comments