Litmus Test for Southern Baptists

Dr. Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, reiterated what he calls "the litmus test" for Southern Baptists to hold positions in the SBC while addressing a group of editors in Philadelphia. His address is covered in yesterday's Baptist Press. According to the article, Page said that "a sweet spirit, evangelistic heart and a commitment to biblical inerrancy and the SBC funding mechanism known as the Cooperative Program" remain the litmus tests for those whom he soon will appoint to various SBC committees. Page also challenged SBC critics to do a “reality check,” asking them to take a look at what Southern Baptists are accomplishing in ministries and missions instead of often focusing on negatives.

While I appreciate Dr. Page's commitment to steering our convention to emphasize unity, I cannot help but hear a political overtone in his five-point litmus test.

1) A sweet spirit. This is a Scriptural mandate. But does a sweet spirit mean that one cannot point out where and when men and churches are not living according to the Scripture in doctrine and practice? If one raises a concern over unbiblical doctrines and practices, will they immediately be ostracized from a position in SBC life? While I agree that opposition must be done in the spirit of love, is one unloving if they disagree over the direction of some of our SBC entities?

2) An evangelistic heart. Again, this is a Scriptural mandate. But we must stand firm on the message and method of evangelism. Here are few biblical treatises on biblical evangelism: Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God by J. I. Packer; Today's Evangelism: Its Message and Methods by Ernie Reisinger; Tell the Truth by Will Metzger.

3) A commitment to biblical inerrancy. Again, a Scriptural mandate. However, we must also have a commitment to biblical inspiration, biblical infallibility, the perspicuity of Scripture, biblical authority, and biblical sufficiency.

4) A commitment to the Cooperative Program. This is a point of contention in SBC life with many who see the Cooperative Program's misappropriation of funds. Unfortunately, this has become the greatest of these tests. However, we must remember that this is not a Scriptural mandate. Do we have, as Dr. Page points out, a "moral obligation" to support our SBC missionaries? I believe we do. And is the Cooperative Program a viable avenue for doing so? Yes - when it is functioning properly. For the record, my church gives a percentage to the Cooperative Program. However, the SBC brass needs to see the reality that an overhaul is needed in the Cooperative Program. If they don't, churches will continue to show their discontent by refusing to give to a program that has become sacred.

5) Focusing on the "positives" instead of the negatives. I agree that there is much going on in the SBC that is positive. But what is considered "positive" is often steeped in pragmatism. When this is the case, one is right to ask, "Who is getting the glory? God or the SBC?"

Again, while I appreciate Dr. Page's concerns, I cannot help but believe that this is simply his way of saying, "You have a place in our convention if you do it our way." I hope that I am wrong. Only time will tell.