Yesterday, as the 2014 annual gathering of the Southern Baptist Convention approached its conclusion, Dr. Paige Patterson, President of my alma mater, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, gave his report.  It was a much-anticipated report because of controversy that has been surrounding Dr. Patterson as a result of his decision to admit a Muslim student into the student body of Southwestern Seminary against stated admissions policies.

Earlier in the day my wife and I were discussing the situation and I told her what I thought was going to happen in the report.  I predicted that Dr. Patterson would apologize for technically breaking policy then go on to appeal to his love for lost people and the higher bar of God’s justice and would receive a standing ovation from the messengers who by that time would be emotionally invested in the act as an act of evangelism.

That is exactly what happened.

Now, one does hesitate to appear coldly analytical in the face of apparently genuine feeling, but as I chewed on what happened yesterday, I am left with a number of questions and convictions about the situation.  I will present them here in no certain order.  I would very much like to have some answers to these questions as they are genuinely troubling me.

• Have we now established the principle that SBC entity heads may unilaterally violate SBC entity policy when they deem it is for the greater good or for the possible salvation of a person?
• Have we thought through the full implications of what that will mean for institutional management, policy integrity, and leadership precedence across all of our institutions?
• Are we really ready to live with that as an operating principle?
• For those favoring the establishment of this principle, what are the guardrails?
• For instance, on what basis would one oppose a seminary President admitting an openly homosexual couple to our seminaries under the banner of concern for their souls and the possibility of their evangelization and salvation?
• If the answer to the former question is that, in that scenario, the candidates for admission would have violated the conduct policy of the institution, are we now establishing the principle that the denial of Christ is less significant than sexual immorality?
• What are the guidelines for which policies our entity heads may now violate and which they may not?
• What exactly does Dr. Patterson’s apology for causing others pain mean?  What would he have done differently?  What will now change as a result of the apology?
• On the basis of Dr. Patterson’s appeal to the judgment seat of God, of his desire not to have “blood on his hands” regarding the souls of non-believers who wish to attend our seminaries, and of the subsequent applauding of these sentiments as related to seminary admissions policies, on what possible basis can Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary not embrace a policy of open enrollment regardless of whether or not the candidate for admissions is a believer?
• I repeat:  if admissions is now an evangelistic tool (which is the only way I can interpret what happened yesterday), is Southwestern Seminary now practicing open enrollment?  If not, why?
• If the admission of one non-believer is a matter of not wanting blood on our hands, then certainly the admission of as many non-believers as possible is the logical result of our evangelistic hearts.  True?

Let me be perfectly clear:  my questions are not about the salvation of souls.  All Southern Baptists of good will are settled on that point.  I daresay that Dr. Patterson does not want the young man to come to know Christ more than I do.  I pray he does and will rejoice when he does!  This is what was so very confusing about Dr. Danny Akin’s opening comment (in the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary President’s report that followed) that, “Paige Patterson does not owe me an apology for having a heart for lost people.”  In the thunderous applause that followed, I thought, “What?  Who on earth has asked for an apology for having a heart for lost people?”  (As an aside, there are times in these large gatherings when one really does feel that he has entered a kind of Twilight Zone dynamic between the platform and the crowd, a kind of odd detached-from-reality group-think dynamic in which it is hard to process what is happening in anything closely related to rationality.)

My questions are rather about the management of institutions and how integrity in the management process reflects on our stewardship of these institutions before God.

My questions are about the ways in which violations of stated policies today establish precedence that, in the hands of a President down the road who does not share our core convictions, can be wielded against the better interests of the Convention tomorrow.

In short, my concern is this:  that we have now applauded the establishment of a precedence that can prove utterly injurious to the cause of Southern Baptists around the world.

After posting some concerns I have about a couple of alarming things that are going on in Southern Baptist life, a friend asked me why I would want to remain a Southern Baptist.  It’s a valid question and one I have asked myself.  So I thought I would share a few thoughts here about why I remain a Southern Baptist.

1. Because Southern Baptists are a Christian people who are orthodox in their Trinitarian convictions, hold a high view of scripture, exalt the finished work of Christ on the cross for salvation, believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, and believe that we should reach the nations with the gospel of Christ, calling all people to come to Christ in repentance and faith.  I am at one and in agreement with the central convictions of Southern Baptists.

2. Because Southern Baptists ostensibly hold to the Baptist distinctives of regenerate church membership, believer’s baptism by immersion, and the priesthood of the believer.

3. Because Southern Baptists have resisted the siren song of theological liberalism and adhere to the truth claims of the Bible without abandoning them when they challenge the current cultural consensus.

4. Because Southern Baptists believe in the autonomy of the local church.  Thus, many of the irksome elements we bemoan we are able to watch and speak to in an assembled convention meeting without having (many) of those irksome elements directly or injuriously impact our congregational life.  We have no bishops informing us that we will do “a” or “b.”

5. Because Southern Baptists do have avenues of accountability whereby wrongs may be righted.  We have a voice.

6. Because abandoning Southern Baptist life in reaction to the few who are being foolish hurts the many good folks who are doing great work here and abroad for the Kingdom of God.  Thus, to stop giving to the Cooperative Program, for instance, in protest of the few really does hurt the many.

7. Because of the fundamental wisdom of the Cooperative Program and it’s capacity to do great good when administered rightly.

8. Because of our thousands of missionaries.

9. Because of a debt of loyalty I have for all that Southern Baptists have done for me and for my family.  This loyalty is not unbreakable.  There could, theoretically, be a time to walk away. But walking away from my Southern Baptist family would be just that:  walking away from my family.  I would have to determine that continuance in the Southern Baptist family was bringing shame to the name and cause of Christ.  That is not the case.

10. Because of what I see in Southern Baptist people.  I do not see the media caricatures as I watch Southern Baptists.  Nor do I see, on the main, power politics and the things that gall us on the national stage.  Instead, I see a group of people who love Jesus, love people, and who want to reach the world for Christ without abandoning the truth even when the truth is unpopular.

These are some of the reasons I remain a Southern Baptist.