Where are the Watchmen for Southern Baptists? By Peter Lumpkins

  God likens His prophets to watchmen on the wall (Jeremiah 6:17; Ezekiel 3:17; 33:2, 6, 7; Isaiah 52:8). Accordingly, it is their duty to see far and carefully detect threats which may prove pernicious to God's people. Ezekiel says, "And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me (3:16-17). Just as the watchmen were strategically stationed on the city-wall watchtower to blow the shōphâr when the sword came upon the land, so God's prophets were strategically placed in Israel to give warning concerning spiritual invaders likely to barbarize the flock    >>>

Even so, Isaiah makes an astounding charge against God's prophets, the watchmen. He writes, "His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber" (Isa 56:10; cp. Isa. 52:8; Ezek. 3:17; 33:7). They whom YHWH assigned watchmen of the nation were to look after the welfare of their flock. However, the prophets had so neglected their office, instead of alert watchmen, they became not only fat and sleepy dogs, but were also blind and dumb dogs guarding a shepherd's flock or a farmer's vineyard. Nothing prohibited the wild animals from the desert to pillage the vineyard or scatter the flock. Instead of Job's watchful sheep-dogs (Job 30:1), their bark was absent in warning the people.

And just where are our watchmen, Southern Baptists? Have we no sentries stationed on the wall (2 Sam. 18:24; Song of Sol. 5:7) or in our watchtower (2 Chron. 20:24) to warn of us approaching danger (Ezek. 33:2-6; cp. Ps. 127:1)? Watchmen to guard our spiritual and theological interests? To expose a possible threat to our spiritual safety (2Ki 9:17; Jer 51:12)?

Where are thy watchmen, O Southern Baptists?

Consider…

We learn almost a year after publication of his book that a top Apologetics scholar in the Southern Baptist Convention apparently is flirting with an unacceptable interpretative approach in dealing with the text of Scripture. Dr. Mike Licona is the Apologetics Coordinator at the North American Mission Board¹ and Research Professor of New Testament at Southern Evangelical Seminary. In addition, Dr. Licona presently serves as a featured lecturer for The Institute for Christian Apologetics, a ministry of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

Recently, renowned Christian apologist, Dr. Norman Geisler, published two "open letters" to Dr. Licona expressing serious concerns about Licona's interpretation of Matthew 27: 51-53 in his latest book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. The biblical text in question reads:

"And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (KJV, emphasis added)

Apparently, Geisler attempted to deal with the interpretative issues he raised with Licona privately. However, according to Geisler, Licona didn't seem interested in discussing the problem. In Geisler's first open letter, he wrote, "I sent a copy of the letter to Mike over a month ago. He has not yet responded to its points but said he is still considering the matter, though he anticipated that it would take him some time." Then, in Geisler's follow-up open letter, he laments that almost two months have passed since he "wrote Mike Licona a private letter expressing my concerns about his published view." So Dr. Licona, our leading apologist coordinator for Southern Baptists, thinks it's acceptable to brush aside concerns raised by another leading apologist?

More significant than Licona's apparent silence toward Geisler's attempts to exchange scholarly concerns over the issue is the content of Geisler's concern. Geisler summarizes it in his first open letter to Licona:

"You speak of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27:52-53 after Jesus' resurrection as a "strange little text" (548 cf. 556). Indeed, you call it "poetic" or "legend" (185-186). You appear to include the angels at the tomb (Mk. 16:5-7) in the same category (186). You speak of it as similar to Roman legends that use "phenomenal language used in a symbolic manner" (552). You add, "…it seems to me that an understanding of the language in Matthew 27:52-53 as 'special effects' with eschatological Jewish texts and thought in mind is most plausible" (552). You say that by this legend "Matthew may simply be emphasizing that a great king has died" (552). You add, "If he has one or more of the Jewish texts in mind [that contain similar legends], he may be proclaiming that the day of the Lord has come" (552). You conclude that "It seems best to regard this difficult text in Matthew as a poetic device added to communicate that the Son of God had died and that impending judgment awaited Israel" (553)²

If Geisler has accurately summed up Licona's view (and it seems to me he has), few Southern Baptists would conclude with J.P. Holding that Geisler pulled a false alarm—twice. In fact, they would be more inclined to side with James White³. There are some profound implications concerning the doctrine of inerrancy the way Southern Baptists have argued it if Licona is correct. And, Norm Geisler was right to bring this issue to the public evangelical square.

Even so, I personally have an even more important question to Southern Baptists? Where are our watchmen? Why was it Norman Geisler who blew the lid off this rather than Southern Baptist scholars? If Dr. Licona serves at the North American Mission Board as our apologetics expert, is a frequent speaker in so many Southern Baptist conferences, a featured lecturer at our seminaries, and routinely bumps shoulders with our scholars, why have our scholars not addressed this issue? Did they not know he was flirting with a view unacceptable to classic inerrantists? Like Isaiah's fat, sleepy mongrels, are our watchmen ignoring their responsibilities—their charge—to which we've given them, responsibilities which they accepted?

I have to tell you: the thought is unimaginable to me that no Southern Baptist scholar in Licona's circle—none--knew Licona's view. And, supposing some scholars knew, it is just as inconceivable to me that none of them would have raised some of the same objections Geisler raised.

Every state convention of Southern Baptists should burn the barn down on this one. Dr. Licona possesses an itinerary which stretches far and wide in Southern Baptist life. He lectures on our campuses, in our churches, speaks as a Southern Baptist scholar, and gets paid well with Southern Baptist monies. All Southern Baptist Convention entities should immediately call for Dr. Licona to clarify his position on the Inerrancy of Scripture and answer the concerns raised by Dr. Norman Geisler--and do so both publicly and prior to any further speaking engagements, conference invitations, lectures, or ministry assignments by convention entities are carried out or performed. In short, while we have no say in what individual churches do, we must sound the trumpet concerning what our entities do, entities funded by Cooperative Program dollars.

Moreover, this should be a wake-up call to our trustees to reign our entities in. Dr. Licona should never have gotten away with unanswered questions on his assertions since October, 2010 when his book was first released. The fact is, the watchmen whom we charged to keep an eye open for the good of our city have failed.

And, concerned Southern Baptists need to say so.

With that, I am…

Peter

¹however, as of last week, Licona may not be connected with NAMB

²all relevant sections of Licona's book detailing Geisler's concerns may be read online 

³White had a good article but spoiled it all by taking vindictive stabs at both Dr. Geisler and Ergun Caner in the very last paragraph. It almost seems White cannot just be a scholar and argue ideas. Instead it appears he must deliver personal assaults. Nonetheless, his initial comments on the issue iself are worthy to consider...

Comments

[selahV (a.k.a. hariette petersen)]

my brain hurts, my heart weeps, my spirit groans...selahV

[CASEY]

forgetting his writings for a minute(even though they are very troubling)let's look at "How we hire in the SBC sometimes"....it is a prescription for what happened here. Working for multiple agencies with little or no accountability to anyone. SBTS thinks NAMB is watching/supervising him. NAMB think NOBTS is watching him. And NOBTS thinks SBTS is watching him. A Rx for failure....which has happened here.
We certainly need SENTINELS/WATCHMAN who will guard the 'City'. Where are you?

[Wes Widner]

You have this exactly backwards. Michael Licona was one of the watchmen you ask about. What is sad is that you are asking where all your defenders while you are busy stabbing anyone who is remotely interested in being one in the back. This is just another example why I consider myself to be a recovering Southern Baptist.

[peter lumpkins]

Wes,

Of course I am Wes, of course I am. Why? Well, because you, as a "recovering" Southern Baptist (whatever under heaven's name you must mean) have pronounced it so. Yes. By drawing conclusions which affect your friends, I'm a "back-stabber." What a strange definition of "back-stabbing" you embrace, my dear.

Even so, Dr. Licona is obligated to Southern Baptists for his theological writings and views as long as he receives SBC monies.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jason Sampler]

Peter,

I'm not surprised at your position on ft#3, but I think you have overstated the case. You write, "but spoiled it all . . ." Do you really believe the post is "spoiled"? For White (and it appears logical to me), Geisler is being hypocritical to call out Licona for failing to answer him after two months when Geisler has left unanswers questions for a year. If Licona is guilty, then that makes Geisler 6x as guilty.

Also, if the post is "spoiled", why do you recommend the "initial comments on the issue"? Would you recommend someone eat the "initial" part of a spoiled can of beans. I know I wouldn't want to eat anything from a spoiled can. It seems to me you just don't like the taste of White's conclusion rather than it actually being "spoiled".

Jason Sampler

[Colvin]

Casey,

Why attach SBTS to this?

[CASEY]

Colvin...a clear case you have made for me to wear my glasses at all times. It's not SBTS but Southern Evangelical Seminary. The 'difficulty to supervise' point I made in my first post is still true....but now it's between NOBTS and NAMB. We'll see how that works....or maybe we're looking at the results that 'it doesn't work'.

[Bryan]

Peter, I've read a lot on your blog over the last few months. As a young reformed guy who's part of an Acts 29 church, I'm sure it makes sense that we disagree on quite a bit. But like a commenter in a previous blog, while I shake my head at some of your posts in disagreement, I am thankful for your presence, especially with this. A foolish mistake that is apparently being made is abandoning wise and biblically faithful exegetical and hermeneutical methods and instead adopting more naturalistic methods. Thank you for this!

[peter lumpkins]

Jason,

Look. I employed an overused, cliche-like figure of speech--"spoiled it all". Yet you attempt to reduce it to a logical contradiction. Please. I simply gave a recommendation with a caveat, hardly an unusual procedure, much less a contradiction for heaven's sake. Come on man, log on and offer something worth mentioning.

The fact is, White did spoil a perfectly good piece by indulging his past personal grievances in bringing up the Geisler-Caner issue. He easily had at his disposal other supposed contradictions he could have used about Geisler. For example, White could have concluded something like this:

It is interesting to me Geisler's logic is so crystal clear pertaining to Licona's deficiency on Matt 27 but he remains so obviously inconsistent pertaining to his exegesis on Romans 8

With something like the above, White could have kept the conversation free from his personal issues. But noooooooooooooooooo! He had to bring up Caner.

Nor can it be argued both are the same. The two are entirely different. With the Geisler-Caner thingamajig, White definitively focused on integrity not theology. But the Licona issue is strictly about ideas, about theology. So, while Geisler on Rom 8 matches well the Licona fiasco, the Geisler-Caner thingamajig doesn't. Bringing up Geisler-Caner is obviously intended as a message not a mere example of "inconsistency."

Hence, while an example about Geisler's "inconsistency" would have been perfectly analogous had White compared Geisler on Licona to Geisler on Rom. 8, he spoiled--i.e."spoiled it all"--a perfectly good opportunity to offer a studied opinion by taking his trusty little vindictive scoop and slinging a pound of mud on Geisler--but especially on Ergun Caner--for something White apparently cannot get over.

Now, that's really all I got to say about that, Jason. I have no interest in tit/tatting back and forth on this. I'll leave it up to White supporters to take it from here and run with it...on their sites, of course.

Have a good evening.
With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Bryan,

Thanks, brother. I very much appreciate your words. I'm fairly well aware that most pieces I write provoke polar responses. Much of it is due to the writing style with which I am cursed (or blessed, according to some).

Even so, I do try to keep the posts on ideas without getting personal, even though some personalness remains unavoidable, especially because of my commitment I've made to source my complaints. In other words, if I complain about an idea, or offer a critique, or counter-point an issue, I am not hesitate to link precisely the subject or person I'm addressing. For me, it's only honest. I read far too many blogs who offer a generic criticism of such and such but one cannot examine the sources to see if his or her point is one well-taken. Why? The source is not linked and/or the author is not specifically mentioned. For me, this is frustrating. I want to know where a person got his or her info so I can engage it myself. Then I can affirm or deny whether or not I think the source is properly handled.

Sorry, Bryan. Didn't mean to go on. I trust you'll continue reading, and that you'll continue critically engaging what you read no matter the source.

Grace, brother.
With that, I am...
Peter

[Max]

"Where are the Watchmen for Southern Baptists?"

While some grassroots folks are raising the trumpet to send a clear warning on various issues, certain SBC leaders who should be tooting their horns appear to be silent, dreaming, lying down, and/or loving to slumber (Isaiah 56:10).

"Watchman, watchman what of the night?!" (Isaiah 21:11).

Thank you Peter for keeping your trumpet oiled and ready to go.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

Have you seen http://sbtexas.com/evangelism-events/confident-christianity-conference>this?

Blessings,
Tim

[Nick]

Please tell how Licona's interpretation violates inerrancy.

[peter]

Nick,

I would hold virtually the same position as Geisler on Inerrancy. hence, read Geisler. And, I'm aware that Holding is not on the same page with Geisler. And, I'm also aware you have personal interest in this issue since it's--at least in part--about "family." So, that's about all you're going to get out of me so far as dialog goes.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Nick]

Wow. So let's see, I need to read Inerrancy, which assumes that I haven't, when in fact I happen to have a copy I've read on my shelves. Next, Holding is not on the same page as Geisler, and since I'm his ministry partner, I'm obviously not worthy of a dialogue. Finally, I happen to be family, so therefore my opinion must be disregarded entirely. Never mind I raised a real question that could be answered.

Love how open the dialogue is. Let's not look for reasons to discuss the views with someone. Let's look for excuses not to.

[peter lumpkins]

Nick,

A) I did not suggest (or assume) you *need* to read Geisler (or anything for that matter). I do not know what you *need* to read

B) Well, no I did not assume you haven't read Geisler. Instead I only assumed that if one was interested to know my position on Inerrancy, one *could* read Geisler

C) No again. My response to you implied no value judgment toward your self-worth or even your probable arguments. Rather it implied something about my own willingness and/or desire about the dialog. In short, if anything, I was implicating myself

D) Finally, while you raised a "real question" which could have definitively been answered--at least from my own meager perspective--the very reason I cite--"family"--remains precisely why I have no interest in the discussion with you, Nick. Period. It is a lose/lose for me. I could marshal some very good arguments, I assure, (but not original with me, of course), nonetheless the arguments I potentially posted would be a priori already rejected by you...and for good reason, I might add. It's spelled, F-A-M-I-L-Y.

Now please run along. Blog about it on your site. Tell all what a big-old-meanie I am for not hosting "open dialog" at SBC Tomorrow ;^)

Have a great afternoon.
With that, I am...
Peter

[Aquinas]

Mike Licona espouses inerrancy but (quite rightly) refuses to make it the kind of central litmus-test doctrine some do. In fact the doctrine of inerrancy as set out in the Chicago Statement would allow Licona to make the kind of statement on Mt. 27 (which I share with him). I don't share Licona's view on inerrancy though and I have Geisler's "Answering Critics" book and find some of his attempts to make the bible flawless very irritating---sometimes offering plausible solutions, often ducking the key difficulties and sometimes giving very implausible responses. Can't we argue about something more central to Christian claims? Inerrancy doesn't feature as an article of orthodox faith in any of the classic Christian creeds---I wonder why!?

[peter lumpkins]

Aquinas

You write, "Inerrancy doesn't feature as an article of orthodox faith in any of the classic Christian creeds". Nor are Southern Baptists particularly concerned about "orthodox" creeds nor certainly if what we affirm about Scripture is necessarily wed to credal language. We've possessed a rather clear understanding of what we affirm about Scripture, especially since the Conservative Resurgence.

With that, I am...
Peter