“How Firm a Foundation”: Reflections on the 2012 FWB Leadership Conference
As people committed to their Free Will Baptist brethren, the Helwys Society frequently attends denominational events. We believe there is much value in many of these events, and the annual Leadership Conference is no exception. Recently, I was privileged to be able to attend the 2012 Conference in Nashville, Tennessee on December 3-4.
The conference consisted of two plenary addresses on Monday and Tuesday evening, coupled with two sessions of presentations made by a six-member panel in the middle. There was also an additional session for Q&A directed toward the panel members. Though other elements of the conference made it enjoyable to attend (such as the meals, fellowship, and special music), I will restrict my observations and summary to the sessions for our readers who may not have been present.
Plenary Addresses
The plenary addresses were given by long-time pastor Dr. Danny Dwyer and retired educator and Bible scholar Dr. Robert Picirilli. Each deserves some specific comment.
Dwyer gave an overview and restatement of a traditional Free Will Baptist/evangelical view of Scripture’s inspiration, authority, and sufficiency. While his presentation yielded no new insights into these doctrines, his address helpfully set the stage for the rest of the conference. It also reminded pastors and other attendees of the primary basis that our discussion of and engagement with the Bible should be founded. To quote Dwyer, “To know the Bible is to know God.” His presentation, though winsome, possessed a gravity suitable to both his reputation as well as the subject matter.
The most provocative question Dwyer posed was early on: “Why have Free Will Baptists believed as they have about the Bible? Have we decided to merely be different from the majority in this post-modern world of relativism and secularism in hopes of keeping the faithful few pacified with traditional, religious rhetoric?” This is an interesting question, if nothing else, because it raises the question of intellectual honesty about doctrine, as well as Free Will Baptist history—two components central to our vitality as a movement. Overall, Dwyer’s presentation was well-prepared and in turn well-received.
Dr. Picirilli’s Tuesday evening address was exactly what most Free Will Baptists have learned to expect from him—thorough, clear, and with all the vintage vocal and theological inflections. Whereas Dr. Dwyer focused on the “front-end” of the doctrine of Scripture, Dr. Picirilli explained the “back-end.” That is, his talk focused on the preservation of Scripture.
In Picirilli’s words, “Preservation of Scripture falls within the providence of God.” A correct understanding of providence was vital to his argument. Dr. Picirilli’s specific aim, then, was to help his listeners “read the hand of providence” as it pertained to preservation of Scripture. He highlighted five general historical movements related to Scripture’s transmission and translation where the providence of God was at work in preserving His Word. One of the more memorable quotes was, “A doctrine that only applies to us in English is one that may not be worth maintaining.” This was perhaps the most prescriptive component of Picirilli’s presentation. Whether it will be taken seriously on a practical level, however, remains to be seen.
Panel Sessions
Besides the plenary addresses, the second major component was the panel sessions. It took two sessions (about an hour long each) to allow the six-member panel time to respond to the 17 questions that Randall House CEO Ron Hunter had asked. These two sessions were followed by a Q&A session that ultimately consisted mostly of questions about Bible translations. The panel included Picirilli, Dwyer, retired theologian Leroy Forlines, pastor and New Testament scholar Dr. Paul Harrison, Hillsdale professor of New Testament and Greek Dr. Tom Marberry, and professor and pastor Dr. Stanley Outlaw. Below are some quotes and other notable points that stood out to me from the panel’s presentations:
– Several of the panelists echoed the point that translations could be considered the Word of God insomuch that they represented the original text. Though this was not a novel point for an evangelical Christian to make, it was one that elicited a few questions from audience members desiring a more ‘objective-sounding’ account.
– Dr. Marberry’s reflections were especially useful for considering the missiological dimensions of cross-cultural transmission and translation of the Scriptures.
– Mr. Forlines stated concerning inspiration: “Words are the mean [sic]. The message is the end.”
– Dr. Dwyer introduced the useful phrase, “spiritual heart language,” to describe the way that particular Bible translations/versions were a part of the religious imaginations of individual Christians.
– Dr. Picirilli read several interesting excerpts from the preface to the 1611 King James Version, including the remark, “a variety of translations is profitable.” He also made an excellent point regarding controversy/confusion over Scripture by saying, “It’s avoiding issues that creates confusion.”
– The translations that received, in my judgment, the most positive affirmations implicitly and explicitly were the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV. In the context of differences over translations, Dr. Harrison remarked, “Those who profess salvation by grace and belong to a religion of grace should show some grace.”
– Some of the questions during the Q&A session included, “Why do some translations have words that others don’t?,” “How do we explain these differences to members in our congregations?,” “How should we, if at all, transition our congregations from one version to another?,” and, “Which version do you prefer and mostly use?”
Three Key Takeaways
Randall House was kind enough to pre-record most of the panel’s presentations on DVD and print a small book entitled The Inspiration & Preservation of God’s Word. This publication comprised the individual answers of the panelists to 17 questions commonly asked about the Bible. They were also kind enough to provide complimentary copies to many state leaders and pastors. These items are available for purchase by visiting Randall House’s website.
It is important to recognize the complexity of this subject matter and acknowledge that hard questions often don’t allow for easy answers, which several panelists acknowledged. At best, this conference reminded us of historic affirmations. This means that it serves primarily as a foundation upon which to move to practical questions about how differences over Scripture, namely translations, will be handled in the years to come.
In my judgment, panel presentations are more interesting when they are extemporaneous discussions. However, the quality of the panelists in terms of experience and wisdom largely assuaged the criticisms of some who would have ideally preferred a different format.
Conclusion
There has been some debate among denominational leaders, ironically, over what the purpose and goal of a Leadership Conference is. Implicitly, I believe the answer to that debate this year was to clarify questions of doctrinal identity and purity, thereby equipping leaders to understand and resolve doctrinal confusion when it arises. It is not entirely clear in my mind as to how one measures the success of something as broad as this in its aim. However, time will likely be the best indicator for those of us paying attention.
December 11, 2012
Oh, if only there were someone with strong FWB sympathies and background who is an inerrantist who has an advanced degree (PhD) specializing in translation theory….