By Reese Currie, Compass Distributors

Now that everything is decided and Bill Clinton is no longer the President of the United States, and this article cannot possibly be thought of as a political commentary, I thought I would address something that happened during his presidency that bothered me greatly.

During the impeachment proceedings, I was surprised by Newsweek magazine making a foray into religious bigotry with the article, Sex, Sin and Salvation by Kenneth L. Woodward (Newsweek, December 2, 1998). In this article, blame for U.S. President Bill Clinton’s foray into sexual sin is laid at the feet of the Baptist faith, and specifically upon the doctrine of eternal security.

In the article, Baptists were described as being immoral and pro-abortion. Woodward condemned them for opposing public funding for Roman Catholic parochial schools. Finally, Woodward praised the Methodist church’s "fall-away" doctrine in comparison to the doctrine of eternal security, which he implied was a license to sin.

I noted a few other anti-Baptist articles by Woodward in the few other Newsweek magazines I saw. Obviously Woodward has some sort of issue with Southern Baptists. If someone has an issue with a denomination, I would be the pot calling the kettle black to say he shouldn’t write about it. However, too many of the facts were distorted for this to be an honest criticism.

For instance, when Woodward claims Southern Baptists support abortion, he is disregarding the fact that the SBC opposed Clinton more strongly against partial-birth abortions than any other denomination. It is also strange that he vaunts the holiness of Methodists over Baptists, if he feels the abortion issue is important. The United Methodist Church was a founding member of the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, and in one year contributed $400,000 of its members’ donations to the cause. The UMC made its first statement calling for the legalization of abortion back in 1972.

As for giving money to Roman Catholic parochial schools, it is true that Baptists have always supported the separation of church and state; however, I think this is also an accurate expression of the public will in America. Any politician would have to question the wisdom of using public funds to support a minority religion’s schools, especially those of a Church that would have to be understood as being a foreign power. The practice would open the door to having to support the schools of whosoever asks. From another perspective, receiving money from a state necessitates giving the state control over your curriculum; I simply cannot imagine it being a good situation for those asking, the Roman Catholics, although it is certainly the way they have operated since their beginnings under Constantine.

More importantly, let’s look at the main problem with Woodward’s article. It is a prime example of causal reductionism and the confusion of causation and correlation. Bill Clinton sinned simply because of a weakness in a particular area of his life. I hope that his repentance was true repentance. To say that the doctrine of eternal security caused Clinton to enter into sexual sin is simply an argumentative fallacy called causal reductionism, which means naming one thing as the cause of a problem, when the problem probably had many causes, probably not even including the doctrine of eternal security.

If it was true that "fall away" doctrine was going to keep people out of sin, we would expect to see an entirely different situation among the denominations that support fall-away. I reviewed the web site "Black Collar Crimes" and found that the Roman Catholic Church had 3.5 times as many clerics convicted for sexual abuse than all other denominations combined since about 1996, probably owing to their unbiblical standards for clerical celibacy. Obviously having fall-away doctrine has done nothing to stem the tide of child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church.

Some liberal Protestant "fall away" doctrine churches are quick to discount lifestyles such as homosexuality as being sins. The Church of England even has a transgender pastor in the pulpit with the full support of his/her congregation, with the exception of one little old lady who objected and was escorted out. Perhaps if you define sin in a non-biblical way, you don’t count as a sinner in Woodward’s eyes?

Other more conservative "fall away" doctrine churches, like the Pentecostal denominations, have had Jimmy Swaggart’s and Jim Bakker’s sexual peccadilloes broadcast as worldwide embarrassments. In fact, if you dig into the historic fabric of Pentecostalism, it is rife with drunkards, sodomites and adulterers. The founder of Pentecostalism, Charles Fox Parnham, was charged with sodomy in Texas. Aimee Semple MacPherson, founder of the Church of the Foursquare Gospel, faked her own kidnapping to carry on an adulterous affair, and died of a drug overdose in 1944. A. A. Allen was kicked out of the Assemblies of God when he jumped bail on a drunk driving charge. Allen died in a hotel room amidst a scattering of pills and empty liquor bottles. Fall away doctrine has done very little to affect this sewer-flow of sin.

So, I put it to you that it is logically untenable to claim that Bill Clinton’s belief in eternal security had any particular impact over his decision to have an adulterous affair. And at this point, I would say we can dispense with any further discussion of Woodward.

However, there may be something that the Southern Baptist Convention taught both Bill Clinton and his fellow Southern Baptist, Al Gore. As a Southern Baptist myself, it pains me to have to say it, but compartmentalization and duplicity are a trait that the Southern Baptist leadership, Bill Clinton and Al Gore all have in common.

Bill Clinton’s example of compartmentalization and duplicity is obvious from his lying under oath to protect the secret of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. It is interesting to note that his spiritual counselor in the wake of that affair becoming public was another incredibly duplicitous Baptist, Jesse Jackson, though I believe he is part of a different Baptist convention. While counseling Clinton, the minister Jackson was engaged in an adulterous affair that produced a child.

Al Gore’s duplicity and compartmentalization were plain during the campaigning and in the aftermath of the 2000 election. During the campaign, Gore claimed to have always supported abortion while in reality, he is on record as an opponent of abortion. In the legal wrangling after the election, Gore was willing to benefit from either of two lawsuits, one to "make sure every vote counts" and one to throw out 25,000 Republican overseas votes.

When has the Southern Baptist Convention ever been compartmentalized and duplicitous? Frankly, their compartmentalization and duplicity raises its ugly head in their ecumenical policies.

Consider this. The Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT) has a problem with the Baptist Faith and Message, primarily because they wish to ordain women (and are willing to deny the authority of Scripture in order to do so). The Southern Baptist Convention opposes that action. I think that’s fine. If they believe they are upholding the standards of the Bible, I respect and support that.

But at the very same time, through the Baptist World Alliance, the Southern Baptist Convention is in ecumenical dialogue with the Anglican church "to work towards a common confession of the Apostolic Faith" and "to look for ways to co-operate in mission and community activities and increase fellowship and common witness to the Gospel."

So, it is a problem for BGCT to have women in the pulpit, but it is fine to be in unity with the Anglican church that officially ordains not only women, but also homosexuals and transgender people.

Do you see the duplicity in that?

What’s worse, the idea of having a "common witness to the Gospel" is utterly impossible between Anglicans and Baptists. The Baptist Faith & Message version of the gospel is this: "Justification is God’s gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ." The Anglican version of the gospel, taken from their 39 Articles, is this: "they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church: the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God."

One is salvation by repentance and faith, which is the salvation message of the Bible, and the other is salvation by baptism and church membership, the standard gospel message of any institutional church. (Given, there are contradictory elements in the 39 Articles that seem to support justification by faith, but what is actually preached in the churches is the above baptismal regeneration doctrine.)

More recently, the Baptist World Alliance met with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. The Roman Catholic doctrine differs from both Baptist and Anglican doctrine and completely denies salvation by faith alone in Christ. But that’s okay with the SBC leadership, because ecumenism is a popular human agenda.

So, while the Southern Baptist leadership is very insistent upon enforcing passages against female leadership, they completely disregard passages that flatly forbid failing to correct false doctrine and fellowshipping with false teachers. They enforce 1Corinthians 14:34-38 and 1Timothy 2:12, which are directed toward women. They do not enforce at all passages such as Galatians 1:8-10; Romans 16:17-18; 1Timothy 1:3; 4:16; 6:3-5; 2Timothy 4:1-4; Titus 1:9; Hebrews 13:9; and 2John 8-11, to name a few passages that forbid allowing unbiblical doctrine to be taught, or such teachers to be cooperated with.

More and more, I have come to think that perhaps the SBC’s reason for supporting the Scripture passages about women is not necessarily that it is Biblical doctrine, but that they happen to support an agenda the SBC leadership likes, the suppression of women. It cannot be because it is Biblical doctrine, otherwise they would be ashamed of their ecumenical agenda which is radically counter-Biblical.

The passages on women are weak compared to the passages against ecumenism. The passage surrounding 1Timothy 2:12 seems as if Paul is simply stating his own preference and his own reasoning. The text says, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." There is no punishment noted if one were not to follow this advice.

In 1Corinthians 14:34 we read, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law." This is a much stronger word, and a few verses later, a warning is left, "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." So here, Paul is saying it is a commandment of God. Even yet, there is no punishment noted for transgressing.

I am not recommending that you deny the Lord’s word about female leadership. I am just contrasting how much stronger the words forbidding ecumenism are in comparison, to demonstrate that the Southern Baptist Convention is being utterly duplicitous in supporting one Biblical instruction and not the other, more serious, doctrine.

Let’s look at the verses forbidding ecumenism and the practices that accompany ecumenism.

Galatians 1:8-10, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

One who does not preach the true gospel of Christ is accursed; that means that person is going to hell. How much must ecumenists hate each other to allow each other to preach what they believe is a false gospel? Oh, but they love to please men, don’t they?

Romans 16:17-18, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."

We are instructed to avoid people who teach contrary to Biblical doctrine, and are told outright that they are not servants of Jesus Christ and are out to deceive simple minds.

1Timothy 1:3, "As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine."

We are not to allow people to teach a doctrine other than the Biblical doctrine, but ecumenists, in demanding unscriptural unity, never teach Scriptural doctrine about the matter.

1Timothy 4:16, "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."

This verse plainly states the need for good doctrine in effective evangelism. Today’s church denies the need for good doctrine, insisting that ecumenical unity through the denial of good doctrine is the answer for reaching a lost world.

1Timothy 6:3, "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings…"

A person who teaches otherwise to Biblical doctrine is not consenting to the words of Jesus Christ. Actually, ecumenists place themselves above Jesus Christ, because they believe that by doing something He forbids, uniting with false gospels, they may somehow "reach the world" for Him.

1Timothy 6:5, "Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."

This is a very meaningful verse. People today generally do not know what the word "perverse" really means. In fact, I personally doubt that a dictionary would really bring out the true meaning of the word. French philosopher Janine Chassguet-Smirgel, who is perhaps the world’s foremost researcher into perversion, said something about perversion I will never forget as long as I live. In essence, perversion is nothing more than the denial of essential differences in an effort to homogenize everything, that is, to bring everything down to the same level. Ecumenism is an unmasked desire to homogenize the various versions of the Christian faith—we are all familiar with the terminology, "break down denominational barriers." It could better be said, "homogenize [or, pervert] the Christian faith."

The presence of perversion is the sure sign that a movement is of Satan. Satan’s initial strategy with man was to attempt to blur the difference between man and God, and if you look closely, you can find this sort of perversion underlying all the devil’s strategies.

2Timothy 4:1, "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

This is ultimately a prophecy of our own ecumenical age. "Seeker friendly" churches even encourage heaping such teachers unto yourself. Our commandment, not a suggestion, but a commandment from God, is to preach against ecumenism by applying sound doctrine to it.

Titus 1:9, "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers."

Again, we are to defend the faith by sound doctrine, not ignore false doctrine as today’s ecumenists purposefully do.

Hebrews 13:9, "Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein."

The Baptist World Alliance can’t decide whether to plunge their member churches into Anglicanism, Catholicism, or both! They are definitely being "carried about with divers and strange doctrines."

2John 8-11, "Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

People who do not abide in Biblical doctrine do not have Christ, and are unsaved. We are not even to greet a person who brings false doctrine, or otherwise, we become a partaker in his evil deeds and lose our reward.

So you can see, if one had to choose a doctrine to fail on, between ecumenism and female ordination, obviously ecumenism would be the worst possible choice. The best case would be to have neither error and stick closely to the authority of God’s Word. But ecumenism is probably the worst possible sin that we can get into, short of the list in 1Corinthians 6:9-10 of sins that spell damnation.

To reiterate, the SBC is utterly duplicitous in enforcing one rule of the Bible and not another. The most macabre fact of all is that, if BGCT wanted to work closely with the Southern Baptist Convention again, all they would have to do is leave the convention and become another denomination. Then, they would automatically be received with open arms regardless of their ordination policies. If that does not fully demonstrate the insanity of the situation in the SBC, I do not know what does.

Not only do they dishonor Christ and Scripture with their ecumenism, but they are being duplicitous by holding to the very name Baptist and are disgracing the legacy of the Baptist martyrs. The meaning of baptism is not a minor point that can be passed over. Our Baptist forefathers would not, and they faced death for their views.

The Baptist martyr Jeronimus Segerson was captured by the Catholics and was burned at the stake on September 2, 1551. He aptly demonstrated how ridiculous the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is. Of his interview with the Catholic inquisitors, he wrote, "The priests said, ‘When the little children are baptized, they obtain faith.’ At this I laughed, and asked, ‘Why then did they not go to Turkey, to baptize the Turks; if men thereby became possessed of faith, as you say, they too would become believers?’ They said, ‘Although men should baptize the Turks, they would nevertheless remain Turks still.’" After burning Jeronimus Segerson at the stake, they put his wife Lysken Segerson in a sack and drowned her.

People simply wanting to baptize in the only Biblical way, by immersion of a believer, were persecuted by all manner of pedobaptists, not just Catholics. The Protestant reformer Zwingle persecuted one of his own compatriots, Balthazar Hubmeyer, who came to Baptist beliefs. This was a man with whom he had fought side by side for the truth, but when Hubmeyer came to the truth about baptism, it was too much for Zwingle to accept. Hubmeyer was brutally tortured for a period of six months before he agreed to recant at Zwingle’s church. Zwingle preached a grand sermon on how he had persuaded Hubmeyer to change his views, and then came the time for Hubmeyer to read his recantation. Hubmeyer stood and affirmed that infant baptism was without the command of Christ. He was quickly escorted back to the dungeons for more torture. Eventually it seems that Hubmeyer delivered two separate recantations to escape the dungeon, though he was carefully watched upon his release. He escaped Zurich in 1526 and began openly preaching again. He was captured in 1528 and taken to Vienna where, on March 10, he was burned at the stake and his wife was drowned.

There are many more examples in history of Baptist martyrs who died simply over their refusal to baptize infants and their refusal to accept the fanciful superstition of transubstantiation and baptismal regeneration. And today, many Baptists seem to be ashamed of their historic beliefs rather than to recognize them to be the truth.

Every ecumenical Baptist should be ashamed of presuming to carry the same label as these courageous heroes of the faith who would brook no compromise with the truth. Every Baptist who is an ecumenist spits on the graves of these martyrs, and works hard with the very persecutors of our faith to undo the changes in society that such martyrdoms eventually brought about. Every ecumenical Baptist is a Judas working to destroy the Baptist heritage of love and respect for the truth from within. Ecumenism is not an open-mindedness to be admired; it is a weakness and unwillingness to stand up for one’s convictions. It is cowardice and is to be despised. Such a view as mine is often labeled bigotry; if it is bigotry to stand for Bible truth, so be it; but I am certainly justified, then, in calling the failure to stand for Bible truth cowardice.

Labels mean so little in today’s world. Many who are called Christians are not Christians at all, and certainly many who are called Baptists hardly live up to that name. I believe the Baptist faith is a wonderful expression of the truth of the Bible. I also think that people calling themselves Baptists should practice the real Baptist faith. The fact that our church and denominational leaders refuse to be true Baptists, or even in many cases true Christians, is the factor leading to the spiritual malaise in Baptist churches and in their lack of revival. This is the factor that leads to duplicity in members and clergy. Whenever we give only lip-service to a belief and not real action, we encourage disillusionment that leads to the duplicity we find amongst so many Baptist public figures.

Duplicity in High Places is Copyright © 2001 by Compass Distributors

All Scripture quotations taken from the King James Version.