4 seminary leaders voice concern over film critical of 'social justice'

https://founders.org/2019/07/29/about-that-trailer/

As a Southern Baptist, it’s honestly a little discouraging to see these responses.

Granted, our demeanor when addressing false ideologies IS important. Very important. However, the claim that tone is just as important as truth (the position Mohler and Greenway seem to be taking) isn’t manifestly correct. In fact, Scripture and reason both seem to indicate the contrary—truth presented with the wrong demeanor is still true (discourteous and unconvincing though it may be). Attempting to address falsehood with love devoid of truth, however, is in reality neither true nor loving.

More importantly though, it is not at all evident that Tom’s movie trailer really is uncharitable or that it misrepresented those recorded. Having watched all of the source material, it doesn’t seem that any of it was deceptively edited for the trailer. No, it doesn’t give a full picture of what the men presented believe—how could it? It’s a four minute trailer designed to generate interest in the cinedoc—did anyone expect it to contain a detailed position statement from each of the men depicted? That would certainly defeat the purpose of a trailer. Unfortunately, it makes me wonder if the reaction was really to “misrepresentation” of SBC personalities or if it was rather to their representation at all. Something tells me they would have been fine with a movie condemning CRT and intersectionality in broad, general terms; but heaven forbid we ever mention any specific instances in the church.

Considering the way Allen publicly denounced the film on twitter, it’s also a bit ironic that a primary charge is incivility. Consider:

“This trailer is either a click-bait promo piece or it foreshadows a movie that’s uncharitable & unhelpful. @FoundersMin has often played a constructive role in SBC life, but I’m afraid this video isn’t such an occasion.”

Ouch. If that trailer is inconsiderate this tweet is certainly more so. Apparently, the Southern Baptist’s 11th commandment has morphed: “Thou shalt not criticize another southern baptist; unless he’s more conservative than you.”

In reality, I’m not convinced that either Ascol’s or Allen’s “tone” was out of line; a little more vigorous discussion certainly couldn’t hurt us. I do think we need to be more careful to back up our statements empirically and/or rationally, however.

That the original trailer was much, much different from the one that has been edited, replaced it, and is currently available, correct?

Considering the way Allen publicly denounced the film on twitter, it’s also a bit ironic that a primary charge is incivility. Consider:

“This trailer is either a click-bait promo piece or it foreshadows a movie that’s uncharitable & unhelpful. @FoundersMin has often played a constructive role in SBC life, but I’m afraid this video isn’t such an occasion.”

You can get a flavor of it here. Some additional thoughts of mine are here.

Saw original. Think this is overblown. Ascol’s letter was good. CRT is a serious problem. Grateful for what Founders does. SBC officials are playing PR game with their responses.

I’ve known Tom Ascol for a good many years. In my experience, he has always been gracious, loving, and kind in his presentations of truth. I’m disappointed in the reactions reported above to his film project. I pray that further reflection will tone down the criticisms.

I saw the originally trailer right after it came out. Admittedly, I was not watching as critically, since Mohler, Allen, et al. hadn’t posted their responses yet (or at least I hadn’t seen them).

From what I remember though, very little changed—I don’t recall any changes in the words spoken or the quotes used. In fact, the only difference I remember for certain was that there was some blurry footage of Rachael Denhollander (I think) that was removed for the current trailer.

Hey Evan,

Yes, it was very different. Here’s a couple of them:

• Obviously, the footage of Rachael Denhollander was in there and has since been stricken. She actually shows up a few times, not just once. By the way, Jacob (her husband) and Rachael both affirm and attend a 1689 LBC confessing Reformed Baptist church. Jacob also said that they had personally supported Founders Ministry before this.
• Jacob has said that they were not contacted by Founders at all prior to the release of the trailer.
• A significant portion of the video has been cut and what remains is restructured very differently. Denhollander isn’t the only person who vanishes entirely from their footage.
• Several people in the documentary trailer have said that they were not warned that they were being filmed by Founders or that they would be included in this documentary.
• There was also a blurred out image of the book “Becoming a Church that Cares Well for the Abused” (which can be downloaded for free from the link) as a bad thing.
• Bernie Sanders and Nadia Bolz-Weber both made appearances, in addition to scary mobs. Nobody seems to know why they were included since neither are Christians or SBC members. Bolz-Weber, by the way, is Lutheran, not Baptist.
• There is an opening clip in the trailer of Matt Chandler saying that we should appeal to external authorities on different subject matters. In context, he’s talking about going to the police for handling sex abuse and offenses, not appealing to liberal theology, as it appeared in the trailer.
• An admonition at the 2019 SBC Assembly on being ‘swift to hear and slow to speak’ is represented as ‘people need to shut up and listen to the liberals’. Whoever is speaking is actually citing James 1:19-20.

Like I said, it was so much worse than it appears to be now. I have a copy of the original, as do several other people. Here’s a list of just the stuff that I noticed that was compiled on Twitter.

Doctrine and Devotion did a followup podcast this morning that was really, really good. I’d recommend that to you as well.

I should note that Tom Ascol released a follow up statement several days later. I’m glad they acknowledged they ‘made mistakes’ (which is my term, not theirs). I don’t think that it’s a true apology - for that, you have to say we were wrong & state what they did that was wrong. There’s also way too many things for it to have all been inadvertent - but it’s something. You can read that statement here. The Doctrine and Devotion podcast had a follow up to Ascol’s statement as well; I pretty much land where they did.

I felt like it was important to link to that for more context.

There is an opening clip in the trailer of Matt Chandler saying that we should appeal to external authorities on different subject matters. In context, he’s talking about going to the police for handling sex abuse and offenses, not appealing to liberal theology, as it appeared in the trailer.

Chandler’s comments are very clearly identified as being on sexual abuse.

I didn’t see the original video, but there is an interesting video of Rachel Denhollander making comments about what the Village Church and Chandler should have done juxtaposed with Chandler explaining that Denhollander’s comments were wrong, misinformed, and/or against what the detective told them to do. In other words, the detective told TVC not to do what Denhollander said they should have done. Who are we to believe and who are we to follow? It seems that Chandler is right if he is telling the truth (and it makes sense that he is).

It does seem, in the broader picture with the SBC, that this is a return to the battles of the previous generation about the authority of Scripture. The comment (and issues surrounding) 1 Tim 2:12 are instructive. If someone can make “I do not permit” say “I do permit,” then anything is possible. In such a case, does Scripture have any authority at all?

At least when Josh Harris changed, he acknowledged that he could not change his views while still claiming to be a Christian. Many are not doing that. They want to change Christianity and biblical teaching to conform to their new ways of thinking.

It looks like Founders Ministry is self-imploding over this video as 3 (half) of their board members have now resigned. https://founders.org/2019/08/01/resignations-from-founders-ministries-b… As someone that has been an executive director of a non-profit organization for fifteen years, if half of my board believed that, in a video which we released, we had unintentionally sinned, you better believe I would be pulling the video and making things right with those we offended as well as listening and following the wise counsel from those on the board, who in good conscience, could not continue serving.

I have a question for those who have commented on this thread and seem so quick to support Founders and this documentary they are putting out, are you really ok with the bullet points that Jay lists concerning the video trailer? What is your standard when it comes to Yellow Journalism and Slander?

“Jacob has said that they were not contacted by Founders at all prior to the release of the trailer.

Several people in the documentary trailer have said that they were not warned that they were being filmed by Founders or that they would be included in this documentary.

There was also a blurred out image of the book “Becoming a Church that Cares Well for the Abused” (which can be downloaded for free from the link) as a bad thing.

Bernie Sanders and Nadia Bolz-Weber both made appearances, in addition to scary mobs. Nobody seems to know why they were included since neither are Christians or SBC members. Bolz-Weber, by the way, is Lutheran, not Baptist.

There is an opening clip in the trailer of Matt Chandler saying that we should appeal to external authorities on different subject matters. In context, he’s talking about going to the police for handling sex abuse and offenses, not appealing to liberal theology, as it appeared in the trailer.

An admonition at the 2019 SBC Assembly on being ‘swift to hear and slow to speak’ is represented as ‘people need to shut up and listen to the liberals’. Whoever is speaking is actually citing James 1:19-20.”

If you haven’t seen the original video and what the uproar is about, how can you possibly defend it?

Asking for a friend.

If you haven’t seen the original video and what the uproar is about, how can you possibly defend it?

Since I am the one who said I hadn’t seen it, I presume this is directed at me, but it makes no sense since I didn’t defend it. Where did you get the idea that I was defending it? I have no interest in the video at all, much less defending it. I actually referenced another video (not this one).

And why are you asking for a friend? Why not just ask?

But I wonder why you say what you do about Chandler’s comments. In the video, they are clearly identified as being about sexual abuse. Is the original video different?

Saw original. Not worried.

Since I previously stated my positive impressions of Tom Ascol, I may be one who is being challenged regarding the movie trailer issue. However, I have no regular interaction with Tom, nor with Founders. I had no knowledge of the film project, and no clear understanding of the issues causing the backlash, and now the resignation of board members. I have no personal knowledge of two of the resigning members. I do know Tom Malone, and consider him a faithful and gracious brother in Christ. His book on the baptism of disciples alone is a masterpiece. I also know Tom Nettles, a continuing board member, and hold him in high regard. His book on the history of the SBC is outstanding. Both of these men are excellent preachers.

From my perspective, it’s going to take some time to sort all of this out and let the fall-out settle before I will be able to form an opinion. I would expect, based upon past experience, that those who do not approve of Founders will be critical of Tom Ascol and un-supportive of the actions of Founders. Likewise, those who are strong defenders of the SBC, and who do not want to admit the possibility of any erosion in its doctrinal fidelity will likely side with the critics of Founders. But let’s not be too hasty. It appears to me that doctrinal erosion is taking place regarding the role of women and homosexual orientation. Objections to the Founders film may be warranted, but could just as well be attempts to silence an unwelcome voice the is correctly identifying problems within the SBC. Time will tell.

In support of my impression of Tom Ascol, anyone who would print the entire statements of resigning board members on his website and highly commend these men, deserves our respect.

Thanks for the response, Jay—I apologize, I must have missed the notification.

Part of me really wishes the original version was still available for comparison. I fully understand why it is not, but it makes this conversation more difficult. As I said previously, I saw the trailer immediately after it was released. I am certain that it was approximately four minutes long (the same length as the current trailer), and I recall no differences in the audio track. That said, I do recall some of the visual changes you mention. A few thoughts:

• Regarding the points you made on twitter, by far the most discouraging to me is that it seems Founders filmed people without permission and/or failed to notify them of their inclusion in the documentary. Assuming that people are being honest about this (I have no reason to believe otherwise), this is troubling. Totally with you on that account.
• Regarding Rachael and Jacob, I couldn’t care less where they go to church or who they support—I don’t have a take on them, nor do I intend to ever have a take on them. I do think it’s highly unlikely that Rachael’s appearance in the original trailer was truly an oversight. Whether or not you think it was reasonable to include her in the trailer, she definitely should have been informed first.
• Not having read the book you mentioned, I can’t comment on its contents or inclusion in the trailer.
• Obviously, Matt Chandler’s comments are in the context of a discussion about sexual abuse—I have previously seen the full, uncut interview (most of it is available here). What is not so clear is exactly what is meant by “outside counsel.” Does he mean we should report allegations of abuse to appropriate authorities? Or does he mean that we need to seek out “experts” in feminist theory and critical gender studies to inform our view of sexual abuse and how to best serve victims?
• The issue with the SBC19 panel discussion was not that it was trying to push a “liberal” agenda; rather, it was that the discussion itself was predicated on the notion of wisdom by shared experience/group identity. (At least that was the understanding of many.)
• The inclusion of cultural/political/religious icons such as Sanders and Bolz-Weber is quite relevant, actually. It takes relatively little research to understand the relationship between CRT (a primary topic of the documentary), the contemporary left, and progressive christianity. While the documentary does focus on the SBC, it would be an Everest of naivete to pretend that what happens in the SBC can in any way be isolated from broader cultural movements.

Honestly, as I look back over this list, it strikes me that there is so much potential for infighting and bickering about who said what, why they said it, what they meant, whether they’re being accurately represented, etc., etc. I desperately hope this doesn’t serve to discredit Founders’ original purpose in releasing the movie.

To become wrapped up in these particulars at the expense of ever addressing the issues the documentary hoped to address—CRT, intersectionality, post-modern deconstructionism, etc.—would be a grave mistake indeed. These theories/philosophical frameworks are enjoying tremendous influence in secular culture, politics, art, and economics. To assume that the Church is impervious to the influence of exterior philosophical movements is foolhardy. Indeed, many of the philosophical concepts developed by the likes of Derrida, Foucault, Crenshaw, etc. are already making headway in some Christian circles. Most believers simply aren’t equipped to respond to these narratives, or in many cases to even recognize them. We desperately need better resources for believers confronted with these ideologies, that will help them recognize these narratives, understand why they are problematic, and to help them develop a well-reasoned, scripturally informed response.

Scripture absolutely has cultural and political implications. If we fail to actively shape our political/cultural philosophy in light of our theology, our philosophy will eventually shape our theology.

Whatever you think of the trailer, there are issues that need to be addressed.