The View from the Hill

Unbelievable

2010-05-04T23:19:00.002-05:00

Four days after it struck, I still find it almost impossible to believe the magnitude of the disaster that has left such a wide path of destruction throughout my hometown of Nashville, Tennessee. Although I haven't lived in Nashville full-time since 1990, and haven't lived there at all since 1994, I still think of myself as a Nashvillian. Each big change that came to the city---the reopening of the Ryman Auditorium; the arrival of the Predators and Titans; the construction of landmarks like the Batman Building, the new library, and the Schermerhorn; the boom in residential living downtown; the resurgence of Lower Broad and Second Avenue; the revival of Edgefield and the East Bank; Vanderbilt winning a bowl game---had me bursting with pride in my city, even though I was living either in Bowling Green or just outside of Knoxville. Not all of the changes were good, of course; the closing of Opryland, where I worked for six summers, comes to mind. I also remember the sorrow I felt watching the damage inflicted on my city by the tornado of 1998. But as bad as that was, my feelings at that time are nowhere close to the degree of sadness I have felt in the past few days.

Watching the waters rapidly cover I-24 was especially sobering. I have driven on that stretch of highway numerous times. The people driving that interstate on Saturday when the waters came rushing onto the road were certainly unaware when they got into their cars of the fate that awaited them. What a stark reminder that nothing is really routine. It may be something we have done every day for years, but today something unexpected can blind side us.

Other scenes have been etched into my memory. Seeing the stage and most of the lower level seats of the Opry House completely underwater was somewhat eerie. Hopefully the historic circle from the original Ryman stage that was inserted into the floor of the Opry House stage can be salvaged. On a lighter note, it was neat in a weird sort of way to see the grass at LP Field covered with water. With the water on the field right at the edge of the blue seats, it looked like a gigantic swimming pool.

The images that resonated with me the most were the ones from the Opryland Hotel. Seeing the damage that was done there made me sick inside. My affinity for the Opryland Hotel has little to do with its economic importance to Nashville, and it certainly has nothing to do with my opinion of the current management of Gaylord. I have such a strong attachment to the Opryland Hotel because my dad helped to build it. Of the many buildings that he helped to construct, he always was the most proud of the work he did at the Opryland Hotel. In some small way it is almost a blessing that he did not live to see the devastation that has been wrought upon the hotel.

As people are now returning to their homes and surveying the damage, I am filled with gratitude that my family fared quite well given the situation. My mother and sister had water come into their kitchen, not from flooding, but from the barrage of rain pouring through the top of the back door. My brothers had relatively minor damage---a storm door blown off, flooding in the back yard, some leaks in the roof. My aunt's basement flooded, but I don't think there was any damage to the main level. I give thanks to God that they all came through this in pretty decent shape, and I pray for all those who were not so fortunate.

One thing that has not surprised me is the spirit that the people of Nashville have shown in the face of this disaster, whether it's someone paddling a boat to check on stranded residents, neighbors teaming up to go in and start the cleanup process in each others' homes, strangers working side by side laying sandbags, or people sharing their finances and possessions with others. Nashville may be twice as big as it was when I lived there, but it looks like the hospitality, generosity, and civic pride that I remember are still alive and strong in Music City USA.

Now What?

2008-01-30T21:41:00.000-06:00

By now most of you know that Wade Burleson has resigned as a trustee of the Southern Baptist Convention's International Missions Board. For a little over two years, Wade has tenaciously stood---alone more often than not---in opposition to efforts by the IMB board of trustees to narrow the doctrinal boundaries for missionary service beyond the SBC's official doctrinal statement and to suppress the right of trustees to express disagreement with any action taken by the board. Through all of the controversies surrounding himself and the board of trustees, Wade has been driven by an unwavering belief that the board should be accountable to the convention and by an even stronger conviction that cooperation to fulfill the Great Commission is more important than agreement on every particular point of doctrine. With Wade's resignation, it appears that there is no one left on the board who is willing to stand up for these two beliefs.

In the short run, Wade's resignation will have one positive effect. Trustees will no longer have to devote significant portions of their board meetings to the latest controversy involving Wade Burleson. This should allow them to devote more time and energy to the work of the IMB. Of course, given the adoption of the policies/guidelines on baptism and private prayer language that started all this mess, it may not be a good thing that the board will have more time to focus on the work of the IMB.

What Wade's resignation means for the future of the SBC is unclear. It is likely that those who seek to narrow the parameters of cooperation, stifle dissent, and resist the idea that SBC entities should be accountable to the convention will be emboldened by Wade's resignation. They may perceive that as long as they stand unified against reform minded leaders that they can simply outlast any reform movement. And they may be right. My observation is that most reform minded Southern Baptists are not going to devote years to changing the SBC via the political process. While they have a great deal of respect for the SBC and its work, they have an even greater commitment to the Kingdom of God. If these reformers reach the point where they see continued involvement with the SBC as interfering with their work for the Kingdom, they will withdraw from active participation in SBC matters and may even leave the convention completely. This may make life easier for supporters of the status quo in the SBC, but the long term effects on the convention could be serious.

While Wade's resignation may be seen by some as a setback for the reform movement in the SBC, in some ways it could help advance the cause of reform. Now that he is free from the restrictions and guidelines incumbent upon a trustee, Wade can speak to the issues facing the convention more freely. Wade is also now free---if he chooses---to reveal to the SBC some of what he has heard and seen within the corridors of power. It seems certain that a revelation of these things would convince many Southern Baptists that reform is sorely needed.

Whether or not reform comes to the SBC, one thing is certain. God is sovereign, and His Kingdom will go on no matter what. It is my personal hope and desire that the SBC will continue to be one of the tools used by God in the building of His Kingdom, but if some things do not change then I believe that God will turn to others who are more committed to His Kingdom than to their own kingdoms.

A Quick Update, and a Brief Statement About the IMB

2007-11-13T19:25:00.000-06:00

For those of you who are interested (some of you have even asked), here is a quick update on what has been going on in my little corner of the world.

I haven't heard anything from the church in McMinnville, Tennessee, where I preached at the end of September. However, they said up front that they were going to proceed rather slowly and that there were other potential candidates they were going to speak with in subsequent weeks. I thought that everything went well. The church has a strong commitment to serving the community and supporting missions. They are looking for someone who can teach the Word. If there is any potential problem, it is that I come from a background far different from that of most of the members.

Probably the biggest thing that has happened recently is that we have moved. We are in a brand new house about a mile closer to town than we were, and the rent isn't much more than we were paying. This was a somewhat unplanned move. Maria had been looking at the classifieds, and she found the listing. We looked at the house right around the time we went to McMinnville, and after a couple of days we were at the top of the list. However, since the house was such a great deal there were several other people who were interested. The builder-owners were eager to get someone in the house, so we had to decide very quickly. While we loved the house, we were hesitant because we did not want to get trapped in a lease knowing that there was a possibility that we might be called to a church out of town, and also we did not have the cash flow to pay rent on two places in October plus a security deposit. The owners worked with us on both issues, and we took the house. Most of October was spent packing and moving a little at a time. We have been moved in for about two weeks, but we are surrounded by boxes that are not unpacked yet. In addition to being in a new house, I also got broadband Internet service, so if we ever get settled in I plan on resuming a more regular blogging schedule. (I know, you've heard that before, but this time it should happen!)

Given my preoccupation with moving, I have not been following events related to the SBC. I did happen to see on Baptist Press what happened with the IMB concerning Wade Burleson. Needless to say, I was very upset with the decision. I don't have time to discuss my thoughts in detail, but I will say that the decision has caused me to seriously question whether there is a place for me in the SBC. At this point the main thing keeping me in the SBC is that I do not want to give up on our cooperative missions work. But it looks like there are several in our convention who are not interested in truly cooperating with anyone who disagrees with anything they believe, say, or do.

In closing, I ask that you pray for me. I have felt far away from God for a few weeks, yet at the same time I have thought about Him and His Word more deeply than I have in a long time. Sometimes it seems like God delights in watching me go through failure after failure. I have never been a negative minded person, but after four years that have been more bad than good (and getting worse each year) it's hard sometimes to believe that God really cares about me. In my mind I know that He is in control and that He loves me and that all that I am going through is somehow intended for His glory, but surely there must be some way that God can be glorified and I can be happy at the same time. Please pray that God will strengthen my faith and give me a better attitude.

The Latest on the Church Search, and Other Personal News

2007-09-21T20:18:00.000-05:00

Please keep Maria and me in your prayers this weekend as we meet tomorrow with a search committee in McMinnville, Tennessee, and as I preach at their church Sunday morning. This is an initial, get-to-know-each-other interview, and not an in-view-of-a-call situation. But considering that I haven't put forth any real effort in my church search for a couple of months, this was completely unexpected. Actually, they just called me out of the blue three weeks ago; I had not even sent them a resume.

McMinnville is a decent sized small town (12,000-13,000) about halfway between Nashville and Chattanooga, and it's about 20 miles from the town where my mom grew up. It would be a bit of an adjustment for us if we ended up going there, but at least we would still be able to visit each of our families in a day trip.

Of course, having had my optimism dashed on several occasions over the past couple of years, it's hard for me to go into this expecting a positive result. It's easy to say that God is in control and that whatever happens is His will, but after so many close calls (and even more where I never had a shot) it becomes harder to really believe this in a way that goes deeper than mere intellectual assent to such statements. So in addition to praying for the interview and the service Sunday morning, please pray that God will strengthen and renew my confidence and hope and that He will just help me to have a better attitude in general.

In other good news, I got a phone call last night from a church in Portland, Tennessee (about 25 miles south of us), asking me to preach the first two Sunday mornings in October. I preached there two Sundays in January and two more in July. I am preaching three of the next four Sundays. It's been nearly a year since I've preached on such a consistent basis, so I am really excited.

One other bit of good news (that has nothing directly to do with the church search) has the potential to return me to regular blogging. We have finally decided to get broadband Internet through our cable company, which is supposedly 6 times faster than DSL (which we cannot get where we live). One reason I have not done any blogging lately (not just here, but also at other blogs I used to read daily) is that my dial-up connection speed has dropped from 38-40k to 12-14.4k, making it impossible to look at more than a handful of pages in one sitting (and forget anything with a lot of graphics or media). To put it in perspective, using the DSL at Maria's sister and brother-in-law's house, I am able to read in about an hour all of the blogs and news sites that it normally takes me all evening to read at home. Unfortunately, we have had to postpone our service call more than once because our car situation makes it impossible for one of us to get home during the day.

For the past couple of weeks we have been down to one car, so by the time I pick Maria up from work and we run some errands that she normally does on her own I have little time at home (the other reason for my absence from the blogs). We picked her car up last night (had to get a new fuel pump---nearly $400), but as I went to shift out of park the button on the gear shift would not push in. The mechanic tried to get it to work, but all he could do was put the key into the shift lock and release it that way. He said for us to bring it back in a couple of days and he would get it working; he thought there was a short in the shift lock or gear shift or something like that. As I was driving down I-65 on the way home, I noticed that none of the gauges on the dash were working and the odometer was not rolling over. So apparently there is a problem with the electrical system in the dash and console areas; the mechanic had to fiddle with some of the wiring to get the fuel pump to work, so it seems to be related. We have to take the car back to get this fixed; hopefully it won't take two weeks this time. So please pray for our car situation as well, especially as we consider whether or not to buy a new (or new to us) car.

My 2007 NFL Predictions

2007-08-31T22:57:00.000-05:00

With the beginning of the college football season this week and the NFL regular season next week, my time in the sports wilderness for 2007 has reached its end.

Last season certainly did not go as I expected regarding my two favorite teams. I thought the Titans would be awful again and that the Steelers would make a serious run at defending their Super Bowl title. As it turns out, they both finished 8-8---a pleasant surprise for one, a tough disappointment for the other. On the bright side, my number 3 team---and my favorite player, Peyton Manning---hoisted the Vince Lombardi trophy at season's end.

Going into the 2007 season the NFL looks considerably different than a year ago. Coaching legends Bill Cowher, Bill Parcels, and Marty Schottenheimer are gone from the sidelines (at least for now). Marshall Faulk, Tiki Barber, and Tarik Glenn are just a few of the players who have said good-bye to the game. Michael Vick and Pacman Jones are among those who have experienced the strong hand of Commissioner Roger Goodell. Star players such as Randy Moss, Trent Green, Travis Henry, Willis McGahee, Jamal Lewis, and Daunte Culpepper are playing for new teams.

Despite all these changes, some things remain the same. Brett Favre will be calling the signals for Green Bay as he tries to will the Packers back into the playoffs. The AFC is still far stronger than the NFC, especially at the top. And come January many of these picks, and others as well, will elicit great laughter

Well, that's enough talking. Let's get to the picks.

AMERICAN FOOTBALL CONFERENCE

AFC East
New England Patriots (12-4)
New York Jets (8-8)
Buffalo Bills (5-11)
Miami Dolphins (4-12)

AFC North
Baltimore Ravens (11-5)
Pittsburgh Steelers* (11-5)
Cincinnati Bengals (9-7)
Cleveland Browns (5-11)

AFC South
Indianapolis Colts (13-3)
Jacksonville Jaguars (8-8)
Tennessee Titans (7-9)
Houston Texans (6-10)

AFC West
San Diego Chargers (12-4)
Denver Broncos* (11-5)
Kansas City Chiefs (5-11)
Oakland Raiders (2-14)

* Wild-card teams

First Round
Denver over Baltimore
Pittsburgh over New England

Divisional Round
Indianapolis over Pittsburgh
San Diego over Denver

Conference Championship
Indianapolis over San Diego

NATIONAL FOOTBALL CONFERENCE

NFC East
Dallas Cowboys (10-6)
Philadelphia Eagles (8-8)
New York Giants (7-9)
Washington Redskins (6-10)

NFC North
Chicago Bears (12-4)
Green Bay Packers (8-8)
Detroit Lions (6-10)
Minnesota Vikings (3-13)

NFC South
New Orleans Saints (12-4)
Carolina Panthers* (9-7)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (5-11)
Atlanta Falcons (4-12)

NFC West
Seattle Seahawks (11-5)
St. Louis Rams* (10-6)
San Francisco 49ers (8-8)
Arizona Cardinals (8-8)

* Wild-card teams

First Round
Seattle over Carolina
St. Louis over Dallas

Divisional Round
New Orleans over St. Louis
Chicago over Seattle

Conference Championship
New Orleans over Chicago

SUPER BOWL XLII
Indianapolis over New Orleans

"Alien Baptism" and the Irony of the IMB Guideline

2007-07-16T20:14:00.000-05:00

For those of you who do not regularly read Joel Rainey's blog, I want to call your attention to his latest post, I Do Believe in "Alien Baptism." In my opinion, this post presents the clearest and most compelling case against the IMB baptism guideline passed in November 2005. Joel does this not by directly attacking the guideline, but instead by describing four different types of "baptism" that are alien to the biblical teaching on baptism and demonstrating how the IMB guideline fits one of these descriptions. According to Joel:

An "Alien Baptism" is any baptism that takes place prior to regeneration and conversion.
An "Alien Baptism" is one that occurs by any mode other than immersion.
An "Alien Immersion" is one that takes place among a "faith community" that is not made up of genuine followers of Christ.
An "Alien Immersion" is one that places the primary focus of the ordinance on anything besides union with Jesus Christ and His people.

In his explanation of his fourth point, Joel points out the irony of the IMB guideline:

Scripture is clear in teaching that there is ONE baptism. With that in view, I am appreciative of the IMBs desire that all who go to the mission field under our banner have experienced this. The problem comes when they begin to tie baptismal validity to doctrines that while precious and essential to Baptists, are secondary in matters of salvation and the church. I am speaking of course of how the IMB ties baptismal validity to whether the congregation that performed the baptism believes in "eternal security." The outcome of such a guideline is that a candidate could be genuinely born again, immersed in the name of the triune God after this experience, as a testimony of that experience, among people who share our Gospel convictions and are themselves believers, and still be required to be "baptized" in a Southern Baptist Church...

But if the candidate has already been Scripturally baptized, and there is only one baptism, then what exactly is being required by the IMB?

I believe IMB trustees are honorable people, and like me, they simply want to guard our Biblical heritage and ensure the same of those who will represent us on the mission field. But this new guideline changes the focus of Baptism from Christ and His people to the doctrine of "eternal security." Such a move means that the above question can be answered in only one way: The IMB is now requiring "alien baptism," which ironically, is the very thing I am certain they were trying to avoid with the new guideline.

After reading Joel's post, my initial thought was, "Why didn't I think of that?"

Are We Going to Build Bridges or Burn Them? (Part 3)

2007-07-09T22:01:00.000-05:00

After a hiatus of more than four months, I am finally resuming this series. Given all of the events that have transpired in the SBC since the end of February, I believe this series is even more relevant than before.

In Part 2 I looked at three prominent SBC leaders---Thom Rainer, Morris Chapman, and Bill Curtis---who, in my opinion, are working to lead Southern Baptists down the road of building bridges. These are men who appreciate the diversity that exists within the Southern Baptist Convention and recognize that people who disagree on secondary issues can cooperate together for the work of the Kingdom.

Unfortunately, other SBC leaders sound a different call, a call to separate from or even exclude those with whom we disagree. In contrast to those who would lead us to build bridges, these folks would lead us to burn bridges with some Southern Baptists, including some conservatives who affirm the BFM 2000. I feel compelled to point out that I believe those who support this approach sincerely believe they are protecting the SBC from serious doctrinal error or even heresy. However, despite their sincerity and their good intentions, I believe that they are wrong and that their approach will make the SBC weaker instead of stronger.

The most well known SBC leader who in my opinion advocates the path of exclusion and bridge burning is Southwestern Seminary president Paige Patterson. Patterson is one of the most polarizing figures in the SBC---respected and adored (and even idolized) by many, but also mistrusted and criticized (and even vilified) by many. One reason that Patterson is such a polarizing figure is that he doesn't try to hide his views, a characteristic that I respect greatly. His position on such issues as the sign gifts (especially tongues/private prayer language) and the role of women in ministry are well known in SBC circles. The problem is not Patterson's views on these issues; the problem is that apparently he sees his position on these issues as the only legitimate position for Southern Baptists.

I acknowledge that Patterson does not advocate excluding people on the basic of every point of doctrine, as demonstrated in his discussion of soteriology with Al Mohler at the 2006 SBC annual meeting. But the following statement seems to reflect Patterson's general opinion about cooperation with those with whom he disagrees, at least as it relates to one issue:

Noting that differences of interpretation on spiritual gifts is one reason why different denominations exist, Patterson invoked a baseball analogy, suggesting Baptists and charismatics are not on the same denominational teams: "Why would I want to wear a Red Sox uniform if I want to play for the Yankees?"

When one examines Patterson's remarks in a radio interview during at the 2007 SBC annual meeting (as described by Art Rogers), it is evident that he identifies those who disagree with his position on some of these contentious issues as liberals and believes they have no place in the SBC:

Paige Patterson was interviewed by the Criswell College radio station. In that interview he said that every 25 years the SBC has to throw out Liberals and that it was time to do it again. When asked if these men might be Conservatives who disagree with methodology, he replied that they were Liberals who knew not enough Baptist History to fill a thimble.

In addition to leading us down the path of excluding people with certain views, others would go even further and exclude those who associate in any way with those who hold these views. An example of this occurred at an Executive Committee meeting this past winter when Roger Moran of Missouri made the following statement in support of a motion calling on Lifeway to investigate the emerging church movement:

One of the most dangerous and deceptive movements to infiltrate the ranks of Southern Baptist life has been the emerging/emergent church movement...

In my home state, the Missouri Baptist Convention is on the brink of a near civil war—and at the heart of our struggle has been the blatant dishonesty of those who are determined that Missouri Baptists will embrace this new postmodern approach to ministry.

The most recent evidence of the clash in Missouri came on January 28th when on the front page of the Sunday edition of the St. Louis Post Dispatch there appeared this article, titled: “Beer and the Bible—It works for one growing St. Louis church but its got Missouri Baptists hopping mad.”

The story is about one of our new churches in St. Louis called the Journey, which received a $200,000 loan from the Missouri Baptist Convention and has what the Post Dispatch called a “beer ministry” in a local downtown bar. Another so-called ministry is the churches’ “film night,” where secular movies are viewed and discussed—movies that are often rated “R.”

What makes this all the more significant is that the Journey was exalted by the top leadership of the Missouri Baptist Convention as a model for church planting and its pastor is hailed as a modern-day “Caleb.”

And while this may sound like a local church issue or a state convention issue—it is not. It is a critically important issue facing the entire Southern Baptist Convention.

The pastor of the Journey Church is Darrin Patrick and he serves together with Ed Stetzer from the North American Mission Board as co-chair of NAMB’s Young Leaders Task Force.

Interestingly, these two men also serve together on the board of the Acts 29 Church Planting Network (Patrick actually serves as vice president and Stetzer as a board member.)

The president of Acts 29 is Mark Driscoll, best known by his peers as “Mark the cussing Pastor.” Driscoll, who claims to be theologically conservative, pastors the non-denominational Mars Hill Church in Seattle Wa, where this past New Year’s Eve, his church hosted a “Red Hot Bash.” Those who attended were encouraged to dress “red hot,” and those planning to drink were advised to bring their ID’s.

I mention Driscoll because he is scheduled to appear in chapel at one of our seminaries, and one or our cherished professors from another seminary will be preaching at Driscoll’s church later this year...

Serving on the board of Emergent Village is Chris Seay, an emerging church planter from Houston, Texas who was one of the featured speakers at the Younger Leaders Summit in Nashville, hosted by Lifeway’s Jimmy Draper in 2005 and by 2006 was led by NAMB’s Ed Stetzer.

And while I am certainly perplexed as to why a board member of Emergent Village was a featured speaker at our Younger Leaders Summit, I am equally concerned about the particular group of younger leaders we seem to be pursuing for leadership positions in the SBC.

For withing this group of young SBC leaders, are: those who strongly oppose the SBC’s long standing position on alcohol; and those who now want us to move toward embracing the charismatic practice of speaking in tongues; and those who are now telling us that CBF really wasn’t much of a problem; and those who are now calling for a "revolution" to move the SBC back to what they call the "center"...

The seriousness of the emerging/emergent movement and the degree to which it has infiltrated the SBC warrants a full and thorough investigation. And I would argue that the investigation needs to start at the North American Mission Board, and most specifically in the area of church planting.

The emerging church conversation is so broad and diverse that there are few, if any, generalized statements that are true of all the various strands of the movement. My issue with Moran is not his views about the emerging church (I share some of his concerns about certain aspects of the emerging church) but the guilt-by-association theme that pervades his statement. His support for this investigation seems to be less about gaining an understanding of the emerging church and more about finding out which SBC leaders are the least bit sympathetic with the emerging church so they can be dealt with. It is obvious that on the issues of alcohol and tongues (and who knows what else?) Moran sees no place in the SBC for those who disagree with him, even if they provide biblical support for their position, nor does it appear that he sees a place for ones who cooperate with them.

Let us not forget about the trustees of the IMB and Southwestern Seminary who continue to exclude Southern Baptists from service with their respective entities on the basis of specific interpretations of Scripture that not only go beyond the Baptist Faith & Message but also are challenged by opposing interpretations that have just as much biblical support, if not more. One would think that world missions or the task of training future ministers would be more important than advancing narrow theological views on secondary doctrines, views that are not the only biblically sound and reasonable positions on the issues in question. Apparently this is not the case with some of our trustees. For them it is more important to exclude from service people whose views differ from their own (although these trustees are more than happy to accept their financial support) than it is to work for the Kingdom with faithful, passionate believers (Southern Baptists at that) who agree with them on the essentials of the faith and core Baptist distinctives but not necessarily on these secondary and disputable matters.

Just so nobody misunderstands, I am NOT questioning the commitment of these people to the Lord, His Kingdom, His church, or the Southern Baptist Convention. As I said earlier, I think they sincerely believe that an exclusionary path is necessary to preserve the doctrinal purity of the Southern Baptist Convention. Were they drawing lines of demarcation on the basis of essential doctrines where the Bible speaks clearly, I would support them wholeheartedly. However, many of the recent lines they have drawn are based on specific and even questionable interpretations of secondary issues. Drawing lines on the basis of such issues brings unnecessary disunity into the body of Christ, making us less effective in carrying out the Great Commission.

In Part 4 I will discuss why I believe that building bridges is a better path for us to follow than burning bridges.

The Return of SBC Outpost

2007-06-27T21:59:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 27, 2007

ST. JOSEPH, MO — On Monday, July 2, 2007, the online conversation
concerning the future of the Southern Baptist Convention will move forward
as a group of prominent bloggers merge their efforts to provide a forum
for ministry ideas, missionary support, church revitalization, and
denominational reform. SBCOutpost.com, previously administrated by Pastor
Marty Duren of New Bethany Baptist Church in Buford, GA, will be launched
as one of the premier sites for Southern Baptist news and commentary.

Little doubt exists that blogs have dominated the conversation in Southern
Baptist life for the previous 18 months. At times, the conversation has
engaged substantive issues of theology and ministry. At others, the
dialogue has been shrill and divisive. With the launch of a newly
reformatted SBCOutpost.com blog, the chance for elevating the meaningful
dialogue and limiting the intensity of contention will arrive for all
Southern Baptists.

Intentionally designed as a bridge for the diverse constituencies of
Southern Baptist life, SBCOutpost.com will bring together denominational
executives with rural pastors and church planters, missional pastors with
traditional pastors, seminary theologians with Sunday School teachers, and
field missionaries with their prayer partners. The day has passed for
monopolies in news and information. SBCOutpost.com will seek to
supplement, not replace, the excellent coverage of Southern Baptist life
already offered online through Baptist Press, Associated Baptist Press,
and various Baptist state papers.

SBCOutpost.com is singularly unique, however, in the chance for reader
interaction and commentary, offering a forum for the discussion about the
future of culturally-informed, Christ-honoring witness and ministry
paradigms for the Southern Baptist Convention. In addition to this unique
format, SBCOutpost.com will launch with the largest aggregate readership
of any alternative news source dealing with Southern Baptist issues. The
mission statement of SBCOutpost.com is "to provide interactive,
substantive, and reflective dialogue for Southern Baptist churchmen and
women to participate in shaping the future of the Southern Baptist
Convention."

The stated intention of SBCOutpost.com is to become the number one choice
for discussion of Southern Baptist news and commentary, and the blog
editors would like to encourage all Southern Baptist entities to include
SBCOutpost.com as a part of their regular schedule of recipients for all
press releases, news updates, and other statements as they are released to
major media sources by emailing editor@sbcoutpost.com.

5 Things I Dig About Jesus

2007-06-23T14:27:00.000-05:00

I got tagged by Micah Fries for a 5 Things I Dig About Jesus meme. Here are the rules:

Those tagged will share 5 things they dig about Jesus.
Those tagged will tag 5 other bloggers.
Those tagged will provide a link in the comments section here of their meme so that others can read them.

Here is my list (not in any particular order):

I dig that Jesus loves me, this I know. Sometimes the most profound truths are those that are the most simply stated. When I was an enemy of God, Jesus loved me enough to die for me. When I fail God, Jesus loves me enough to forgive me. As Paul wrote in Romans 8:31-39, there is absolutely NOTHING that I or anyone else can do that can separate me from the love of Christ. And since I know what I do I am truly amazed that Jesus, who also knows everything that I do (more than even I know), continues to love me and always will.
I dig that Jesus was tempted in every way that I am, yet He NEVER sinned. Maybe it's just me, but I find the idea of the Trinity easier to understand than how anyone can live in this world and never sin in any way. You know there had to be times when, in His humanity, he was tempted to say to His critics, "You don't believe in Me? You don't believe in ME? Well, here's a sign that will MAKE you believe in Me?" and turn them into newts or something along those lines. Or when He healed someone and they failed to show gratitude, there had to be a temptation for Jesus to unheal them. And you know there had to be times when He just wanted to take His disciples and knock their heads together until they got what He was telling them. And yet, in a way that just baffles me, Jesus never did any of these things. He responded appropriately at all times, patiently enduring human arrogance, ingratitude, and ignorance in the process.
I dig that Jesus knew His purpose, and He never let anything distract Him from fulfilling it. In a nutshell, Jesus came to earth to carry out the Father's work of redemption. He did this by living a truly God-centered life, preaching the gospel of the Kingdom, showing the love of God to all people, and ultimately by dying on the cross to atone for our sins and by rising from the dead to deliver us from sin's curse. In doing this He experienced physical discomfort, was misunderstood by His own family, was rejected by His own people, had lies told about Him, and in general had a difficult time. Conversely, He had to ward off the efforts of others to steer Him down the path of fame and power. Through everything, both good and bad, Jesus maintained an unshakable focus on the Father and on the work the Father had given Him.
I dig that there is nothing we can face in life that Jesus' power cannot overcome. If Jesus can control the forces of nature, heal the most terrifying diseases of the day, compel demons to submit to His will, feed thousands of people with one sack lunch, raise the dead, and rise from the dead Himself, what can possibly happen in our lives that is too great for His power to overcome?
I dig that Jesus has called me to participate in His mission. If Jesus' primary concern were efficiency, He never would have chosen people (especially this one) to continue His work after He ascended back into heaven. And yet that is exactly what He did. He has commanded all of us who are His people to carry on His work of proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom, showing the love of God to all people, and being agents of reconciliation between holy God and sinful humanity. Knowing how unworthy I am to take part in this work, it truly demonstrates how amazing and vast God's grace is.

OK, I'm tagging the following people:

Reflections from a Distance

2007-06-19T22:02:00.000-05:00

For the first time since 2003, I was not present at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. Furthermore, since I have been able to spend an average of only a few minutes a day online for the past few weeks I was unable to follow the events leading up to San Antonio and the convention itself as closely as I would have liked. In addition, since I have dialup Internet access at home and streaming media and blogs are blocked on my computer at work, I have been unable to watch any of the convention proceedings. I say all of that to make it clear that my observations about San Antonio are based entirely on secondhand knowledge.

I came away from the 2006 convention in Greensboro optimistic that meaningful reform could be accomplished in the SBC, but based on what I have read over the past few days I believe San Antonio demonstrated that reform is a long way off, if it is even possible at all. Ironically, it is the reform movement's most tangible victory in San Antonio---the adoption of the Executive Committee report concerning the role of the BFM as it relates to the agencies of the convention---that is the primary source of pessimism. The fact that the report was adopted with 57-58% of the vote should be a cause for optimism, as this demonstrates that the majority of Southern Baptists seem to desire that we come together around the essentials of the faith and core Baptist beliefs to cooperate for the sake of missions and the work of the Kingdom. However, the response by certain convention leaders and defenders of the status quo reveals just how deeply entrenched the opponents of reform are.

The words that follow are somewhat strong, and it is with dread that I write them, but after several days of reflection I sincerely believe they are true. The response of many SBC leaders reflects a degree of arrogance and even contempt toward the people who make up the SBC. Here are a couple of reasons why I believe this to be the case:

Soon after the vote to adopt the report, some defenders of the status quo began saying that the motion to adopt passed because the messengers did not understand what they were voting on. While the wording of the actual motion might leave some wiggle room for interpretation, let us remember that earlier in the day Executive Committee President Morris Chapman spoke about this issue during his report to the convention. Now if anyone is qualified to speak to the meaning of the Executive Committee report, I would think it would be the president of the Executive Committee. Dr. Chapman's remarks leave no room for ambiguity when it comes to the Executive Committee report:
(1) Any practice instituted by an entity in the Southern Baptist Convention that has the force of doctrine should be in accord with the Baptist Faith and Message and not exceed its boundaries unless and until it has been approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and secondly,

(2) If an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention adopts a confession of faith separate and distinct from the Baptist Faith and Message and it includes a doctrine unsupported by our confessional statement, the entity should request approval from the Convention prior to including the doctrine in its confession.
If this convention followed a pattern similar to the ones I attended, the vast majority of the messengers were present for Dr. Chapman's address. While Dr. Chapman's remarks are not an official part of the report adopted by the messengers, they certainly inform us about the Executive Committee's intent in presenting the report. I would expect that people who are committed to the ideal of original intent when it comes to interpreting Scripture and the U.S. Constitution would be consistent and apply the same standard to this report. Thus, those who heard Dr. Chapman almost certainly knew what the Executive Committee meant when they presented their report. In addition, the debate on the motion to adopt the report clearly demonstrated the way most proponents and most opponents of the motion viewed it. It is likely that some individual messengers were unclear about what was being voted on, but to claim that the messengers as a whole did not understand even after hearing Dr. Chapman's remarks earlier in the day and the debate before the vote is an insult to the intelligence of Southern Baptists and, in my opinion, reflects a mindset that believes we should let denominational elites run the convention because those poor deluded folks who make up the convention cannot be trusted to understand the issues.
After the motion to adopt the report passed, some of our entity leaders basically said they were going to follow business as usual. In other words, even though the convention had expressed its will that the BFM be the doctrinal guide for our entities, some entity leaders have decided not to adhere to the will of the convention. Some of them have tried to advance the argument that the report is ambiguous, but as I demonstrated above that is a weak argument. Others make the point that the BFM is a "minimalistic" document that only expresses our core doctrinal beliefs as Southern Baptists and is not meant to be exhaustive. I agree with them on this point, but not on its ramifications. They seem to be saying that since the BFM is a minimalistic statement, our entities need to define more narrowly what Southern Baptist doctrine is. The problem with this approach is twofold. First, no single entity can speak for the SBC as a whole. Second, if two entities adopt contradictory positions, which one is the SBC position? The fact that the BFM is a minimalistic statement does not mean that our entities need to add to it in a de facto manner. It means that as a convention we come together around the essentials of the faith and core Baptist doctrines. The BFM is minimalistic so that cooperation and participation can be maximized. Art Rogers explains this concept in a simple but profound way:
This [the BFM] is the minimum consensus that we can honestly expect to achieve in our varied interpretation of the Word. In other words, pretty much everything else that we agree on is a bonus, but not a test of fellowship.
Regardless of which reason is given, those who would lead our entities to continue making their own doctrinal statement are going against the expressed will of the SBC. One of the greatest weaknesses of the SBC is that the convention is powerless to put a stop to such a blatant disregard for the will of the convention. In a practical sense, SBC leaders are not accountable to the convention, and they know it and act accordingly.

In addition to the aftermath of the vote on the Executive Committee report, another discouraging sign was the refusal of the Committee on Resolutions to present Tom Ascol's resolution on integrity in church membership to the convention for the second straight year. Considering all the publicity this issue received over the past year, it is unbelievable that this resolution was not reported out of committee. To me, the failure to bring this resolution to the floor reflects a general unwillingness within the SBC to deal with issues of substance that directly affect our churches, and in this case an issue that makes a mockery of one of our core Baptist beliefs---regenerate church membership.

I am much more pessimistic about the future viability of the Southern Baptist Convention as an avenue of cooperation and partnership for the work of the Kingdom than I was a year ago. I haven't even addressed the failure of the IMB Board of Trustees to rescind the narrow doctrinal requirements that were imposed on missionary candidates in November 2005, the actions of the Executive Director of the Florida Baptist Convention in distributing Jerry Vines' infamous anti-Calvinism sermon to every pastor in the state, or the departure of several of the leading voices from these debates and discussions. When all of these things are taken into account, we seem to be going the wrong way.

Are We Going Deep Into the Truth or Drowning in Minutia?

2007-05-09T22:46:00.000-05:00

The irony is that most people crying for "meat" are really crying for minutia. They want to learn the deeper truths about the times of the rapture rather than how to live the Christian life. True meat teaches people how to be transformed by the renewing of their minds so that they will live like Christ, love like Christ, and leave what Jesus left behind. But believers in church-focused ministries often think it is more important to teach about controversial subjects rather than transformational truths.
------------------------------------------
Ed Stetzer & David Putman, Breaking the Missional Code: Your Church Can Become a Missionary in Your Community (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), p. 80.

OUCH!!! That was the first thing that came to mind when I read this quote from Ed Stetzer and David Putman in Breaking the Missional Code. I am one of those who has a deep craving for the "meat" of the Scriptures. Not only do I personally have a strong desire to dig deep into the Word, but my preaching and teaching ministry has at its core a commitment to in-depth biblical exposition. So when I first read what Stetzer and Putman wrote, my mind immediately shifted into a defensive position, as I initially perceived them to be criticizing in-depth teaching and study of the Bible (which surprised me). But as I read the latter part of the excerpt above and thought more about what they said, I realized that to a great extent their observation is painfully true. Too many of those who are passionate about digging deep into the Word are interested primarily or even solely in increasing their knowledge, while many Bible expositors are more concerned with helping their listeners to become scholars of the Bible rather than practitioners of it. The value of in-depth Bible study and teaching is not that it builds up our biblical knowledge, but that it equips us to live a life that honors God and is pleasing to Him.

As believers we must be mindful of two extremes when it comes to Bible study:

As Stetzer and Putman point out, we must resist the temptation of becoming bogged down in minutia. I believe it is important for us to try to understand the literary and historical context of the Bible, but we must keep in mind that our goal is not to become an expert on biblical times or even on the text itself. Instead, we should seek to understand the Bible's context so we can more fully understand what God is communicating to us about Himself, the redemptive work He is doing in and around us, and how we can live in a way that demonstrates His glory. While the Bible is timeless, the fact is that it was written to specific people in a certain language, time, and culture different from our own. Without some understanding of these differences and the historical and literary context, we may miss out on what God is actually communicating through the words of the Bible. However, a problem arises when we become more focused on facts, details, and context than on the message being communicated.
We must be careful not to gloss over or even ignore those parts of the Bible that at first glance do not seem to have any relevance to our lives today. Everything that is in the Bible is there for a reason. Some parts are less practical than others, but every passage in the Bible is part of the message that God has revealed to us. To deliberately ignore anything in the Bible is to ignore God Himself. Obviously we will study some parts more frequently and in greater depth than others, but we must be careful not to neglect any part of Scripture.

It cannot be emphasized enough that no matter how deep one digs into Scripture, Bible study is ultimately worthless if it does not help us to grow to become more like Christ in what we think, say, and do. God is less interested in how much we know than He is in how we live and how we love Him and others. We must go deep into the Word to discover and understand what God is telling us and how this message affects our lives, but we must not allow knowledge and understanding of the text become ends unto themselves.

Frustrated and Disconnected

2007-04-30T21:00:00.000-05:00

By now it should be obvious that I have fallen well short of my goal of posting on a more regular basis. Needless to say, the events surrounding the passing of my dad a few weeks ago kept me away from blogging. Once again I want to thank everyone for your prayers and words of encouragement during that difficult time.

It's not just the situation with my dad that has kept me away from blogging. Truth be told, part of the reason I haven't been active in posting or even commenting lately is that I'm feeling a bit disconnected from things right now. I wasn't able to make it to the conference on the Holy Spirit, and I won't be in San Antonio in June. Since I am not pastoring at the present time (and haven't for nearly a year), I'm not really drawn toward discussions related to church leadership or other topics of interest primarily to pastors. And frankly, I've been in a bit of a spiritual dry spell lately. I simply cannot understand why God would give me a gift and a passion for preaching and teaching but not give me an opportunity to utilize them. Going through the search process this time around has given me more of a negative attitude toward the institutional church, as I perceive that many (if not most) of our churches are like Samuel was when God sent him to the house of Jesse to anoint Saul's successor---interested mostly in human standards regarding one's qualifications.

Despite my feeling frustrated and disconnected at times, I'm not planning on going anywhere. In some ways, for me to stop blogging would be an acknowledgment that I don't really expect God to put me in a place to use the gifts and passion He has given me. However, I'm foolish enough to believe that if God calls someone to a particular ministry He will give that person an opportunity to carry out that ministry---even if the person doesn't have a seminary degree and 5 years of experience in a growing church!

The Long Goodbye

2007-03-31T23:08:00.000-05:00

I apologize to my readers for my long absence from the blogosphere, but March was the worst and most emotionally draining month of my life thus far. With all of the personal difficulties and even tragedies that I have been through over the past few weeks, following the issues surrounding the Southern Baptist Convention has not been a high priority for me.

After almost a month of refusing to eat, my dad, Richard Augustus Sweatman, passed away around 7:15 Monday morning, March 26, at the age of 78. Dad was a private man, so I won't share in such a public forum a lot of details about what happened. Basically, after a couple of incidents where he fell or could not stand up on his own, he simply decided he was ready to go. Despite all of our efforts to get him to change his mind, he would not eat or let anyone take him to the hospital. Over the next couple of weeks Dad told us where his insurance policies and important papers were and that he loved us and was proud of us. While I am thankful that we had plenty of time to say everything we wanted and needed to say (especially since my wife and I live in another state and could visit him only on the weekends), it was difficult watching the strongest man I ever knew gradually waste away by his own choosing. My brother was finally able to get him to the hospital on March 18, but by then it was too late. That Friday he was taken from the hospital to a hospice center, where he peacefully died Monday.

In addition to losing my dad, I had the honor---and the responsibility---of leading his funeral service. In keeping with his wishes, we had a private graveside service with family and a few close friends. Leading that service was the hardest thing I have ever done, but I am glad that I did it. I don't believe that anyone outside of his family could have adequately described my dad. I shared about how Dad was his own man: a quiet man who led by example rather than by words; a private man who even as a young boy preferred to go fishing in the swamps of South Carolina by himself rather than hang around with other kids; a working man who did not retire from his job as a construction foreman at 65 but worked as long as his body let him; a strong man both physically (continuing to work about 2 or 3 hours after his lung collapsed) and especially in his will. I then gave a brief summation of the gospel and closed with the Apostle Paul's words from 1 Cor. 15 about the hope of the resurrection we have through Christ.

Please continue to pray for our family, especially my mom and my sister, who lived at home with Dad. While this has been hard on all of us, they were the ones who took care of him every day.

Are We Going to Build Bridges or Burn Them? (Part 2)

2007-02-27T23:11:00.000-06:00

In Part 1 I began this series by listing some of the various types of diversity found within the Southern Baptist Convention. We are a very diverse people demographically, in style and methodology, and even in certain areas of doctrine. Many Southern Baptists see this diversity as a strength, showing the world that even though we differ in many ways we can come together in unity because of Jesus. They espouse building bridges to connect these diverse people and groups in fellowship and cooperation for the sake of missions and evangelism. Other Southern Baptists believe such diversity---in style, methodology, and especially in doctrine---is a threat to our Baptist identity and heritage. They advocate separating from those who differ from them in one or more of these respects, a path that I refer to as bridge burning. In this post I want to focus on three Southern Baptist leaders who support building bridges---Thom Rainer, Morris Chapman, and Bill Curtis.

My use of the bridge metaphor is based on an article written by Lifeway president Thom Rainer after he spoke at the Baptist Identity Conference at Union University. In this article, Rainer mentions a number of the doctrines over which Southern Baptists disagree and basically says we should have fellowship and cooperate with one another in spite of our disagreement on these issues:

I am a part of a denomination that has many tracks but few bridges. And if we don’t start building some bridges quickly, God’s hand of blessing may move beyond us...

I spoke last week at the Baptist Identity Conference at Union University in Jackson, Tenn. From an outsider’s perspective, one might conclude that the crowd was like-minded. After all, it was a gathering of mostly Southern Baptists.

But I knew better. Present were five-point Calvinists and others who would not affirm all five points. Also in attendance were cessationists and non-cessationists, people with differing views of women in ministry, bloggers, and print-media writers. There were some who thought leaving "Baptist" out of a church’s name was wrong; and there were others had already taken the denominational label out of their church’s name. The views on eschatology held by the attendees were many.

It was a diverse group of Southern Baptists indeed.

I spoke to many people before and after my formal presentation. One person commented to me, "Dr. Rainer, I better leave you before people start wondering why we are speaking with each other." Admittedly, his comment was meant to be humorous. But it did have a sting of truth in it. The labels had already been applied. The sides had been chosen. And you had better be careful about the side you chose or the people with whom you associated.

I reject that line of thinking.

As far as I knew, everyone at that conference was my brother or sister in Christ. As far as I knew, everyone was a Bible believer. I refuse to let labels keep me from building bridges...
I understand the risk I am taking by writing these words. But silence is not an option. I must be about building bridges...Though I am a fallible and sinful person, I will seek God’s power to stay true to the following:
1. I stand firm on the inerrant Word of God. I support without reservation the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

2. Though I may disagree with some on secondary and tertiary issues, I will not let those points of disagreement tear down bridges of relationships with brothers and sisters in Christ.

3. I will seek to join with those who will work together on the common causes of missions, evangelism and the health of the local church.

4. I will seek God’s will in prayer before I write or speak a word of disagreement against another brother or sister in Christ or even a non-Christian. I will seek to see the plank in my own eye before pointing out the splinter in another person’s eye. I will follow the truths of Matthew 18 when I feel that I need to confront a brother or sister in Christ.

5. I will spend more time rejoicing in the Lord (Phil 4:4).

6. I will seek God’s power to have a more gentle and Christlike spirit (Phil 4:5).

7. I will pray that the lost and the unchurched world will know me by my Christlike love.

Such is my commitment.

If God so leads, I invite you to join me in building bridges.

Another SBC leader who would like to see more bridge building in the SBC is Executive Committee president Morris Chapman. One several occasions, most recently at the Executive Committee meeting February 19, Chapman has made it clear that, while we must always remain vigilant against those who would seek to undermine or deny the truthfulness and authority of Scripture, the time has come for Southern Baptists to stop fighting and cooperate for the sake of the Kingdom. He issued a clarion call for all Southern Baptist conservatives to come together in his message "The Fundamentals of Cooperating Conservatives," delivered at the 2004 Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis:

We must never cease to be vigilant against heresy. This is always the task of faithful Christians. However, crusades cannot last forever. Again and again we have debated vigorously that the conservative resurgence was theological, not political; that our objective was doctrinal purity, not political control.

If this is true, the crusade phase of the conservative resurgence has passed. The stated goals have been achieved. The battle has been won. Now there are other tasks at hand. We cannot linger at the base camp of biblical authority. We are a people who not only believe the Book; we are compelled to live by the Book. Biblical concepts such as surrender, sacrifice, righteousness, and holiness must consume our hearts and minds. We must plant churches on almost every corner of every block in this nation. And we must take the gospel to the ends of the earth. This is our biblical mandate. This is our commission.

In the spring of 1990 after it was announced I would be nominated for president of the Convention, I pledged to Southern Baptists that I would “enlarge the tent, lengthen the cords, and strengthen the stakes,” those same words stated in Isaiah 54:2

My promise was to all Southern Baptists who believe in the absolute authority of God’s Word. Then as now, there were those who rejected biblical fidelity and have excluded themselves from the historic convictions of Southern Baptists. They have excluded themselves from the pledge I made...

A mistake of some fundamentalist movements in the past has been the belief of the adherents that to be right with doctrine is to be right with the Lord. True righteousness was too easily discarded in favor of a type of dogmatism that was stifling and demoralizing to other Christians. In other words, right doctrine was equated to righteous living. They are not one and the same...

It is the sin of Pharisaism when good people, whose theology and ministry are above reproach, are slandered, discredited, or ostracized simply because they refuse to blindly follow particular political posturing. Innuendos, unfounded rumors, sly winks and nods are as deadly as an assassin’s bullet and usually as ungodly.

Could Southern Baptists fall into the error of Pharisaism? Could we ever, while priding ourselves on orthodox beliefs, be out of fellowship with the Living God and the true saints of God? The threat is real. I am concerned…now that we have affirmed by vigorous endeavor that Southern Baptists are people of the Book, that we will develop a censorious, exclusivistic, intolerant spirit. If this occurs, we will be the poorer for it. It will not only result in narrower participation in denominational life, a shallower pool of wisdom and giftedness in our enterprises, and a shrinking impact upon the world, but we will be in the unenviable position of being right on doctrine but wrong with God.

NAMB trustee chairman Bill Curtis is another prominent SBC leader who understands the importance of building bridges. In an interview with South Carolina pastor Chadwick Ivester, Curtis encourages Southern Baptists to unite together within the boundaries of the BFM 2000 and cooperate for the sake of missions and evangelism [material in brackets is mine]:

As it stands, there seems to be two major groups in the SBC, and they view this situation differently. Group A fears the contemporary worship movement and the increasing number of pastors who are Reformed [or those who have a private prayer language or who believe the Bible does not require total abstinence from alcohol or who believe...]. Group B fears a further "narrowing" of the convention based upon personal preferences and generational methodologies. What you have is two different groups looking at the same issues from totally different sides. And that’s where, for Southern Baptists, a choice must be made: Are we going to make preference issues a test of fellowship within our convention? Or are we going to say, "No, we have a document which serves as a statement of our collective beliefs called the Baptist Faith & Message 2000. We’re going to let that be the document that helps us define who we are. And when there are opposing positions which can exist within the confines of that document, we’re not going to break fellowship over those issues but move ahead together to fulfill our primary mission as a convention—fulfilling the Great Commission." ...

In the long term, however, our ability to sustain that missionary effort will be dependent upon the degree to which we, as a people, can work together. My concern is with the potential fallout from a further narrowing the SBC tent. The choice to limit cooperation even further will affect our capacity to support missionaries and to fulfill the Great Commission as a convention.

Thom Rainer, Morris Chapman, and Bill Curtis speak for many Southern Baptists when they call on us to join together in spite of our differences in style, methodology, and doctrine. They believe that cooperation in missions and evangelism is important enough that we should focus more on those things that unite us (missions & evangelism, the BFM) than on those things that divide us (worship styles, methodology, or specific interpretations on issues such as the sign gifts, eschatology, and soteriology). This does not mean that these men, and others who favor a bridge building approach, are soft on doctrine. I would be highly surprised if these men did not have strong positions on each of these contentious issues. However, they understand that, while all doctrine is important, there is a difference between essential doctrines and nonessential doctrines. They recognize that there is a difference between issues where the Bible is absolutely clear and those where the Bible is less clear. And they understand that the primary reason the SBC exists is not to define what Baptists believe on every single issue, but to facilitate cooperation among autonomous churches so that we can more effectively and efficiently take the gospel of Jesus Christ to all peoples.

In Part 3 I will look at some SBC leaders who, in my opinion, seek to lead us down the path of burning bridges with those who differ from the supposed majority view of Southern Baptists on a number of issues not addressed in the Baptist Faith & Message.

Are We Going to Build Bridges or Burn Them? (Part 1)

2007-02-23T06:00:00.000-06:00

By now it should be obvious to anyone familiar with the Southern Baptist Convention that we are a diverse group. People from a variety of races, ethnicities, and languages make up our convention. Our churches range in size from a few people to several thousand people. We have churches in sparsely populated rural areas, small towns, suburban neighborhoods, inner cities, and cosmopolitan city centers. Our churches meet in small frame buildings, brick edifices with steeples and stained glass, cathedrals of stone, modernistic prefabricated structures, schools, movie theaters, individual homes, and almost anyplace else where people can gather. In our churches we sing hymns, contemporary praise songs, musically complex anthems, Southern gospel songs, ancient psalms, and many other styles of music accompanied by piano and organ, rock-n-roll band, orchestra, 5-piece country or bluegrass band, recorded music, and even a cappella. Our pastors wear suits, polo shirts and khakis, Hawaiian flowery shirts, jeans, even t-shirts and shorts. We have pastors with multiple doctorates, pastors who did not finish high school, and everything in between. Our churches have Sunday school and home cell groups, RAs/GAs/Acteens/Mission Friends, AWANA, and TeamKID. We reach out to others through weekly visitation, GROW, FAITH, relational evangelism, revival meetings, community service ministries, VBS, seeker-sensitive worship services, the NET, and many other programs, or even without a program.

It's not only in areas of style, methodology, or programming that we are diverse. We are also quite diverse in doctrine and theology. While we have a shared doctrinal core as articulated in the Baptist Faith & Message (and we have some disagreements over that), on other issues Southern Baptists have a wide range of beliefs. We have Calvinists and Arminians, cessasionists and continualists, every type of millennialist as well as some preterists, KJV-only folks and those who read The Message, those who believe the Bible allows drinking alcohol in moderation and those who believe the Bible demands total abstinence, those who engage the culture and those who try to separate from the culture, complementarians and egalitarians, Landmarkers and ecumenists, and so forth. On most of these issues Southern Baptists can be found at the extremes as well as all points in between.

While many of us view such diversity as an essential part of the unity to which Jesus calls His people, others are uncomfortable with or even suspicious of the diversity that now exists within the SBC. Many of them view changes in style, methods, or programming as compromising with the world. Some believe the church should be a refuge from the surrounding culture or simply wish to recreate the world they grew up in. Others believe that theological diversity inevitably results in syncretism or theological liberalism. However, some degree of diversity is unavoidable. We live in a society comprised of various subcultures; to reach people in all of these subcultures requires us to have cultural diversity within our churches. And like it or not, the SBC is going to have to tolerate a degree of theological diversity within its ranks if we are going to continue to play a vibrant role in God's redemptive mission. The Bible is not absolutely clear on every single point of doctrine. Because the Bible comes to us across wide barriers of time, culture, and language there are things within it that we cannot understand with certainty. Regarding such things, it is not uncommon for people who affirm the truthfulness, inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture to use sound exegetical and hermeneutical principles and come up with different interpretations of these issues.

We can respond to the diversity within the SBC in one of two ways. We can build bridges to join with those who differ from us in matters of style, methodology, and even theology (within the bounds of the BFM), or we can burn bridges with those who differ from us in these areas. People on both sides sincerely believe they are being faithful to the cause of Christ. Within the leadership of the SBC are advocates both approaches.

In Part 2 I will focus on some of the leaders in our convention who are in favor of building bridges.

SBC Executive Committee: "BFM 'Sufficient Guide' for Trustees"

2007-02-22T18:51:00.000-06:00

During its meeting earlier this week, the SBC Executive Committee adopted a statement affirming that the Baptist Faith & Message is a "sufficient guide" for Southern Baptist entity trustees in establishing doctrinal policies. The Baptist Press article announcing this development states in part:

The Executive Committee, in response to a BF&M-related motion at last year’s annual meeting in Greensboro, N.C., stated that it "acknowledges the Baptist Faith and Message is not a creed, or a complete statement of our faith, nor final or infallible, nevertheless we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention." [Emphasis is mine.]

It remains to be seen what effect, if any, this statement will have when the IMB Board of Trustees revisit the policies on private prayer language and baptism at their March or May meeting. They are already on record as declaring, "While the Baptist Faith and Message represents a general confession of Southern Baptist beliefs related to Biblical teachings on primary doctrinal and social issues, the IMB retains the prerogative and responsibility of further defining the parameters of doctrinal beliefs and practices of its missionaries who serve Southern Baptists with accountability to this board."

It is my hope and prayer that the IMB and all of our other entities will heed the Executive Committee's statement and repeal any doctrinal requirements other than the BFM. If they refuse to comply voluntarily, the convention needs to require that they do so. Not being an expert on the SBC Constitution & Bylaws, I do not know if this can be done without revising the bylaws. But even if the bylaws have to be revised, we need to ensure that all of our entities are operating according to the same doctrinal standard. No Southern Baptist who is in agreement with our general doctrinal statement should be rejected by any of our entities because he or she does not share a particular interpretation that has not been officially adopted by the SBC.

Sheri Klouda: "I Was Let Go 'Because I'm Female'"

2007-02-14T15:34:00.000-06:00

I encourage you to read Sheri Klouda's interview with WFAA-TV in Dallas/Fort Worth. In the interview she makes some strong statements about the events surrounding her departure from Southwestern Seminary. The following statements, if true, make me even more outraged about what happened and the way that it happened:

"I was told that I was a mistake that trustees needed to fix," she said. "Those are the exact words." And she said she was told she could no longer teach at the seminary for one simple reason. "Because I am a female," she said...

But Dr. Klouda said she was deceived as well by Seminary President Paige Patterson. "Initially, I felt like Dr. Patterson lied to me as far as his intentions," she said. In 2003, Dr. Klouda said she went to Dr. Patterson for reassurance after he had taken over the seminary. Even though Klouda got her degree from Southwestern and had been teaching there for three years, she said she was troubled by Patterson's strict interpretation of the passage from Timothy. "He told me I had nothing to worry about, his exact words," she said. But two years later, she had plenty to worry about. She said while no one challenged her teaching, Dr. Patterson said she was no longer wanted at the seminary as a teacher.

Whether or not you believe that it is proper for women to teach men theology and biblical languages, the issues raised by Klouda's statements should be troubling. If it is true that Paige Patterson misled Sheri Klouda into believing that she would continue in her tenure-track position at Southwestern, then his ability to effectively lead the seminary is compromised. If it is true that a seminary trustee or administrator told Klouda that she was a "mistake that trustees needed to fix," we should be concerned that our leaders are so insensitive to the human aspect of this situation. And should these allegations turn out to be false, we in the SBC should be concerned as to why so many Southern Baptists found such allegations to be plausible.

Someone Who Gets It!

2007-02-14T14:34:00.000-06:00

I strongly encourage those of you who are interested in the future of the Southern Baptist Convention to read Chadwick Ivester's interview with NAMB trustee chairman Bill Curtis. In reading this interview I found myself thinking, "Here's a denominational leader who really gets it!" With a clarity that is rarely seen among our convention's leaders, Curtis lays out THE issue that we as Southern Baptists must deal with [material in brackets is mine]:

As it stands, there seems to be two major groups in the SBC, and they view this situation differently. Group A fears the contemporary worship movement and the increasing number of pastors who are Reformed [or those who have a private prayer language or who believe the Bible does not require total abstinence from alcohol or who believe...]. Group B fears a further "narrowing" of the convention based upon personal preferences and generational methodologies. What you have is two different groups looking at the same issues from totally different sides. And that’s where, for Southern Baptists, a choice must be made: Are we going to make preference issues a test of fellowship within our convention? Or are we going to say, "No, we have a document which serves as a statement of our collective beliefs called the Baptist Faith & Message 2000. We’re going to let that be the document that helps us define who we are. And when there are opposing positions which can exist within the confines of that document, we’re not going to break fellowship over those issues but move ahead together to fulfill our primary mission as a convention—fulfilling the Great Commission." ...

In the long term, however, our ability to sustain that missionary effort will be dependent upon the degree to which we, as a people, can work together. My concern is with the potential fallout from a further narrowing the SBC tent. The choice to limit cooperation even further will affect our capacity to support missionaries and to fulfill the Great Commission as a convention.

I'm pretty sure that on some of the controversial doctrinal issues being debated within the SBC Bill Curtis and I have totally different views. But we both agree that on these issues of secondary importance---which are not addressed in the BFM 2000---we can hold differing views and still cooperate for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission. If more leaders like Bill Curtis stand up and speak out, the Southern Baptist Convention may have a bright future after all.

Sheri Klouda: "'Tis a Puzzlement"

2007-02-12T11:31:00.000-06:00

In today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram, there is an article by former Southwestern Seminary professor Sheri Klouda in which she discusses some of the feelings and questions she still has about her departure from Southwestern. In the article she says that, while not "brittle and full of malice," she is still "puzzled" about the chain of events that culminated in her forced [my word, not hers] departure from the seminary.

Here are some of the questions Dr. Klouda still has [all material in quotes comes directly from the article]:

How could Southwestern's trustees (many of whom are still serving) and then-president elect her to the seminary's faculty if they did not believe her election to be in line with the BFM 2000 (which she "proudly and publicly" signed)?
"Is it not fair and right to allow a female professor, hired under the same terms as other faculty members, to undergo the same tenure evaluation process and receive objective affirmation or denial on the basis of her teaching abilities, professional development, scholarly achievements and publications, collegiality and service to the students?"
If hiring her was a momentary lapse in judgment or a relaxation of "well defined parameters of objective truth" (as at least one trustee has stated), why did they want her to leave "unobtrusively" and give the impression that the departure were her own idea?
"Why didn't someone acknowledge the tremendous financial and emotional burden placed on my family through no fault of my own? Why not, as the Scriptures teach, make right the wrong? After seven years of dedicated service, shouldn't I at least receive an apology?"

Dr. Klouda is not the only one who is puzzled and has questions.

(HT: Ben Cole)

A Word from the Field

2007-02-12T10:14:00.000-06:00

In the midst of all of our discussions, debates, and even arguments over doctrinal parameters and policies in the Southern Baptist Convention, let us not forget that our words, our tone, and the decisions that are made are affecting the work and the morale of our missionaries. Listen to this statement from Nomad, a missionary serving with the IMB in the 10/40 window:

I can't help but to be discouraged to be overseas and know that my supporters are at odds with one another over things that mostly likely don't have an eternal significance. The very people who are supposed to be praying, giving, and participating, are instead spending all of their time arguing. Looks like Satan has pulled one over on us and is making us think this "stuff" is more important than seeing a lost world reconciled to God. May God have mercy on us!

Let us all remember that, no matter what side of these issues we may find ourselves on, the reason the SBC exists is to support missions work cooperatively through our prayers, our giving, and our service. We do not have to agree on every jot and tittle in order to cooperate. Is doctrine important? Absolutely! Are there points of doctrine that we must take an uncompromising stance on in order to be faithful to the gospel? Certainly! Are there points of doctrine that are not worth arguing over if such arguing hinders our cooperation in missions? You'd better believe it!

Now I'm enough of a realist to understand that we will not all agree on which doctrines belong in which category, but I strongly urge all of us to ask ourselves the following question about each doctrinal issue under discussion: Would I be comfortable standing before God and telling Him that I worked to keep someone off the mission field (or made their journey to the field more difficult) on the basis of this point of doctrine?

I'm also enough of an idealist to believe that we who claim to be born again can discuss, debate, and disagree in a manner that does not hurt the morale of our missionaries or, even worse, bring reproach on the name of Christ in the eyes of the world. While there are occasions where it is necessary to rebuke a fellow believer, most of the personal statements that are being made in these discussions are not biblical rebukes; they are character attacks, which may be the norm for politics inside the Beltway but have no place in the Kingdom of God. I would guess that it is the tone of our discussions, more so than the content, that is causing so much of the discouragement and disillusionment we are beginning to see among our missionaries and missional minded Southern Baptists. Let the discussion continue, but let's make sure that both what we say and how we say it reflect the One to whom we belong.

Private Prayer Language, the Cooperative Program, and Missions

2007-01-06T01:00:00.000-06:00

Over the past week or so there have been some intense discussions regarding the issue of cooperation within the Southern Baptist Convention. At the heart of many of these discussions has been the issue of speaking in tongues, especially the practice commonly known as private prayer language (PPL). As most of you are well aware, in late 2005 the trustees of the International Mission Board established a controversial policy disqualifying anyone who practices a PPL from serving as a missionary with the IMB. Complicating the matter is the fact that for years IMB president Jerry Rankin has openly acknowledged that he has a PPL. Further complicating the matter is the fact that many Southern Baptists believe that there is a biblical basis for PPL, even if they do not practice PPL themselves.

I believe that this controversy over the issue of PPL poses a significant danger to the Cooperative Program, and thus to the effectiveness of Southern Baptist missions work. As increasing numbers of Southern Baptists are rejected as missionary candidates because they have a PPL, there is a strong possibility that their churches may choose to redirect some or even all of their financial support for missions either to support these candidates directly or to support another entity that welcomes these candidates. It is also possible that Southern Baptist churches in which the church leaders or a significant number of members believe in or have a PPL may see the IMB policies as a message saying, "If you have a PPL, you are not welcome to participate in the one thing that most defines what the SBC is all about." Even if no one from these churches applies to serve with the IMB, it is entirely plausible that these churches may decide that if the IMB doesn't want people like them to serve as missionaries then it doesn't make a lot of sense to send money to the IMB through the CP.

There is another way that this whole matter of PPL could negatively affect the CP. To be honest, I had never considered this possibility, but it was mentioned in some comments on Wade Burleson's blog. In one comment Geoff Baggett said, "The moment that someone makes the decision to send SBC missionary representatives to the field, knowing that they are active practitioners of glossolalia (even in private), there will be an instantaneous disappearance of CP dollars. The big “sucking” sound. The money will be cut off." (To be fair to Geoff, he made it clear that his church would likely not react in such a way.) In a later comment Peter Lumpkins added, "I have a hunch that, should such views become widespread, our Baptist family would likewise exercise their autonomous right, and unfortunately, the CP would probably be transformed almost overnight into a lamentable, empty hull, gutted of any real likeness to its former missionary glory." (Again, Peter said nothing to indicate that his church would curtail its support for the CP in such a case.)

So if prohibiting people with a PPL from serving with the IMB threatens the CP, and if allowing people with a PPL to serve with the IMB threatens the CP, what should the SBC do? The pragmatic solution would be to do an analysis to determine which option will be less damaging to the CP and pursue it, but somehow I get the feeling that God doesn't want us to make such a decision on the basis of how it affects the bottom line. My personal opinion is that the IMB should rescind its policy and allow otherwise qualified candidates who have a PPL to serve, just as they did for all the years preceding the adoption of the 2005 policy. Of course, a cynic might say that I support such a position because I believe that the biblical support for PPL is stronger than the arguments against it. I would surmise that those who believe that the Bible makes no allowance for PPL would prefer for the policy to remain in force. Thus, we are at an impasse, one that could divide the SBC, result in significant reductions in CP giving, and seriously undermine SBC missions work if it is not resolved. The $64,000 question, or I guess in this case the $200 million question, is how can we resolve this impasse and prevent the CP and our missions work from being irreparably harmed?

Say It Ain't So!

2007-01-05T12:58:00.000-06:00

After 15 very successful years, Bill Cowher has officially resigned as head coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers. While most of the experts, and even his own players, expected this to happen, I still held out hope that this moment would not come at this time. In his press conference, Cowher said he was leaving to spend more time with his family. For someone who displayed great emotion throughout his coaching career, Cowher didn't display a whole lot of emotion during his press conference.

Bill Cowher is one of the great coaches in NFL history. Overall his record was 161-99-1, for a .619 winning percentage (higher than Tom Landry, Paul Brown, Bill Walsh, and his predecessor Chuck Noll). In 15 years his teams made the playoffs 10 times, won 8 division titles, appeared in 6 AFC championship games, played in 2 Super Bowls, and won Super Bowl XL. During his tenure Cowher averaged 10 regular season wins per season; since 1992, the Steelers have more regular season wins (149) than any other NFL team.

Here are some interesting tidbits about Cowher's coaching career. Cowher won both his first game (defeating the Houston Oilers 29-24 on September 6, 1992) and his last game (defeating the Cincinnati Bengals 23-17 in overtime on December 31, 2006); both were road games. Cowher's first loss came on September 27, 1992, a 17-3 loss to the Green Bay Packers in Brett Favre's first start as the Packers' quarterback. Cowher led the Steelers to the playoffs in his first 6 season; Paul Brown is the only other coach to have done so.

In his press conference Cowher was careful to say that he was resigning rather than retiring, raising speculation that he might return to coaching after the 2007 season. After all, he is only 49 years old. I just can't bring myself to imagine Bill Cowher standing on any other sideline. He wasn't just the coach of the Steelers; he was the face (or the jaw) of the organization. Cowher is a Pittsburgh native and was a Steelers fan long before becoming a player or coach. After working for the Rooney family, I can't imagine that he would ever feel comfortable working for another owner. And throughout the long history of the NFL, few coaches who had great success with one team approached a comparable level of success with subsequent teams.

Where do the Steelers go from here? Early speculation is focused on Steeler assistants Russ Grimm and Ken Whisenhunt, both of whom are being courted by other teams. Following the pattern of Cowher and Noll, the Steelers will probably focus on a pro assistant coach who also played in the NFL. It will be interesting, because the Rooneys don't have a lot of experience hiring head coaches; this is only the third time since 1969 that the Steelers will be hiring a head coach. Of course, that means that they do a pretty good job of hiring head coaches. While Cowher will be missed, I expect that the Steelers will end up doing just fine.

Incidentally, Cowher's departure means that the coach of my other favorite NFL team, Jeff Fisher of the Tennessee Titans, is now the longest tenured NFL head coach with one team, having been the Titans' coach since 1994. If this season is any indication of the future, Fisher will probably surpass Cowher's 15 years with the same team. Given Titans owner Bud Adams' history with his coaches, this would be truly remarkable.

A Call to Come Together

2007-01-04T18:15:00.000-06:00

In a statement released today through Baptist Press, SBC president Frank Page issued a call for all Southern Baptists to seek reconciliation on "divisive issues" and focus on the very reason the SBC exists---cooperation in evangelism and missions:

“I believe that God’s people are more than tired of fighting among ourselves,” Page said. “I sense an overwhelming uprising of God’s people who say that it is time to get on with the issues of missions and evangelism. While we will not ignore our differences, we must pull together in a cause that is greater than any of our own agendas, opinions and interests.

“I believe that God’s people want to get on with Kingdom work.”

Southern Baptists have divergent views on a number of issues, including the sign gifts, ecclesiology, soteriology, eschatology, the role of women in the church, and the use of alcohol. This should not surprise us, as there is an old saying to the effect that whenever you get two Baptists together you end up with three different opinions on something. Because the Bible is not crystal clear to us on every single matter of doctrine, we are going to have differing views on some doctrines. This is OK. This may come as a shock to some, but we can disagree on some issues and still enjoy fellowship and work closely together within our convention as partners in carrying out the Great Commission.

Contrary to what some people seem to think, such cooperation does NOT inevitably result in a theological free-for-all where we end up including pedobaptists, sprinklers, Pentecostals, or even Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and/or universalists within the SBC. Cooperation does not mean that we establish no doctrinal boundaries. Cooperation does require, however, that we limit such boundaries to those issues that are clearly taught by Scripture and/or are core defining doctrines (not necessarily traditional historical beliefs) of Baptists. It is even possible to cooperate in the cause of evangelism and missions while debating our doctrinal differences.

As the various doctrinal differences within the SBC become more pronounced, we are going to have to make a decision as a convention. Are we going to follow the path of demanding doctrinal conformity on biblically unclear and/or relatively minor issues, or are we going to come together for the purpose of evangelism and missions and agree to disagree on such issues? There are many who would take us down each path. I stand with Frank Page in urging Southern Baptists to choose the latter path, for the sake of the Kingdom.

What Is Your Favorite Christmas Tradition?

2006-12-21T19:57:00.000-06:00

Practically everyone who celebrates Christmas has over the years developed certain traditions that enhance the meaningfulness of the season. For some, these traditions are an attempt to reconnect with or recreate memories from childhood. Some establish new Christmas traditions as a way of breaking free from the past. Some develop traditions designed to move their focus from the materialistic and/or consumeristic aspects of the Christmas season to something more important. Regardless of the reason for our traditions, they are a very important part of how we celebrate Christmas.

The first Christmas after we were married, Maria and I established a very special Christmas tradition. In the waning moments of Christmas Eve we turn off all the lights except for those on our Christmas tree, and we just sit there in the dimness thinking about the miracle of Christmas. Sometimes Maria sings a Christmas carol or two; "Silent Night" is usually one of the ones sung. Then at midnight we take the Bible and by the light of the Christmas tree we read aloud the Christmas story from Luke 2 and Matthew 2. Even in the years that we have been away from home and didn't have a tree to provide the ambiance, we always read the Christmas story at midnight. In 12 years of marriage we've never missed a year. This simple tradition allows us to retreat from the busyness of the season, the travel and the hauling of gifts to and from our parents' homes, and focus on what it's all about.

What is the most meaningful Christmas tradition that you and your family have established? What makes this tradition so special or meaningful to you?

Happy (Belated) Anniversary!

2006-11-29T22:51:00.000-06:00

It seems hard to believe, but it was just about a year ago (November 23 to be exact) that The View from the Hill made its debut. As I mentioned in my first post, the main reason I set up this blog was that some of the blogs I wanted to comment on required a Blogger account, and I figured if I established an account I might as well go all out and set up a blog.

I could not have begun to imagine everything that has happened as a result of this blog. I have personally debated theological issues with seminary professors and other SBC leaders. I have learned more about SBC missions work over the past year than I had in my previous 20 or so years in Southern Baptist churches. My thinking on a number of issues has changed as I have been challenged to try to set aside the lenses of culture and tradition when studying the Bible. People from all over the United States and even around the world are praying for me as I seek the place where God would have me serve. I have been removed from consideration for the pastorate of at least one church because of what I have written on this blog. I have discovered that there are serious problems that threaten the future of the SBC. And I have met a number of pastors, missionaries, and laypersons who give me confidence that the SBC's greatest days may very well lie ahead. I also got a free Pittsburgh Steelers Super Bowl XL championship t-shirt because of this blog (thanks, Kiki & Doug)!

As much as I enjoy blogging, I must confess that at times I have been tempted to stop operating my own blog. These thoughts usually come when I am feeling sorry for myself because I have worked 3 or 4 hours on a post and only 5 people comment or when I have several days when I sit down and can't think of anything to write about and thus hardly anyone visits my blog. Sometimes I feel like I really don't have anything to contribute to the conversation and that I'm just restating what others have already written. But then I remind myself that I really didn't have any grand expectations when I started this blog, and yet it has resulted in so many good things. I have also been greatly encouraged by the affirming statements that many of my readers, most of whom are far more accomplished than I, have made. I've even been encouraged by the fact that some people go to the trouble of writing to express their disagreement with me!

So despite my occasional bouts of self-pity, this blog will go on. Maybe I'll actually post more regularly. Maybe I'll finally come up with a post that gets 100 comments. Maybe I'll even write a post where the reader won't have to scroll halfway down the page to read the whole thing. OK, probably not, but it never hurts to imagine! Anyway, to everyone who reads this blog, I want to express my gratitude for taking the time to read what I have to say.

What It's All About

2006-11-21T15:17:00.000-06:00

The following statement in Baptist Press by Southern Baptist Convention President Frank Page is a clear reminder to Southern Baptists of the reason the SBC exists---to facilitate cooperation among believers and churches so that we can effectively carry the gospel to all peoples. He urges Southern Baptists to focus not on those things that divide us, but to center our attention on the great task that we are all called to.

I am calling for Southern Baptists to renew a passion for a worldwide evangelistic and mission thrust. I believe that God’s Holy Spirit can empower a unified mission movement which truly shares the relevant message of Christ with a lost and dying world and continent. It will not be done as long as Southern Baptists "fuss and fight" among themselves. It will not be done if we seek to promote personal agendas and political initiatives. It will be done only when we---even though we are in varying interest groups---decide that the common unified mission task is our prime agenda!

Amen! May it be so, Lord!

The Two Most Important Issues Facing the Southern Baptist Convention---NOT!!!

2006-10-31T22:51:00.000-06:00

There is an article in the Georgia Christian Index about Georgia pastor Bill Harrell, who serves as chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Committee. As he talks about the Executive Committee and the SBC, he mentions two specific issues that he believes must be resolved by the SBC---worship style and Calvinism. I cannot say with certainty that Harrell thinks these are the two most important issues facing the SBC, but the fact that in a major article he chose to mention worship style and Calvinism as "two important issues to solve in our Convention" indicates that they rank high on his list.

The article makes it clear that Harrell does not think very highly of contemporary worship styles. Indeed, he seems to believe that contemporary worship is some sort of threat to the church:

“I am afraid,” Harrell declared, “that the contemporary church movement gets people into a casual mindset, which can lead to a casual mindset toward spiritual things, toward God. People who have lowered the bar to attract the world, who have embraced a non-confrontational approach where sin is concerned in order to attract the world, have become so much like the world that they are losing their witness to the world.”

So, contemporary churches are dangerous because they are casual in style, which can lead to a casual attitude toward God. I suppose this is plausible, but no more plausible than saying that traditional churches are formal, which can lead to worship that is lifeless and ritualistic. Just because something is a possibility does not mean it is a likelihood or a certainty. For the record, in the contemporary services I have attended there has been a great deal of emphasis on the greatness of God and His holiness.

I agree that churches that embrace a "non-confrontational approach where sin is concerned" lose much of their witness. However, Harrell is sorely mistaken if he believes this is a problem only in contemporary churches. The gospel can be watered down in a traditional church just as easily as in a contemporary church. In fact, I personally have been in more traditional churches than contemporary churches where this has happened.

What about this idea of lowering the bar to attract the world? I don't see how having a contemporary style lowers the bar. If God is being worshiped in spirit and in truth, the Word of God is being faithfully proclaimed, and people are having real encounters with God, then the bar has not been lowered, whether the special music is a choral rendition of "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" or a guy with long hair and faded jeans singing an acoustic version of "My Savior, My God." The bar is not about style; it is about substance.

I hope Harrell is not implying that churches should not want to attract people who are of the world. I would think that these are the people we would want to attract. Discussing his church's use of traditional elements such as a choir, orchestra, and singing from the hymnal, Harrell states, "The kind of people we attract are the people who want to go back to church." It is wonderful that this church attracts people who used to attend church. They need to be reached, and many of them relate to the traditional service this church offers. But what about those people who have no church background, who are secular and worldly? Should we not try to attract them, not by offering a watered down gospel, but by creating an environment that relates to them culturally?

Harrell's views on contemporary worship don't really bother me. While I find his worries about contemporary worship to be unfounded, I realize that different people prefer different styles. What DOES concern me, however, is Harrell's apparent belief that there is a proper style of worship that distinguighes Southern Baptists from other believers:

First, concerning the matter of worship style, we must decide what identifies us as Southern Baptists. This will be difficult, because we are autonomous, but I believe our Convention leaders need to make a more definitive statement about how we identify ourselves in worship and who we are as Southern Baptists.”

“We are never going to be homogeneous, never have been, but there are some lines we should never cross as Southern Baptists,” Harrell added. “There must be something distinctive about us or we will lose our identity."

Harrell pays lip service to the autonomy of the local church, but he then goes on to say that convention leaders should decide what constitutes acceptable worship for Southern Baptists. Uhh, when did we as Southern Baptists get bishops? Of course there are lines that we should not cross in worship, but those lines should be based on clear biblical principles. Somehow I get the idea that the lines that Harrell is talking about would be based on certain cultural preferences, traditions, and specific interpretations of Scripture.

Harrell apparently has the same level of respect for Calvinism that he does for contemporary worship. I am not a five-point Calvinist, but I don't believe that "too much of the New Testament must be ignored or radically interpreted to embrace the five points of Calvinism." I have a number of friends and acquaintances who are five-point Calvinists, and I assure you that they do not ignore or radically interpret the New Testament.

Harrell refers to Calvinism as a "problem" within the SBC. I don't understand why so many prominent SBC leaders have such a view of Calvinism. Their disagreement with a point of view does not make that point of view a problem for the convention. Calvinism is a legitimate system of theology that has a solid biblical foundation; it is neither heretical nor unorthodox. Calvinism has always been present in the SBC. In fact, most of the leaders of the SBC in its earliest years were Calvinists.

While I don't see Calvinism as a problem in the SBC, I do find Harrell's proposed solution to be very troubling:

Harrell further explained, “I think the problem of Calvinism in the SBC could be solved if we establish one ground rule. If a man wants to start a Calvinistic church, let him have at it. If a man wants to answer a call to a Calvinistic church he should have the freedom to do that, but that man should not answer a call to a church that is not Calvinistic, neglect to tell them his leanings, and then surreptitiously lead them to become a Calvinistic church. That is not to suggest that all of our Calvinistic friends do that, but when it is done it is divisive and hurtful."

It seems to me that the idea of church autonomy would preclude the establishment of a "ground rule" that interferes in the pastor search process. Harrell offers some good advice, not only as it relates to Calvinism but to other issues as well. However, churches and pastors should be the ones making these decisions; we don't need anyone else making a "ground rule" to govern the process.

In pointing to contemporary worship and Calvinism as two of the main issues that the SBC needs to deal with, Harrell has done the SBC a great favor. Not because these are problems that needs to be dealt with; they are not problems at all. Instead, Harrell has inadvertently pointed to some real issues that the SBC does need to address---the lack of respect for church autonomy, the effort to establish uniformity in practice and in doctrine, the belief that one's own views and preferences are THE right ones for everybody, an excessive focus on preserving a distinctive Southern Baptist identity, the inability to recognize the difference bewteen reaching out to people in a way that is culturally relevant to them and watering down the gospel. These are some of the most important issues facing the Southern Baptist Convention, and our response to these issues will determine the future course of our convention.

Which Road Will We Take?

2006-10-19T23:13:00.000-05:00

Over the past year it has become obvious that not all Southern Baptists share the same position on every matter of doctrine. I suspect that this has always been true, but some people seem to have been genuinely surprised when they learned that there are Southern Baptists who are Calvinists, who believe that all of the New Testament spiritual gifts are valid today, who accept symbolic post-conversion immersions from non-Baptist churches, who do not believe that taking a drink of alcohol is a sin, who accept leadership by a plurality of elders, etc. Many, and probably most, of the Southern Baptists who hold these views also affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, support the Cooperative Program, and are grateful for the Conservative Resurgence. Basically, they are committed, conservative Southern Baptists. However, for some people these things are not enough to define one as a Southern Baptist; one must also subscribe to a particular interpretation on a whole host of issues not addressed in the BFM, including some of the ones listed above.

There is a strong segment within the Southern Baptist Convention that seeks to exclude, to varying degrees, people who do not subscribe to a certain interpretation on such issues as the ones listed above. Typically this exclusion is manifested in policies that disqualify Southern Baptists who hold such views from service or employment with some SBC entities. The policies passed by the trustees of the International Mission Board in November 2005 and the statement adopted by the trustees of Southwestern Seminary earlier this week are recent examples of this type of exclusion. Now, I'm sure that the trustees of these entities are more than happy to accept money from people and/or churches who hold to such views, but they do not want these people serving with them.

While many, but certainly not all, SBC leaders support the exclusion of these Southern Baptists from various types of denominational employment or service, there are some folks who apparently would like to see these people leave the SBC. Here are a couple of quotes that seem to reflect such a sentiment:

Paige Patterson, quoted in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram---"I have opposed [speaking in tongues] for all of these years because I think it's an erroneous interpretation of the Bible," he said. "Southern Baptists traditionally have stood against what we feel like are the excesses of the charismatic movement. All we're doing is restating where we've always been."

Baptists are "the most intense advocates of religious liberty," Patterson said, defending the right of other Christians to believe in speaking in tongues.

"But don't wear a Yankee uniform when you play for the Mets," he said.
Ben Stratton, in a comment on Art Rogers' blog---I stand with our Baptist forefathers and say that there is no place in Southern Baptist life for pastors or churches that believe in speaking in tongues, either publicly or privately.

While I try to refrain from putting words into the mouths of others (not always with success), I believe these statements speak for themselves. The implied message seems to be, "If you believe that speaking in tongues is a biblically valid practice, we don't want you in the Southern Baptist Convention." Nevermind the facts that conservative evangelical scholars do not agree exactly on whether "tongues" refers only to known human languages or to an entirely unknown/unhuman language, that there is no direct biblical statement that any spiritual gifts would cease before the Lord's return, that Paul said he rejoiced that he spoke in tongues more than any of the Corinthian believers, that the Bible specifically says not to forbid speaking in tongues, and that the BFM never even mentions the subject. Despite all this, some people have determined that all speaking in tongues is unbiblical and thus has no place in the SBC.

For a denomination that historically has championed the priesthood of the believer/all believers it seems unbelievable that certain individuals or groups would presume to declare that the interpretation they favor is THE interpretation that every Southern Baptist must hold to in order to be fully accepted in denominational life. It is even more remarkable that Southern Baptists have allowed them to do so. Does the priesthood of the believer/all believers allow us to interpret the Bible any way we see fit? Of course not. There are a number of core beliefs that define us as Southern Baptists. That is why we have the BFM---to list those doctrines that we as Southern Baptists share in common and that define us. While not every Southern Baptist, myself included, fully agrees with every clause in the BFM we accept it as the defining statement of what Southern Baptists believe. The way I see it, if the BFM does not address a specific issue then we have freedom to interpret what the Bible says about that issue and still be welcome in Southern Baptist denominational life. If we are going to exclude people from service because of their doctrinal views, we as a convention should be the ones making that decision by amending the BFM. That way there is no uncertainty about what THE Southern Baptist position on an issue is.

We have reached a point in the SBC where we are going to have to decide once and for all which road we are going to take when it comes to dealing with differences of interpretation on issues not covered by the BFM. We can continue down the road of excluding those who, although they affirm the BFM, have different interpretations on doctrines not addressed by the BFM. If we follow this road, however, those who are excluded from denominational service will undoubtedly begin to channel their support (including their money) toward other organizations that actually welcome their service as well as their money. Many will eventually leave the SBC altogether. But this doesn't have to happen. We can acknowledge that, while every doctrine is important, not all doctrines are essential to fellowship or cooperation. We can invite every Southern Baptist who accepts the BFM to be a full participant in denominational life, even if they have a different position on issues not addressed by the BFM. This road will strengthen the SBC by encouraging cooperation and allowing us to focus on the Great Commission rather than squabbling over nonessential doctrines. And this road will help our witness by giving us true unity, a unity where we work together even though we don't agree on everything. The choice is ours. Which road will we take?

Faith: A Hymns Collection from Avalon

2006-10-18T06:39:00.000-05:00

Yesterday evening I got my copy of Avalon's new CD Faith: A Hymns Collection. All I can say is, "WOW!!!" I've already listened to it four times. Somehow Avalon has managed to take ten of the most well known and beloved hymns of all time, along with three more recent songs, and present them in a way that is new and fresh. Avalon has always been known for their dynamic harmonies, but on this album they really take it to a new level. They demonstrate a great stylistic versatility on this project---"Jesus Medley" ("Jesus Loves Me"/"'Tis So Sweet to Trust in Jesus") has a gentle acoustic sound; "I'll Fly Away" has a soulful camp meeting feel; they sing "Holy, Holy, Holy" a capella in a very reverential style; "How Great Thou Art" is done with a gradually building rock sound; "Amazing Grace" has a rhythm-and-blues tinged feel to it. The vocals on "It Is Well With My Soul" are simply amazing; their variations in volume and dynamics set the appropriate emotional mood for each verse. My favorites on this album are probably "Great Is Thy Faithfulness," "In Christ Alone," "It Is Well With My Soul," and "How Great Thou Art." This is simply a great CD.

Should We Get Rid of the Baptist Faith and Message?

2006-10-17T17:53:00.000-05:00

This afternoon the trustees of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary approved a statement declaring that the seminary "will not knowingly endorse contemporary charismatic practices such as a private prayer language nor hire professors who advocate the practice." (Quote is from this article by Baptist Press.) The new statement was adopted at the request of seminary president Paige Patterson. On his blog Ben Cole has posted Patterson's remarks to the trustees in which this request was made. This action by the SWBTS Board of Trustees is just the latest example of the trend within the SBC of narrowing the parameters of cooperation by requiring adherence to a particular interpretation of Scripture, even on issues where our understanding of the Bible is less than perfectly clear, as a condition of working together.

Why did Patterson and the SWBTS trustees feel it was necessary to make such a move? I cannot say for sure. However, when this controversy first erupted a few weeks ago Patterson characterized the position of SWBTS trustee Dwight McKissic that private prayer language (PPL) is a legitimate spiritual gift, as "harmful to the churches" of the SBC. Apparently the churches of the SBC have never recognized this position as being harmful, because the subject has never been addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message. Many may not agree with this position, but that does not mean it is harmful or dangerous. Since the SBC has not seen it necessary to adopt an official position on PPL, should a seminary that is funded by Cooperative Program dollars---including dollars from churches which believe that PPL is a legitimate gift---adopt a position that excludes Southern Baptists who are in agreement with the BFM and who financially support the seminary? I think not.

Perhaps a motion should be made at the 2007 SBC Annual Meeting in San Antonio to do away with the BFM. If our entities are free to establish their own doctrinal requirements then how can we claim to have a common doctrinal confession? It seems nonsensical for the SBC to point to the BFM and say, "This is what we believe," if the IMB, NAMB, and our seminaries are all saying, "Oh, and if you want to be a part of our ministry you also have to believe. . ." The way things are right now, we don't have one statement of faith; we have several statements of faith.

On second thought, we should not get rid of the BFM. Instead, we should make sure that our SBC entities do not go beyond the BFM in establishing their doctrinal requirements. Any Southern Baptist who is faithful in his or her Christian walk and who affirms the BFM should be welcome to participate in the work of any of our entities for which he or she is qualified.

"Little Men with Little Ideas"

2006-10-11T15:07:00.000-05:00

This week in the Editor's Journal section of the (North Carolina) Biblical Recorder's web site Tony Cartledge writes about the role that blogging continues to play in SBC life. While not an exhaustive analysis of how blogs have been helping to shape the conversation on a number of issues within the SBC, the fact that state papers and other traditional media outlets are writing about the blogs indicates that blogs are making some impact. Cartledge lists a few of the most prominent SBC bloggers (Marty Duren, Steve McCoy, Wade Burleson, Ben Cole, Nathan Finn) and points out that even SBC leaders Jimmy Draper and Al Mohler set up blogs (he forgot Morris Chapman).

Even though some of the most prominent and popular leaders in the SBC have their own blogs, a number of SBC leaders still seem to have little respect for the medium and/or those who use it. In a way, the criticism that certain leaders have directed at bloggers is also evidence that blogs are making an impact. The following quote from this article describes how one SBC leader, Southeastern Seminary President Danny Akin, views the blogging phenomenon in the SBC:

Blogs are not universally popular, however. During a plenary session of the trustees at Southeastern Seminary, seminary president Daniel Akin was asked by a trustee to share his opinion about blogging. Akin, who posts many of his writings online, though not in the form of an interactive blog, said blogs are both a blessing and a curse, "a 21st century outlet for extreme narcissism."

Blogs require no accountability, Akin said, allowing people "to make scurrilous, false, untrue accusations against men that I believe are men of God."

Akin said he didn't know anyone who had been attacked more than former SEBTS president Paige Patterson. "Some people have personal agendas," he said, and do things that "are shaming the body of Christ."

"Even if they have legitimate concerns," Akin said, verbally underscroring the "if," they are not expressing them "in ways that are consistent with the Bible."

"I don't really give a rip what most bloggers think," he said. "Most of them are little men with little ideas and little agendas."

I have never met Danny Akin. I have always respected him, but these remarks of his have caused me to lose much of my respect for him. (I doubt he will lose much sleep over this, since he doesn't "really give a rip" what I think.) Ironically, two of the most prominent SBC bloggers---Brad Reynolds and Nathan Finn---are employed by SEBTS. I can only assume that he sees them as being part of that small minority of SBC bloggers who are not "little men with little ideas and little agendas."

To be fair, Akin does have some valid criticisms. There are far too many personal attacks made on blogs. Sometimes bloggers do fail to express themselves in a manner consistent with how the Bible says we are to treat one another. Too often accusations are made without being backed up by evidence. And undoubtedly there are some bloggers who are advancing their own personal agendas.

Unfortunately, these valid criticisms are overshadowed by the tone with which he expresses them as well as the disdain, or even outright contempt, he demonstrates toward most bloggers. The fact that, according to the article, he underscored the "if" when saying "Even if they [bloggers] have legitimate concerns," implies that our concerns are not legitimate. (If you're not convinced, just say it out loud, emphasizing the "if.") Also, I find it disturbing that the leader of one of our SBC entities doesn't "really give a rip" what we think. Akin then goes on to do the very thing he accuses many bloggers of when he describes most bloggers as "little men with little ideas and little agendas."

Akin's last statement indicates that he either has not read what bloggers have been saying or believes that those who do not agree with him and/or Paige Patterson are "little men with little ideas and little agendas." As someone who has been an active part of the SBC blogosphere for over a year I can say that such a characterization is completely off the mark. We may be "little men" in the sense that few of us pastor megachurches or serve in denominational positions, but as I recall Jesus is not too impressed by status. A cursory reading of the dozen most influential SBC blogs reveals that some of the sharpest minds in our convention are engaged in blogging. I have no problem with Danny Akin or anyone else disagreeing with what we have to say or even with how we say it, but I would think that someone as educated as Danny Akin, someone who is looked upon as a spirutal leader, would be able to express disagreement without being contemptuous.

The Joshua Convergence

2006-09-28T14:20:00.000-05:00

Earlier this week in Winter Park, Florida, a group of 40 Southern Baptist pastors and seminary professors held a two-day meeting called the Joshua Convergence. The stated purpose of the Joshua Convergence is an admirable one:

The purpose of the Joshua Convergence is to give a voice to younger leaders across the Southern Baptist Convention who are strongly committed to biblical inerrancy, who support the goals and leadership of the conservative resurgence, and who unashamedly embrace biblical standards of separation and morality, in order that the Southern Baptist Convention might continue to hold to the authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture in the future and the nations might be transformed by the gospel of Jesus Christ.

These stated objectives are ones that I can embrace. I am part of that group known as younger leaders, and I welcome another outlet for younger leaders to voice their ideas. I am strongly committed to biblical inerrancy, but I am equally committed to biblical authority and sufficiency. I am supportive of the stated goals of the conservative resurgence, and I have great respect for those who led the resurgence. That being said, if I believe that any of the leaders of the resurgence are doing something that is wrong, unwise, or detrimental to the SBC and/or the Kingdom I am going to oppose their actions. I unashamedly embrace biblical standards of separation and morality, but I resist efforts to cloak standards based on tradition, culture, or history with the mantle of biblical authority. My desire is that the Southern Baptist Convention would "continue to hold to the authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture in the future" and that God would continue to use us in His work of transforming the nations by the gospel of Jesus Christ.

There has been some speculation that the Joshua Convergence was organized as a reaction to the May 2006 meeting in Memphis that led to the Memphis Declaration. Since I was not part of the group that organized or participated in the Joshua Convergence, I cannot say whether or not such speculation is accurate. What I can say is that, like the meeting in Memphis, the Joshua Convergence issued a statement, the Principles of Affirmation. A different speaker expounded upon each point of the Principles of Affirmation; the Florida Baptist Witness summarizes what each speaker said. There is much in the Principles of Affirmation that I would readily affirm, but there are a few elements that I cannot subscribe to. I have listed the seven statements of the Principles of Affirmation below, with my commentary following each section. The original statements are in blue text, while my comments are in bold italic letters.

1. Truth — ‘This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night .…’ Joshua 1:8

We affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and the need for Southern Baptists to continue ‘to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3). We maintain that any departure from the sufficiency of Scripture in preaching, evangelism, counseling, missions, ministry, or ecclesiology strikes against the very truth and authority of God's Word. Pride and human sinfulness will draw believers away from biblical truth if they are not eternally watchful. The battle for the Bible must be renewed in every generation. We take our stand to continue in that battle.

I fully agree with everything except the last two sentences. To say that "the battle for the Bible must be renewed in every generation" suggests an offensive mindset that is looking for a fight. I prefer to say that we should remain constantly vigilant against the devil's schemes to undermine our commitment to the Bible as the Word of God.

2. Gratitude — ‘As I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you nor forsake you.’ Joshua 1:5
We affirm our deep thankfulness for those who have taken our Convention back to its theological and spiritual moorings. Because of the prayers and personal sacrifice of these godly men and women, we are the beneficiaries of seminaries that champion God's Word, evangelistic mission agencies, and a Convention committed to the Great Commission. We are deeply disheartened by anyone who would malign the motives of these godly leaders. Instead, we seek to continue in the direction they have established, joining them in service to the Lord Jesus Christ with the prayer that God's hand of guidance would be with us.
Again, I agree with this statement. I am grateful for those who led our convention back to a solid biblical foundation. I am also disheartened by those who malign the motives of their brothers and sisters in Christ. I do take issue with a couple of statements made by Jeff Crook in his address on the subject of gratitude. At one point he said, “Those who throw spears at our heroes are not just displaying their arrogance but also their ignorance.” Perhaps I am overreacting, but this statement seems to come dangerously close to hero worship. Crook also got in a potshot at bloggers: “They [the leaders of the resurgence] didn’t win the victory by blogging, nor were they armchair quarterbacks. They were in the game and on the field.” The majority of the bloggers that I know were on the field in Greensboro, are planning to be on the field in San Antonio, are on the front lines at this time, and most importantly are on the field in our own communities. He then went on to say, “There’s some young preachers tonight that need to put their hand over their mouth.” Excuse me, but who is being arrogant? The gist of Crook's remarks seems to be that anyone who disagrees with anything done by any of the leaders of the conservative resurgence is making a personal attack, is ignorant and arrogant, and needs to shut up. Unfortunately there have been too many instances when disagreement has escalated into personal attacks, but disagreement itself is not an attack or a sign of ingratitude or dishonor. I do want to applaud Crook for honoring the small church pastors who sacrificed greatly to attend conventions and vote during the resurgence.

3. Service — ‘Now therefore, fear the Lord, serve Him in sincerity and in truth ... as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.’ Joshua 24:14-15
We affirm a God-given stewardship of service in our Convention in order to bring about His kingdom purposes. Our Lord has said, ‘Whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant’ (Matthew 20:26). We are aware that - as with any human organization - the mechanisms of the Southern Baptist Convention can be manipulated. We commit to refrain from such practices. Instead, we will serve through any avenue God provides, not with the expectation of being elevated or honored, but only to please Jesus Christ. We seek a spirit of humility wherever we might serve.
I agree completely. Again, however, some of the remarks of the speaker, Jim Shaddix, detract from the impact of this statement. Shaddix wisely reminded us in pastoral ministry to "avoid the pursuit of vocational 'security' at the expense of serving God." He also acknowledged that even our "heroes" err and make mistakes. But then for some reason Shaddix decided to take a shot at bloggers: "When do these guys pastor their churches? When do they prepare? When do they do the seat time and the diligent study to prepare God’s Word, to interpret it rightly and to present it to their people in the preaching [event]? When do they go soul winning and share the Lord Jesus Christ. And maybe most importantly, when do they give themselves the fervent sacrificial prayer crying out to God for His anointing upon their lives and upon their ministries?" He went on to say that there could be good answers to these questions, but the accusation had already been implied. I wonder if the same questions could be asked of pastors who spend so much time going to conferences or various board meetings.

4. Holiness— ‘And Joshua said to the people, ‘Sanctify yourselves, for tomorrow the Lord will do wonders among you.’ Joshua 3:5
We affirm personal purity and separation from worldliness. Convinced that a redeemed life produces the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:19-24), we abhor compromise of biblical holiness, modesty, and temperance in the name of Christian liberty (Romans 6:15). Though we do not endorse pharisaical legalism, we resist attempts to accommodate standards of holiness to vacillating cultural norms. To this end, we oppose the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Throughout its history, our Convention has stood against the evils of alcohol. The present generation can in good conscience do no other. Further, we are unequivocally opposed to the antinomian attitude in some Christian circles concerning unwholesome and immoral language, cynicism, and profanity. We feel strongly that the Bible condemns such actions.
I agree with the first two sentences and the last two sentences. It's the part in between that I cannot agree with. I do not intend to have another discussion of the alcohol issue, but I can see no reason for the alcohol issue to have been brought up except as a reaction to the recent discussion of the matter. If you wish to provide an example of behavior that is unholy, at least pick one that is actually prohibited by Scripture and that Jesus did not engage in.

5. Unity — ‘Now the whole congregation of the children of Israel assembled together at Shiloh, and set up the tabernacle of meeting there. And the land was subdued before them.’ Joshua 18:1
We are fully committed to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as a summary of our common beliefs, and we desire full cooperation with all who share this commitment. Within our number are those with diverse positions on the doctrines of grace, aspects of eschatology, approaches to worship, and missions and evangelism strategy. While we cherish opportunities to discuss these differences, we reject all attitudes of mean-spiritedness, personal attacks, or intellectual and spiritual arrogance in these debates. Instead, we pledge to maintain a peaceable spirit and to work together in our common goal of sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I agree and would love to see this be the norm in the SBC. I would also like to see a greater desire for unity with our other brothers and sisters in Christ.

6. Identity — ‘That this may be a sign among you when your children ask in time to come, saying, 'What do these stones mean to you?”’ Joshua 4:6
“We are wholehearted in our dedication to Baptist ecclesiology as expressed in Scripture for our understanding of what constitutes a local church. We are Baptists by conviction not by tradition alone, believing the fundamental principles which constitute a Baptist church are the very ones which made up a New Testament church. Such essential tenets of a believer's church, founded upon the sole authority and sufficiency of Scripture, include regenerate church membership, believer's baptism by immersion, believer's Lord Supper as a memorial, church discipline, local church autonomy, congregational polity, confessional fidelity, priesthood of the believer, separation of church and state, religious liberty, and an unwavering passion to carry out the Great Commission. We should never be prideful in being Baptist, but we should always be thankful in being Baptist.
It seems to me that we preach this better than we practice it (regenerate church membership, church discipline, separation of church and state). Based on this statement, I would expect all of the participants in the Joshua Convergence to openly support the Resolution on Integrity in Church Membership when it is offered again. Instead of being thankful to be Baptist (which is a choice we make), let us instead be thankful to be a child of God. I pray that all of us have the desire to make disciples of Jesus Christ rather than making good Baptists. By the way, could someone show me where the Bible describes congregational polity as as an essential tenet of a biblical church?
7. Mission—‘That all the peoples of the earth may know the hand of the Lord, that it is mighty, that you may fear the Lord your God forever.’ Joshua 4:24
“We affirm our desire for the nations to hear the gospel of Christ. Based on this conviction, we are committed to be personal soul-winners, to lead our churches and Convention in evangelism, and to support worldwide church planting. We commit to give sacrificially to missions and to encourage our churches continually to increase their missions giving. We are convinced that the Cooperative Program has been unusually blessed of God as a tool for training and sending God-called servants to proclaim Christ. Without hesitation, we desire for all Southern Baptists churches to grow in their giving to the Cooperative Program and encourage our state conventions to send higher percentages of Cooperative Program receipts to the Southern Baptist Convention.”
I fully agree, but would like to see a greater emphasis on making disciples instead of simply getting decisions.

What would be really great is for those of us who signed the Memphis Declaration and those who issued the Principles of Affirmation to meet together and discuss the issues that unite us as well as those which divide us. I fully believe that all of us are motivated by the same thing: to bring glory to God by carrying out the Great Commission in the spirit of the Great Commandment. I really think if we sat down together and talked to one another, prayed with and for one another, and got to know one another that we would realize that even though we may disagree on certain matters we are on the same side and need to work together for the Kingdom. If we cannot do this, then the Southern Baptist Convention is a dead man walking.

South Carolina Bound

2006-09-21T20:51:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow morning Maria and I are headed to the Low Country of South Carolina, about 20-30 minutes northwest of Charleston. We'll be meeting with a search committee Saturday morning at 9:00, then I will be preaching at their church on Sunday morning. My understanding is that this is not preaching in view of a call. I won't have access to a computer while I'm gone, so I hope nothing big happens over the weekend.

Please pray that God will give a safe trip there and back, and pray that both we and the church will discern and follow His will.

The Crisis of the Southern Baptist Convention

2006-09-20T22:55:00.000-05:00

The Southern Baptist Convention is in trouble. For thirty years or so our baptismal numbers have been stagnant or even declining. Fewer than half of our members attend services on any given Sunday. The percentage given by churches to the Cooperative Program has fallen significantly over the past two decades. And even though our total membership is increasing slightly, the rate of growth is certainly not keeping with the rate of population growth. But while the statistics paint a pretty bleak picture, the crisis of the Southern Baptist Convention is not primarily one of numbers. The numbers are by and large the result of deeper problems, problems that are spiritual in nature. While these problems have plagued the SBC for decades, over the past few weeks they have been especially noticeable in the SBC blogosphere. The following are just some of the factors underlying the spiritual crisis that we as a convention are facing:

The elevation of tradition to a level that makes it equal with Scripture. Now, no one in the SBC admits that he or she does this, nor do I believe that anyone in the SBC intentionally does this. However, many of the arguments in the recent debates over tongues/prayer language, baptism, alcohol, the Lord's Supper, and ecclesiology have been based on history and tradition rather than on direct biblical evidence. There is nothing wrong with history or tradition, but when we look to them for authority we are in effect denying the sufficiency of Scripture.
The continuing effort to exclude people from positions of leadership and service on the basis of doctrinal views that are not clearly taught by Scripture (or even articulated in the Baptist Faith and Message). In many instances, this is a result of point #1 mentioned above. In case anyone has forgotten, in November 2005 the IMB Board of Trustees adopted policies disqualifying anyone from serving as a missionary who practices a private prayer language or was not baptized in a church that affirms the eternal security of the believer. The problem with these policies is that there in no solid, irrefutable biblical basis for them. (NOTE: I am not saying there is no solid, irrefutable evidence for eternal security; there is. I am saying that there is no solid, irrefutable biblical evidence that links the validity of baptism to a belief in eternal security.) These policies are based on a particular interpretation of Scripture. This interpretation may or may not be held by a majority of Southern Baptists, but other interpretations have just as much of a biblical basis. If we continue down this path of increasingly narrowing the parameters of cooperation beyond what the Bible clearly teaches, the SBC will lose many people who are passionate about their faith and committed to doing the work of the Kingdom.
The willingness to assume the worst about those with whom we disagree. If I may indulge in a bit of hyperbole for a moment, there are some people in the SBC who seem to believe that either Paige Patterson or Wade Burleson is the devil incarnate and that every contentious issue in the SBC is the result of some conspiracy engineered by one or the other. There are those who believe that the Conservative Resurgence was nothing more than a blatant power grab by Patterson, Pressler, Rogers, etc. There are also those who believe that bloggers, led by Wade, are working to undo the Resurgence and bring theological liberalism into the SBC. Accusations of lying, character assassination, and even questioning the salvation of others are not uncommon. Allegations have been made about denominational leaders trying to undermine the leadership of other denominational leaders, even trying to dig up dirt on them. Whether such allegations are true or not, they are indicative of deep problems within the SBC. We either have leaders who are abusing their positions, or we have people who are willing to lie about these leaders. Neither option is acceptable. Some of us seem to have forgotten that we are not enemies, but brothers and sisters in Christ.
A reluctance to engage in honest and open discussion with those with whom we disagree. I suspect this is related to the previous point. It is difficult to sit down and have a genuine discussion with someone you consider to be an enemy. It is much easier to try to discredit those with whom you disagree by labeling them as a liberal or a fundamentalist than it is to defend your own views. There are some who seem to fear that a genuine, open discussion of certain topics will lead people into error or confusion. Thus, efforts are made to suppress dissenting or minority viewpoints. In reality, such fears betray a lack of conviction in one's own position. If you were truly confident in your position, you would believe that it could hold its own when compared to other positions.

If we do not address these issues, the SBC will continue to slide into irrelevance and will eventually cease to be an instrument used by God to advance His Kingdom. We must reclaim a commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture, not just its inerrancy. We must repent of our pride, which manifests itself in a belief that our particular interpretations of Scripture are the only ones that can possibly be right. We must learn to differentiate between essential and non-essential doctrines, and we must be willing to cooperate for the sake of the Kingdom with those who agree with us on the essentials even if we differ on non-essentials. We must agree to disagree on those doctrines that are not clearly and unambiguously defined by Scripture. And we must love and respect one another, even if we do not agree on everything. Fortunately, there seems to be some movement in these directions within the SBC. It is too early to tell whether this movement will take hold of the SBC and bring about genuine repentance and a change of attitude, but there are many people praying that it will happen and working to help make it happen.

I'm Still Around

2006-09-03T18:02:00.000-05:00

You may have noticed that I haven't been posting here or commenting on other blogs very much lately. (If you haven't noticed, please don't tell me!) For the last two weeks I have been working 50+ hours a week at the WKU Bookstore, so I really haven't had time to read a lot of other blogs and news sources, much less write anything. I'll probably be working there through this week, then I'm not sure about next week.

On the preaching front it looks like September will be a good month. I got a phone call yesterday from a pastor here in Bowling Green. He had lost his voice, so he asked me to preach at his church this morning. It went very well, despite the short notice. I'm scheduled to preach next Sunday at a church about half an hour from here. There is a possibility that this church may be interested in me as a pastoral candidate; I really haven't talked to them or even given them a resume, but one of their search committee members had a pretty in-depth conversation about me with my wife's brother-in-law. Then on the 24th I'm preaching at a church about half an hour from Charleston, South Carolina. I have had a couple of good conversations with one of their search committee members, and they are very interested in me. It sounds like this church and I would be a good match, but we'll know more after we go down there. Please pray that the Lord would give us a clear sense of direction and a willingness to accept His will no matter how everything turns out.

My 2006 NFL Predictions

2006-08-16T20:02:00.000-05:00

It's hard to believe that we are less than a month from the start of the 2006 NFL season!!! For me, summer is the worst time of year for sports because there is no football. I don't like NASCAR, and baseball is a sport I follow but don't really watch. Now that the preseason has started, however, it's finally time to talk football.

At first glance it appears that the 2006 season will be another split-decision for me. My hometown Tennessee Titans look like they're still going to be pretty bad. It's hard to believe that just a couple of seasons ago they were 12-4 and nearly knocked off the Patriots in the playoffs at Foxboro. On the other hand, the Pittsburgh Steelers, whom I have rooted for since I was a kid the late 1970s, are in excellent position to defend their Super Bowl title.

With the salary cap and free agency, teams can drastically change their fortunes almost immediately, for better or for worse. This makes it challenging to make preseason predictions, because teams change so much from year to year. Fortunately, I enjoy a good challenge, so here are my predictions for the 2006 season. Of course, an injury to a key player can send these predictions down the toilet, so I don't promise that I'll stand by them come November.

AMERICAN FOOTBALL CONFERENCE

AFC East

New England Patriots (11-5)
Miami Dolphins* (10-6)
New York Jets (6-10)
Buffalo Bills (5-11)

AFC North
Pittsburgh Steelers (13-3)
Cincinnati Bengals (9-7)
Baltimore Ravens (7-9)
Cleveland Browns (5-11)

AFC South
Indianapolis Colts (11-5)
Jacksonville Jaguars (10-6)
Tennessee Titans (6-10)
Houston Texans (3-13)

AFC West
Kansas City Chiefs (11-5)
Denver Broncos* (11-5)
San Diego Chargers (8-8)
Oakland Raiders (5-11)

* Wild-card teams

First Round
Denver over New England
Kansas City over Miami

Divisional Round
Pittsburgh over Denver
Indianapolis over Kansas City

Conference Championship
Pittsburgh over Indianapolis

NATIONAL FOOTBALL CONFERENCE

NFC East
Dallas Cowboys (10-6)
Washington Redskins* (10-6)
New York Giants (9-7)
Philadelphia Eagles (7-9)

NFC North
Chicago Bears (11-5)
Green Bay Packers (8-8)
Minnesota Vikings (6-10)
Detroit Lions (5-11)

NFC South
Carolina Panthers (12-4)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers* (10-6)
Atlanta Falcons (6-10)
New Orleans Saints (2-14)

NFC West
Seattle Seahawks (12-4)
Arizona Cardinals (9-7)
St. Louis Rams (5-11)
San Francisco 49ers (3-13)

* Wild-card teams

First Round
Tampa Bay over Dallas
Chicago over Washington

Divisional Round
Carolina over Tampa Bay
Seattle over Chicago

Conference Championship
Carolina over Seattle

SUPER BOWL XLI
Pittsburgh over Carolina

My Last Word on the Alcohol Resolution (Hopefully)

2006-08-11T19:22:00.000-05:00

On his blog Ben Cole has posted a transcript from Albert Mohler's radio program of Mohler's response to a question about alcohol. Of all the statements about this issue that I have seen from SBC leaders, Mohler's is by far the most reasonable. In fact, I agree with some of what he says. For example:

And yet I will tell you up front that I know there are believing, faithful Christians who enjoy a glass of wine or do drink some beverage alcohol. And I cannot say in all persons in all circumstances it is sin for them as Christians to do that. There's no verse in the Bible that says 'thou shalt not drink alcoholic beverage, period.' So intellectual honesty...demands that we say there's no proof text in the Bible that says thou shalt not ever drink an alcoholic beverage.

Mohler concedes that the Bible does not forbid the drinking of alcohol, BUT... (you knew there was a "but" coming):

I just have to say I believe the safest position for a Christian is total abstinence...I belong to a church and denomination, and I serve as president of an institution that before God believes that the best position to hold is a total-abstinence position, in accountability to other Christians, and in accountability to the churches.

I have no problem with Mohler believing that total abstinence is the "safest position" for a Christian. He is entitled to his personal views based on his own understanding of Scripture, history, and culture. In fact, I personally agree that total abstinence is the best choice for a person (not just a Christian) to make. Where I disagree with Mohler is over the propriety of any church, denomination, or institution that would presume to tell a believer which choice he or she should make regarding alcohol. Remember, Mohler has already acknowledged that the Bible does not forbid the drinking of alcohol. So on the basis of what authority does Southern Seminary forbid the drinking of alcohol? Upon what authority does FBC Anytown rely for requiring its members to abstain totally from alcohol? Upon what authority does the Southern Baptist Convention base its resolution against the use of alcohol? Do we look to the Bible as our authority in matters of faith and practice, or do we look to human reasoning, interpretation, and tradition to supplement the Bible?

In the absence of any biblical prohibition against the drinking of alcohol, we have no right to require that others abstain or to condemn the use of alcohol by others. We may study the biblical statements about alcohol, the historical context, and our own cultural context and conclude that abstinence is the best position, but it is not up to us to do the Holy Spirit's job in the lives of other believers. We can try to persuade others that our view is correct, but we cannot try to govern their beliefs or actions apart from clear biblical teaching. As a rule of thumb, anytime we find ourselves saying, "There is no biblical statement or principle that clearly forbids _________, but..." we should allow others to make their own decision about the issue and not look down on them as being less of a Christian than we are if they make a different decision than we do.

Tagged Again

2006-08-09T15:21:00.000-05:00

Apparently Art Rogers believes that since I am now unemployed I have too much free time on my hands, so he tagged me with the "Book Tag."

One book that changed your life: The Present Future by Reggie McNeal
One book that you've read more than once: The Life of Andrew Jackson by Robert Remini
One book that I'd want on a desert island: Other than the Bible, How to Build an Airplane Out of Palm Trees (I don't know if it's a real book, but it's what I would want.)
One book that made me laugh: Anything by Lewis Grizzard
One book that made me cry: None, but probably the closest would be The Hiding Place by Corrie ten Boom
One book that you wish you had written: The Purpose Driven Life (for obviou$ rea$on$)
One book you wish had never been written: Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
One book that you are currently reading: Breaking the Missional Code by Ed Stetzer and David Putman
One book that you've been meaning to read: The Radical Reformission by Mark Driscoll

I'm going to tag Kiki Cherry, Jeff Richard Young, Wes Kenney, and Kevin Hash.

A Disturbing Statement from Bobby Welch

2006-08-07T21:47:00.000-05:00

In the August 2006 issue of SBC Life there is an open letter to Southern Baptists written by former SBC president Bobby Welch in which, among other things, he discusses some of his impressions of the 2006 SBC Annual Meeting in Greensboro. In this letter, Welch makes some disturbing statements regarding the vote on the (in)famous resolution against alcohol [all emphasis is mine]:

Additionally, the Convention voted almost unanimously that they wanted pastors and people who are leading them not to be persons blinded by a theology that encourages and promotes drinking alcoholic beverages of any kind....

Undoubtedly, the greatest surprise to almost everyone was that several Southern Baptist pastors actually came to a microphone and publicly promoted the drinking of alcoholic beverages and wanted the SBC to do the same! Actually, I never thought I would see that take place, and it is not only a surprise but an outrage!

I would like for Bobby Welch, or anyone else, to provide one statement made during the debate over this resolution in which a person who spoke against the resolution actually promoted or encouraged the use of alcohol. I personally do not recall anyone who spoke against the resolution making any statement to this effect. The basic point of most of the statements from those opposed to the resolution was that since the Bible never requires God's people to practice total abstinence we also should not require total abstinence.

Bobby Welch's statement is disturbing because it means one of two things: either he did not understand what those who spoke against the resolution were saying, or he is deliberately misrepresenting their statements in order to discredit those who opposed this resolution. To be honest, I find it difficult to believe either option. Bobby Welch is an intelligent man, so it seems reasonable to assume that he understood the arguments being made by the opponents of the resolution, even if he disagreed with them. Furthermore, Bobby Welch is a Christian, a preacher of the gospel, and a leader of our convention. The honesty that should be characteristic of such a man and the fairness with which he presided over the past two SBC Annual Meetings are not consistent with a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts to discredit those on the other side of an issue. And yet, since those who voiced their opposition to the resolution were NOT promoting the use of alcohol, it is obvious that Bobby Welch either did not understand what they were saying or he is being dishonest about what they were saying. I have no way of determining which of these options is correct, but either option is disturbing for Southern Baptists. Our former president either cannot understand plain English, or he is lying. Actually, I suppose there could be a third option: he simply was not paying attention during the debate. Again, however, this would be disturbing because he was the presiding officer during the debate. None of these options is acceptable, and none of them fit with what I know about Bobby Welch, but I cannot think of any other way to explain his statements in this letter. With these statements, Bobby Welch has done neither himself nor the SBC any favors.

I really wish that the discussion of the alcohol issue would cease. Not only is it becoming an increasingly divisive issue, but the more that our convention's leaders talk about this issue, the more that my confidence in them diminishes.

**********CLARIFICATION**********

Until I have reason to presume otherwise, I am giving Bobby Welch the benefit of the doubt and am choosing to believe that he simply misunderstood what the opponents of the resolution were saying. While this is disturbing (because their statements were clear), it is not as disturbing as his making a deliberate misrepresentation would be.

The Last Day

2006-07-31T17:32:00.000-05:00

Yesterday was my last day as pastor of Jackson Grove Baptist Church in Bowling Green, Kentucky. As is often the case with good-byes, yesterday was an emotional day for just about everyone. A few of the members hated to see us go, period. Others were personally sad that we were leaving but believed it was best both for the church and for us, and a few were glad that we were leaving (or at least that I was leaving).

The times ahead will be challenging for both me and the church. I will probably go insane if I have to go very long without preaching, plus there's this little manner of trying to find something to help pay the bills until I'm called to another church. On the church's end, my departure probably won't be felt as much as that of Maria, at least in the immediate future. She was the music director, youth director, VBS director, church clerk, planned most of our outreach events, and took care of all the decorating for holidays and special events. Not to mention that she is such a warm and loving person toward everyone. (No wonder that several of the members chipped in to give her a very nice necklace yesterday and didn't give me anything!)

It was unlike any other pastoral departure I had witnessed, but I've only gone through this twice (three times if you count an interim who was forced to leave because the church found out he was using church resources to start his own church and was recruiting the church's members). In the church I attended as a youth we had a pastor leave, but I don't recall much about his last day. Then in the church we attended before I became a pastor, the pastor (who was a good friend) suddenly announced his resignation. On his last Sunday, he sneaked out of the building during the closing prayer and left without giving anyone a chance to say good-bye. My departure was considerably different in that we had a transitional time in the service when I introduced the interim pastor (our DOM), and then there was a dinner after the service.

I am grateful that my departure from Jackson Grove was amicable. There were several times since the first of the year when I really thought that the end, whenever it came, might be acrimonious, but once I announced my resignation at the end of May most of those who were opposed to my leadership suddenly developed a more positive attitude toward me. It may not have ended as I would have liked, but it did end better than it could have.

So where do I go from here? I'm still sending out resumes to churches; I have about 25 doors that are cracked open to various degrees, but as of yet none are wide open. I've contacted some of the DOMs in the area to let them know I am available for supply work. And I have a temporary position lined up at the local university bookstore starting in mid-August; that should last about a month, and it will actually pay quite a bit more than the church did. After that, I have no idea what I will do.

Florida Baptist Witness Interview with Frank Page

2006-07-25T23:16:00.000-05:00

In the most recent edition of the Florida Baptist Witness, there is a series of brief articles based on a July 12 interview of SBC president Frank Page by Witness editor James Smith, along with an introductory editorial by Smith. In the editorial, Smith strongly urges all Southern Baptists to give Frank Page the respect and support he deserves as SBC president. The interview itself covers a broad range of subjects---the Cooperative Program, some of the theological issues that are being hotly debated in the SBC, Page's change of position since 1980 on the role of women in ministry, his election as SBC president, and some of the things he wants to emphasize as SBC president. To no surprise, Page is candid and forthcoming throughout the interview. The interview, along with Smith's editorial, can be found at the following links:

In both the editorial and the interview, Smith is balanced and fair. This piece is neither an effort to smear Page nor a pro-Page propaganda piece. Smith raises some difficult issues, but he allows Page the freedom to explain his position. Basically, Smith believes that Southern Baptists need to get to know Frank Page and see how he leads the SBC before deciding that he is unfit for the position. Thus, he expresses his disapproval with the maneuvering by some within the SBC to run a candidate against Page next year in San Antonio:

One of the tangible ways that those who supported a different candidate in Greensboro can demonstrate their support of Page today is stand down now from any political organizing and seeking to run an opponent to Page at next year’s Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in San Antonio. Shouldn’t he at least have a chance to prove himself before folks attempt to deny him a second term, a tradition granted to most Southern Baptist Convention presidents even during most of the heated years of the conservative resurgence (with some exceptions)?

The interview gives us a clearer picture of where Page stands on certain issues and some of the things he would like to see happen within the SBC. As is to be expected, not everyone in the SBC will be pleased with what Page says in this interview. For that matter, even though I supported Page during the election, I am disappointed by some of his responses in this interview. Does this mean I no longer support Page? Absolutely not. If I had known then what I now know about some of Page's positions, I still would have supported and voted for him. I may disagree with him on some specific issues, but on the broad themes that defined the election---the Cooperative Program, broadening the base of participation in SBC leadership, openness and transparency---I believe we share a similar perspective.

The most troubling thing in the interview is Page's discussion of the IMB issues regarding the policies on tongues/private prayer language and baptism. My disagreement with him on this matter is at the most fundamental level: he believes that "it is proper for the IMB to set theological policies which are not explicitly addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message," while I believe that this makes the BFM irrelevant and basically allows our trustee boards to redefine our doctrinal positions without us as a convention having any say. This also opens the door to the potential embarrassment of having entities that officially adopt doctrinal positions which are diametrically opposed to those of another entity. In such a case, which position would be the Southern Baptist position? That is why we have the BFM---to declare what our common doctrinal positions are---and no SBC entity should be allowed to redefine these positions.

I also find Page's position on the tongues/prayer language issue to be somewhat inconsistent. On one hand, Page states his concerns with the policy on prayer language: “'I just think in that one area there is a possible interpretation of a private prayer language [in Scripture] that we need to be very careful about saying, no. If there is some scriptural possibility there, [a policy forbidding it for missionaries] makes me nervous.' Page cited 1 Corinthians 14 as a passage which may be interpreted to permit a private prayer language, while noting that he does not personally have a private prayer language.” Just a few lines later, however, Page is quoted as supporting the exclusion of persons from missionary service who advocate and practice tongues. While I agree that 1 Corinthians 14 may be interpreted to permit a private prayer language, there is no doubt that this same chapter clearly says not to forbid speaking in tongues. In the same way that there is not agreement about whether this chapter allows for private prayer language, there is not agreement over whether tongues refers to a known human language or a completely unknown language. So how can a person say that we should be careful about prohibiting a private prayer language because Scripture may allow for it while at the same time prohibiting the use of tongues even though Scripture clearly says not to make such a prohibition?

On the baptism policy I also find myself in disagreement with Page. According to the Witness, "As to the IMB’s baptism guideline, while Page said he was not familiar with the details, he affirmed that he believes re-baptism is necessary in the case of a person who was baptized by immersion following salvation in a church with 'incorrect theology,' including one which rejected eternal security of the believer — which is the requirement of the IMB baptism guideline." I have discussed my opposition to this policy in depth (also in the comments here), so I will not go into detail about why I disagree with Page on this point. Let me just say that on this issue I see a bit of inconsistency in Page's position as well. In the interview he says, "We just need to be careful in our trustees that we hold to guidelines that are explicitly biblical and do not go beyond that," but this policy that he supports does not rest on one single explicit biblical statement or principle.

The interview reminds us that Page was a member of the Resolutions Committee in Greensboro that presented the surprisingly controversial resolution against the use of alcohol. To his credit, in the interview Page does not try to make an argument that it is wrong in and of itself for a Christian to drink alcohol in moderation. He describes his support of the resolution in terms of trying to preserve our witness. In many areas of the Bible Belt the use of alcohol, even in moderation, would seriously damage a Christian's witness (at least a Baptist's witness). However, there are other parts of the country and the world where drinking in moderation would have no negative effect on a Christian's witness. Why should a Christian have to abstain in these places? Why support a universal resolution in response to a regional matter? Why not simply pass a resolution encouraging us to set aside our freedom in certain situations if the exercise of our freedom would hurt our witness?

You may be thinking by now, "Why does this guy support Frank Page? On some of these controversial issues they are in total disagreement!" That's true, but on these issues the president of the SBC has little direct influence. On the broad themes that I mentioned earlier, however, the president's role is pivotal. It is in these areas that I believe Frank Page can make a significant change for the better within the SBC:

The Cooperative Program---Before the election there was a great deal of discussion about the Cooperative Program, with close attention being given to the CP giving of the candidates' churches. Page won in no small part because his church gives much more to CP on a percentage basis than his opponents' churches. Page's church demonstrates that a church can give sacrificially to CP while simultaneously engaging in missions work. Hopefully this is a model that other churches will emulate. Unlike those whose churches give low percentages to CP, Page has the moral authority to challenge SBC churches to renew their commitment to CP. He realizes that for this to happen, people and churches must believe that their CP dollars are going toward worthwhile ministries that are making a real difference.
Broadening the base of participation in SBC leadership---Describing recent SBC elections, Page remarked, "We’ve not had elections; we’ve had coronations." Page's election marks a new day in the SBC, at least temporarily, when a small group of leaders no longer decides who will serve as president. In the interview, Page announces his intention to "intentionally seek out pastors of every size church, including small and medium-size churches, young pastors and older pastors who are godly, conservative men who need to be involved." Since Page is not connected with the "Good Ol' Boy" system that many believe has tightly controlled the SBC for 25 years, expectations are high that he will appoint new faces to those committees chosen by the president.
Openness and transparency---This is seen most clearly in Page's response to the recent revelation that in his doctoral dissertation he strongly advocated the view that women can serve in any position in the church, including that of pastor. Rather than avoiding the issue, Page acknowledges that questions about the matter are appropriate. He admits that in his dissertation he tried "to conform biblical passages to some cultural preferences of the time." He now refers to his former position as "extreme" and admits to being embarrassed that at one time he held to this position. It would have been easy for Page to say as little as possible about this issue, but he seems to believe that it is best to be candid and open about the truth, even when it is a bit embarrassing. In this he has set an example for all of us to follow, especially if we are leaders.

This interview gives us a good idea of who Frank Page is and what he brings to the presidency of the SBC. I have only touched on parts of the interview; be sure to read it in its entirety (use the links at the beginning of this post). What will Frank Page's presidency mean for the SBC? Only God knows, but in the interview Page explores the possibilities:

Speculating on what his election means about the future of the Southern Baptist Convention, Page offered two scenarios — a “blip on the screen” which would not result in meaningful change or a “true heart change” in which “the Cooperative Program is going to be strengthened and that we’re going to truly involve a larger number of godly, conservative men and women in the convention. And, instead of a tightly controlled convention, that it’s going to be more open for, I believe, healthy dialogue and debate.”

I am hopeful that we will see a "true heart change" in the SBC as a result of Frank Page's election.

"Is the Battle for the Bible Over?"---A Response

2006-07-19T23:07:00.000-05:00

In an article posted on the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention's web site, Gary Ledbetter, editor of the Southern Baptist Texan, raises the question of whether the "battle for the Bible" is really over within the Southern Baptist Convention. Certainly, one would be hard pressed to find a current leader in the SBC who would deny the inerrancy of Scripture. It might be accurate to say that the battle regarding inerrancy is over within the SBC, but can we really say that the battle for the Bible is over? Ledbetter asserts that the battle for the Bible is not over, and on this point I fully agree with him. As you will see, however, we have different reasons for believing this.

Ledbetter is right when he says, "The battle for the Bible will not end until time does." As long as Satan is operating in this world, he will attack the inspiration, truthfulness, and authority of the Bible, because the Bible is the Word of God. So in this sense the battle for the Bible is something we will always be engaged in. We must always be vigilant against efforts to denigrate the inspiration, truthfulness, and authority of the Bible. If Ledbetter had stayed with this theme, his analysis would have been completely on the mark. Unfortunately, he carries his argument too far and confuses biblical fidelity with subscribing to a particular interpretation of Scripture.

Ledbetter indicates that there are Southern Baptists who profess to believe in inerrancy but who are not really faithful to Scripture because they accept unbiblical doctrines. He mentions the recent, and often contentious, discussions about baptism and church membership, tongues and private prayer language, and the use of alcohol as examples that the battle for the Bible is far from over in the SBC. Certainly if someone denies the deity or the humanity of Jesus, or that salvation is found only through Christ, or anything else that is clearly taught in Scripture then that person is being unfaithful to Scripture, even if he or she claims to believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. However, the examples given by Ledbetter do NOT meet this standard because on each of these issues the view that is predominant among Southern Baptists does not rest on clear and unambiguous biblical teaching. These views reflect a specific interpretation of what the Bible says about each subject, but while the Bible is inerrant and infallible, our interpretations are not.

I believe that there is a new "battle for the Bible" coming to the forefront in the SBC. Whereas during the Conservative Resurgence the battle was over the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the new battle for the Bible is concerned with the sufficiency of Scripture. The key issue for our generation within the SBC is not, "Is the Bible really the Word of God?" but "What does the Bible itself say about [insert topic]?" It is because we acknowledge that the Bible is the Word of God that we examine everything, including issues that Southern Baptists in the past have almost universally agreed upon, in light of what the Bible actually says, and also what it does not say. This has resulted in some contention within the SBC, as many of us have become convinced that the predominant views on some issues within the SBC are lacking in clear and unambiguous biblical support. This is certainly true for the issues that Ledbetter refers to in his article.

Ledbetter and I agree on what needs to happen in our churches if we are to be faithful to Scripture. At the end of his article he says:

A systematic preaching and teaching of the whole Bible will cover everything eventually. It’s not commonly done. It is more loving for us to pass along as much of what God has taught us as possible than it is to teach to perceived needs or trendy subjects. That way our children and our other disciples can learn to love God and his truth in the same way we have.

“Inerrancy” is still a good and serviceable term. It’s got to be more than that, though. If it is our conviction regarding the nature of God’s revelation of himself to all men, we’ll do something about that. We’ll learn it, love it more than other competing versions of the truth, and we’ll teach all of it to those who follow us.

I agree with this statement. However, if we actually do this--- systematically preach and teach the whole of Scripture as it is written---I believe the results will be different from what Ledbetter expects. Ledbetter seems to think that such preaching and teaching will lead future generations of Southern Baptists to embrace the predominant views on the issues mentioned above. I believe that the opposite is true. Such preaching and teaching will result in a diversity of views on these issues, because the Bible does not address these issues with perfect clarity. If we teach the Bible as it is written, then we will have agreement on those issues where it speaks clearly, diversity on those issues where it does not speak clearly, and unity in the midst of this diversity. To me, this would be a victory in the "battle for the Bible."

In Not Of

2006-07-13T15:34:00.000-05:00

In her post The SBC's Forgotten Missionaries, Kiki Cherry recounts some of the challenges encountered by our SBC Mission Service Corps (MSC) missionaries in their efforts to raise the funds needed to support their ministries. (For more information about MSC, read Kiki's post and go to the MSC home page.) MSC missionaries make up a large percentage of NAMB's missionary force in North America, and they are on the front lines in some of the most challenging ministry environments in North America. Many MSC missionaries serve in areas outside of the Bible Belt, and most of those who serve in the Bible Belt are ministering to some of the most needy and neglected segments of our society. In short, most MSC workers are serving in environments that are very different from what most SBC church members and pastors are accustomed to. While many, if not most, Southern Baptists live inside a church bubble, our MSC missionaries are at the forefront of a missional movement within our convention. Because they have broken outside the church bubble, they are often misunderstood and criticized for the way they minister to people. Kiki describes a couple of encounters that illustrate the difference between a church bubble mindset and a missional mindset:

We also were challenged in aspects of our ministry. One man objected to us "interacting with homosexuals." Another lady was appalled that we would "allow non-Christians to come to our group." She was concerned that they might tarnish our Christian doctrine if they were allowed to participate!!!

A church bubble mindset, as exemplified by the critics, is concerned with maintaining the purity of the institution. There is a fear that interaction with people whose values and lifestyles are non biblical will lead Christians away from the truth. Homosexuals, drug addicts, prostitutes, drunkards, etc., are to be shunned and avoided until they give up their sinful behavior. If we were to associate with such people, others might assume that we are condoning their behavior. Outsiders are welcome to come to the church, as long as they conform to the church's norms of behavior and appearance. The church is a safe and comfortable refuge from the big, bad world out there. It is not a place for questioning; it is a place where all the answers have been found.

A missional mindset, on the other hand, is concerned with bringing the message of redemption to a fallen world. Missional Christians recognize that the world is a dirty, sinful, sometimes scary place. They also realize that it is the place where lost people are and that if these people are going to be reached with the gospel then Christians are going to have to go to them. Furthermore, to reach them we must go to them not in fear, not with a judgmental attitude or critical spirit, but in love. So we need to interact with and minister to homosexuals, drug addicts, prostitutes, drunkards, etc. When they act like a lost person, instead of criticizing them we need to love them. We don't condone their behavior, but we realize that we cannot expect people to live a godly lifestyle until they are disciples of Jesus. Being missional also means that we accept people's questions as legitimate and that we listen to what they have to say. Instead of becoming defensive, we should welcome their questions as they push us deeper into the Word to find real answers.

It may be a cliche, but we have to be "in the world but not of the world" if we are going to reach people with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Gone are the days when the church could simply say, "Here we are! Come to us!" and see people respond. Like it or not, we are living in a secular world filled with secular people who are not clamoring to join a church. Indeed, many of them see the church as irrelevant at best and dangerous at worst. However, they are looking for something real and meaningful to fill a void in their lives. Only Jesus can truly fill this void and give them that real and meaningful something they are seeking, but we have to take Him outside of our church bubble and into their world if they are going to know Him. The lyrics to the song, "In Not Of" by Avalon describe the journey of a believer from a church bubble/protect us from the world mindset to a missional/redeem the world mindset:

I hide me far away from trouble
The world outside me grows darker by the day
So I promise to stay here close beside Him
Surely God would want His children safe

Then reading, how my eyes were opened
I find that He is leading us out into the world
Into the middle of fallen saints and sinners
Where a little grace is needed most

(CHORUS)
Come take the Light to darker parts
Share His truth with hardened hearts
We are not like the world
But we can love them
Come bring the Hope to hopeless men
Until the lost are found in Him
He came to save the world
So let us be in it, not of it

Wait a minute, if we say we love them
Why are we not in it? Why we run and hide?
Entertain a stranger, maybe entertain an angel
The danger is if our worlds don't collide

CHORUS

We've cursed the darkness far too long
We need to hold the candle high
We have to go and right the wrongs
We need to touch the world with love
With His love

Wait a minute, if we say we love them
Why are we not in it? Why are we not in it?

CHORUS TWICE

Wait a minute, if we say we love them
Why are we not in it?

Written by Nick Gonzales and Grant Cunningham.
Copyright 1999, Vogon Poetry (ASCAP) and River Oaks Music Company (BMI)

As God's people we have two options in this ever darkening world. We can retreat into our safe and comfortable church bubble, but in doing so we limit our ability to minister to people and reach them with the gospel. Or we can go out into the world, where lost people live, and love them. We'll have to put up with a lot of stuff that bothers and offends us, but how else are we going to reach them?

A Letter to John Floyd

2006-07-11T19:31:00.000-05:00

The eyes of the Southern Baptist Convention will be on the IMB Board of Trustees as they meet in Richmond, Virginia, next week. It seems to be a given that the issues relating to Wade Burleson will garner the most attention. The way that the board has handled these issues so far has resulted in a lack of confidence in the board on the part of many Southern Baptists, including myself. However, the IMB Board of Trustees has a new chairman, Dr. John Floyd of Tennessee, so there is a possibility that things may be handled differently. Today I sent the following email to Dr. Floyd suggesting some things that need to be done to restore our confidence in the IMB Board:

Dear Dr. Floyd,

My name is Tim Sweatman. I am pastor of Jackson Grove Baptist Church in Bowling Green, Kentucky, as well as the owner/editor of the blog The View from the Hill. As you may be aware, I have been highly critical of several decisions made by the IMB Board of Trustees over the past several months and of the leadership provided by former Chairman Tom Hatley. As the new chairman of the IMB Board, you are doubtlessly aware that many in the Southern Baptist Convention are watching closely to see the type of leadership you will bring to the board. It is my sincere prayer that God will give you wisdom to do what is right so that our work in worldwide missions can go on without the distractions posed by the aforementioned board decisions and the controversy surrounding them. I pray that the board meeting next week will begin the process of putting these distractions behind us. I believe that the following steps would do much to eliminate these distractions and controversies and restore the confidence of all Southern Baptists in the IMB Board of Trustees:

The board needs to examine its doctrinal requirements and remove any that go beyond the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 so that no Southern Baptist who is in agreement with our common confessional statement is disqualified on doctrinal grounds. It is improper, albeit legal, for the IMB or any other SBC entity to establish doctrinal requirements or standards for its employees that go beyond the BFM. The BFM serves as our convention's common statement of faith. Any Southern Baptist whose doctrinal views are in alignment with this statement should be allowed to serve with any of our entities. Of course, there must be other standards such as character, previous church service, calling, education/experience, etc., but the BFM should be the doctrinal standard for employees of SBC entities (including missionaries). We have established our trustee boards to operate our entities, not to redefine our doctrinal views.
Forums and executive sessions should be used only in cases where the security of our missionaries requires secrecy or when legally confidential matters are discussed. As the sole member of the IMB, the SBC has a right to know about what is happening within the IMB. With the exceptions noted above, all business of the IMB should be conducted in open plenary session.
When accusations are made against an individual trustee, that trustee should be accorded the right to speak on his or her own behalf before the board. Also, no public accusation should be made before that trustee has been privately confronted. Furthermore, if there is a need for an accusation to be made public, the evidence for the accusation should also be made public at that time, and the accused should be allowed to present his or her own evidence.
The prohibition against trustees expressing their disagreement with board approved actions needs to be repealed. Again, the SBC has a right to have our trustees speak to us openly and honestly. Of course, any disagreement should be expressed in a Christlike manner, but to be fully informed we need to hear all sides of an issue.
Regarding the decision of the SBC to refer the Wade Burleson motion to the IMB Board of Trustees, I expect that you will bend over backward to make sure that no one can accuse the board of trying to sweep the matter under the rug. To be honest, I think it is unwise to have a body investigate itself, but that is what was decided. Your leadership on this particular issue could do much to give credibility to this process. I hope that you will seek to appoint to this committee trustees who are impartial and have not been directly involved in these matters. I also believe that you should give Wade the right to veto any selection. Only by the appointment of trustees who are acceptable to both sides can we have any degree of confidence in the committee's findings. Furthermore, if any of the parties involved disagrees with the findings of the committee, such disagreement should be incorporated into the final report.

The firestorm caused by the passage of the policies/guidelines on prayer language and baptism and the various issues related to Wade Burleson have cast the board in a poor light among many Southern Baptists. If there is anything positive about all of this, it would be that a number of Southern Baptists are for the first time really paying attention to the workings of the IMB. Of course, I'm sure that you join me in wishing that everyone was talking about reaching people groups and penetrating cultures of lostness instead of these controversies. I sincerely believe you are in a position to provide the necessary leadership to put these controversies behind us and help us focus on what really matters. I and many others are praying that you, Wade, and all the other trustees will speak and act with wisdom, courage, and grace as you deal with these issues. Thank you for your service, and may God bless you.

In Christ,
Tim Sweatman

P.S. I will be posting the body of this email on my blog. However, I will NOT post your response unless you give me your permission to do so. In that case, I will post your complete response so that nothing you write will be taken out of context.

Afraid of Freedom?

2006-07-03T15:32:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow is the Fourth of July, the day that we as Americans celebrate our nation's independence. But we celebrate more than the fact that our ancestors successfully revolted against Great Britain and established an independent nation. The Fourth of July is a celebration of freedom. If there is anything that sets America apart from other nations, it is the degree to which we identify ourselves with the concept of freedom. Our National Anthem refers to America as "the land of the free." In the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln spoke of America as a nation that had been "conceived in liberty." It is nearly impossible to think of America and not think of freedom. However, it seems that here in the early 21st century, we Americans are increasingly afraid of freedom.

Freedom is a messy thing. Freedom means that people can express views that you or I find repugnant. Freedom means that others can live in a way that we find immoral. Freedom means that people can make unwise choices. It is precisely because freedom is so messy that periodic efforts are made in the name of security, stability, or tolerance to place restrictions on freedom. Two recent examples from the news demonstrate that those on both the left and right sides of the political and ideological spectrum are increasingly uncomfortable with freedom. Both are examples of a growing trend to attempt to suppress expression that some find offensive.

In Clark County, Nevada, school officials cut off the microphone of valedictorian Brittany McComb during her valedictory address when she deviated from the pre-approved text of her speech to talk about how Christ has brought true meaning and fulfillment to her life. School officials claim that people might have construed McComb's remarks as a promotion of religion on the part of the school district. Give me a break! In all my life, I have never met one person who thought that a high school valedictorian spoke on behalf of the school rather than himself or herself when giving his or her valedictory address. I know that when I gave my valedictory address in 1990 that I was speaking for no one other than myself.
Last week in the United States Senate there was a debate and vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to prohibit the desecration of the American flag. The amendment fell one vote short of the two-thirds vote it needed to pass. This is a tough one. On one hand, an overwhelming majority of Americans want to criminalize flag desecration. But on the other hand, one of the things that makes this such a great nation is that we allow people to express unpopular and even offensive views.

One of the costs we pay to live in a civil society is that we give up a degree of freedom. Even in America, we have never been promised absolute freedom. Freedom does not allow a person to do everything that he or she wants to do without any restriction. Freedom of speech does not give us the right to commit perjury or to say something that places others in danger of actual harm (the famous example of screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater). Freedom of the press does not provide an excuse for libel. Freedom of religion does not allow parents to practice child sacrifice. Each of these limitations is based on a clear public interest. That historically has been the standard by which we evaluated restrictions on personal freedom. But today there is an increasing effort to restrict freedom, especially freedom of expression, on grounds that it is offensive or because we do not agree. If we continue to curtail freedoms because of personal preference rather than on clear public interest, then we will cease to be a free society.

Alcohol and the Sufficiency of Scripture

2006-06-23T12:07:00.000-05:00

Now that the alcohol question has come to the forefront of the issues Southern Baptists are talking about, I feel compelled to enter the conversation. Before I continue, let me say that I am approaching this subject as a person who has NEVER, to my knowledge, tasted of any alcoholic beverage, nor have I ever desired to do so. I have never found any good reason for people to partake of alcoholic beverages (with the possible exceptions of medicinal purposes and the Lord's Supper), and I personally encourage people to abstain. However, my views on alcohol are a matter of personal conviction. I do not try to use the Bible to support my advocacy of total abstinence, because a biblical case for total abstinence cannot be made.

In the Florida Baptist Witness there is an opinion piece by Dr. John Sullivan, Executive Director of the Florida Baptist Convention, regarding the resolution on alcohol that was adopted by the SBC in Greensboro. Let me say that I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Sullivan. I heard him preach the Sunday before the SBC Annual Meeting at the church I visited in Greensboro. His testimony of how he came to faith in Christ clearly demonstrates the sovereign working of God in bringing us to salvation. But as I read the following, I wondered to myself, "Did he really say that?"

Now to be sure, we are free in Christ, but we are free to do right by living a godly lifestyle. One even suggested Jesus drank wine and even turned water into wine. Bring me the wine bottle you are drinking from and if it says, “fermented by the Holy Spirit,” I’ll agree it is okay! Jesus also walked or rode a donkey wherever he went; slept mostly outside — you know the list. He then died on a tree. Don’t pull out one thing Jesus did to justify an action. We are not in the same league!

The reason someone suggested that Jesus drank wine and even turned water into wine is because the Bible tells us that Jesus did these things! I'm not kidding, it really does! Just look at John 2:1-11 and Luke 7:33-34. Sullivan's reference to Jesus walking, riding a donkey, sleeping outside, or dying on a tree is irrelevant to this discussion because no one is passing resolutions against doing these things or is calling such things ungodly. If it is ungodly to drink alcoholic beverages, then Jesus was ungodly. No amount of verbal or historical gymnastics can get around this. And the idea that it is acceptable to drink wine only if it is "fermented by the Holy Spirit" is one of the strangest concepts I have ever seen. Are we to assume that every time Jesus drank wine that He made it Himself? Where does the Bible imply or say that?

Alcohol is the issue that is being talked about, but alcohol is not really the true subject of this discussion. The alcohol issue in Southern Baptist life deals more with the sufficiency of Scripture than with the use of alcohol. The question that we must answer is, "Are we going to base our doctrine solely on the Bible, or are we also going to use tradition, history, and culture?" I believe it is obvious that a position requiring total abstinence from alcohol is based on tradition, history, and culture rather than on Scripture. All one has to do is look at the rest of the world to see that the question of whether or not a Christian should drink alcohol is by and large an American question. French and Italian Christians have no moral reservations about drinking a glass of wine; English and German Christians have no qualms about drinking a mug of beer. Now, either Christians in other nations are not as holy as Southern Baptists or the views of many Southern Baptists on alcohol are shaped by our history and culture. Somebody made a point that the views of most Southern Baptists on alcohol are more in line with those of Mormons and Muslims than with those of evangelical Christians in the rest of the world.

In all of this discussion, I have yet to see anyone cite one single verse of Scripture that forbids God's people from partaking of alcohol. Many people cite Proverbs 20:1 to support such a position, but what about Psalm 104:15, or what about the example of Jesus? Again, I personally believe there are many good reasons to abstain from alcohol, but in the end it has to be a personal decision, and a decision that is NOT based on any idea that drinking alcohol is ungodly. To require or expect all Christians to abstain, or to affirm that drinking alcohol is ungodly, is incompatible with the sufficiency of Scripture. If the Bible does not require abstinence, then how can we? If the Bible tells us that Jesus drank and made wine, then how can we say it is ungodly or morally wrong for a follower of Jesus, to do what Jesus did?

If we as Southern Baptists are honest, we have to admit that we have a history of elevating our traditions and personal convictions to the level of biblical mandates. We did it with dancing, card playing, musical styles, and how to dress for church. Many of us (but certainly not all) have moved away from imposing extrabiblical requirements or expectations in these areas. If we truly believe in biblical sufficiency, we'll have to stop imposing requirements or expectations to abstain from alcohol as well.

You Can Quote Me on That

2006-06-16T15:50:00.000-05:00

This morning when my wife called to wake me up (yes, I slept late---between averaging 4 hours of sleep a night all week and driving more than 500 miles yesterday, I deserved it) she told me that I had been quoted in an article about the SBC in the Louisville Courier-Journal. Art Rogers had already linked to this article (he is also quoted), so I didn't have to look for it. Basically, the article talks about how the recently concluded annual meeting in Greensboro might be the beginning of a more open SBC, not on matters of core doctrine, but in regards to cooperation among those who share similar views on core doctrine.

This is a strange world. On one hand, I have been unsuccessful in leading a tiny church to be effective for the Kingdom. At the same time, I am the opening quote in an article in the largest newspaper in the state in which Art Rogers, Al Mohler, and Hershael York are also quoted. That in itself is a sign that the times are changing, that ideas matter more than personalities, that faithfulness is more important than success. We're not there yet, and there will be some setbacks along the way, but that's where we are heading.

Not Too Promising So Far

2006-06-14T18:59:00.000-05:00

The IMB report has just concluded. At the end of the report two messengers asked questions of new IMB Board Chairman John Floyd. The first question was related to the Wade Burleson issues, especially the policy passed in March prohibiting trustees from publicly expressing disagreement with policies approved by the board. Floyd's response was basically that he is not aware of any suppression of the rights of any trustee. So, does this mean that the board did NOT pass such a policy in March? Apparently not. So prohibiting trustees from expressing principled dissent to their greater SBC constituency is NOT suppressing their rights? Apparently that's what Floyd thinks. Hmmm, something is not registering here. I wonder how the Conservative Resurgence would have fared if our entity boards had such policies in the 1970s and 1980s.

As amazing as Floyd's response to the first question was, his answer to the second question simply floored me! The second question asked how the board could be really accountable to the SBC if executive sessions are used so frequently. Floyd's response was that the board DOES NOT use executive sessions on a regular basis. I wonder if he was at the last few board meetings; he said he hasn't missed any, but how could he be unaware of all of the executive sessions that took place. And then, despite all the controversy surrounding the board over the past few months, he basically suggested that we should just trust the board. The context seemed to indicate that he meant a blind trust.

It appears that John Floyd is as blind to what's going on as his predecessor was. Looks like 2006-07 may be a busy year for the blogs as we try to hold the IMB accountable to the convention.

Wade Burleson's Motion Going to the IMB Board

2006-06-14T14:57:00.000-05:00

Last night's business session regarding the Wade Burleson motion went nothing like I expected. I had already been thinking about what I was going to say in opposition to the recommendation to refer the motion to the IMB Board of Trustees when Wade approached the microphone to speak regarding the recommendation. To my absolute surprise, Wade voiced his support for referring his motion to the board for action. Even though the board has had more than 6 months to deal with these issues but has failed to reach a solution, and even though there is a potential conflict of interest whenever there is an internal investigation, Wade expressed support for this course of action. I was not thrilled, but since Wade supported it I thought it would be awkward to voice my opposition.

Having thought about the issue and discussed it with others, including Wade, I believe this may have been the wisest course to follow. First of all, there is a possibility that the motion would have been defeated if it had come up for a floor vote. Secondly, this forces the IMB Board to report on these issues to the convention itself next year. There are two possible results: 1) The IMB Board will resolve these issues to the convention's satisfaction, and the matter will be ended in San Antonio, or 2) The IMB Board will not reach a satisfactory resolution, and these issues will automatically be brought back before the convention next year. What this referral means is that for the next year there will be continued intense scrutiny of the IMB Board. While this investigation will undoubtedly be conducted behind closed doors (which in a case like this is proper, provided that there is full disclosure following the investigation), we will be watching for any signs of reconcilitation or of continued hostility toward Wade. These could provide clues as to how the process is working itself out.

Frank Page Press Conference

2006-06-13T16:28:00.000-05:00

Frank Page's post-election press conference just ended a few minutes ago. I don't have time to provide a full summary, but I want to hit a few highlights.

The first thing Page said was that he "did not expect to be here at all." He then went on to say that he believed his election sent a statement that the SBC "belongs to the Lord and His people" and that we can do more together than we can separately. The floor was then opened up for questions from the professional media. The following are some statements Page made in response to various questions:

The parameters of cooperation he requires are a "sweet spirit, evangelistic heart, and a belief in the integrity of the Word of God." He emphasized that he will appoint only inerrantists. He later added generously supporting CP to this list.
Blogs played a role in the election beyond their number. There are a small number of blogs, but many SBC leaders read them. Blogs are a growing force and phenomenon in denominational life.
Page has no animosity toward any of the entity heads who endorsed other candidates. He thinks it best that entity heads refrain from endorsing candidates, but people can do what they wish.
This election is a defining moment and turning point in the SBC. There will be a different tone in denominational life.
Regarding the issues with the IMB and NAMB, the president has a limited role. He primarily can serve an an encourager and adviser. Anything he does will be through the trustee boards.
We need to be careful about narrowing doctrinal parameters beyond the BFM 2000.
He will emphasize church transformation in addition to addition and missions. He also agrees with Ronnie Floyd's emphasis on spiritual renewal.
"The reason I'm sitting here today is because people have said the Cooperative Program is important."
This election is not about launching a revolution or cleaning house.

It's Page!!!

2006-06-13T15:11:00.000-05:00

The results of the presidential election have just been announced. They are as follows:

Ronnie Floyd --- 2247 votes (24.95%)
Jerry Sutton --- 2168 votes (24.08%)
Frank Page --- 4546 votes (50.48%)

Could this be the beginning of a new era in the SBC?

Waiting...

2006-06-13T13:54:00.000-05:00

The tellers just walked into the room to count the ballots from the presidential vote. The results will be announced as soon as the ballots are counted, with the runoff election to follow immediately, if necessary.

This is not a scientific survey, but it's looking like it might break Frank Page's way. Nearly all of the ballots in my row were for page. Also, Forrest Pollock's nomination speech for Page garnered the most applause. Pollock focused strongly on Page's CP support, saying that when it comes to CP Page "leads by example." Alone among the candidates, Page has the credibility to challenge us toward greater CP giving. Pollock also strongly refuted allegations that Page is not conservative enough, pointing out that Page spearheaded the effort in Georgia for the state convention to adopt the BFM 2000.

I'll post the official results as soon as they come in.

In other news, the Committee on Order of Business is recommending that Wade's motion be referred to the IMB Board of Trustees. Discussion and a vote on this recommendation will occur at 7:40 tonight. If this recommendation passes, I have no confidence that the issues Wade brings up will be dealt with.

SBC in Greensboro--Tuesday Morning

2006-06-13T10:39:00.000-05:00

The first session of the SBC Annual Meeting had its share of contention, but overall there were no major problems. The first significant matter of business was the introduction of a motion by Wade Burleson requesting the Executive Committee to appoint an ad hoc committee to look into a number of matters related to the recent IMB controversies. For a full text of the original motion (the version that was submitted was altered to delete the reference to By-law 26B) you can go here. Several other motions, a few of which were obviously in response to the IMB issues, were offered. During the afternoon session the Committee on Order of Business will report on how these motions will be addressed.

The most contention point of the morning session occurred when a messenger from Georgia introduced an amendment to the Ad Hoc Cooperative Program Committee report that would have reinstated the references to a goal of 10% for churches to strive for. Debate was cut off when Jerry Vines, after speaking in opposition to the amendment, moved the question. I was irritated because I was in line to speak for the amendment. A point of order was raised declaring that at the 2005 convention a rule was adopted prohibiting a messenger from speaking to an issue then moving the question, but the chair disallowed the point of order. The amendment was defeated.

The other significant thing about the morning session was Morris Chapman's report. Chapman urged Southern Baptists not to allow the issue of Calvinism to divide us or distract us from missions and evangelism. But Chapman's strongest warning came against "political posturing" by those in the SBC; this comment was especially aimed at those who had led the Conservative Resurgence.

I'll report later today on the afternoon session. The highlight of this session will be the presidential election. Apparently Jerry Sutton has made some troubling remarks to the effect that an amendment to the BFM 2000 regarding the issue of private prayer language is necessary.

Caught in the Middle

2006-06-09T15:57:00.000-05:00

Well, it seems that the Phelps family is going to set up shop outside of the SBC Annual Meeting next week. Apparently God hates Southern Baptists because we don't hate homosexuals; at least that seems to be the gist of the Phelps family's protest. Ironically, if past conventions are any indication, there will be activists from the gay community protesting against the SBC because of our hatred toward homosexuals. So basically we're getting slammed because we don't hate homosexuals and because we do hate homosexuals. Does this make sense to anyone out there?

It's easy to understand why the gay community isn't very fond of the SBC. We affirm the Bible's teaching that homosexuality is a sin. But that is hardly the same thing as hating someone. True, some of us act like jerks when we address this issue, but for the most part we try to speak the truth in love (or at least I hope that we do). Even when we do speak the truth in love, however, we should not be surprised when the world opposes us.

It's also not too hard to see why the Phelps group opposes the SBC. The SBC proclaims the biblical message of grace through faith and of God's love for sinners. From what I've seen of the Phelps group, they view the gospel as being all about wrath and judgment and God's hatred toward sinners. Yes, the Bible makes it clear that those who refuse to repent of their sins and follow Christ by faith are under God's wrath, but wrath is not a product of God's hatred but of His holiness.

It is not our place to judge and condemn sinners, but to love them with the love of Christ. His attitude toward sinners was, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and leave your life of sin." The Phelps crowd would be critical of that first statement. The world, including the gay community, is critical of the second. Because of our stand for the Word of God, we find ourselves caught in the middle.

Not only will things be interesting inside the convention hall, it looks like it will be an interesting journey just to get inside.

Temporarily Disconnected

2006-06-09T15:13:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow morning I will be leaving for Greensboro. I am looking forward to the upcoming SBC Annual Meeting, and I am eager to meet a number of you in person. Unfortunately, I will not have Internet access while I am gone. This means that I will not be posting anything about the convention until late Thursday evening. So if anyone has a comment or message for me, be sure to leave it by 10:00 Central Time tonight.

For those of you who will be in Greensboro, if I am jumpy and irritable there's no need to worry. That's just the withdrawal from my computer. Of course, if you would like to make a fully taxable contribution to Laptops for the Needy, you can make your check out to me. Then I won't have this problem next year! And for just a little extra, you can help a needy pastor go Wi-Fi as well. ;)

Greensboro, Here We Come

2006-06-07T23:20:00.000-05:00

The time is rapidly approaching for us to pack our bags and hit the road (or fly off into the wild blue yonder) for Greensboro. Next week promises to be a busy time for those of us who are Younger Leaders and/or SBC bloggers. They like to start these things early in the morning and keep going until late in the evening. For some of you, the late evenings could be an issue (especially Monday night); personally, I've always had problems with the early starts. If you need a full 8 hours of sleep every night, you may be in trouble. They also don't believe in giving you enough time for meals. In addition, we've got to squeeze in time for executing our coup d'etat against the leadership of the SBC. (NOTE: If anyone from the SBC leadership establishment is reading this, that last statement was a JOKE. If we were planning a coup, do you think we would be announcing it ahead of time?)

In the midst of all of the official activity, many of us have expressed an interest in getting together for fellowship, prayer, and networking. Those of you who are attending as part of a group may have greater difficulty arranging such times than those of us traveling solo, so some sort of strategic planning may be necessary. Of course, there is the official time provided after the Younger Leaders' Meeting (or whatever they're calling it now) on Monday night. Or if you would like to make some advance plans for when/where to meet, you can post a comment to that effect. You can also send me an email with your cell phone number, and I'll do the same. I'm supposed to have a mini-suite out near the airport, so if anyone would be interested in getting together after hours for fellowship and/or prayer, I'm willing to open up my room.

Regarding the actual convention itself, how does what you would like to see happen in Greensboro compare with what you expect will happen in Greensboro?

Happy Birthday to Me!

2006-06-05T12:13:00.000-05:00

Thirty-four years ago today I made my debut at Baptist Hospital in Nashville, Tennessee. I usually don't make a big deal out of birthdays, but recent events have led me to be more introspective at this time. As I look at my life, I have to say that things have not turned out the way I would have expected. Some things have turned out better than I thought, others have been worse. But either way, things are as they are.

On a personal level, life has been far more wonderful than I ever dreamed. For 12 years I have been married to the most amazing and wonderful woman. Maria complements me in nearly every way. She is incredibly compassionate, never meets a stranger, and just makes people feel at ease. But if she perceives that someone is trying to hurt me, she transforms from the image of perfect sweetness into a she-bear! She is not just my wife; she is my best friend in this world. I never knew that it was possible to love another human being as much as I love Maria. I have a hard time even remembering what life was like before I knew her.

I am personally blessed in many other ways. I am in good health, although if I remain a member of the 300-club that will probably change in the future. I still have both of my parents and all of my siblings; I have never lived more than 3 hours away from them (but that could change in the next few months). And for nearly 34 years I had a grandmother; she passed away May 19 at the age of 94. I'm so glad that for the past decade or so I was able to see her nearly every month.

On a professional level, however, my life has fallen far short of what I, or anyone who knew me when I was younger, expected. I was valedictorian of my high school class, was voted "Most Likely to Succeed," graduated from college magna cum laude, have a master's degree, and even spent 3 years in a Ph.D. program (which is where I was called to the ministry). I never would have thought that at age 34 I would be barely scraping by financially or would be a failure (from a human perspective) in my vocation. I never would have thought that my wife would be the primary breadwinner in our family. And I have no idea how I got here. When I look back over the last 10-15 years, I don't see where I made any really bad decision that led me to where I am. I sometimes feel like most of my 20s were wasted, pursuing degrees that I would use very little, but I had no idea at the time that I would be a pastor.

So here I am. Overall, I would say that I am happy. After all, I'd rather have a great personal life and a not-so-good professional life than a successful professional life and an empty personal life. To be honest, I do desire to succeed in my ministry; maybe I shouldn't, but I do. Whether or not I will ever be "successful" is beyond my ability to know, but what I do know is that God is in control and that He has brought me to this point for a reason.

Younger Leaders Meeting in Greensboro, June 12

2006-06-01T23:24:00.000-05:00

The second annual Younger Leaders Meeting held in conjunction with the SBC Annual Meeting will take place on Monday evening, June 12, at the War Memorial Auditorium in Greensboro. Both established and younger SBC leaders will discuss various topics about sharing Christ effectively in today's world, both here and abroad, and the role of the SBC in the advancement of God's Kingdom. Toward the end of this meeting, Ed Stetzer will introduce the Missional Network, an "online and relational community of ministry leaders connecting according to their chosen ministry approach" that is sponsored by NAMB. The goal of the Missional Network is to provide a forum in which missionally minded SBC leaders can connect with each other and share ideas.

The tentative schedule for the Younger Leaders Meeting is as follows:

9:55 PM: Worship band begins (2-3 songs)

10:00 PM: Jimmy Draper: Opening prayer and welcome to young leaders

10:04 PM: Worship band plays (2-3 songs)

10:10 PM: Jerry Rankin: To the edge: Churches partnering to reach the world

10:20 PM: Christi Avant: Broadway and the Bible (Sharing Christ contextually)

10:25 PM: Jeff Iorg: Why the SBC still matters

10:40 PM: Doug and Kiki Cherry: The campus and Christ (The questions young people are asking about Christ)

10:45 PM: Ed Stetzer: Announcing The Missional Network

10:55 PM: Worship band plays

11:00 PM: Tim Sweatman: Closing prayer

11:00-11:55 PM: Snacks and conversation

I hope that those of you who are able to attend will do so. Not only will you be able to hear from speakers who are passionate about sharing Jesus with others, there will also be an opportunity for fellowship following the actual meeting. I look forward to seeing you there.

Some Insightful Articles

2006-05-28T23:35:00.000-05:00

I encourage you to take the time to read the following articles. They are very insightful and relevant as we draw nearer to the SBC Annual Meeting in Greensboro.

Marty Duren, Musings---Marty comments on the SBC Executive Committee's recent revision of the report from the Ad Hoc Cooperative Program Committee, which eliminated the original references to a goal of 10%. Marty also offers some suggestions for reducing wasteful spending of CP dollars by state conventions and SBC entities.

Baptist Blogger (aka Rooster Cogburn aka Ben Cole), Integrity---Marshal Cogburn examines the "crisis of integrity" affecting the SBC at all levels, from entity presidents using their positions of influence to endorse candidates for convention office to the membership figures reported by local churches. He then applies Stephen Carter's three components of integrity to the SBC. He closes by laying out five goals he would like to see accomplished at Greensboro that would enhance openness, transparency, and integrity within the SBC.

Bob Terry (in The Alabama Baptist), Rankin Not Responsible for Latest IMB Controversy---In this April 27 column, Bob Terry discusses the absurdity of some IMB trustees blaming IMB President Jerry Rankin for the adoption of the controversial policies on tongues/prayer language and baptism. He also brings to light the contentious relationship that some trustees have with Rankin.

The End Is Near

2006-05-28T21:16:00.000-05:00

It didn't go exactly like I had planned, but at the end of the worship service this morning I announced my resignation as pastor of Jackson Grove Baptist Church, effective at the end of July. I had hoped to have another position lined up before resigning, but it wasn't meant to be. I chose to go ahead and make my announcement at this time for the long-term benefit of the church, my wife, and myself. Since the first of the year I have almost resigned on three or four separate occasions, but I didn't feel the time was right until today. I actually didn't make the decision until about five minutes before the morning service. Please pray for both us and the church, especially that we can go out on a positive note.

If anyone knows of a Southern Baptist church seeking a full-time pastor, please let me know via email. I have been actively searching for nearly a year. Several churches have expressed some interest, but as of yet I don't have any really strong leads.

More Concerns About the IMB

2006-05-25T10:11:00.000-05:00

After this week's IMB trustee meeting in Albuquerque, I am still very concerned about the condition of the IMB and its future direction. While God continues to do remarkable things through the IMB, one has to wonder how long it will take for the problems of the IMB board to have a significant negative impact on our missions work.

One of the reasons I am concerned is the election of John Floyd as the new chairman of the IMB Board of Trustees. I am concerned NOT because of anything regarding his character. From what I have seen, which admittedly isn't much, he is a man of integrity who is committed to missions. He seems to be a person who is willing to hear those who disagree with him. From a character standpoint, it appears that Floyd would make a fine chairman. My concerns with Floyd are two-fold.

First, there is the matter of his previous service with the IMB. Both Marty Duren and Art Rogers have raised the possibility that Floyd may be ineligible to serve as an IMB trustee because he receives a pension based on his previous service with the IMB. It is unclear whether or not the SBC by-law that prohibits anyone from serving as a trustee of an entity who draws a salary from that entity applies to those drawing a pension. In the time that Floyd has served on the board, and according to these reports he has even served on the committee that oversees pensions for IMB personnel, to my knowledge there have never been any allegations of impropriety. I am confident that as trustee chariman Floyd will maintain the same high level of integrity regarding his pension. That being said, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the precedent that this sets. The SBC needs to revisit this issue and make it clear that anyone who receives any sort of financial benefit from an entity is not eligible to serve as a trustee for that entity. (NOTE: Wes Kenney has posted an email from Dr. Floyd stating that his pension is administered by GuideStone and denying that he has ever served on any committee that deals with benefits for retired missionaries.) I am also concerned about the fact that Floyd apparently resigned from his position as a Regional Leader for the IMB because of differences he had with Jerry Rankin about New Directions, and now he chairs the board that Rankin reports to.

Second, Floyd is reported to be a Landmarker. Thus, it was no surprise to hear back in December that he had been one of the guiding forces behind the adoption of the IMB policies regarding tongues/prayer language and baptism. The policy on baptism especially reflects a Landmark influence, with its emphasis on the qualifications of the administering church. I am greatly concerned that Floyd will try to lead the board to establish even narrower doctrinal requirements for missionary candidates or to redefine the IMB's definition of a church so that it is more closely aligned with a Landmarkist definition.

Even if Floyd were not a Landmarker, however, a statement he made to Paul Littleton regarding the new policies would be a cause for great concern (anything in brackets [...] is mine):

I [Paul] told him [Floyd] that surely not everyone (or every Southern Baptist) holds to that view, to which he agreed. I told him that the genius behind cooperation among Baptists is that we can disagree on things such as this particular interpretation and still work together to reach the world for Christ. He said that if someone had a problem with his interpretation that the problem was not with the board, but with that individual. [Emphasis mine.]

This is the kind of attitude that is driving many people, especially younger ones, to consider withdrawing from the SBC. To state that someone who disagrees with a clear statement of Scripture has a problem is one thing, but to say that someone who disagrees with your interpretation of Scripture has a problem is another thing altogether. Such a statement is arrogant and comes dangerously close to reflecting a belief that oneself is infallible. If Floyd refrains from attempting to impose his Landmarkism on the IMB, and if he abandons the idea that anyone who disagrees with his interpretation of Scripture has a problem, then he has the potential to be an excellent chairman.

While I am not thrilled by the election of John Floyd, he does have one thing in his favor: he is not Tom Hatley. Hatley's leadership of the IMB board over the past few months has been woeful and clumsy. He allowed a hastily drafted motion recommending the removal of Wade Burleson from the board to be rushed through; after receiving a torrent of criticism and figuring out that there were less radical ways to punish Wade, the board rescinded the motion. Throughout the Wade Burleson fiasco Hatley kept changing the charges against Wade, and he refused to offer any evidence to support the charges. Hatley also waited four months after the adoption of the new policies on tongues/prayer language and baptism to release anything that might support the policies (now, one would think that some sort of rationale had been drafted for the board to consider before voting on the policies, but apparently this was not the case). Then when he finally released position papers to support the policies, they were based on a weak biblical foundation. Also, his explanation of the role played by Jerry Rankin in the adoption of the policies seems not to have been entirely accurate (read here for a fuller explanation).

While Hatley's leadership over the past few months has been less than stellar, his conduct at the last session of this week's trustee meeting was simply appalling. I won't give all the details here; these events have been well-documented by a participant (also here), an eyewitness (another eyewitness gives a slightly different perspective), and a media transcript. In his report, Hatley continued his pattern of making public accusations against Wade either on the basis of partial evidence or without offering any evidence. Hatley also made his last public accusations without first going to Wade to attempt to privately resolve the matter. When Wade attempted to get Hatley to provide evidence for the last accusation, Hatley had Wade's microphone turned off and moved to the next order of business. Hatley's antics continued after the meeting when, as Wade attempted to speak to him about this matter, he said to Wade, "I will not talk with you." Whatever happened to Matthew 18 and the new trustee policies? If Hatley does not apologize for his behavior, and if the board does not hold him accountable, then that would prove that the revised trustee policies were about silencing dissent rather than fostering unity and harmony.

In addition to these matters, the IMB continues to face other problems: the alleged efforts of some trustees to undermine the leadership of Jerry Rankin, the lack of openness that causes many missionaries to fear retribution if they raise questions or share their views, the possibility that churches will redirect financial support away from the IMB to other organizations that allow their members (who because of the November policies are no longer qualified to serve through the IMB) to serve through them. Until the leadership of the IMB Board of Trustees commits itself to being completely open in its workings, tolerating dissent from trustees and employees, and not imposing doctrinal requirements that are more narrow than the statement adopted by the SBC as a whole, the IMB will never resolve these problems.

Gene Bridges' Primer on Landmarkism in the SBC

2006-05-23T21:52:00.000-05:00

After a lengthy period of research and writing, Gene Bridges has begun posting his primer on Landmarkism in the SBC. As of today he has posted the first four parts of this primer (I don't know how many parts there will be in all). I strongly encourage you to go to his site and read the primer. As expected, Gene is thorough in his research, but his writing style far exceeds in clarity that of most of his comments on other blogs. Despite the detailed treatment he gives the subject, it has been a pretty quick read. This primer will give you some of the historical background that is underlying the current disagreement over the IMB policy regarding baptism.

"Emerging Leaders or Submerging Servants?"---A Response

2006-05-16T23:41:00.000-05:00

In a forthcoming edition of the Florida Baptist Witness, there is an opinion piece entitled "Emerging Leaders of Submerging Servants?" submitted by North Carolina pastor Ben Brammer, a 26-year-old Ph.D. student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. In this article Brammer makes the accusation that a number of younger pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention are "jockeying for leadership" within the SBC and do not show proper appreciation and respect for those who led the Conservative Resurgence. His message is similar to what Ergun Caner said about younger SBCers a few weeks ago, but Brammer is much more tactful.

Brammer seems to place SBC bloggers at the top of this list of younger Baptists who are demanding positions of leadership: "Some younger Baptists are under the assumption that leadership is a right available to anyone with an opinion and a weblog." I personally would like to see a list of young SBC bloggers who are insisting that they be given leadership roles in the SBC. My observation, from an insider's perspective, is that most of us young SBC bloggers have publicly stated on numerous occasions that we are not interested in obtaining leadership positions within the SBC. If that were our goal, we would be cozying up to those who comprise the "Good Ol' Boy" network instead of criticizing this system that allows a handful of people to exercise almost complete control over the entities of the SBC. If that were our goal, we would not be publicly opposing the growing trend of exclusivism and separatism that some of our entities and leaders are moving us toward. If that were our goal, we would not be calling for reform within the SBC, but we would support the status quo that our leaders have established.

Brammer accuses many young SBCers of "doublespeak," which is another term for calling us hypocrites. I will admit that all of us have been guilty of that at one time or another. Not just the bloggers, not just young SBCers, but ALL of us. Is it doublespeak for seminary trustees to tell students that the president's job is not in jeopardy and the next day to lock him out of his office? Is it doublespeak for another seminary president to refer to a fire-truck baptistry as "blasphemous" but then endorse the pastor who uses such "blasphemous" methods for the presidency of the SBC? If the current generation is guilty of employing "doublespeak," remember that we learned it from some of our elders.

Brammer seems not to understand that there is a difference between having appreciation and respect for someone and turning a blind eye to anything they do that is questionable. I personally have a great deal of respect for those who led the Conservative Resurgence. I am grateful that we have a convention that unashamedly holds to the Bible as the inerrant, infallible, authoritative Word of God. But this does not mean that I am going to idolize those who led the Resurgence or ignore it when they do something that is questionable or even wrong.

Brammer also accuses many younger Baptists of being "obsessed with personalities." I almost laughed when I read this. All one has to do is look at the list of SBC leaders endorsing Ronnie Floyd to see that name-dropping is prevalent among our convention leaders. To be honest, I haven't really seen many younger Baptists bragging about who they know. I have to confess, I did comment on David Rogers' blog that I met his father at the 2005 SBC Pastors' Conference and found him to be a very gracious and humble man. Maybe my comment is what Brammer is referring to.

Perhaps Brammer has forgotten that the effort to bring younger SBCers to the leadership table was not initiated by any of these younger Baptists but by one of the most respected leaders within the SBC, Jimmy Draper. Draper began his Younger Leader initiative NOT because there were so many young Baptists demanding positions of leadership, but because many young Baptists displayed little or no interest in the SBC at all. Younger Baptists were not jockeying for leadership within the SBC; they were questioning the relevance of the SBC to their ministry. In reality, much of the activity that Brammer sees as "jockeying for leadership" in the SBC is really an effort on the part of younger Baptists to see not if there is a place for us at the SBC leadership table, but to see if there is a place for us in the SBC period.

(HT: Art Rogers)

Oh, What a Night!

2006-05-13T02:47:00.000-05:00

Maria and me with Avalon members Greg Long, Janna Long, Melissa Greene, & Jody McBrayer

A little over an hour ago we arrived home from Evansville, Indiana, where we attended a concert featuring Avalon along with Michael English and Brittany Waddell. Although it was a highly energetic and entertaining three hours, to refer to this event as a concert does not really do it justice. It was much more than a concert; it was an incredible time of worship as well!

Before the show Maria and I, along with a few others, were privileged to spend about 20 minutes with Avalon. They were exceptionally warm and gracious. They talked with us like we were old friends. I think they asked more questions about us than we did them! There was no hint of pretentiousness about them. They were just real, down to earth people.

The show began with a few songs from Brittany Waddell. She is a young lady who is just starting out in Christian music. I was amazed by her talent both as a singer and a songwriter, but mostly by her desire to glorify God through her music. In an era where much Christian music is not explicitly focused on Jesus or even God, her songs were very Christ-centered. One of the main themes of her songs was the healing that we find only through Christ, a healing that is sufficient to cover any painful situation we find ourselves in.

Michael English took the stage next. His peformance was powerful, not only because of his music but also because of his incredible testimony of God's forgiveness and restoration. He pointed to himself as an example of what happens when we feel like we can handle life on our own, or when we put on only part of the armor of God. But he also reminded us that we can never go so far astray that God cannot find us and bring us back home.

Before Avalon sang, group member Jody McBrayer shared about the work of World Vision. We watched a video about the horiffic AIDS crisis that is ravaging Africa. There is no way we can really comprehend how desperate the situation is over there. Every 14 seconds, a child is orphaned because of AIDS. There are villages where nearly all of the adult population, and many of the children as well, are stricken with the deadly disease.

Following a brief intermission, Avalon took the stage. From the moment they walked on stage the atmosphere was amazing. To be honest, I have never seen any performers enjoy their time on stage as much as they did. On each song they put forth their full heartfelt effort. Their playful banter between songs reveals that they are good friends as well as singing partners. And when they share about who Jesus is and what He means to them and what He has done for them, it becomes obvious why their music is so passionate.

Avalon had a good mix of their new material with old favorites. Unfortunately, there was no way they could do all their great songs because there are so many. They started off at full throttle with "Take You at Your Word" and "New Day." Then they slowed things down with "Everything to Me," "Adonai," and "Can't Live a Day." They followed this with three songs from their new CD Stand: "The Other Side," "Love Won't Leave You," and their current single, "Orphans of God." Jody took a few minutes to challenge us to take any area of our lives where we struggle, where we have hurts and fears, and turn them over to God, remembering that no matter what we go through He is with us; from this he led into "You Were There." The group closed the show with "Testify to Love."

As Avalon fans, we thought the show was superb from a performance perspective. Each group member has an excellent solo voice, yet when one of the other members sings the lead they put their all into singing background vocals, even the oohs and ahs. Throughout the show they kept looking down and smiling at us in the front row, especially Greg and Janna (who spent more time on the side of the stage in front of us). After the show Greg told us that it really meant a lot to them when they looked down and saw us singing right along with them. (Apparently they didn't hear me; otherwise they might not have been so appreciative.) We're really looking forward to being able to see them again.

The Cost of Doing God's Will

2006-05-08T21:27:00.000-05:00

There is a common saying, "The safest place to be is in the center of God's will." That sounds like a good statement, but it is totally false. The Bible never promises physical safety or comfort to those who follow God's will. From a human standpoint, the center of God's will is often the most dangerous place a person can be.

On her blog, Kiki Cherry has written a post titled God's Calling Is Not Safe. In this post Kiki recounts some of the horrific things that have happened to faithful people who gave up everything in order to do God's will, some of whom she and her family knew personally. This post is a MUST READ! It is very difficult to read about some of the things Kiki describes, but this post gives us a much needed reminder that God's will often leads us down a path of sacrifice, persecution, suffering, and even tragedy. Few of us could even imagine the things that many missionaries and fellow believers have experienced. Kiki's post reminds us that missions work is not a glamorous or romantic vacation; IT IS SPIRITUAL WAR!

Johnny Hunt to Nominate Ronnie Floyd for SBC President

2006-05-08T02:27:00.000-05:00

In a press release on the web site of First Baptist Church of Springdale, Arkansas, Johnny Hunt has announced his intention to nominate Ronnie Floyd, pastor of FBCS and The Church at Pinnacle Hills, to be the next president of the Southern Baptist Convention. So I guess we now can officially say that Johnny Hunt is not going to be a candidate.

I don't know a lot about Ronnie Floyd. I know that from a statistical standpoint his church is among the most successful in the SBC. I know that they are actively involved in a wide variety of ministries and missions works. I know that they are very innovative in the methods that they use to worship God and reach out to others. Other than that, I know little about him.

Before deciding whether or not I will vote for Dr. Floyd, I would like to get some answers to the following questions (I will be emailing these questions to him, and if he answers I will post his responses, provided that he gives his consent.):

What is Dr. Floyd's vision for the SBC? What specific things would he try to accomplish as president? The SBC does not need someone who is content to appoint committees and preside over the annual meeting. Whether you agree or disagree with his approach, Bobby Welch has definitely cast a vision for the SBC. Subsequent presidents also need to cast a vision.
What percentage of undesignated budget receipts does FBCS/The Church at Pinnacle Hills contribute to the Cooperative Program? Honesty requires me to admit that my own church's giving to CP is abysmal, but I have little real influence over our church's finances. I would presume that Dr. Floyd has a great deal of influence over the financial aspect of his church's ministry and that if he made CP giving a high priority his church would follow along. Since the SBC Executive Committee has issued a report encouraging that convention-wide leaders come from churches that give at least 10% to CP, and since CP is the official means of financially supporting SBC ministry and missions causes, then our president should set an example of generous CP giving. (And let me say that it was inappropriate for past presidents to give skimpy percentages to CP.)
Has Dr. Floyd established a record of cooperating with people from all over the spectrum of doctrinal belief and practice that currently exists within the SBC? Perhaps the greatest issue facing the SBC today is the question of whether we are going to pursue true unity, which is based on agreement on doctrinal essentials while allowing for differing views on nonessentials, or if we are going to demand uniformity, which is based on agreement on both essentials and nonessentials. Our next president needs to be someone who is interested in cooperation within essential biblical parameters and seeks true unity.
Does Dr. Floyd support cooperation with other Great Commission Christians in order to more effectively share the gospel of Jesus Christ with all peoples?
Is Dr. Floyd willing to publicly repudiate the "good 'ol boy" system that influences who is allowed to serve on the national level? Is he willing to commit himself to placing on the committees appointed by the president qualified people who have NOT previously served on the national level or do NOT have any familial, personal, or church connections to others who have served/are serving on the national level? In a denomination with more than 40,000 churches and 7-10 million active members, there is no reason for our national leaders to keep coming from the same small pool of candidates.

Let me add that I believe there needs to be at least one other serious candidate for president. Even if I decide that Dr. Floyd is the best man for the job, I believe that the current trend of uncontested elections is not good for the SBC. The longer that the current "kingmaker" and "good 'ol boy" systems for choosing convention leadership exists, the greater the erosion of trust in our leaders among many rank and file SBCers, especially younger ones, will be. A more open process for choosing our leaders would go a long way toward restoring this trust.

(HT: Kevin Hash)

The Memphis Declaration

2006-05-04T20:30:00.000-05:00

On May 2-3, 2006, a group of 30 Southern Baptist men and women met in Memphis, Tennessee, to talk about the current condition of the Southern Baptist Convention and its future. These men and women represented many of the various strands that are woven into the fabric of the SBC; they were not a homogeneous, uniform group. For the record, I did not attend this meeting. I was invited, but I had a prior commitment that kept me away. The summary of what transpired is based on information provided by several people who did attend.

In the days leading up to this meeting, a number of people expressed concern and even skepticism about the purpose of the meeting. The prevailing wisdom was that this was some sort of effort to organize politically in preparation for the upcoming SBC Annual Meeting in Greensboro. Even among those invited to participate there was some degree of expectation that, while no candidates would be selected or endorsed and no statements critical of SBC leaders would be issued, there would be discussion of possible strategies to reverse the growing trends of narrowing the parameters of cooperation within the SBC and drawing SBC leaders from a shrinking pool of candidates. It was widely anticipated that a number of motions and/or resolutions would be drafted.

What actually happened was quite different. Instead of being a time for devising political strategies or drafting motions and resolutions, the meeting served as a time of sharing and, most importantly, a time of repentance. After the meeting the participants released the following declaration:

We, as men and women who share a heritage of Southern Baptist identity, declare that we stand together and confess Jesus Christ as the one Lord to whom we must reckon an account for our words and motivations in this gathering. We further acknowledge that the Word of God is the sole basis of our confession and cooperation, and we are confident that God has sufficiently revealed in it all that is needed to direct Southern Baptists in fruitful cooperation toward Kingdom ends that bring glory to Jesus Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation.

We publicly declare before all Southern Baptists that we believe the unity, mission, and witness of our denomination is seriously threatened by the introduction of the narrowing of cooperation through exclusionary theological and political agendas that corrupt the healthy and mutual fellowship we enjoy as Kingdom servants. We believe that the parameters of Baptist cooperation in missions and evangelism must be consistent with our rich theological heritage, and that all attempts to impose excessively restrictive criteria on participation in Southern Baptist missionary work are counterproductive to the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Because we desire to be and to remain faithful to our confession of Jesus Christ and his Word, we do not keep silent, nor shall we, since we believe that we have a common message to speak in this time of great need for unity and Kingdom focus in our convention. In view of this shared conviction, we declare the following:

1. We publicly repent of triumphalism about Southern Baptist causes and narcissism about Southern Baptist ministries which have corrupted our integrity in assessing our denomination bureaucracy, our churches, and our personal witness in light of the sobering exhortations of Scripture.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to a renewed pledge to integrity demonstrated by accountability in our denomination, both before God and each other, lest in preaching the meekness of our Lord to others we ourselves will be found guilty of wicked, sinful pride.

2. We publicly repent of an arrogant spirit that has infected our partnership with fellow Christians in the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, without the hearing of which men are incapable of conversion.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to a renewed pledge to partner with Great Commission Christians for the glory of Jesus Christ, who is proclaimed with power when his disciples are at peace with one another.

3. We publicly repent of having condemned those without Christ before we have loved them, and that we have acted as judge of those for whom Christ died by failing to live with a redemptive spirit toward them.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to engage culture actively at every level by living redemptively as the Body of Christ in the world.

4. We publicly repent of having forsaken opportunities to reason together with those who share our commitment to gospel proclamation yet differ with us on articles of the faith that are not essential to Christian orthodoxy.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to building bridges where there have been none, in listening more and talking less, and in extending the hand of fellowship to all who share our confession of Christ and our commitment to extend His Kingdom.

5. We publicly repent of having turned a blind eye to wickedness in our convention, especially when that evil has taken the form of slanderous, unsubstantiated accusations and malicious character assassination against our Christian brothers.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to confront lovingly any person in our denomination, regardless of the office or title that person holds, who disparages the name of our Lord by appropriating venomous epithets against our brothers and sisters in Christ, and thus divides our fellowship by careless and unchaste speech.

6. We publicly repent of having misplaced our priorities on the building and sustaining of institutions of secondary and far inferior importance than the local church.

Therefore, we renew our pledge to the local church as the primary focus of our ministry and service to advance the Kingdom of God and bring glory to his Son.

7. We publicly repent of having disrespected the sovereign grace of our Lord Jesus Christ by falsely presuming that our strength as a people of God is found in uniformity rather than unity within the parameters of Scriptural authority.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to honor our identity as people of one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, whose affirmation of biblical authority does not necessitate absolute uniformity on all matters of doctrine or practice.

8. We publicly repent of our inattentiveness to convention governance by not seeking to hold trustees accountable to the body which elects them to preserve our sacred trust and direct our entities with the guidance, counsel, and correction necessary to maintain the integrity of those entities.

Therefore, we covenant with one another to assist in the preservation of our convention's sacred trust and fulfill our biblical responsibility to hold those trustees elected to serve our entities accountable, and to pray for them as they seek to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities.

Finally, we believe the conversations that have begun in these days express our desire to preserve the Southern Baptist Convention should God, in his providence, so choose to sustain our witness and strengthen our commitment to these ends. We pledge, therefore, to one another that we will continue this dialogue by inviting others in our respective spheres of influence to participate with us by seeking to renew our commitment to denominational accountability, institutional openness, moral and ethical integrity, and properly prioritized Kingdom efforts.

One point that needs to be emphasized is that this declaration speaks ONLY for those who drafted it and/or signed it. While we would love to see the spirit of repentance and humility expressed in this declaration spread across the entire SBC, we DO NOT presume to speak for anyone else or for the SBC as a whole. (NOTE: I am using "we" because I subsequently signed on to the declaration after it was issued.) However, just imagine the kind of convention we would have if the majority of Southern Baptist leaders exhibited the same spirit of humility and repentance and if they put into practice the commitments that are contained in the Memphis Declaration.

If you are in agreement with the Memphis Declaration and would like to sign it, you can go to both Marty Duren's blog and Art Rogers' blog. They have listed those who physically signed the declaration, and they are adding the names of others who wish to affirm and identify with it.

Younger Leaders and SBC Politics---It's About Missions (UPDATED)

2006-04-29T01:09:00.000-05:00

One of the things that is often said about younger leaders* in the Southern Baptist Convention (YLs) is that we are turned off by the political wrangling and infighting that have characterized SBC life for the past several decades. Ironically, in recent months many YLs have engaged the SBC political process in response to a growing effort to narrow the parameters of cooperation within the SBC, which excludes faithful, God-called SBC people from certain areas of service, and to suppress dissenting voices within the SBC. Dozens of blogs have been started, meetings have been scheduled, research has been conducted, attempts have been made to persuade people to allow themselves to be nominated for office, letters have been written to state papers, and contacts with SBC leaders have been made. Unfortunately, at times tempers have flared, words have been carelessly used, and personal attacks have been made.

Obviously, not all YLs have jumped on the political bandwagon. One of the primary critics of the recent political efforts of YLs is Steve McCoy. Steve is definitely not supportive of the status quo within the SBC, but he does not believe that the political process is the best way to change the SBC. He believes that we need to focus less on changing the structure of the SBC and more on changing our local churches, specifically by leading our churches to become truly missional. As our churches, which comprise the SBC, change, the convention itself will gradually be transformed. Steve has made it clear that he is not advocating a withdrawal from the process of the SBC, but his point is that we should not look to the political process as a means of effecting real change within the SBC.

I don't know of anyone who disagrees that the key to bringing about a true missional resurgence or reformation in the SBC is to follow the path Steve advocates. Indeed, I would surmise that this is the means that most YLs would prefer to use to transform the SBC. Furthermore, I would guess that most of us agree that this is the only way to really bring about genuine long term change within the SBC.

So if most YLs would prefer to change the SBC by leading local churches to become truly missional, why has there been such a focus on the political process in the past few months? The answer can be given in one word: MISSIONS. The recent trends in the SBC toward exclusion, narrowing the parameters of cooperation, and suppression of dissenting voices have had their biggest impact on our missions work, especially on the international level. A large number of missionaries feel a need to comment anonymously or under pseudonyms out of fear that if they stray too far from the party line they could be terminated. SBC people who have been called by God to the missions field are now being told that they cannot serve through their own denomination's missions boards, not because of any character issues or heretical views, but because they do not qualify according to some extrabiblical doctrinal standard. A missionary couple serving in one of the most unreached areas of the world is in the process of being terminated because of their work with other missionaries who are in agreement with the doctrines articualted in the BFM2000. I do not think it is an exaggeration to state that if these trends are allowed to continue then the SBC will face a severe missions crisis within the next decade, if not sooner.

This is why so many YLs have reluctantly engaged the SBC political process. We are not seeking power or prestige for ourselves. Most of us are simply committed to doing whatever we can to reverse these trends as quickly as possible, for the sake of our missions work. These trends are adversely affecting our missions work NOW, so we need to act NOW. If we wait until we bring about reform by reforming our churches, the damage to our missions work will already be done. So yes, let's be committed to the task of reforming our churches and work toward a true missional resurgence that transforms every aspect of SBC life. But let's also commit ourselves to doing what we can to ensure that we do not allow our missions work to suffer before that happens.
___________________
* I am using the term younger leaders in a generic sense. I am NOT referring in any way to the Younger Leaders Initiative that was started by Jimmy Draper in 2005. The Younger Leaders Summit on June 12 in Greensboro has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of the political efforts that are being made by some of us YLs.

[UPDATE: The IMB administrative staff has decided not to terminate the missionary couple mentioned above, so they will be allowed to return to the field.]

Who's Going to Greensboro?

2006-04-20T02:01:00.000-05:00

Everything's official. I've completed my online registration for the SBC Annual Meeting in Greensboro and made my hotel reservation. All that's left is to arrange for my rental car and decide which church to attend Sunday morning.

I think it would be interesting for us to share why we're going to Greensboro and whether or not this is our first convention. (If this is your first convention, be sure to read Art Rogers' blog. He is providing a detailed primer of how the convention operates.)

Why Does Greensboro Matter?

2006-04-17T23:12:00.000-05:00

For the past few months there has been a great deal of talk in the Southern Baptist blogosphere about how the 2006 SBC Annual Meeting in Greensboro could be one of the most pivotal annual meetings in SBC history. Some have expressed a belief that Greensboro 2006 could be as significant as Houston 1979 (considered by many to be the beginning of the Conservative Resurgence). Only time will tell if that will be the case, but make no mistake, this year's annual meeting will be important for a number of reasons.

At the 2004 annual meeting in Indianapolis, Jimmy Draper expressed concern about the lack of involvement in the SBC by younger people. In an effort to connect younger leaders to the SBC, Draper began the Younger Leader initiative in 2005. There will be another Younger Leader meeting on the eve of the annual meeting in Greensboro. A primary focus of younger leaders is to lead our churches, and by extension our convention, to become missional communities living as the presence of Christ in our communities. Imagine the possibilities if this missional focus permeated the entire SBC. However, many younger leaders have distanced themselves from the convention because they perceive that the convention is more concerned with power and politics than with living out the gospel. Younger leaders also feel that a number of prominent SBC leaders look down upon them because they use nontraditional methods and reach out to people who have been neglected by most SBC churches. The only way that these things will change is for younger people to get involved in the workings of the SBC and bring about these changes. We need to get involved and change the SBC or affiliate with a group that shares our vision.
Also at the 2004 annual meeting, Morris Chapman stressed the need for conservatives who agree on the essentials of the faith to cooperate so that we can more effectively do the work of the Kingdom. However, what we have seen in the past few months is an effort to exclude conservative Southern Baptists on the basis of doctrines that are either nonessentials or not clearly taught in Scripture AND that are not addressed in the Baptist Faith & Message. The SBC is standing at a fork in the road: one path is the way of cooperation and unity, the other path is the way of separation and uniformity. The first path will lead the SBC to its greatest potential in reaching the world for Christ; the second path will lead the SBC to its demise as an effective means of reaching people for Christ. We must take a stand for cooperation and unity.
Our SBC missions boards (NAMB and IMB) are facing difficult situations that threaten their effectiveness at taking the gospel to all people. The dust is still settling at NAMB in the wake of Bob Reccord's resignation; it is too early to predict what might happen there. The situation at the IMB is more clear, and at the moment more of a danger. For the sake of brevity I won't describe what has been happening at the IMB; if you're not familiar with these events you can go to Marty Duren's blog or Wade Burleson's blog for the best summaries and analyses of what's been happening (start with the November 2005 archives and work your way forward). If the recent actions of the IMB Board of Trustees are allowed to stand (especially the November policies), the result is going to be the loss of many God-called, faithful, committed Southern Baptist missionaries from the mission field. We CANNOT allow this to happen. While we will not be able to overturn these actions at Greensboro, if the convention expresses its disapproval then it is more likely that the trustees will reverse their actions.
There is a growing effort among some within SBC leadership to suppress any dissenting voices. Policies have been passed to prohibit public dissent by trustees of the IMB. Efforts have been made to remove people who do not follow the prescribed party line. However, free and open discussion is healthy for any organization; history is filled with examples of the dangers inherent in groupthink. If the environment of the SBC continues to become more restrictive, demanding an enforced uniformity of opinion, younger people will leave the SBC in droves. We must let our voices be heard and demonstrate that true unity is NOT the same thing as uniformity. We must insist that principled dissent, which has played a pivotal role in the shaping of our convention from 1845 until the present, not be suppressed.

As you look at the list of challenges facing the SBC, you may be thinking that this annual meeting won't make any difference. I acknowledge that the needed changes won't all take place in Greensboro, nor in San Antonio. They may not even happen in Indianapolis or Louisville. But if we make the commitment, they WILL come to pass. But for this to happen, we have to take the first step, and that is Greensboro.

Are Education and Christian Faith Compatible?

2006-04-11T19:35:00.000-05:00

In a comment over at Kiki Cherry's blog, a reader named Cathy asked me about "seminaries that try to insulate their students from different views of scripture." Since this wasn't the topic of that particular post, I gave a brief response. I also stated that the issue of Christian higher education is one I have thought about for a long time and that I intended to do a blog post on the subject sometime. Actually, I'm going to address this issue in a couple of posts. In this post, I will lay out some of my views on the how education and Christian faith relate to one another. My next post on the subject will focus specifically on the purpose of Christian higher education, especially in regard to whether Christian colleges and seminaries should expose students to a broad range of ideas, promote a particular view, or a combination of the two.

I have spent much of my adult life around higher education as a student, research assistant, instructor, and even working in a university bookstore. All of my involvement in the world of higher education has taken place at public universities. In my 10 years as a student (4 undergraduate, 6 graduate) I never encountered any professors who really challenged Christian beliefs. So I didn't really think much about the relationship between education and faith. My first attempt to organize my thoughts on the subject was in 1998 when I applied for a part-time position as a history instructor at Carson-Newman College, which is affiliated with the Tennessee Baptist Convention. (I didn't get the position.) As part of the application process I had to provide a statement of my views regarding the relationship between education and faith. The following is the text of the statement I submitted:

As a Christian and a scholar, I believe that knowledge and education are compatible with faith in God. Education provides people with the tools to seek truth. Since God is the source of all truth, it would seem that education would bring people closer to Him. However, this is often not the case. In today’s world it is common for many highly educated people to deny either the existence of God or the validity of His Word. This is largely due to the arrogance that is part of our sinful human nature. God has chosen to use people to bring about His will in the world, but those who do not know Him do not see His hand in the course of history and progress. Because such people have dominated the academic world for many years, most people are taught that humanity is the supreme force in shaping the world. The Christian scholar should fight against this trend. By initially establishing a frame of reference in which history, knowledge, and progress are defined as part of the will of God, Christian scholars can impart to their students that people are God’s tools for achieving His will and not the masters of the universe. As people gain more knowledge of the world within this frame of reference, they will view new discoveries as being another piece of God’s plan. In this way, then, education will bring them closer to God.
Because God is the source of all truth, I see no reason for Christians to fear being exposed to ideas that on the surface appear to contradict Scripture. Instead of trying to suppress the expression of such ideas, Christians should examine them to determine if they really do contradict God’s Word. If that is the case, Christians should point out factual and logical flaws in those ideas and declare what God says about the subject through His Word and the Holy Spirit. By trying to suppress the expression of ideas, Christians give the impression that our beliefs and God’s Word cannot withstand challenges, when in reality the ideas of the world cannot stand up to God’s truth when it is fully revealed.
Both my understanding of Christianity and my belief in academic freedom lead me to oppose any efforts to force people to believe a certain way. While I am convinced that absolute truth as expressed by God exists, I believe that He gives people the right to accept or reject His truth. As Christians, we are called to tell others about God’s truth, but we are never authorized to force them to accept it. In the same way that we should not coerce others into accepting God’s truth, we should not try to force them to adopt our ideas concerning human knowledge. Instead, free and open discussion of issues should be encouraged, and all opinions should be tolerated. This does not mean that we do not point out errors or flaws, but it means that we do not ridicule others for what they believe.
While all Christians long for Heaven, God has a purpose for each of us while we are on Earth. Education is an important tool for us in carrying out His purpose. A sound education allows us to communicate clearly, think critically, better understand others, and have a more realistic perspective of our place in the larger world. Education also enables Christians to enter the corporate, political, and academic fields, where we can exert a Godly influence on society. Because education in a secular environment does not emphasize Christian values and beliefs, God’s purposes are best served when His people are educated in a Christian environment.

My views are largely the same today as they were when I wrote this. The one statement that I may not fully agree with today is the very last one. Over the past year or so I have come to question the wisdom of Christians insulating ourselves from views that are contrary to what the Bible teaches. I now believe that it can be healthy for Christians to have our beliefs challenged. This forces us to evaluate what we believe and why we believe it, which can solidify our beliefs. It also provides an opportunity for us to share our views with and explain them to others (respectfully, of course).

I'm a What?

2006-04-04T15:56:00.000-05:00

Over at Micah Fries' blog I found this link to a quiz about your theological worldview. I was a bit surprised by the results. Here's how I scored:

You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

82%

Neo orthodox

68%

Fundamentalist

61%

Emergent/Postmodern

54%

Reformed Evangelical

54%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

50%

Classical Liberal

39%

Modern Liberal

21%

Roman Catholic

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

Apparently Baptist is not recognized as a theological worldview (although it seems that some are trying to change that). I've never considered myself to be either Reformed or Arminian, but apparently I lean more in the Arminian direction. So I guess the next time someone asks I can say that I'm 82% Wesleyan and 54% Reformed (and hope that they aren't mathematicians). I wasn't surprised at all that liberalism and Catholicism ranked at the bottom. I was initially shocked to see fundamentalism rank so high, but I do tend to fit the classical definition of fundamentalism (before it became a political buzzword). I'm definitely more charismatic than I thought (I don't know how; I'm usually pretty dull). And I came out a little higher on the Emergent side than I would have expected. I was most surprised to rate so highly on Neo-orthodoxy. I've never thought of myself in that way, but I'm not sure how it is defined for this quiz.

According to the results, I shouldn't plan on becoming Pope anytime in the near future, but the Methodist church is an option. Hmmm. . . on second thought, probably not. Baptists are better at cooking fried chicken.

So, what are you?

Reality Check

2006-04-03T16:42:00.000-05:00

Over the weekend I read a couple of articles that really challenged me and made me think. I'm not sure why these articles had such an impact on me; I've read several accounts of persecution before that were just as brutal as these. Perhaps all of the attention I have been giving to the various issues related to the IMB and the interaction I have had with some of our international missionaries have attuned my heart more closely toward what is happening with the church overseas. Regardless of the underlying reasons, these two articles (actually they are way too brief to be articles) really spoke to me. I have summarized them in the following two paragraphs.

In late January, Alliance Church pastor Timothy Ariao and his wife Delia Juebas were ambushed and killed while traveling to a church gathering in the South Cotabato province of the Philippines. This was the most recent in a series of attacks against Christians in that country over the past several years.

Last October, three teenage Christian girls were beheaded by Islamic extremists in the Central Sulawesi province of Indonesia. In a display of Christlike love, the parents of the girls have publicly declared their forgiveness of those who murdered the girls. Their pastor has said that the deaths of these teenage martyrs were not in vain because they have brought unity to the Christian churches in the area and encouraged believers to be strong in the faith.

Sadly, such stories are not rare. In many parts of the world being a follower of Jesus is not merely inconvenient or uncomfortable---it is DANGEROUS. Things that we as American Christians do as a matter of routine---drive to a church service or simply go somewhere in public---put many of our brothers and sisters around the world in harm's way. The danger is by no means limited to native Christians in other countries. Many missionaries who are serving Christ overseas face similar dangers, as news reports in recent years have reminded us. In the past five years eight Southern Baptist missionaries have been killed in the Philippines, Yemen, and Iraq. I have no idea how many missionaries from other denominations have also given their lives for the gospel. In many parts of the world, spiritual warfare is manifested in physical acts of violence against believers.

Here in America it is quite safe and even comfortable to be a Christian. Our idea of persecution is to be made fun of or caricaturized by the media and Hollywood. Sure, this is unpleasant, but it is far from dangerous. And in America there are some perks to being a Christian. If you want to run for public office, it can be beneficial to refer to yourself as a Christian. That would be the death knell for your campaign (or your life) in many countries. If you own a business, you can attract some additional customers if you publicize it as a Christian-owned business. All in all, we have it pretty good as American Christians. Perhaps we have it too good.

Our comfort and prosperity have given us a distorted idea of what it means to be a Christian. American Christianity is largely characterized by individualism and consumerism. We take care of ourselves. If we don't get what we want, we change churches or abandon the church altogether. Our idea of sacrificing for the gospel is to slip an extra ten or twenty in the plate when special offerings for missions are collected. Our attitudes and our actions reveal that we see ourselves not as Christians who happen to be American, but as Americans who happen to be Christian.

I believe that one of the results of comfortable Christianity has been an increased tendency to separate ourselves from other believers for just about any reason. Sometimes we divide because of relatively minor doctrinal differences, such as the nature of the end times or whether women can teach men. [NOTE: I definitely believe there ARE core doctrines that must serve as lines of distinction between us and others. I am not referring to divisions made on the basis of these doctrines, but over what we often call non-essentials.] More often we separate because of differences in tradition or personal preference. Possibly the main reason we break away from other believers is because of personal disputes that are never resolved. Why do we separate over matters such as these? Part of the reason is that we really don't believe we need each other. We feel like we can get along just fine without certain other believers. We think that we can just fellowship with and cooperate with those who believe exactly (or almost exactly) as we believe and still do what God has called us to do. This is certainly not unique to the American church, but it is quite prevalent here.

But what if it weren't so comfortable or acceptable to be a Christian? What if we suffered severe persecution or economic deprivation because of our faith? Would we be so willing to disassociate ourselves from other believers? Somehow I don't think so. I believe that if we lived in a country where being a Christian placed our lives in danger that we would be far more willing to fellowship with and cooperate with fellow believers who have a different understanding of the end times or the proper role of women in ministry or whether the practice of tongues is legitimate. We would count it a privilege to worship with other Christians who sing a style of music we do not particularly care for. We would strive for reconciliation with a brother or sister when one of us offended or was offended by the other instead of turning away from him or her. Our common hardships and struggles would make it more likely that we would realize that we need each other. We would be more apt to recognize that despite our differences we are all in this together, serving the same Lord. We would be much closer to living out the unity that Jesus prayed for His followers to have.

I'm not a prophet, but I believe that if we do not make a sincere effort to pursue this unity among ALL of us as believers then the Lord may take steps to push us in that direction. It wouldn't be the first time He did something like that. In Acts 1 Jesus told His disciples to be His witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth. Well, they did really well on the Jerusalem part, and maybe on the Judea part, but they hadn't made any movement toward Samaria, let alone the rest of the world. So what happened? Persecution came to the Jerusalem church. This persecution drove many of the believers out of Jerusalem and Judea into Samaria and other regions, where they shared the gospel and established churches. Who's to say that the Lord won't allow us to taste persecution to make us come together? As the Indonesian pastor in the article said, the killing of those three Christian girls brought unity to the chruches in the area. I pray that it won't take something so drastic to bring us together.

Wade Burleson's Dream for the Future of the SBC

2006-03-31T16:03:00.000-06:00

One of the most encouraging things I have read in recent days is Wade Burleson's post I Have a Dream for the SBC. If you have not read this, I strongly encourage you to do so. Wade lays out a vision that, if realized, would free us from many of the petty squabbles that consume much of our time and effort and would allow us to focus more on our Kingdom mission. Here are some excerpts from his post (be sure to go to his blog and read the post in its entirety):

My dream for the Southern Baptist Convention is a threefold vision or desire:
1. Liberty for the People within the SBC. . .
I have a dream where we have a convention that is characterized by liberty; liberty of conscience, liberty of dissent, liberty of the soul.
The privilege of dissent is especially vital for the health of our convention. It is possible for the majority to make decisions that are not healthy for the convention in the long run, but through patient, loving dissent, there is the very real possibility that unhealthy decisions may be reversed. . .
It is liberty of dissent that sharpens us. It is the liberty of dissent that strengthens us. I have a dream that we have a convention that is not fearful of dissent, but embraces it as part of our heritage, welcomes it as a vital member of our Baptist family, and sees it as a blessing and benefit in the longrun. . .
Yes, we need our confessions. However, let's be slow to tamper with our confessions. And we must absolutely not allow anyone to narrow the parameters of fellowship and cooperation beyond our confessions. And let's hold sacred the principles of liberty so that we do not become a creedal people, a denominational sect, and in the end, a people more concerned about jots and tittles than God and people.
2. Love for the World outside the SBC.
The Kingdom of God is bigger than the Southern Baptist Convention. God's kingdom includes all the elect from every nation, tribe, kindred and tongue, and it transcends any one denominational boundary.
I have a dream that Southern Baptists see the hand of God at work in other evangelical venues, and where possible, join in the efforts of those of like faith to win the world for Christ. In many cases we will be the forerunners of the gospel, reaching into nations, peoples and lands where the gospel has little presence. Where we lead the charge, I pray that we will welcome the support of other evangelical witnesses who follow. The world is too big, the time is to short, and the lost are too many to believe that we Southern Baptists can do it alone. . .
When we as Southern Baptists are more concerned for the lost than we are that we get the credit for the new church plants, then we will truly be Kingdom minded. When we are more concerned for the lost than we are that we separate from any other evangelical who is not called a Southern Batpist, then we will be truly Kingdom minded. God has called all his disciples to be Great Commission disciples and to the extent that we participate with other Great Commission discipoles all over this world to fulfill our Lord's command is the extent to which we will be fulfilling that Commission given to us.
3. Loyalty from the churches in the SBC.
I have a dream that every Southern Baptist Church will be loyal and faithful to contribute to the Cooperative Program, and all our agency offerings, particularly the Lottie Moon offering.
I am of the opinion, however, that to demand loyalty without allowing freedom to dissent or exhibiting a love for others outside the SBC will be like putting the cart before the horse.
Loyalty to the SBC from the younger generation must be earned. It doesn't happen automatically.

What do you think of Wade's vision? Is this vision one that you would support? Do you believe that it will ever come to fruition? Do you think that things would be different if this vision were to become reality?

How About Some Good News?

2006-03-23T16:41:00.000-06:00

Despite some cautious optimism, most of the reaction to the recent IMB trustee meeting in Tampa has been that of anger or discouragement. So it seems that now is the perfect time for some good news to encourage us. The following posts discuss some positive things that have been happening:

Guy Muse, You Pray. . . and God Answers!
Kiki Cherry, 10 Things I Learned in Quebec
Kevin Hash, University Students Use Spring Break to Rebuild in Pass Christian, Mississippi
Jason Sampler, Update from New Orleans
Marty Duren, Missional Church

What good things have been happening in your life? In what ways have you seen God working recently? Share your good news and let us rejoice together!

Outrageous! (Updated)

2006-03-22T22:30:00.000-06:00

The Board of Trustees of the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist convention has wrapped up its meeting in Tampa. Thank God! There's no telling what other outrageous actions the board would have taken if the meeting had not adjourned. The best firsthand summaries of what happened can be found on the following blogs:

SBC Outpost (Marty Duren)
Big Brother--Tampa, Part 1
Smoke and Mirrors--Tampa, Part 2
Merry Go Round--Tampa, Part 3
This Is Dedicated to the Ones I Love--Tampa, Part 4

Grace and Truth to You (Wade Burleson)
Wise Heads and Warm Hearts
My Last Post as an International Mission Board Trustee?
Decisions
Ten Terrific Things Tied to Tampa

The Road We Travel (Rick Thompson)
Reflections on Our IMB Meeting (Everyone Stay Calm)
Resolutions I Am Making Coming Out of Our Last IMB Meeting

I cannot understand how anyone can read about what transpired at the IMB Board meeting and not be outraged. The board has declared that once they have made a decision that no trustee can express public disagreement with that decision. Apparently the board wants to make sure that all of us ignorant Southern Baptists are never again tipped off about some bonehead decision made by the board so that we will never again have the audacity to dare express our opposition to such a decision. It would not surprise me if the board's next move would be to attempt to move all matters of substantive business to executive session so that independent observers (whom the board cannot silence) would have nothing to report on. That way the board could exercise absolute control over all information about its proceedings, which seems to be the direction it wants to move toward.

I can't figure out for certain whether the primary force behind this new policy is arrogance or ignorance. Arrogance in the sense that the trustees are saying, "This is our board! We don't have to answer to anyone except ourselves!" Ignorance in the sense that the board seems not to realize that this action will erode what's left of any trust that a number of Southern Baptists, especially us younger ones (but many others as well), might have had in the board. It appears that the majority of trustees can't get it through their heads that this push to enforce conformity is one factor that is causing a number of younger people to reevaluate whether or not the SBC is the place for us. We value transparency, openness, and the free exchange of ideas. We understand that there is a difference between uniformity and unity. We are more interested in right being done than in procedure being followed. We are willing to fellowship with and cooperate with others with whom we disagree on certain issues. And we don't see the recent actions of the board as reflective of these values.

After reading about this new policy, my first instinct was to advise Wade and other likeminded trustees to resign as a matter of principle. But upon further reflection, and after reading a comment from one of our missionaries asking who would be their voice, I concluded that these trustees need to remain on the board so that someone on the board can be a voice for our missionaries. Sadly, it seems that too many of our trustees really don't care what our missionaries think about policies and strategy; at least that is the perception of many current and former missionaries, and it seems to be a valid perception. Even more disturbing is the fact that there is such an atmosphere in the IMB that many missionaries feel that they cannot openly share their views without suffering some sort of reprisal. Why doesn't the Board of Trustees work on creating an environment where our missionaries feel free to speak out on issues that directly affect them instead of imposing policies to shut the mouths of those trustees who would speak out about many of the concerns our missionaries have?

Another appalling aspect about this meeting was the way that some of the trustees attacked IMB President Jerry Rankin. One trustee engaged in a petty squabble because Rankin had not given him a copy of a video that he asked for, even though Rankin showed the video to the entire board. Others accused Rankin of trying to undermine the authority of the trustees. (Hmmm, what about trying to undermine the authority of the president?) And at least one trustee basically accused Rankin of lying. Such actions only confirm suspicions that some of the trustees are seeking after power and control.

In spite of all of this, Wade and Rick both gave a generally positive assessment of the meeting. Of course, the new policy does not allow for any other type of assessment. But still, their positive remarks are genuine; had they not truly believed that some good things happened, they would have remained silent. Both of them pointed to the unanimous vote to rescind the motion to remove Wade and the adoption of a new policy that prohibits trustees from publicly disparaging other trustees or IMB staff. Rick talked about the overall positive demeanor of the meeting as a good sign. Wade had quite a bit to say about the increased interest in the work of the IMB and its board as evidenced by the attendance of about 20 young SBCers and the volume of correspondence the board has received in the past few months. Both are optimistic about how this situation will ultimately turn out. I wish I could share that optimism, but at this moment I simply cannot be optimistic. It is hard to be optimistic about the IMB when any trust I had in its board has been wiped away by that board's actions. I can only hope that their position as insiders gives them some real cause for optimism that we on the outside cannot see.

UPDATE! Marty has also indicated that some good things happened at the meeting but has not had the opportunity to discuss this in detail. He was very complimentary of Tom Hatley's leadership of the meeting. Hopefully he will say something that will generate a little optimism. I would love for someone to prove me wrong (and I don't say that very often).

A Reassessment of Jerry Corbaley's Blog

2006-03-14T15:17:00.000-06:00

You are probably aware that a couple of weeks ago IMB trustee Jerry Corbaley started his own blog. After reading his first two posts, I expressed my disappointment with Corbaley's blog, particularly the attitude that he seemed to convey in his posts and comments. Today I visited Corbaley's blog for the first time in a few days, and I was impressed by the change in the tone of his statements. His most recent remarks seem to demonstrate a spirit of genuine humility, a willingness to listen, and an awareness that there must be greater transparency and more open communication. There is also more of an emphasis on trying to find solutions than on defending the way things have been done. Corbaley acknowledged that blogging is a permanent part of SBC life and that our SBC entities are going to have to figure out a way to interact with the blogosphere. The main area where Corbaley's blog still disappoints is his failure to discuss why he supports the IMB policies. But other than that, he has taken a number of positive steps with his blog over the past several days and is now making some productive contributions to the overall discussion.

Let's Not Get Personal

2006-03-14T00:09:00.000-06:00

Over the past few days there has been a noticeable shift in the discussion of the issues surrounding the recent actions of the IMB Board of Trustees. While there have always been some issues at the center of the discussion regarding certain individuals (this is inevitable when you have an effort to remove an individual from a position), for the most part the discussion has remained focused on the policies and the reasoning behind the policies. Such a discussion is necessary and healthy, but if we allow the discussion to degenerate into a series of insinuations and accusations against other people then it will become counterproductive and even destructive.

Let me make it clear that I see a difference between using blunt or polemical language to refute someone's arguments and making statements that malign someone's character or cast aspersions upon their motives. I call attention to this distinction because I have been vocal in my support of Benjamin Cole's critical remarks about the rationale offered for the IMB policies, which some have said were inappropriate and even un-Christian. After reading Cole's remarks again, the only thing I believe he should have done differently was to refer to the position papers in a generic manner instead of continually referring to them as Tom Hatley's statement. For example, instead of saying, "Chairman Hatley’s logic goes something like this," Cole probably should have said, "The paper's logic goes something like this." That way, people would have been less likely to identify Cole's attack on the position as an attack on Hatley himself. I do not see Cole's remarks as being an attack against Hatley's character or motives; if Cole is attacking anything about Hatley, it is Hatley's logic and use of Scripture.

While I don't consider Cole's remarks to be any sort of personal attack, on various blogs I have read some recent comments that subtly, and sometimes openly, cast aspersions on various individuals' motives and character. Such comments have been made by and about people on both sides of the issues. I have chosen not to give any examples of or links to these comments, but if you have read enough blogs you have probably seen these comments already.

I strongly encourage everyone engaged in this discussion, on all sides, to strive to avoid making statements that question or attack anyone's character or motives. You can offer support for your own views and point out weaknesses in other views without questioning the character or motives of those who disagree with you. Let's try to keep the discussion focused on the issues rather than on individuals.

An Important Letter in Response to the IMB Policies and Position Papers

2006-03-10T14:21:00.000-06:00

If you have been reading the various SBC blogs for any length of time, you have probably read comments by Dorcas Hawker. On her blog she has posted a letter from her pastor to their congregation that completely demolishes the position papers released by IMB trustee chairman Tom Hatley earlier this week. This letter is a MUST READ.

WARNING! This letter is not for the faint of heart. Brother Cole is blunt and direct in his treatment of the policies, the position papers, and even some of the trustees. Some commenters felt that this letter went over the line, but others believe that the situation calls for such a response. My opinion can be inferred from the following comment I made after reading the letter:

I wonder if those who are critical of the tone of this letter are critical of John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul for some of the language they used. Could Brother Cole have toned down his remarks? Perhaps, but if his reaction to the position papers was similar to my reaction, then this letter is a toned down response. The fact is, there are occasions when it is necessary for Christians to use blunt and even harsh language (again, refer to John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul). Such cases are the exception to the norm, but I believe the gravity of this current issue meets the standard.

This is by far the most effective refutation of the position papers I have come across (much better than my statement). It needs to be read by as many people as possible, so I am linking to this post from my blog.

(HT: Marty Duren)

An Examination of the Position Papers Concerning the IMB Policies on Baptism and Tongues/Prayer Language

2006-03-08T14:29:00.000-06:00

As promised, I am now going to offer my analysis of the position papers that were released yesterday to support the new IMB policies on baptism and tongues/prayer language. As a disclaimer, I remind you that I have been strongly opposed to both of these policies since they were adopted in November, but I have always expressed a willingness to change my position should I be provided convincing biblical evidence for the policies. Having read the position papers, I find that both policies rest on weak biblical foundations. Thus, my opposition to the policies remains as strong as ever.

In examining these position papers, I will not go through them point by point. (If I did that then I would be here all day and probably longer.) Instead, I will focus on broad areas where I disagree (and in some cases even agree). I also will not deal very much with the historical justifications given. While I acknowledge the importance of heritage and historical background (I do have a master's degree in history and spent three years working on a Ph.D. in history), I believe that in matters of faith and practice that we must look to the Bible rather than tradition or history. If you are really interested in an analysis of the historical arguments, you should read what Gene Bridges has to say here and here at SBC Outpost.

An Examination of the Position Paper on the Baptism Policy

Before reading any further, make sure you have read the official baptism policy and the position paper itself.

According to the position paper, the baptism policy is based on four points:

"The only biblical mode for baptism is immersion." I agree completely, as does practically every other Southern Baptist. This particular issue is not a point of contention in this discussion, but it seems that some of the supporters of the policies believe that opponents are in favor of accepting various modes of baptism (sprinkling, pouring). Let me be perfectly clear that I, and everyone I know of who opposes the policy, believe that immersion is the ONLY biblically acceptable mode for baptism.
"The only proper candidate for immersion is a regenerate believer in Jesus Christ." Again, there is no disagreement here. Everyone that I know of who opposes the policy is a credobaptist.
"The act is purely symbolic and distinct from salvation itself and has no saving merit." And yet again, we agree completely. None of the opponents of the policy have, to my knowledge, expressed a belief in baptismal regeneration or that baptism is sacramental. In fact, some of the arguments used to support the policy lean toward a sacramental view of baptism.
"Baptism is a church ordinance and therefore the only proper administrator of it is a local New Testament church that holds to a proper view of salvation." Here's where we have some disagreement. Among opponents of the policy there is general, but not universal, agreement with the first part of this statement, but it is the second part where we find the greatest problems. The rest of my analysis will focus on this last statement.

In arriving at an understanding of what baptism is, we have to start with what the Bible says about the subject. Since nearly all of us are in agreement on points 1-3 above, I won't discuss the biblical support for these points. So what does the Bible have to say about point 4? Apparently not much, because in the position paper there is no reference to any passage of Scripture that clearly supports either one of the assertions made in point 4 (whereas there are quite a few citations of Scripture to support each of the first three points). Instead, there are references to each of the three versions of the Baptist Faith & Message, and several passages of Scripture that support the doctrine of eternal security (which is believed by all of the opponents of the baptism policy that I know of) .

The position paper refers to the baptism of Jesus and the account of Paul in Ephesus in Acts 19 in an effort to provide some sort of justification for the policy. But when you read the biblical accounts of the baptism of Jesus, where do you see anything that indicates that the reason Jesus went to John to be baptized was because John had "proper baptismal authority?" The writers of the paper must be using a translation that I'm not familiar with. And the paper's use of Acts 19 is an example of either selectively using Scripture to prove a preconceived point or poor interpretation. The paper implies that the first thing Paul did when he arrived was to ask unto what they had been baptized, but actually Paul's first question was, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" It was only when they said they had never even heard of the Holy Spirit that Paul asked about their baptism. He didn't ask this question to determine what doctrines they had been baptized into, but to find out if they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

The new baptism policy reflects an unbiblical view of baptism. When the Bible speaks of believers being baptized, it either says that they simply were baptized or that they were baptized into the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). In other words, their baptism is a symbol of their uniting with Christ Himself. Nowhere in the Bible do we see believers being baptized into a local church, nor do we see believers being baptized into a particular set of doctrines. Thus, being baptized in a church that affirms eternal security does not mean you have been baptized into the doctrine of eternal security, nor does being baptized in a church that does not affirm eternal security mean that you have been baptized into the doctrine of falling from grace. If this were the case, then a person baptized in an Arminian Southern Baptist church should be rebaptized upon joining a Calvinistic Southern Baptist church because the two churches have different theologies of salvation. And why limit it to eternal security? Why not require rebaptism for a person baptized in a church that affirms women as pastors? Why not require rebaptism for a person baptized in a church with a different view of inerrancy? Indeed, just to be safe, every church should require rebaptism of everyone who joins, because there will be some point of doctrine where there is a difference between the receiving church and the baptizing church. What the proponents of the policy fail to mention is that there is not one single example in the New Testament of a person who had received Christian baptism ever being rebaptized. (The people in Acts 19 had originally received John's baptism and not Christian baptism.)

And what about the concept that baptism requires a qualified administrator to be valid? Again, there is no direct biblical statement to support such a concept. In fact, the only statement I can find that even remotely touches on the subject is the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). In the Great Commission Jesus commands His disciples to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Here we clearly have Jesus commanding His disciples to evangelize, baptize, and disciple people of every nation. So what we see in the plainest reading of the text is that all disciples of Jesus are authorized to evangelize, baptize, and disciple others. Now some claim that the Great Commission was given not to all believers but only to the eleven remaining apostles, and thus only duly ordained and authorized ministers can baptize. If this is the case, then logic would dictate that not only baptism but evangelism and discipleship could only be carried out by duly ordained and authorized ministers. There is no basis for treating baptism differently from the other parts of the Great Commission. Also, notice that in the Great Commission Jesus says nothing about the local church or its authority.

Obviously I have not addressed all the relevant issues related to the baptism policy. What I have attempted to do here is to demonstrate that the new baptism policy does not have any solid biblical support. If you are interested in a more detailed discussion of baptism and the IMB policy, you can read the comments on my earlier post Wade Burleson on "Who Can Baptize?" This is a lengthy, spirited discussion where both sides are expressed.

An Examination of the Position Paper on the Tongues/Prayer Language Policy

Before reading any further, make sure you have read the official tongues/prayer language policy and the position paper itself. Also, let me preface my remarks by stating that I have never spoken in tongues or practiced a private prayer language, I have never desired to do either one, and I have never witnessed either one. A lady in a previous church, one of the most spiritual and godly people I have ever met, did practice a prayer language, and a teacher I had in high school told about a time he witnessed someone speaking in tongues (it was done in a controlled and orderly manner, and someone interpreted).

This position paper has a stronger scriptural basis than the paper on the baptism policy. It does a good job of describing the biblical guidelines for the use of tongues in public worship (primarily found in 1 Corinthians 14). The only significant area where I may disagree with the paper is in its insistence that every single use of glossa definitely refers to a known human language. It is possible that the same word used to describe earthly languages could be used to describe a heavenly language. One could argue that the context of 1 Corinthians 14:2, "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God," indicates something different than what took place in Acts 2, where the disciples were definitely speaking to other people. I'm not convinced that we can make a dogmatic claim either way, which is one reason why I am uncomfortable drawing lines on the basis of this issue.

It is evident that in most cases the use of tongues in public worship in American churches today does not strictly adhere to the principles of 1 Corinthians 14. However, the fact that a practice is misused or abused does not mean that the practice itself is invalid. In light of Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 14:39, "Do not forbid speaking in tongues," I have a difficult time accepting any policy that is a blanket prohibition of the use of tongues in a manner consistent with the biblical guidelines.

What the paper does not demonstrate is that the use of a private prayer language is unbiblical. Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians 14 seem to apply only to public worship. Indeed, when verse 28 says that a person should not speak in a tongue out loud in the church if there is no interpreter present but should speak to himself and to God, it is possible to infer that in private there would be no reason for this person not to speak out loud. Again, we cannot say this is definitely the case, but it would be a reasonable inference. What is clear is that in the Bible there is not a blanket prohibition of using a prayer language in private, nor is there a clear endorsement of the practice. Thus, since there is no definitive scriptural teaching either way we should leave this matter to the individual believer.

In my examination of these position papers I have not tried to prove their interpretations wrong so much as to simply demonstrate that there are other plausible interpretations that have biblical support. I have no problem with drawing doctrinal lines on essential issues where the Bible speaks clearly and definitively. But on issues such as the ones addressed by the policies, which either are nonessentials or are not addressed by the Bible in an absolutely clear and definitive way, we should not draw these lines. Also, keep in mind that both of these policies go well beyond the doctrinal parameters of the Baptist Faith & Message, which is the statement that we as Southern Baptists have adopted as a definition of our core doctrinal beliefs.

It's About Time

2006-03-07T23:32:00.000-06:00

It took nearly four months, but today IMB Trustee Chairman Tom Hatley finally released several statements intended to justify the IMB policies/guidelines regarding private prayer language and baptism that were adopted in November. (For the sake of simplicity, I am going to refer to both of them as policies, even though there is a technical difference between a policy and a guideline.) Not all of these statements have been officially adopted by the IMB Board of Trustees, but they do explain some of the reasoning behind the adoption of these policies. After reading the statements released by Hatley, I can see why the trustees were in no hurry to make any public statements justifying the new policies. An examination of these various statements reveals that, while there may be some historical basis for the new policies, they lack a strong biblical foundation to support them. Also, these policies will ultimately do more to harm our missions efforts than help them.

As a preface to his statements, Hatley issued a two-part open letter, the first part to all Southern Baptists and the second part specifically to Southern Baptist pastors. In this letter he briefly describes the appointment process for missionaries and then goes on to explain why the trustees felt there was a need to address the issues of tongues/prayer language and baptism. Basically, there were two main reasons why the trustees addressed these issues:

There was a lack of uniformity among the subcommittees of the board when they evaluated missionary candidates, particularly in the areas of tongues and baptism. This inconsistency made the work of candidate consultants more difficult.
"At the same time we were receiving concerns from the field, from pastors and others returning from mission trips, and from trustees visiting the field. The concerns were varied, but the three greatest doctrinal concerns were the need for a consistent definition of a local church, a poor understanding of the importance of scriptural baptism and charismatic problems that would intrude into some of our mission work."

There is no doubt that such concerns needed to be dealt with. However, the first concern could have been dealt with fairly easily by developing a uniform means of applying the policies in existence at the time. Instead of imposing overly restrictive new policies, just train the trustees and candidate consultants so they could apply the existing policies in a more uniform manner. The second concern should have been addressed by discussing these issues directly with the missionaries. (This may have been done in some cases, but I am not aware of any trustee or missionary who has said that this was done.) Based on several comments by former and current missionaries, many of these concerns probably stemmed from the fact that churches in other cultures are going to differ from the typical Southern Baptist church here in America in a number of ways, especially related to organization and methodology. But even if these concerns are valid, they cannot be addressed by adopting policies that go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture.

In his open letter Hatley also addresses the speculation that one of the reasons that these policies, especially the one on prayer language, were adopted was somehow to embarrass or injure IMB President Jerry Rankin, who has openly acknowledged practicing a private prayer language. Hatley indicates that it was Rankin himself who requested the board as a whole to address these issues. Hatley is technically correct about this, but his letter does not make it clear that Rankin actively opposed these policies. From what I can tell, Rankin requested that the full board consider these issues so that there could be no mistaking what the official policies were. And as a matter of pure speculation on my part, I believe Rankin thought that the entire board would never vote to adopt such bad policies.

For the sake of brevity, I will reserve my examination of the policies and the position papers that were issued in support of them for a subsequent post. In the meantime, let your voice be heard. Hatley has invited all Southern Baptists to give our feedback on these issues by emailing the trustees at imbtrustees@imb.org. Be sure to express your views there, but also keep contacting individual trustees.

A Disappointment. . . So Far

2006-03-03T22:52:00.000-06:00

After several weeks of almost total silence from the IMB trustees who voted for the new policies on prayer language and baptism and for the recommendation to remove Wade Burleson as a trustee, one trustee has finally spoken up. Jerry Corbaley, a trustee from California who supports both the new policies and the removal of Wade, started his own blog this week. When I visited his blog I eagerly anticipated seeing someone finally provide some reasons in support of the IMB actions, but so far Corbaley's blog has been a disappointment. Instead of saying anything that might support the IMB actions, Corbaley has tried to justify the silence of the trustees on these issues. While this is disappointing enough for those of us who believe that an explanation is warranted, the greater disappointment comes from the attitude conveyed by Corbaley in some of his remarks. I'll provide some brief excerpts, but to get the full flavor you need to read Corbaley's posts and the comments in their entirety.

I posted this comment on Corbaley's first post:

Jerry,

I appreciate seeing another one of our IMB trustees posting their own blog. The best way for our trustees to demonstrate their accountability to the SBC is for you to communicate with the people of the SBC regarding your actions (with the obvious exception of matters that must remain confidential for security or legal reasons). I think it would be great if every trustee of every SBC entity had his or her own blog. Then we would have a greater understanding of the issues facing the SBC.

While I have been strongly opposed to both the new policies and the recommendation to remove Wade, I have repeatedly called on those on the other side of these issues to explain their case. I look forward to your subsequent posts.

Apparently, Corbaley did not care for my suggestion that all trustees start their own blogs. But I'm not certain because, to be honest, his response did not make a whole lot of sense to me:

Tim,

Every trustee of every institution having their own blog? Every Southern Baptist expressing a different opinion on everything?

Have you run this idea by Stephen King? You could terrify movie-goers everywhere and make a bundle.

You may be right about the future though.

Why did you have to put this thought in my head?

Ow! Ow! Ow!

Then, in a response to an anonymous missionary who suggested that it might be a good idea to have some formal means for missionaries to voice their opinions on issues regarding the IMB and to evaluate the work of the trustees, Corbaley invoked my name while making it clear that he did not find any merit in the missionary's suggestion:

Evaluate the Trustees?
Evaluate the Trustees?
Is this Tim Sweatman?

Ow! Ow! Ow!

Evaluate the Trustees? Interesting idea. Don't think it around inflamable liquids.

Again, Corbaley's comment did not make a whole lot of sense. This guy is either a smart aleck or falls woefully short in his efforts to be humorous. I pointed this out in my response, and I also made it clear that whenever I make a comment on his blog he will know it is me.

Jerry,

I don't know if you are trying to be funny or trying to insult people, but the tone of some of your comments comes across as arrogant and condescending. It seems that you are offended by the concept that the trustees of SBC entities should be held accountable to the SBC. You also seem to suggest that there is no room for disagreement in the SBC, although I couldn't tell for sure if your remark was intended to be serious or sarcastic.

Oh, you can be assured that if I post on your blog, I will always do so under my name. Unlike our missionaries and employees of our entities, I have no reason to be afraid to speak my mind openly on the issues of the day.

One thing that was clear from his other comments is that Corbaley is perfectly comfortable with the board operating in a secretive manner. This is what I was referring to in the second sentence of my first paragraph. I also made reference to this in a comment on Corbaley's second post:

On another note, your remarks and comments on both of your posts seem to indicate that you believe that Southern Baptists should get our noses out of the trustees' business and let you operate behind a veil of secrecy. Do you not realize that it is this atmosphere of secrecy and closed-door maneuvering that enable gossip and innuendo to spread? If the trustees were so concerned about "gossip" and "slander" and "loss of trust," then why not resolve these matters in the open from the start?

Again, these are just some brief excerpts from Corbaley's blog. They do not convey the full essence of what has (and has not) been said. But I do think they make it clear that Corbaley does not welcome the recent scrutiny that the board has brought itself under.

DISCLAIMER: My remarks merely represent my understanding of and/or my responses to what Corbaley said on his blog. As such, they may not reflect what he actually intended to communicate. PLEASE read his blog and the comments so you can develop a fully informed perspective. Also, keep in mind that Corbaley has to approve any comments before they are posted, so it is possible that some of my comments will not appear on his blog. This is one reason why I quoted myself here instead of simply referring you to his blog.

A Chronology of Absurdity

2006-03-02T23:54:00.000-06:00

If you're not in the habit of reading Marty Duren's blog, you need to be. (And I know that most of you are, because most of you have come to my blog from his. Why do you think I'm putting in this plug for his blog?) No one, and certainly not the "official" press, does a better job than Marty of keeping us informed about what's going on behind the scenes within the Southern Baptist Convention, especially regarding the recent issues involving the trustees of the International Missions Board. For those of you who have been in a cave for the past few months, or for the rest of us who are getting whiplash from following this series of events back and forth, Marty has posted a "brief chronology" of these events. In addition to this chronology, Marty provides some insightful commentary that demonstrates just how absurd this entire affair has become. Here's an example (emphasis is Marty's):

So, we've gone from gossip and slander to broken trust and resistance to accountability to arrogance and attitude and running roughshod to Wade's general approach to his relationships on the board. We've gone from "due deliberation" and exploring "other options" to "we found an option we didn't know we had." We've gone from "remove Wade Burleson at the convention and remove him from all committees until then," to "let's not remove Wade and just handle it internally." We've gone from "remove Wade" to "discipline Wade" to "manage the issues." We've gone from "the evidence of Wade's wrongdoing is forthcoming" to "expect nothing further from the IMB BOT on this matter." We've gone from Wade's blog being a source of "misinformation" that must be corrected to "we are not against Wade's blogging."

Oh. . . . . my head hurts! How can anyone move back and forth between so many positions in less than two months? These folks have taken the art of the "flip-flop" to a whole new level. Here's hoping that they put an end to this foolishness when they meet in Tampa later this month.

What Does It Mean to Be Missional?

2006-02-25T00:04:00.000-06:00

One of the most popular buzzwords in Christian circles today is "missional." This word has long been at the heart of the emerging church conversation, it has been embraced by many younger Christians across nearly all denominations, and it has even been used in official SBC statements. But when you look at the various ways in which the word is used, it is evident that not everyone defines or uses "missional" in the same way.

With seemingly everyone these days talking about the need for Christians to be missional, we need to have a common understanding of what is meant by the concept. Basically, this is an open forum for you to discuss your understanding of what it means to be a missional Christian. When you use the word "missional" what do you mean by it? How is (or isn't) the idea of being missional a biblical concept? Why should (or shouldn't) Christians strive to be missional? What are some specific ways that we as Christians can be missional? Why do many Christians find it difficult to be missional? Feel free to discuss any other relevant questions or issues as we try to come to a common understanding of what it means to be missional.

Five Themes for Greensboro

2006-02-17T20:20:00.000-06:00

Wade Burleson demonstrates his ability to cut to the heart of the matter in his post 5 Themes for Greensboro. In this post he lists five significant issues that may be addressed by the Southern Baptist Convention when it meets in Greensboro this June. I'm listing the issues here, but be sure to read Wade's commentary on each issue.

The establishment of a framework for the free exercise of principled dissent.
The institution of safeguards to prevent the manipulation of the nominating process of the Southern Baptist Convention.
The forbidding of undue influence of agencies and institutions of the SBC by other agency heads.
The resolution that trustees are servants of the Convention, not directors of the convention.
The expression of belief that Southern Baptist Convention works best with a broad front door of cooperation.

Of these issues, which one do you think is the most essential one for the convention to address? Do you think any of these issues should not be addressed in Greensboro? Are there any other issues that you believe should be addressed in Greensboro?

Scot McKnight on the Emerging Church (or Finally, an Objective Examination of the Emerging Church)

2006-02-17T00:24:00.000-06:00

One of the biggest problems I have encountered in my efforts to understand the emerging church has been the lack of many good, objective studies of the emerging church. (I have Gibbs and Bolger's book on my list of books to read.) Most of those who are part of the emerging church movement (they call it a conversation, but they practice their ideas as well as talk about them) tend to be vague when they discuss its characteristics. On the other hand, many critics of the emerging church seem to caricaturize the movement, or they focus on one of its leading spokespersons and erroneously assume that he or she speaks for the entire movement. Objective examinations of the emerging church that actually deal with the real nature of the movement have been hard to find.

Today I finally read a balanced, objective article about the emerging church that actually explains the major characteristics of the emerging church and looks at both its strengths and weaknesses. Scot McKnight's article is THE starting point for anyone who wants to understand the emerging church. His overall approach is generally positive toward the emerging church, but he doesn't hesistate to address some of the potential weaknesses of the movement, particularly its hesitancy to define its theological views.

Read Scot's article and comment on it. (It's a relatively brief article.) Do those of you who are part of the emerging church agree with his observations? Why or why not? For those of you who are not part of the emerging church, what do you think about Scot's observations? What characteristics of the emerging church describe you? Which ones do you not relate to at all?

An Open Letter to IMB Trustees

2006-02-16T21:55:00.000-06:00

The following is a modified version of an email I sent to Tom Hatley, Chairman of the IMB Board of Trustees. I have modified it as an open letter to all IMB trustees. I don't know that many trustees will read and respond to it, but I wanted to give them an opportunity to present their side of these issues. Feel free to read and respond, even if you are not a trustee.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I am writing to express some concerns about recent actions of the IMB Board of Trustees. One of our strongest characteristics as Southern Baptists is the wonderful work of our missions boards in taking the gospel of Jesus Christ to all peoples. I am truly thankful for those of you who devote considerable time and effort to overseeing the work of our missions boards. However, despite my respect for all the trustees, some of the board's recent actions have led me to have serious concerns about the future of the IMB and the SBC.

My initial concern was with the policies on prayer language and baptism that the IMB trustees adopted in November. These policies seem to elevate particular interpretations of Scripture to a level of authority that is rightly reserved for Scripture alone. I have yet to see any trustee or supporter of the policies offer any solid, irrefutable biblical evidence for either policy. In fact, in the case of the prayer language policy the clearest biblical statement would speak against such a policy (1 Cor. 14:39). Drs. Hershael York and Ergun Caner have appealed to Baptist history to support the baptism policy, but I thought that as Southern Baptists we based our doctrinal policies on the Bible rather than on church history or tradition. Furthermore, it concerns me that as a denomination we have a doctrinal statement (the BFM 2000) that has been approved by the SBC as a whole, but some of our entities take it upon themselves to impose doctrinal requirements that have never been adopted by the convention itself. The result of these policies is that our missions efforts are going to be harmed as we tell God-called Southern Baptists who fully affirm the BFM 2000 that they cannot serve as missionaries within their own denomination. As these men and women either turn to other organizations for support or raise their own support, I fear that some of the resources that are presently being channeled through the Cooperative Program will be redirected to other organizations or directly to these missionaries. I am also concerned that these policies indicate an effort to separate ourselves from other believers who agree with us on the essentials while disagreeing on certain non-essentials or on matters where the biblical principle is not clearly stated.

While the board's decision regarding the new policies is a matter of great concern to me, the board's subsequent actions regarding Wade Burleson have given me even more serious doubts about the SBC's future. Before these events took place, I had never heard of Wade Burleson, so my response has not been colored by any personal bias. The actions related to Burleson have led many rank-and-file SBCers to conclude that there is a great disconnect between our convention's leaders and the rest of us for a number of reasons.

First, these actions seem to be intended as an effort to silence any dissenting voices on the board. Trustee chairman Tom Hatley has said that the board's decision to seek Burleson's removal has nothing to do with his opposition to the new policies, but would such an action have been taken if he had used his blog to support the policies? One of the greatest dangers to the SBC today is the attitude among some of our leaders that disagreement over issues that are not clearly addressed by Scripture is unacceptable. I pray that this attitude has not crept into the IMB Board of Trustees.

Second, these actions seem to indicate that many of the trustees have forgotten that they are accountable to the SBC as a whole. Unlike self-perpetuating boards of trustees, where the board chooses its own members, the IMB Board of Trustees (and all SBC trustee boards) are elected by the messengers of the SBC on behalf of the SBC. Thus, the trustees are accountable first to God, second to the SBC, and then to the board on which they serve. When a trustee reports to the SBC at large on things that happen in public meetings of the board, that trustee is not violating his trust to the board; he is fulfilling his trust to the SBC. In fact, my understanding of the trustee policies is that one of the duties of a trustee is to "take [his or her] interpretations back to the people" after trustee meetings. This is exactly what Burleson did via his blog. He took his interpretation of what happened at the November and January meetings back to his constituency, the entire SBC. In my opinion, this particular policy suggests that all trustees should be encouraged to have their own blogs or other methods where they can take their interpretations to the people of the SBC.

Third, these actions seem to demonstrate that some of the trustees are out of step with the current climate of the SBC. Many SBCers are active in the blogosphere. We use blogs the same way that past generations used pamphlets and letters to the editor. To make any attempt to suppress blogging by trustees would be seen as an attempt to be secretive and to resist accountablility to the convention. Also, the day has passed when the leaders of the SBC could expect members to go along with their actions simply because these leaders were conservatives. When we believe that any of our boards or leaders have made a poor decision, we will speak out against that decision, and we expect any leaders or trustees who oppose the decision to speak out as well. We also are strongly opposed to overtly political practices such as caucusing by trustees and interference by employees of SBC entities in the workings of another entity.

Fourth, the way the board handled this matter seems to contradict basic principles of fairness. According to Burleson, and no one has refuted his claim, no one approached him in an effort to resolve any problems before the board voted to recommend his removal. He also claimed, and again no one has refuted him, that he was not given an opportunity to present his case to the board before the vote. Based on some comments that other trustees have made, it appears that several of the trustees have never examined Burleson's blog for themselves to see what he actually said. Anyone who reads Burleson's blog would see that his overall tone toward the IMB and his fellow trustees is positive and that he has taken great pains not to reveal any confidential information. Finally, the board has not been open with the people of the SBC about why this move was made. Over a month has elapsed since the vote to recommend Burleson's removal, yet the board has presented no evidence to support such a radical move.

Despite my concerns over the board's actions in these matters, I have been greatly encouraged by the efforts that are presently being made to resolve things. May God continue bless each of you in your personal lives and in your service on the IMB trustee board.

I apologize for the length, but these matters are very important to the future of the SBC.

In Christ,
Tim Sweatman
Pastor, Jackson Grove Baptist Church
Bowling Green, Kentucky

Yikes! I've Been Tagged!

2006-02-15T00:09:00.000-06:00

Just when I thought I was safe, my friend and fellow Steelers fan Kiki Cherry tagged me with the Four Things Tag.

4 Jobs I Have Had in My Life

Food Service Worker--My first job was working at concessions stands at Opryland. At the start of my 2nd year I was promoted to crew leader, then at the end of my 3rd year I was made a supervisor in one of the restaurants. That lasted less than a year because my style was not what upper management wanted. Plus, I was probably too young for the job. (I was 18 when I was promoted, which made me the youngest supervisor in the entire food service department.) So the next year I moved to the ticket office, where for 2 years I primarily sold group tickets.

Proof Operator--The summer before I began working on my master's degree I worked as a temp in the Proof Department of a local bank. I encoded checks and made sure that the tellers' drawers balanced. I quickly learned that bank tellers are not always the brightest folks in the world.

Research Assistant--While I was in the Ph.D. program in history at the University of Tennessee I spent 16 months as a research assistant on the James K. Polk Papers Project. Basically I transcribed, edited, and annotated personal documents (primarily letters) from the life of our 11th President. This was an 11 or 12 volume series; I think the volume I worked on was No. 10. Other than the pastorate, this is the most enjoyable job I have had as an adult. Unfortunately, the grant that funded my position was not renewed.

Customer Service Rep--I worked for Whirlpool through a temp service taking phone calls from customers to help resolve problems with their appliances and schedule service appointments. This is the job I hated the most because: 1) I hate talking on the telephone; 2) I am an idiot when it comes to fixing things; and 3) I hated having to tell people that they would have to wait a week or two to get their appliance fixed. (There were very strict rules on what qualified for emergency service; I learned that it is not an emergency when a person's oven tears up two days before Thanksgiving.) The most surprising thing about this job is that I lasted 6 months.

4 Goals I Set for This Year

Exercise more--This should be an easy one, mainly because doing any sort of physical activity (like standing up occasionally) would be a major improvement. Unfortunately, I have made no progress this year.

Go to bed/Get up earlier--As you can tell from looking at the time on many of my posts, I am definitely a night owl. That's one of the benefits of not having children and of having a job where you set your own hours. We've always stayed up until 11:00 or midnight, but when my wife lost her job back in June we got used to staying up until 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning. Now she's back on a normal schedule, but I'm still staying up until 2:00 or 3:00. So I am making some progress on this one, but there's plenty of room for improvement.

Eat out less--This is one where I've actually done well. I used to eat lunch out 2-3 times a week, but in the past few months there have been times where I went 3 or 4 weeks between eating out.

Call my parents more--This is an area where I am totally different from my wife. She calls her parents practically every day (sometimes several times a day), while I talk to my parents (usually just my mother) about once a week (sometimes it gets close to a week and a half). I've gotten better about calling each week (unless they call first), and some weeks I've called more than once (usually for a specific reason).

4 Movies I Could Watch Over and Over

Star Wars--I could have made this easy and just listed 4 of these movies separately, but I wouldn't know which 2 not to list. Of the 6, Revenge of the Sith is the best.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail--Those guys were simply brilliant! Even now when I watch this movie I see new things in it. Plus, the dialogue is great for quoting.

Ferris Bueller's Day Off--Man, I wish I could get away with half the stuff he pulls off.

Smokey and the Bandit--I guess I have some latent redneck in me.

4 Places I Have Lived

Nashville, Tennessee (1972-1994)--I still consider this to be home.

Bowling Green, Kentucky (1994-1996)--I also attended college here 1990-1994.

Clinton, Tennessee (1996-2003)--The furthest we have been away from our families so far.

Bowling Green, Kentucky (2003-present)--This place changed a lot while we were gone.

4 TV Shows I Love to Watch

Hmmm, I don't watch a lot of TV other than sports, news, and the occasional music special or documentary.

4 Places I've Been on Vacation

Washington, D.C.--I've been 3 times, but my favorite time was in 1998. It was the first real trip my wife and I went on by ourselves. As a history buff, this is one of my favorite places in the world.

Atlanta, Ga.--I took my wife there in 2004 for our 10th anniversary. Why Atlanta? Because they have pandas! My wife absolutely LOVES pandas, so I wanted to take her to see them. She cried when she walked into the panda house and saw them.

Orlando, Fla.--Our family went quite a few times when I was in junior high and high school, but the most memorable time was in 1995 when my wife went with us.

Madrid, Spain; Paris, France; London, England--I listed these together because I went to all 3 on the same trip. I went with a group from school during my senior year in high school. There was lots of adventure, most of which had nothing to do with the sites we visited.

4 Websites I Visit Daily

Missional Baptist Blog

SBC Outpost

Grace and Truth to You

Sojourner

4 of My Favorite Foods

My mom's roast with rice and gravy

Chicken and dumplings

Fried chicken (I am a Baptist minister!)

My wife's homemade chili

4 Places I Would Rather Be Right Now

A Western Kentucky or Tennessee football or basketball game, or a Steelers or Titans football game

An Avalon concert with backstage passes

Cades Cove

Anywhere alone with my wife

So Now I'm Going to Tag......

Kevin Hash

Nick P.

Ashlee

Jason Sampler

John Reisinger on the True Nature of the Church (the Ekklesia)

2006-02-11T03:43:00.000-06:00

This post began as a comment on Wade Burleson's blog about Reisinger's articles, but when I got to 4 paragraphs I decided that it would be more appropriate to do my own post. These articles are timely, especially since my last post was titled What Is a True Christian Church? After reading Reisinger's articles, I would guess he would say that my question is really not the right question. Even so, I encourage anyone who is interested in the church to read what Reisinger says. These articles are lengthy, but they make you think.

The Ekklesia--Part 1
The Ekklesia--Part 2
The Ekklesia--Part 3
The Ekklesia--Part 4
The Ekklesia--Part 5

Reisinger is right on a number of things. The church is the people of God and not an instutution. Being part of the church involves being united with Christ, which unites us with all fellow believers. There is no definitive institutional/organizational model given for all local assemblies to follow. On all of these things I am in agreement with Reisinger.

While I agree with Reisinger's basic assumptions, I do see some weaknesses in these articles. I think that at times he de-emphasizes the local congregation too much. He acknowledges that the NT pattern is for the church to be grouped together in local assemblies, but he seems to see this aspect of the church as secondary to the universal aspect of the church. However, I see the NT having a lot to say both about and to local assemblies, including such matters as leadership and discipline. This indicates to me that on at least some level there was a sense of belonging to a particular local assembly, even if there was not a sense of church membership as we have today. I also disagree with his belief that the NT does not speak of a visible church that included both saved and lost people. It does appear in certain places, especially John's letters, that the NT does speak of the local assembly including unregenerate people ("they went out from us, but they did not really belong to us"). Obviously those local assemblies did not knowingly welcome such people into their fellowship, but nevertheless they were considered to be part of the group on the basis of their false profession.

I also would have liked to see him deal more with how the church can work together to carry out our mission today. As he admitted, we don't live in the same context as the 1st century church, with our various denominations and differences regarding doctrine. I would have liked for him to address how we can work with fellow believers who have very different beliefs than we do on certain doctrines. For example, I can regard someone who believes one can lose his or her salvation as a brother or sister in Christ and enjoy fellowship with him or her, but I really don't think I would want that person leading a discipleship group in the local assembly I pastor. So how does this idea of the church being one, which is clearly biblical, play out in real life?

He seems to make a similar error to one he accuses institutionalists of when he asserts that in NT times all the believers in each city met in one assembly. I don't know of any biblical statement to that effect; indeed, Romans 16:5 implies that there may have been multiple assemblies in the city of Rome. It may be safe to say that these assemblies did not see themselves as completely separated from each other, but we can't make a blanket statement that each city had a single assembly.

I like what Reisinger is trying to do in these articles, showing that there is only one church and that the church is defined as all people who have been called unto salvation through Christ. I think he makes a clear case that no group or local assembly can accurately claim to be the true church because of its organizational structure. However, I wish he had addressed how doctrinal differences relate to this issue.