Sergio Garcia and Tiger Woods are golfers who don’t like each other very much. It’s not hard to see why. Tiger is hyper-competitive and arrogant. I cheer for him, but have often been a little bothered by or even ashamed of his behavior. Sergio Garcia is, by most accounts, a whiner. He gets easily distracted and complains about what goes on around him. The tension that has been growing between the two of them over the years has exploded in recent days. They went head to head in the Players Championship a couple of weeks back. The crowd following Tiger made noise that distracted Sergio and he hit a bad shot. He complained after the round about Tiger’s perceived misdeeds. Tiger responded and the back and forth escalated.

It became a pretty ugly incident.

It got worse when Sergio was speaking at the European Tour Awards dinner and responded to a question. He was asked if he would invite Tiger over for dinner during an upcoming tournament. He responded:

“We’ll have him ’round every night. We will serve fried chicken.”

Golf fans, of course, are reminded of Fuzzy Zoeller’s comments after Tiger won his first Masters Tournament, suggesting the winner’s dinner would consist of fried  chicken and collard greens. Need I even mention that the reference to fried chicken is a racist stereotype. Whether he meant it that way or not, Sergio looked to put down Tiger with a racially-based caricature.

Those remarks set off a firestorm. Sergio at first came out with one of those non-apology apologies that have become so common today.

“I apologize for any offense that may have been caused by my comment on stage during the European Tour Players’ Awards dinner. I answered a question that was clearly made towards me as a joke with a silly remark, but in no way was the comment meant in a racist manner.”

He apologized, but he did not really repent. He was sorry that some got offended by his comment, but not for the comment itself. He passed off his remark as a “joke” or a “silly remark.” It was not, he claimed coming from a heart of racism or meant in a “racist manner.”

To Sergio’s credit, by the next day he came out with a more genuine apology in which he rejected his remarks clearly and admitted they were wrong.

My Point

The time is long past when we can say racially insensitive things, or use racial stereotypes, then claim that we did not intend for them to be racist or hurtful. A racial stereotype is by definition racist, whatever one might have meant. What I might consider to be a harmless joke is not seen the same way by the person about whom the joke is made. It is my job to guard my words. The offended person can show grace and forgiveness – that is what God expects of his people. But it is my job not to give that offense or to repent when I do. If I give offense, I need to repent and apologize whether it was intended or not.

Discussing race and racial issues is a minefield. There are times we give offense and we are truly clueless that we are doing so. If such is the case, we need to be gently instructed and have the humility and concern to adjust our behavior and deal with any repercussions.

It is hard for us as white Americans to understand this whole issue. I had a man in my church who opened my eyes to a lot of things before he passed on a couple of years ago. He told me stories that shocked me – not things that happened in Mississippi or Alabama, but in Sioux City, Iowa. This man of character, love and dignity had been treated often as if he was something less than a human being. Dwight McKissic sees the political, Christian and Baptist world from some distinctly different perspectives than I do. We may do something and think it is no big deal, but it comes across as a pretty big deal on the other side.

As we pursue racial reconciliation and even more importantly, partnership in ministry beyond racial lines, we need to guard our words carefully. We need to put racial stereotypes and characterizations on the shelf. They are hurtful and do not help the process of rebuilding what the sins of racism, discrimination and segregation have destroyed in the Family of God.

We don’t need to create some kind of politically correct environment in the SBC, but we do need to view our words and actions through the eyes of those who might be offended by them. We must create a culture in which racially charged statements, even jokes, are not acceptable. Even if there is not a minority around, we must reject caricature and stereotype.

For the sake of the Kingdom, we need to leave the club of racially insensitive joking in the bag and never pull it out.

Bart Barber has posted two installments of his excellent series, “For the Propagation of the Gospel,” about the work of the Southern Baptist Convention. Part 1. Part 2. He graciously asked if I might like to participate, and I offer this as a third installment in the series. 

They say that confession is good for the soul, so here is mine. There was a time when I was flirting with leaving Southern Baptists and finding another denominational home. My years at Dallas Seminary had made me aware that though I was a lifelong Southern Baptist there was a great big evangelical world out there for me to consider. A friend of mine, a youth evangelist, extolled the virtues of the Evangelical Free denomination. The independent Bible churches had some appeal as well. I’d known a few Conservative Baptists. There were options.

It was the mid 1980s and the SBC was pretty messed up. It was the era of the shooting war in the Conservative Resurgence and things were tense. I’m sick to death of the Calvinism squabbles of today, but they pale in comparison to the intensity of the early 80s conflicts. Those were not good times. And I just wasn’t sure that I wanted to serve the rest of my life among Southern Baptists. Actually, my dad, a Southern Baptist pastor and missionary, counseled me to get out while I was young.

But as I pondered this, there was one thought that overwhelmed all the others.

As a Southern Baptist, I am part of perhaps the most extensive world missions program in the history of the church.

In spite of all the negatives, this positive shined brightest to me. Even when I was not thrilled with the leadership of the SBC, I was happy to support the Foreign Mission Board, now the International Mission Board. Through the years, with the ups and the downs, the frustrations and the conflicts, I have never wavered in my belief that being a Southern Baptist is worth it because of our international missions program. There have been few earthly organizations that have been as effective “for the propagation of the gospel” than the missionary arm of the SBC.

According to the IMB website, there are currently 4867 IMB missions personnel, 4206 of those being career missionaries. That is down considerably from the days before the recession and the recent financial issues, but it is still a stunning fact. The old phrase, “we can do more together than we can do separately” is not a cliche. It is a fact.

By pooling our resources as a convention, we are able to support nearly 5000 missionaries around the world. 

Can you match that on your own?

My church gives somewhere around $45,000 through the Cooperative Program on an annual basis (12% of a 425k budget, with a tendency to fall slightly short of budget). It is possible that if we did it ourselves, we could support one full time missionary on our own, or give significant support to a dozen or so missionaries. Those megachurches with megabudgets can obviously do much more than we can. But no church can do on its own anything that rivals what the SBC can do cooperatively.

As Southern Baptists, we can have a part in the ministries of missionaries in Europe, Asia, Africa, North, Central, and South America, Australia, and in the Middle East. We are in Catholic areas, Muslim areas, Buddhist areas, Hindu areas, even serving in atheist regimes and secularist countries. Wherever there are lost people or unreached people groups, we are making an effort to penetrate the darkness with the light. When the tsunami struck the Indian Ocean, IMB missionaries were there to help and to minister in the name of Christ. We have effective (if limited) hunger ministries and disaster ministries in nations around the world. When terrorists killed my friend Bill Hyde in Davao City, Philippines in 2003, missionaries were undeterred. Even his own wife went back to serve in the country after his death. When Haiti was devastated, Southern Baptists were there to shine the light. Through our career missionaries’ hospitality, we have the ability to send mission teams around the world, giving a guy like me a chance to participate in worldwide missions personally. In places where missionary work is viewed with hostility, we have people serving silently, anonymously, but effectively.

If we only supported these missionaries, it would be worth investing in the SBC just to be a part of this work around the world. And of course, through our Cooperative Program, we support 5000+ NAMB personnel, and they are doing some good work – a fact even NAMB critics would likely have to admit. We have six seminaries that are educating 13,000 students. We have an ERLC and great leadership with Dr. Frank Page. But discounting all of that, if all we had was the IMB, our CP gifts would be eternally significant. I consider it a privilege to be able to be a small part of a great work.

Let me be a little more specific about what I appreciate about our IMB.

1) The IMB has been strategically responsive in recent years.

There have been some changes in missiological philosophy since my childhood as a missionary’s kid in Taiwan. Mission work today is different than it was in the 70s. Our missionaries have adjusted well, though the process has been, at times, difficult on them.

I have heard Baptists who ought to know better talk about how many Southern Baptist churches there are in other countries. In general, the answer is none. The SBC has sent missionaries to help establish churches and conventions in countries around the world. But they were not Southern Baptist churches. They were Honduran Baptist churches, Chinese Baptist churches, Ukrainian Baptist churches. Those conventions may partner with the SBC in some ways, but they are autonomous conventions.

While SBC missionaries were instrumental in establishing these conventions, they intentionally turned over authority and control to local pastors and Christian leaders. The missionaries did not try to maintain any kind of bishopric over the local work. IMB missionaries do not control conventions in other nations.

Instead, the IMB has been focusing its mission more and more on unreached people groups. As the national conventions and churches matured, they could handle ministry in those more established areas. Our missionaries went to work to try to find and reach those who have not heard the gospel.

The IMB has worked diligently to react to changes in global missions opportunities. When the doors in formerly closed countries opened a crack, we sent people through. The IMB is not hidebound to the missions philosophies and strategies of my father’s times. The world has changed and our missionaries have adapted with those changes.

2) The IMB is theologically grounded.

No Southern Baptist need worry about whether our missionaries believe the Bible or proclaim the biblical gospel. In this day of theological compromise and spiritual decline, it is comforting and encouraging to know that our missionaries are theologically grounded and solid. Of course, most of them are not theologians, and would likely be disinterested in some of the theological squabbles in which we engage. But they are BF&M supporters who proclaim Christ around the world. Rest assured of that.

3) The IMB supports its missionaries.

No one is going to get rich from serving as an IMB missionary, but neither are they going to starve.  Because of the genius of the Cooperative Program, our missionaries do not have to go from church to church raising funding. If they pass the rigorous application process and get commissioned as IMB missionaries, they will have housing, food, transportation and some level of financial security.

I wish we could double our missionaries’ salaries, but I am glad that we as Baptists do not have to be ashamed of how we pay our missionaries.

4) IMB missions personnel are impressive!

I’ve spent time in Tanzania, working with a missionary (David Whitson) who had planted churches and made disciples throughout the Bukoba region there. I worked with missionaries like Tom Canady, Steve Ballio, and Martina Menzies in Honduras and was amazed at their effectiveness, faithfulness and insight there. In 2010 and 2012 I went to Taiwan and worked with Dan Robinson at Morrison Academy. We were friends in high school at Morrison. After all the trouble we got into there, it is hard for me to imagine that they made him principle there, but they did. His heart for the Lord, for ministry and for the kingdom was evident in all he did.

We have a missions banquet every year here and feature an IMB missionary. We had a missionary from the Banda Aceh area the year after the tsunami’s devastation. We’ve had missionaries from Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and South America. All over the world. Some were boisterous, others were quiet. One guy had real difficulty speaking publicly, he was so shy. But every one of them was an effective servant of God doing amazing work in challenging conditions.

There’s probably a stinker or two among the 4867 missionaries we support, but the ones I’ve met leave me with the impression that when we are supporting their work, we are doing something good.

5) IMB missionaries serve Christ in dangerous places.

When Bill Hyde was killed in the Philippines by a terrorist’s bomb, I was privileged to participate in his funeral with Dr. Jerry Rankin. We talked by phone in advance of that funeral and he told me something that I’ve never forgotten. When I was an MK in Taiwan, it was way safer than living in the USA. Taiwan is still one of the safer places that our missionaries serve. But I asked Dr. Rankin just how much danger our mission force was in around the world.

He told me that most of our missionaries are in some physical danger ever day, mostly as a result of Islamic extremism. The greater surprise is not that a few have been martyred like Bill was, but that it has happened to so few. We send out 5000 people, plus missions volunteers, to places where Christianity is despised and the gospel is illegal. And still they go.

I knew this about Bill Hyde. He knew the possibilities and the dangers. He was not in the Philippines as a tourist or on vacation. Had he known it would cost him his life, he likely would have gone anyway. He was about the Kingdom of God, not about his own life.

Around the world today there are many people serving in dangerous areas, making Christ and the way of salvation known to people living in darkness. They have not chosen the safe road or the easy road. I live in Sioux City. It’s pretty safe here. Anything can happen anywhere, but it usually doesn’t happen in this sleepy Iowa city. But I am a part of the lives of men and women who serve Christ at great personal risk and sacrifice, all over the world.

This is one reason – perhaps the main one – why I consider it to be a great privilege to be Southern Baptist!

Conclusion

The IMB is not a perfect institution. It is not perfectly administrated. Its missionaries are uniformly imperfect. In fact, in the early days of Baptist blogging, the IMB was the swirling vortex of controversy at the time. Some of those issues still need resolution in my opinion. But the SBC was formed “for the propagation of the gospel” and if one looks at the work of the FMB and subsequently the IMB through the decades, the conclusion has to be that we have been well served. The gospel has certainly gone forward through the work of missionaries laboring for Christ and supported by Southern Baptists.

I have accidentally published 3 posts today. I’m not sure what happened or why. One of them happened when I wasn’t even on the site. If there is a post title that doesn’t appear when you click the link, its my fault – accidental publishing, then removing it!

Hope to do better tomorrow!

I hope this comes up. Here is the video about DR.

What would you do?

This weekend, some unnamed person in Zephyrhills, Florida, became an instant megamillionaire, winning $590 million (nearly 377 million one-time payout), in the Powerball lottery. What if this person was a member of your church? It would not be the first time that a church member won the lottery. What if this person came to you in a few weeks with a check  for $37.7 million (let’s just make him a good Baptist tither for record)? What would you do?

• Would you take the check and get started with the plans for the new building project?
• Would you tell him to keep his tainted, gambling money?
• Would you work out another arrangement?

Perspectives

1) I doubt there are many lottery supporters or participants among us. Most of us would agree that the lottery provides a false hope of riches to many people who cannot afford to play. Gambling is foolish. Anyone dispute that?

2) On the other hand, there is no clear and unequivocal condemnation of gambling in the Bible. I’m guessing that the ancient Hebrews gathered at the camel races and took odds. But the Bible is absent of any “thou shalt not gamble” verses. Is gambling sinful? I’m not sure. It is unwise and causes a lot of heartache and pain to families. But is purchasing a ticket (David Worley, how much do they cost?) make you a sinner?

Obviously, if the head of a local escort service or a drug dealer wanted to give, I think we’d all decline. The proceeds of an ongoing criminal and immoral enterprise would hardly be what we would want funding our ministries, right? But buying a lottery ticket is certainly not the same as running a house of prostitution or dealing drugs. Apples and oranges.

3) It is easy in the theoretical to say, “No, I’d turn it down.” When someone stands in your office with a check for $37 million, our true convictions would be tested, would they not?

4) I wonder if the SBC has policies on something like that. If the winner of the lottery sent a check to the IMB or to NAMB, would they cash it or send it back? Maybe someone here knows.

5) Chances are good that your church HAS received donations that come from gambling winnings. You just didn’t know about it. Gambling is everywhere. You may never have a member who wins the powerball, but many of us will have members who have a good day at the races, or at the casino, or in their local poker game in the basement.

So, here are the questions I’d like you to consider and discuss.

1) Is buying a lottery ticket a sufficient offense that the church ought not to receive gifts based on the proceeds? What about other forms of gambling?

2) If we would turn down winnings from gambling, ought we also to enact church discipline against those who buy tickets? Who have a poker game in their basement? Who frequent the local casino boat?

3) A church could do a lot of good with the millions of dollars it would receive as a tithe here. On the other hand, the church and the community would know that it was benefiting from the proceeds of the lottery. Does the good outweigh the bad here?

4) Imagine yourself the lottery winner. Are you not obligated to give generously of your increase (regardless of the source?) If the church does not receive your offering, how can you be obedient to biblical commands?

5) Does your church have an established, written policy on this?

I go back and forth. I do not consider purchasing a lottery ticket to be per se sinful, but I think that the lottery is unwise and tends to be predatory against the poor. For that reason, it is best that Christians not participate and would encourage anyone who asked me not to buy tickets. But, if someone does and wins it, I am not sure that the money is so tainted that it ought to be refused by the church. My views on this are conflicted. I’m interested in the course of the discussion.

Maybe I’d just tell them to donate it to the Dave Miller Evangelistic Association.

I’ve been in fulltime Christian ministry for over 30 years. I’ve had some good times. I’ve also had some moments when I stood there looking like a complete idiot. I’ve done some dumb things. I will bet that you have as well, if you are willing to admit it.

So, tell us your story. What was your most embarrassing moment as a minister?

Rules:

1) It has to be true.

2) It has to be embarrassing to you. Don’t tell stories that will embarrass another. This is confession time, guys.

3) Try to maintain some small measure of good taste.

I will start the ball rolling with two stories – hard to pick one over the other. Both actually could be entitled “Sermon Illustrations Gone Bad.” Strangely, both were making essentially the same point.

First Embarrassing Story

I was speaking of the importance of being grounded in the Word of God. I was a SCUBA diver in college and used to dive a place called “The Wrecks” off Palm Beach. On my first dive there, my ears would not equalize (pressure). My dive instructor came over and yanked my mask off. I put it back on and cleared it. (This is the crux of the story – to clear a mask underwater, you put it on, put pressure on the top of the mask, and blow through your nose. The air from the nose blows the water out of the mask and clears it.) When I cleared the mask, my ears equalized and I headed to the ocean floor (60 feet down). The whole time I was down there, my mask was filling with this thick green fluid which looked like algae. I couldn’t figure out how algae was getting in my mask, but I kept clearing my mask and it kept refilling. My air was gone, so I headed to the surface. As I got about 10 feet from the surface, I remembered that the first color you lose in water is red. I had a nosebleed the whole time I was down there. In shark infested waters I was putting blood out there the whole time.

THE POINT: When we are not grounded in the Word, we are shark bait, like I was that day.

THE PROBLEM: When I tried to illustrate the process of cleaning the mask to the church, I forgot I had a cold. I pushed on the top of my imaginary mask and I blew through my nose to clear the mask – and I blew snot all over my face.

THE LESSON: When you blow snot all over your face in front of your congregation, your sermon is over. Yes, you can keep preaching, but your ability to communicate anything significant to them is over.

Second Embarrassing Story

We had a 15 passenger van which we took on vacations to Florida. Good times. But on one of those trips, we evidently got some gasoline with water in it – it was not helpful to the operation of “Sherman” – our tank. Made the thing run really awful.

THE POINT: We must be careful to fuel ourselves well. Christians only function well when they get the good fuel – the Word of God.

THE PROBLEM: Here is what I said. “You cannot live well as a Christian if you are not fueling yourself regularly with the deep things of the Word of God. The problem with a lot of you folks is that you are full of bad gas.”  Yes, I said it. Unfortunately, my congregation was not of the forgiving sort that would simply ignore my faux pas and move on.

THE LESSON: Don’t accuse your people of being offensively flatulent!

A link came across my Facebook page today to a scathing article written by one of the Reformed watchbloggers lambasting Mark Driscoll for a video he did at his “Resurgence” conference this year. So, I watched the 21 minute video. It was typical Driscoll – everything some love and others hate about him. He made a lot of sense and his tone was often cloying at the same time. I will put a link to the video below, so you can watch it if you wish.

WARNING: I’m talking about Driscoll just to set up the post today. This is NOT about him and comments that are made about him – pro or con – will be put up against a wall and summarily executed by firing squad. I’m not interested in restarting that foodfight. I’m focusing on the topic he addressed and thought I should explain why I am addressing it. I find some of the things Driscoll does to be alarming, even inexcusable. On the other hand, when he speaks, I find that he makes a lot of sense sometimes. That is what struck me here. I am not endorsing Driscoll in any way, but his video started me thinking about a topic I think we need to address. Hence, I am addressing it – the topic, not Driscoll.

The video was about the tribalism in the modern America church. His thesis is that we have divided into tribes, with tribal chiefs, tribal markers, and an unhealthy dose of tribal warfare! That part seemed to make a lot of sense to me. Most of our tribes are based on our beliefs in 4 major areas, he says.

1) Reformed.   2) Arminian

3) Complementarian  4) Egalitarian

5) Charismatic  6) Cessationist

7) Missional  8) Fundamentalist

He then ticked off some of the tribes.  A 2-4-5 is a classic Arminian. A 1-3 would describe the Gospel Coalition tribe. 1-3-5 is Sovereign Grace while 1-3-7 is the Tim Keller tribe. The Calvary Chapel tribe could be described as a 2-3-5-7. He describes several more in the video, which you may watch if you wish.

Observations:

1) The obvious flaw here is that these differentiations are more continuum than fixed points. The world is not made of of Reformed folks and Arminians. Most Christians fall in between those two options in some way. I live in the middle between cessationism and being a Charismatic.

2) The tribes of the SBC follow these general guidelines in some ways, but we represent a more limited continuum. We have few outright charismatics, nor are there many among us who embrace the term Arminian.

3) The last differentiation, Missional and Fundamentalist, is pejorative and unhelpful. What he is talking about is philosophy of social engagement. Missional seems to have a different connotation outside the Baptist world sometimes. Missional is used to refer to those who seek cultural relevance. Fundamental describes those who confront or withdraw from culture. Obviously, Driscoll favors the missional side and the fundamental side is held in low esteem. A better set of descriptors needs to be devised.

Baptist Tribes

Still, I think he is on to something here. These are the issues we argue about to a large degree. I would describe our tribes in this way. If you feel like I am being pejorative, it is not my intent. I’m trying to be descriptive and informative here – thinking through what I have gleaned from observing Baptist life.

1)Reformed to Modified Arminian.

There are so few full Arminians in the SBC (especially those who believe in apostasy) that it hardly bears mention. There are a few modified Arminians out there on one end and a sizeable minority of Reformed Baptists on the other.  Most of us describe ourselves between those 2 poles. Traditionalists-other non-Calvinists-Molinists-Antinomists – 3 and 4 pointers.

My sense is that there is a smaller (size is obviously in the eye of the beholder) group on both ends – primarily for 5-pointers and for some Traditionalists – for which this is the only key tribal issue. They are either in the Reformed Tribe or the Traditionalist Tribe and little else matters. For most of us in the in-between groups, Reformed vs. Traditionalist is not the be-all, end-all of tribal identity. We see the Calvinism Wars as pointless, fruitless and a distraction. Those passionately in the Traditionalist Tribe or the Reformed Tribe do not always agree. For them, either promoting Calvinism or stopping its threat is a first-order, watershed issue. I’ve had people on both sides of this tell me I am naive for saying this is not a huge issue. To me, it is not. To others, it is.

2) Complementarian to Egalitarian.

This is one of the more clearly defined issues.  While there are certainly levels of complementarianism – from almost patriarchal views to more centrist positions – you can’t really be in-between on this. Either the husband is meant to be head of the home and the wife is meant to walk in equality of person with a complementary role, or the wife’s value as a person is determined by equality of role and responsibility. You are either complementarian or egalitarian – there is precious little wiggle room here.

3) Continuationist to Cessationist. 

Continuationists believe that much of the gifting/manifesting work of the Holy Spirit continued after the Apostolic era. The Cessationist believes such is not the case, that tongues, prophetic words and such “miraculous” gifts passed away at either the closing of the canon or the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. This one is more easily described. It is also a key Southern Baptist differentiation. While there are plenty of cessationists across the spectrum, one of the key points of conflict  between the Reformed Tribe and other groups has been the extent of the role of the Holy Spirit. Much of what many of us think of as normal Christian living is disdained by those in the Cessationist Tribe, especially those of the Reformed Cessationist Tribe. It becomes a major point of conflict.

4) Cooperationists to Confrontationalists

How should Christians engage culture? This is my attempt to improve on Driscoll’s wording  - missional and fundamental. Maybe you can come up with better nomenclature. The Cooperationist looks at our culture and tries to engage it in a relevant way. The Confrontationalist looks at the culture as sinful and wicked and approaches it more suspiciously.

I don’t want to get too personal here, but let me use an example. Jared Moore wrote a Bible Study  book based on the Harry Potter series. Those of you who thought that was brilliant cultural engagement would likely be Cooperationists. We cooperate with elements of the culture to shine the light of Christ and to transform lives. Those of you who thought it was a horribly bad idea to use Rowling’s book series as the basis for a Bible study would tend toward the Confrontationalist Tribe.

5) Yessies to NoNos.

This is one I’m adding just for us Southern Baptists. It is an outflow of the Cooperation/Confrontation conundrum, but it is different enough that it deserves separate billing. Many of our most intense battles in blogging have been battles between the Yessie Tribe and the NoNo tribe. I would direct you to a previous article of mine that examined Romans 14 and the meat sacrificed to idols issue in the early church. To (over?)simplify, Yessies believe that if something is not specifically forbidden in Scripture, it is permitted to the follower of Jesus Christ, if he does it with a clear conscience and a sense of Christ’s Lordship. The NoNoes believe that there are many things that should not be done by Christians even though they may not be specifically prohibited. Read the linked article for a fuller and hopefully more nuanced explanation.

We would often use the terms legalists and antinomians to describe these ends of the spectrum, but those are the kind of pejorative terms I’m trying to stay away from.

Final Thoughts

This was meant to be much briefer than it has turned out to be. Let me close with some conclusions.

1) Tribalism is a normal human reaction. Just look at how we cheer for sports.

2) Tribalism is not de facto sinful. There’s nothing wrong with me enjoying the company of like-minded people.

3) Tribalism can become destructive when we isolate from one another, when we start viewing the other Baptist tribes as our enemies, or worse, the enemies of Christ and the gospel.

4) One of our problems is that we a lot of time talking about one another. I’m discouraged at the way members of one tribe ridicule or denigrate those in the other tribe. It is sad, and yes, I’m going to say it – it often becomes sin! We need to engage one another with godly grace, brotherly kindness and proper honor.

Should I tell you which of the tribes is the biblically correct one? Perhaps that would be counterproductive.

Here is Driscoll’s video if you are interested in watching it.

If any man on earth deserves the death penalty, it is convicted murderer “Dr.” (I put that in parentheses for a reason) Kermit Gosnell. He murdered babies born alive after failed abortions in the most gruesome and heinous way.

Critics of the death penalty say that violence begets violence, that state sanctioned killing is no better than the atrocities perpetrated by Dr. Gosnell

That is not true according to scripture. Both the OT and the NT approve of the death penalty when administered justly by the government.

It can be argued that the death penalty in America is anything but just – that is a valid argument. It has been pretty well demonstrated that black men are much more likely to receive the death penalty than white men guilty of similar crimes. Abuse of process by some law enforcement officers more concerned with getting a conviction than properly investigating and prosecuting crimes cannot be denied. DNA tests by the Innocence Project and others have made that clear – they have exonerated over 300 falsely convicted people.

But the idea that a consistent pro-life ethic demands a rejection of the death penalty is not accurate. The establishment of the death penalty came in Genesis 9:5-6.

And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.”

Human life is precious and holy to God. In fact, it is so precious and holy to God that when you take a human life unjustly, your life is forfeit. Human life is so valuable that the penalty for taking it is extreme – death. God requires such a “reckoning” and authorizes human government to enforce that reckoning.

Dr. Gosnell took the most innocent of human lives – newborn babies – in such ways that I will not describe it here, nor add pictures. He will one stand give account to God for that unspeakable sin. Hopefully, he will repent before that day and find God’s amazing grace.

But it is wholly right and just that he should answer for the taking of these lives with his own.

The SBC Annual meeting in Houston seems destined to be one of the less confrontational in recent history. There is no GCR Report to debate, no Traditionalist document recently released to stir up passions, no major kerfuffles, no intense race for office as yet. It looks to be a peaceful time.

But looks can be deceiving. I’ve gone into business meetings thinking there was nothing of significance that could spark a debate and left the meeting an hour later feeling like I’d been hit by a hurricane. When Baptists gather for business meetings there is an unpredictable volatility attached. Perhaps some issue will arise in the next month that will nullify my predictions.

The most likely candidate for that would be, of course, Dr. Page’s Calvinism study committee. More about that later.

Here are the things I see happening this year. You need not remind me of the warnings in Deuteronomy 13 about prophecies that do not come to pass. These are my (somewhat) informed opinions – no prophetic mantle is claimed.

1) A new SBC 2nd VP will be elected – one who does not own a lime green suit. I’ve been asked if I’m running for reelection and the answer is no. While the president traditionally runs for two terms, the VPs do not. I understand that there is no term limit officially, but it is traditional. However, if David Worley will wear the lime green suit (it might fit him) I will arrange to have him nominated for 2nd VP.

2) A motion or resolution (likely the latter) will be made concerning the situation at Louisiana College. It will be properly ruled out of order. We are all entitled to our opinions on the situation there, but the SBC has no right to intervene, interfere or even opine on the subject. If the SBC took a stand on the LC issue (or any of the other Baptist colleges encountering stress) it would violate our cherished principle of autonomy. Dr. Page, the EC and the SBC are required to stay out of the affairs of a state convention and a college it owns. Autonomy is the least understood principle of Baptist life.

3) Dr. Page’s Calvinism study group will likely provide a report. It will probably focus on the need for mutual respect and cooperation – the keys to both Baptist and biblical behavior. I doubt there are going to be any radical systemic changes advocated. If such does occur, there will be fireworks, of course. Frank Page is not a provocateur and I doubt his study group will be either. We’ll see.

4) Houston will be brutally hot and humid.  It won’t matter to me. The one perk of being 2nd VP is a room in the convention hotel, which will mean I can stay in the air-conditioning 24/7. That’s my plan.

5) I suspect that there may be some test-case resolutions or motions offered by the self-identified Traditionalists. I have no idea what they will be, but I suspect they will be something on the order of the Sinner’s Prayer resolution last year. They will be designed to get the convention to go on record supporting their views. It would not surprise me if some sort of resolution concerning the spiritual condition of children appears – that has been a constant point of debate. On this site, several of the more prominent folks on that SBC extreme have promised that they are planning to go on offense. I tend to believe them.

6) The Q&A sessions for the various entity heads may be among the more tense and politically charged moments again. Let’s face it. In the last couple of conventions, the Q&A sessions have been some of the more interesting moments of confrontation. Attempts at “gotcha” questions. People stacking the deck at the microphones to make sure an entity head only had to field softball questions. Intense questions and intense answers.

Permit a momentary rant: the SBC is a huge entity, and the fact that our entity heads have to stand before the convention and take questions from the floor is one of our true moments of popular accountability. It should be treated with respect and integrity. Orchestrated attempts to control the mics and prevent an entity president from fielding tough questions are perhaps not illegal by our bylaws, but they are unfortunate.

No one ever died from fielding a tough question. Too many leaders act as if a contrary opinion is a personal attack. It is not. Those who voice dissent and even ask tough questions are not enemies of the organization. Leaders ought to face those questions head on, not dodge them with political shenanigans!

Who can forget the famous question Peter Lumpkins asked to Dr. Mohler a couple of years ago. Some thought Peter’s question was somehow wrong. Others did not like Dr. Mohler’s answer. But I think that was a great moment in SBC life. Peter would likely be described as one of the more vocal opponents of Calvinism in the SBC. But he got a chance to go to the mic and boldly challenge the de facto leader of the SBC Calvinist contingent. Peter asked his question. Dr. Mohler answered it.

I’m glad that the SBC is a denomination in which a powerful entity head has to take questions from one who might be considered a blogging antagonist!

The entity Q&A sessions are important. Let them unfold with integrity. People with issues ought to be allowed to address those issues.

7) Fred Luter will bring it!  I was at the fall Executive Committee meeting and Fred had prepared a president’s report. He was chided by the members of the EC. They wanted to hear him preach! He promised that his future president’s reports would be sermons. I’m pretty sure he’s going to use his president’s address to bring the Word in a powerful way. I won’t miss that part.

8) Hopefully, there will be increasing evidence of the growth of multi-racial participation in the SBC. There have been hopeful signs. Two major entity hirings recently have been African Americans. Obviously, Fred Luter is our president. We have a long way to go, but progress is being made. One thing we know – the podium will not be lily-white this year. Thank God!

9) The Pastor’s Conference is going to be good. However, I will be a bad boy and hang out in the display area, hit restaurants, and hang with friends during good portions of it. Am I unspiritual if I just can’t sit through that many sermons in one day?

10) I’m going to blog and tweet, but perhaps not as much as previous years. In recent years, SBC Voices has been the most active blog during the SBC. I hope to keep the site active during those days, but I’m going to have a couple of other responsibilities that will not permit me to devote the entire convention to working the blog.

The SBC is kind of like the old story of the six blind men and the elephant. Each touches a different part of the elephant and forms opposite opinions about what the elephant is. I sat through discussions and votes at previous SBCs and came away with certain strong impressions. Then, when we start talking about it here, I realize that some people at the same convention saw completely different discussions. I guess that is to be expected.

Last week, I asked who was going. Today, the question is what you think will happen. Please, let’s not turn this into another Traditionalist/Calvinist food-fight, okay? But tell us what you think might happen in Houston.

One question: I’ve not seen any announcements of nominations for the VP positions. Any of you know who is running?

I’m leading a Bible study on the OT prophets on Wednesday night. They proclaimed the glory of God and warned Israel and Judah that God would not tolerate their sin, their false prophets with their positive messages, their empty religion, or their unfaithful hearts. Israel ignored the impending doom, and even persecuted the prophets for daring to say that God’s judgment would come. Then, one day, the “day of the Lord” came and the chosen nation was laid waste. What the prophets warned had come true.

And Israel was wholly unprepared for the aftermath because they never accepted that the judgment would ever come.

Permit me a momentary hermeneutical break. America is not Israel and never has been. We are not the chosen people of God and have never been special in his sight, nor do we hold a superior position in God’s kingdom. But we have been a nation of (at the least nominal) Christians. Our founding documents recognized a responsibility to God and gave honor to him. We are not the modern Israel, nor do we hold a special place in God’s heart, but we were at once a nation which, in the whole (though inconsistently and imperfectly), recognized the God of the Bible as our God.

Those days are long gone. During my lifetime, our national culture has done a 180 degree turn, embracing a culture of moral independence. Few in 1975 (the year I graduated high school) would have believed that we would be having today some of the moral debates that we are having. Under the current administration, the process of secularization that has been slowly growing over the last 5 decades has exploded into prominence. We are a post-Christian nation which has rejected divine authority and embraced moral individualism.

I’ve heard warnings about this from the pulpit all of my life. Of course, they have often been framed in nationalistic terms – turning America back to God, saving this great country – but the message is that of the prophets, “repent or be judged.” Proverbs 14:34 reminds us that “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” Sin brings consequences in our personal lives, in our society and in our nation.

But, if we believe this, the moral collapse of our nation may not be a time for despair for the church of Jesus Christ. If we believe that sin is a reproach, that sin has devastating consequences, then the crumbling moral foundations of America may provide an opportunity for us to minister. The church has been, in my opinion, far too focused on “saving America” and returning this land to the mindset of the past (a concept that the persecuted minorities of the past might not share). Our focus needs to be on ministry to this nation as it crumbles. Israel was unprepared for what came to that sinful nation. We must not follow in its footsteps.

We may not be able to stop the moral crash of our nation, but if the church will be the church God called us to be, we can be there to help pick up the pieces and minister to the fallen.

Here is my reasoning:

1) America (and the West in general) has abandoned any sense of responsibility to God. Our new ethic is self-centered and self-indulgent. Whatever makes me happy must be right. I follow my heart and do what I want to do.

2) That is a recipe for disaster, both personally and nationally. Sin has consequences. Walking in obedience to God brings blessing. When we walk in the ways that seem right to us, we fight out that the Scriptures are right and that walking in our own ways, “leads to death.” (Proverbs 14:12). If our nation continues on this path, there will be horrific consequences. Families will continue to disintegrate and the effects on children will be felt for generations. As people embrace sin, they will suffer the consequences of that sin – dysfunction and brokenness will abound. And, if we believe Scripture, there is even active judgment that flows from God on sinful nations.

Our nation will suffer greatly for its sin.

3) We may not be able to stop that moral fall. Would that we could. There are many that argue that we can still reverse the fall, but once a collapse begins it becomes difficult to prop the building up. There are no political solutions. A massive, nationwide revival that would dwarf the effects of the First and Second Great Awakenings would be required and no one can predict that.

Personally, I think we need to stop focusing on how we can prevent the moral fall of America and start preparing for how we can minister to people as it happens.

4) Our focus needs to be on ministry to hurting, broken, sin-destroyed people. The moral collapse we have seen will produce a bumper crop of dysfunctional families, broken homes, addictions, abused and abusive people, moral perversion and enslavement – what we will see may make us long for the good old days of 2013!

• We need to hone the gospel to make sure we are proclaiming it with clarity.  Too often we have added extraneous elements to the gospel. We need to sharpen our understanding of and proclamation of the story of Christ’s death for our sins and resurrection that we might have new lives.
• We do not need to compromise with the world’s sin (by approving of what God condemns) but we must move away from country club churches and develop the concept of the church as a hospital for sinners. The church that molds to fit into a sinful culture is no longer a church. The church that holds on to a culture of the past is ineffective. The church that proclaims the timeless gospel in a culturally appropriate way can prosper regardless of what is happening in the world.
• We need to develop ministries to address the brokenness we are going to see more of in the days ahead. Jesus came to heal those whose lives were broken by sin.
• We should never see sinners as the enemy. The enemy is the Liar, the Evil One, who deceives and devastates. Sinners, even belligerent ones, are the battleground. We do not fight against sinners, we fight FOR them, with the Word, the gospel, and the power of Christ. We battle against the darkness to shine the light, so sinners can be freed to walk in that light.

Remember the words of Jesus in Luke 5:31-32?  ”Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” Jesus came to heal the sick. As our nation descends into and embraces moral sickness, does that not provide the true church of Jesus Christ an unparalleled opportunity to do eternally significant ministry.

5) Perhaps, then, the moral decay of our nation can be an unprecedented opportunity for ministry!

Craig was a friend of mine in college. He was a liberal, I was conservative. I came from a church background and his background was sketchy. But we were friends. He told the most entertaining stories about his antics before he ended up in our little school. I don’t know if they were true, but they were hilarious! But one day, Craig and I were talking and he paused, looked at me and then said something profound.

“You good kids need to make sure you are always kind to guys like me. Our lives are always going to lead us into trouble. When we hit bottom, we are going to look for help from the guys who have been kind to them on the way down.”

I’ll never forget those words. I think they are true of the church. We need to be the hospital for sinners Christ called us to be, providing genuine ministry to people who may not seem to care. But when the consequences of their sin crash down on them, we can be there to show them to the healing power of Christ.

Let me leave no doubt about what I am saying. Should we as Christians engage in the public, even political realm? Yes. Should we attempt to influence society? Yes. Should we pray for revival? Absolutely. But we must also prepare for the tsunami of devastation that our culture’s embrace of sin will bring. Barring a mighty work of God, we are facing a societal collapse of epic proportion. The church needs to stop bemoaning this collapse and start preparing to do spiritual disaster relief when it finally hits.

I may always regret that America has become what it has become. But that kind of spiritual nostalgia is unproductive. To the contrary, this moral crash that America is headed toward may provide a unique opportunity for ministry.