Les Puryear has been an active voice in the SBC Blogosphere for a long time… He and I have agreed and disagreed on a variety of issues. I respect him, am thankful for him, and I appreciate his voice in the SBC. There has not been a time when he has treated me disrecpectfully when we have disagreed. He has always behaved in an honorable, God-fearing manner in our interactions. I pray he feels the same about me. I say all of that to say that I pray that Les trusts my heart and my motives with this post. I like Les, I just disagree with him on his most recent post. In fact, I disagree with almost every word of his post.
Les just wrote, “Can One be ‘Reformed’ and ‘Southern Baptist’ at the same time?” I am going to handle his post, point by point, with a few extra things.
Les starts out by quoting Jimmy Jackson, who just lost the SBC presidency to Bryant Wright. Jackson said, “”It seems like many of these “reformed baptists” are more reformed than they are baptist.” Les then says that Jackson is right… The problem is that Jackson and Les are both very wrong. In Les’ post he goes on to misrepresent me and every other Calvinistic Baptist that I know in the SBC. How? Les “stacks the deck” in his argument against them.
One way he does this is by, in a rather absurd way, using a Presbyterian definition rather than a “Reformed Baptist” definition. Why in the world would Les use a Presbyterian definition when dealing with Reformed Baptist? “Stacking the deck?” I think so… But, this does in fact hurt Les’ case because most Calvinistic Baptists I know disagree with a lot of the Presbyterian definition of what being Reformed means.
He gives these characteristics of what it means to be a Reformed church:
1. Non-congregational polity
2. Liturgical-based worship
3. Societal giving
4. Calvinist in soteriology
5. Covenant theology
6. paedobaptism
7. no “invitation” at the end of worship service
8. creedal
Les then shares that he only holds to one characteristic above. While he never says, it appears that he thinks Calvinistic Baptists hold to well over majority of the characteristics. What is funny is that many of the founding Southern Baptists hold to more than one point above and yet, it seems, that Les is projecting himself as what a “real” Southern Baptist is.
Mark Lamprecht in the comment thread of Les’ post points out that as Mark Dever states, “Turning to the South, W. B. Johnson of South Carolina, and the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention wrote of the New Testament churches that “each church had a plurality of elders.” So while, Les does not agree with point 1, it appears that someone who must be considered a “true Southern Baptist” did in fact believe in a plurality of Elders, as Johnson pointed out that each church in the NT had a plurality of elders. Les’ response to the point made was merely, “Dever is not infallible.” Dever has very little to do with the point made, he merely quoted the first President of the SBC as saying that a plurality of elders was obviously practiced in the New Testament.
I am not sure exactly what Les means by “societal giving” as he repeatedly acts as if “Reformed” Baptists hate the cooperative program, but yet loves societal giving. Why do I put “Reformed” in quotations? Because I do not know of one “Reformed” Southern Baptist church that is “Reformed” in the sense that Les seems to believe they are. I am curious to see if Les can name churches and what practices make them, “more Reformed than Baptist.”
While I know of Calvinstic Southern Baptist churches that have some liturgy in their worship service, I am not so sure they are “liturgy based worship.” In fact, all of the ones that I know of are more based on the Preaching of the Word than anything else.
Obviously not one “Reformed” Southern Baptist believes in paedobaptism. Many “Reformed” Southern Baptists do have an invitation. The crowd is pretty split on the issue of covenant theology and isn’t every Southern Baptist church at least somewhat creedal?
My point is that there really isn’t any ground to stand on to say that many of the “Reformed Baptists” in the SBC are more “Reformed” than Baptist. It might sound strong to those opposed to the Young, Restless, Reformed movement, but the arguments are very weak, at best.
Also, it is ludicrous to act as if a person can’t believe in Calvinistic Soteriology, not do invitations, be liturgical, creedal, and hold to Covenant Theology and yet not be very much a Baptist. I’m not sure why Les thinks he has the best understanding of what it means to be a “true Southern Baptist.” There are a lot of Founding Fathers of the SBC that completely disagree with many of Les’ points. At the very most he could say that the Founding Fathers are split on a lot of these issues, such as Elder-led polity.
So, Les says he is Calvinist and not “Reformed.” Well good, because most of the Calvinistic Southern Baptists I know aren’t “Reformed” in the way Les described them any way. And if we are taking either my word or Les’ does it not make more sense to take the word of someone “in the camp?” I think I have a much better understanding of the “Calvinistic Baptists” due to the fact that I am one of them and I network with a ton of them.
One last point… Even though this point has been disproven several times in the past, Les goes on to say that he opposes the SBC partnering with the Acts 29 network because, he says, the A29 network requires the A29 churches to give 10% to the network. This is simply untrue and has been proven so many times.
In summary, it baffles me that Les can act as if only and his “camp” he understands what it really means to be a “true Southern Baptist.” At the very least those who founded the SBC were split on these very issues. Can someone be “Reformed” in the sense that they believe in Covenant Theology, Calvinistic Soteriology, liturgical practices, being creedal, and Elder-led and still be “Real Baptists?” Of course they can and it is nonsense to suggest otherwise.
I write this with much love and grace to Les.
Dave Miller (97)
Debbie Kaufman (54)
Rick Patrick (49)
dr. james willingham (32)
Christiane (31)
Greg Harvey (31)
Bart Barber (30)
Bob Hadley (30)
Chris Roberts (30)
Frank (30)
I’m not sure, but I believe that Les is a Calvinist. At least I thought he was.
Perhaps the issue is one that has been raised by many reformed/Presbyterian folks, who say that if you don’t buy into the whole Reformed system, you aren’t reformed. For them, its all or nothing.
I am calvinistic in theology, but do not buy into any of those other points. That is why I eschew terms like reformed, or even Calvinist. They can imply (to some at least) a system I don’t buy into.
I like to say I believe in the sovereignty of God over salvation and just leave it at that.
Dave,
Les is a Calvinist in terms of Soteriology… Thats the 1 point he holds. What gets me is the thought that if you hold more than one point you are somehow “more Reformed than Baptist.” They make seem like ‘Reformed’ Baptists are trying to take the SBC into a Presbyterian future… Which, to me, is just absolute nonsense. It seems arrogant to me when someone acts as if they are the ones that REALLY know what it means to be a “true, historic Southern Baptist.”
Yeah, on that I agree.
I don’t think you could make it clearer: calvinism and reformed (Presbyterian) are two different animals, even if sometimes they eat from the same trough (no offense to Arminian swine) :0
you’re all wrong. the real question is “Was John the Baptist reformed?” once you figure that out, you will know whether TRUE Baptists are reformed or not.
Lol… And of course he was!
Better question is do Southern Baptist hold Jesse Helms in high esteem given his reputation for complicity in the assassination of Oscar Romero.
And how do Southern Baptists who claim to be church state separationists come down on the current discussion between Randall Balmer who talks about counterfeit Baptists; and the SBC Peace Committee’s Judge Charles Pickering, now a board member of the Alliance Defense Fund.
Mr. Fox, did you know Jesse Helms is dead? And, what does Jesse Helms have to with what I believe as a baptist? I’m sorry you feel responsible for every individuals sin since Adam, but I do not.
You never really come out and say, “anything,” so I don’t know what your for or against, except that you seem to talk a lot about dead people.
Huh?
Jesse Helms? Oscar Romero (didn’t he play the Joker on the original Batman? Why would Helms want the Joker killed?)
Who is Randall Balmer? Never heard of him.
Charles Pickering. Interesting. I think that he actually was President of the Mississippi Baptist Convention, and at that time was a moderate (you know, those people who used to be found everywhere in SBC life, but now you can’t find them – even the ones who were moderates speak of them in the third person, as if they weren’t).
The Alliance Defense Fund?
Are you sure you are on the right site or did you mean to post this somewhere else?
I am exceedingly disappointed in this post by Les.
I had hoped that his recent movement toward the “Baptist Identity” camp would be short lived, and perhaps even corrected by the results of the Convention in Orlando. I see this is not the case.
As the point man for the Small Church Movement in the SBC, I think Les has greatly damaged the Movement with this article and his constant complaining against the GCRTF recommendations.
As blunders go, they don’t get much bigger than this…
Whats even sadder is Greg’s use of the term “Baptist Identity” as if its a bad word.
And, Les has been moving towards the Baptist Identity camp? Really?
lol
David
Oh, and BTW, Greg, for your information, most of the “BI” gang voted for the GCR…after it was changed.
lol
David
yea, while I have a few (friendly) bones to pick with the BI crowd, it’s a little unfair to lump you guys in with Les on the contents of that particular post.
Volfan007 (David),
“It seems like many of these (Baptist Identity) baptists are more (Baptist Identity) than they are baptist.”
lol
Greg
Greg,
And why did you quote this to me? with the changes? I’m scratching my head on this one?
David
David, I’m guessing because whenever the phrase baptist identity is mentioned, you comment as an obvious representative.
Darby,
I didnt say the quote above….Les said it. Greg changed the name of the group to “BI.” Why? And, why would he say that to me? I didnt say anything about any of this!!
Now, do you understand my query? Why in the world would Greg say this to me? I cant quite figure out the logic here.
David
BTW, Les is a great guy. I love him as a Brother in Christ. We’d be proud to have him come into the “BI camp.” We’d show him the secret handshake, and we’d let him in on the secret password, and everything.
David
Am I the only one that thinks its too soon after the convention to start sniping at other groups within our own convention?
We’re Baptists. Its never to early to snipe!
and never to early to send people snipe hunting either!
lol… You are on a roll.
Matt’s right .. Les set out his definition of “Reformed” with his link to the Canadian denomination. That has nothing to do with Calvinism, and linking the two is inappropriate.
I’m Calvinistic, and it’s true that the five points are all sort of necessary within Calvinism, for it to hang together, but that has nothing to do with a lot of the RPC’ers follow.
I did not mean to imply that there is “no” connection between many Calvinists and Presbyterians. That would be an equally too broad statement in my humble opinion.
And, I don’t accept and all or nothing, 5 point Calvinism to consider someone “calvinistic.” I think a strong leaning toward sovereignty as a primary expression of God’s nature qualifies someone to be “calvinistic.” Of course, this is probably a semantic game. But, was Calvin a 5 pointer? I guess I’m a “stem” calvinist — no petals.
Simple fact of the matter seems to be this is just another dividing point among us Southern Baptists (as if we don’t have enough).
As one of the young and “reformed” types (in the baptistic sense, of course!), I think we’re going to have to learn to watch our presentation of our convictions. We sometimes get accused of being young, smug, and arrogant…and truth is a lot of us do act like that at times.
Many it seems also linger in the “cage stage”…and that’s not simply in reference to soteriology, but eschatology and ecclesiology as well. When I was a student at SBTS (not that long ago
), I knew a lot of people who were gracious and humble about their “reformed” positions and very appreciative of our baptist fathers in the conservative resurgence. Most of them, though, were the professors. Yeah, there were some students like that as well, but I also knew plenty of students who raged on about calvinism (disagree w/ a single point, you’re a stinkin’ arminian and maybe not saved), church structure (elders or die, or even some: house church or die), the scofield bible (amil is next to godliness, dispensationalism is next to…well…the devil)… okay, so I exaggerate some, but that does characterize some fellow students I knew.
We can’t be like that or even appear to be like that. We have to be humble, appreciative of the good men and women who have gone before us in convention life, be willing to serve others first, and then present a positive defense of our convictions.
If they know our hearts are love, they just may be more willing to listen, support us, and hold us dear as a part of the big southern baptist family…even if we do support Acts29.
Hey gang,
I’m glad my little post is generating some discussion. For clarification purposes, I never used the phrase “true Southern Baptist.” I can only testify to my understanding of what it means to be a Southern Baptist as I have experienced it during the past 50 years.
Also, I don’t use words like “calvinistic” or “baptistic.” I am a Calvinist, not calvinistic. I am a baptist, not baptistic. I am not reformed now, nor never will be.
I think it’s time Southern Baptists decide whether or not we are going to support church planting through Southern Baptist entities or through non-Southern Baptist parachurch organizations. I choose to support Southern Baptist church planting.
Thanks for the post. I enjoy reading other people’s opinions.
Les
Since we are splitting hairs, I’ll volunteer one of the dozen I have left. I hope you appreciate the sacrifice.
To say that “I’m a Calvinist or I a Baptist, I’m an anything else” is to deny the “occasional nature” of the Bible.
There is absolutely no “biblical systematic theology.” Systematic Theology is a grid we artificially place over the text to help make sense of it. But, the Bible is a “story, a narrative” and no Systematic Theology can be the “primary” way to approach a text. It may be a secondary — and effective — step to understanding a text, but it cannot make a text say something it could never have meant.
We must begin with the text, not the “ist,” or we most likely will bring too much of an external presupposition to exposition so we can boister our position or show our erudition, but miss the principle issue which is our sinful condition and need for propitiation.
“I can only testify to my understanding of what it means to be a Southern Baptist as I have experienced it during the past 50 years.”
That line of yours may explain why many (Calvinists and non-) are so quick to discuss your post. It seems a little unfair to describe what it means to be a Southern Baptist based on only the last 50 years, especially since the first chunk of the 50 were mired in some pretty ugly drifts towards liberalism. Don’t we have an agreed upon statement of faith? Isn’t that a fairer marker than your own experience (though I’m admitting up front that in the experience category convention-wise you have me smoked and I’m not discounting your knowledge of general convention life)? That’s not even accounting for the history before those years.
It would be interesting to see your comparison of that list (though I agree with Matt S that comparing the Reformed baptists guys I’ve encountered to that list is a little like comparing your local episcopal church to the Thomas Cranmer’s original beliefs) based on what we’ve agreed is the essential theology for our cooperation. Besides paedo-baptism (obviously), what is outright ruled out by the BFM2K and actually practiced by most Reformed Baptists you know?
Any thoughts in that direction?
Les,
Thanks for stopping by and receiving my post in the right spirit.
My question, Les, is why is it so wrong to support Southern Baptist church plants that are also Acts 29? We are still supporting church plants through SBC entities… Why can’t we embrace the church plants that also choose to network with the SBC AND others?
I will say this…what Les said about Acts 29 is what a lot of SB’s are thinking out here…outside of the blog world…whether you like it, or not. In fact, some are thinking about them worse than what Les has stated.
David
I know here in MO, if you want help from the state you can’t be A29 associated. A year or two ago the executive board pulled stated funding from a couple of A29 church plants…
The issue as expressed was two fold: 1) The Journey Church in St. Louis (which was not being MBC-funded at the time anyway) was A29 associated and had a ministry called “Theology on Tap” that met at a bar; 2) A29 itself does not take a stand against alcohol, and some of their affiliated churches seem to promote its use in moderation.
I could be wrong, but I never remember anything being said about the practices of the de-funded plants themselves, it was just simply their association w/ A29 and A29′s perceived association w/ alcohol.
Then on the SBC level… given this, and A29′s calvinism and association w/ Driscoll and his Song of Songs preaching… yeah, it ain’t too popular as whole right now (for better or for worse)…
David,
That may be true… But, by far, most of the younger generation isnt thinking those things at all.
This is another clear dividing point between the two generations.
Matt,
I know quite a few young Pastors who dont think very highly of Acts 29.
David
I dont doubt that at all… But by and large the younger generation is accepting of Acts 29. Also, I think I probably know as many older folks that are accepting of Acts 29 as you do younger folks who arent.
Could it be that Acts29′s association with drinking, cussing and seeming preoccupation with sex might have something to do with the tension between them and the SBC?
Beyond that, how much have Acts29 church plants, once established contributed to the CP, Annie Armstrong, or Lottie Moon. That would be a consideration, I’d think.
Also, there are a lot of other non-drinking, non-cussing groups with evangelical theology. Why don’t we see a charge led to partner with them.
Even if Acts29 didn’t have all the baggage they appear to have, I don’t see why we as SB “need” their help. There is nothing wrong with having our own “mission” program in my opinion. I can see problems when we become “so broad in our tent,” that we blur our denominational focus and become something like a parachurch mission agency rather than a denomination. We could do that . . . but why?
Maybe if Acts29 boycotted organizations like Disney they’d be more readily accepted, right?
Matt,
Point of Order…
The SBC is not a Denomination… and the SBC is in reality “a parachurch missions agency”.
Greg, your point of order is not well taken. In the common use of the term the SBC is a denomination. If your point is to argue semantically, then your point is just to argue, and I’m not in the mood today.
And, with all pointless points of order, you miss the point, as did Mark.
Also, I question even the name of the organization. It is “extra-biblical.” If we are going to argue pointless points of order, I think that while it’s “cute,” it implies doing something beyond what the Bible mandates. I’ve seen blogs argue that this is the part of the problem with Acts29. They intentionally seek to do something that is “new” (in the sense of different not fresh). I don’t think “cute” (as in rapping motions, drinking, cussing, and cuddling) are appropriate as the church fights in the battle for souls.
Lest someone think I have a hidden agenda: count me out in regard to a partnership with ACT29. I’ll stay in Acts 28, ending in an adverb which is a continuation of, not a departure from the mission of the gospel.
Remember, Acts29 has only found a resting place in one sixth of our seminaries. Does that tell us something?
Let’s try this: ask our current President to establish a Act29 Task Force to fully embrace Acts29 as a partner in SBC missions. This task force will bring a recommendation to the Convention meeting in Phoenix in 2010. Let’s see if there is an interest in this matter?
“Could it be that Acts29’s association with drinking, cussing and seeming preoccupation with sex might have something to do with the tension between them and the SBC?”
Drinking, certainly. The SBC has too much in its cultural history with the issue for it to not be an issue.
Cussing? I don’t know. Really the cussing part has mainly been associated w/ Driscoll who was tabbed the “cussing pastor” by some, and who has also admitted he has a mouth, but is sorrowful and repentant about it and is sad he was stuck with the label.
And sex? I think this might be a generational thing in the SBC. A lot of the younger types came up in homes and churches where the topic was never talked about, so most of the info came from TV, music, and the internet. Needless to say, there’s a generation of young men/women who have a lot of confused ideas and questions that are looking for biblical and frank answers. What Driscoll (and of course we know, if he does it it gets associated w/ A29) did w/ his SoS series, interpretively, is along the lines of Tommy Nelson (who many SBC churches happily use), and in the language and frankness found mainly in the Q&A is no different than the language and frankness expressed on the subject in a seminary class I took on marriage and family. Maybe if we didn’t have a generational failure on discussing the topic, we wouldn’t have to have sermon’s like Driscoll’s…
“I don’t see why we as SB “need” their help”
I’ve never seen anything saying this is about the SBC needing their help. This is about autonomous church plants that happen to be SBC wanting to partner also w/ A29 and not be ostracized by others in the SBC.
Mike,
You say A LOT of good things here… I think I agree with every bit of it.
Mike, I can see nothing objectionable in your ideas. Maybe if all the problems are isolated to Drischoll, there is no problem. I don’t see any proof that is the case, but I’d be willing to discuss the matter.
I do have a question, “Is a church plant that receives money gathered from others, truly as autonomous as a church that does not.” In other words, if someone asks me to be a partner and accepts my money, are they truly autonomous.
As a former church planter (several times) who received such funds I can tell you I felt an obligation NOT “to bite the hand feeding me.” And, on one occasion when I felt autonomous enough to “bite the hand that was feeding me,” they stopped feeding me.
So, I’m saying that a partnership must take into consideration the attitudes and expectations of all constituents. That’s why I don’t think it is working between ACTS29 and the SBC at large. That is not to say it “can’t” work. But, to insult me by calling me “dumb, childish, and elitist” really doesn’t get me excited to put my hand out.
Does that make any sense?
“But, to insult me by calling me “dumb, childish, and elitist” really doesn’t get me excited to put my hand out.”
Uh… I never said that or used those words.
“I do have a question, “Is a church plant that receives money gathered from others, truly as autonomous as a church that does not.” In other words, if someone asks me to be a partner and accepts my money, are they truly autonomous.”
Despite our (mine as well) baptist love for autonomous… of course nothing’s ever purely so (and probably shouldn’t be).
But w/ Acts29, the things they do require like a committment to the doctrine of grace, elder leadership, and missions giving are not contradictory to SBC life (except maybe the first two in some people’s minds!). It’s the things, like what have been mentioned, that certain people associated w/ A29 are known for that people keep throwing out there…
but… it’s not like A29 is requiring it’s partner churches to be assoicated w/ bar ministries, serve drinks at church functions, or preach bluntly on sex from Song of Songs… it also doesn’t require member churches to support/fund other plants that do.
To say that an SBC church/plant should think long and hard before joining A29 to make sure they know what they’re associating with…great, they should…
To say that the SBC/NAMB as an entity should not partner as an entity w/ A29…that’s fine, I actually agree…
But…to tell an individual church plant they can’t partner w/ A29, or to badmouth a plant for doing so, or to pull funding from a plant that did (happened in MO where I’m at)…when the church itself is not violating the BF&M 2000… that’s not right IMO (and I’m not saying you fall into those categories, but the attitude is aplenty out there)…
But it’s like I asked elsewhere:
1) What’s the standard of measure (for a church plant to receive SBC funds)
And… 2) if a church plant is started by someone who goes through NAMB yet also wants to partner their plant w/ Acts29, is that acceptable? (if not, then why not and how does it relate to 1 above?)
That’s not specifically a set of questions for you or anyone else here… but it is a set that if us as the SBC as a whole would answer clearly, then one way or another it would put an end to a lot of this…
Mike,
No, you were not the one calling people names. I was just making point that such behavior makes any discussion of issues difficult.
1) What’s the standard of measure (for a church plant to receive SBC funds)
My simple answer would be: an SBC church plant.
And… 2) if a church plant is started by someone who goes through NAMB yet also wants to partner their plant w/ Acts29, is that acceptable? (if not, then why not and how does it relate to 1 above?)
My answer would be: if they want to be an ACTS29
church plant, let them be ACTS29. I have no problem
with that. Let ACTS29 fund it, however.
There is also a matter of “guilt by association.” Just because a particular church does not participate in “bar-hopping and such,” it becomes problem if they are a “partner with others who do.” It’s the “avoid even the appearance of evil,” and “come out from among them and be separate.”
But, would someone please answer my question: “why do we need to partner with ACTS29?”
Matt2239,
But that’s the whole point that you seem to miss…churches have every right to work with multiple groups, in fact every church does it. It doesn’t need to be one or the other.
Why must you hamstring church plants by demanding that they only be funded by NAMB, something NAMB itself doesn’t even do? Or only be funded by Acts 29 or some other group? That makes no sense.
Again…Acts29 is not needed by the SBC, but some church plants may want to align with them, and that is ok…based on our own cooperative standard. It is only some with an agenda that are being narrow on this.
Truly “Reformed” (capital R) Christians get frustrated when baptists call themselves reformed because it generally is an entire system and they know that most baptists don’t buy into it in its entirety. So they think it’s not truth in advertising. I think Les is saying the something similar. Historically, reformed types staunchly opposed baptists. I think the fundamental characteristics of reformed theology are covenant theology and the presbytery versus congregational autonomy. Plural eldership is neither baptist nor reformed. It’s just straight up Bible as is the doctrines of grace. IOW, both reformed or baptist Christians can hold to plural eldership and doctrines of grace.
Is there also a general understanding that churches have to be either congregational or presbyterian? I’ve heard of several that are both/and (body of elders with congregations weighing in on certain issues (like electing elders, budget issues, etc.)?
Josh,
Plural eldership within the congregation is biblical. The difference between baptist and presbyterian comes into focus in the realm of local church autonomy outside the church. Presbyterian churches answer to a higher authority than the local church – the presbyters – whereas baptist churches are autonomous, whether they have a plurality of elders or just one “pastor” instead. For example, a teaching elder of a presbyterian church can by put on trial for a certain doctrinal heresy by the board of presbyters overseeing all the churches in a certain area and have his ordination removed if found guilty. A baptist church is pretty much on its own to correct such an error.
Darby,
thanks. I wasn’t questioning here which one was the “biblical” viewpoint, but trying to figure out if others were operating on the either/or basis or if they acknowledge the existence of churches that combine the two.
I’ll add one more for the night.
regarding characteristic 2:
All churches have some kind of “liturgy.” however, many see it as better to have a liturgical calendar based on Hallmark than on celebrating key events from Scripture. Churches can be just as ritualistic with non-written “traditions” and orders of service as the most ornate liturgical churches. just try to move the offering to a different place in your service next Sunday and see if people notice.
Les,
This comment and your last answer to me that your position is based on experience is very confusing. I almost want to call it post-modern. I say that because if we are to argue based on experience then historic practices and theological definitions don’t matter. Rather, those things become re-defined based on one’s experience.
If your experience differs from mine then by what objective standard shall we either agree or disagree? We don’t interpret and teach (I hope) the Bible in such a way so why would we have experience define the foundation of all of our practices that flow from the Bible?
Mark,
Havent you heard? The SBC has gone post modern. That’s where we’re at now. So, Les is just trying to adjust to the current culture. I guess I will have to do it, too.
David
David,
Would you mind contextualizing that a bit for me so I can understand?
lol
David,
Yes, we are now postmodern! Therefore, could you please restate your point in the form of a rap and then ban it from playing on YouTube for at least the next fifteen years? (Just promise me that you’ll ban it first so if anyone wants to see it you can tell them they would be forcing you to break the promise you made to me.)
Rick,
I might do what you’re saying here, unless I change my mind; because the end justifies the means. And, if I feel like it, I will. If I dont feel like it, I wont.
David
I share the point on Covenant theology:
A Southern Baptist that holds Doctrines of Grace cannot share Presbyterians Covenant Theology. That’s why I hold New Covenant Theology. Sabbathism on Sunday Worship Services and Liturgy like the Temple of Salomon is far from a Biblical understanding of the Truth. I am with Les points. Please read Tablets of Stone by Pastor John Reisinger. http://solochristo.com/theology/nct/stone/stonec.htm. But I holds your point on Biblical Leadership with Elders or Plurality of Pastor.
Josué,
What is interesting is that all three BFM versions reference Exodus 20:8 (and more).
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” (Exodus 20:8 ESV)
As one who hold to NCT do you agree with the BFM2000 position?
Also, what is “Presbyterian” Covenant Theology?
Mark brings up a very good point!
Les clearly is using “Post Modern” reasoning (personal experience) here to define who is, and who is not, a “True Baptist”.
I get so frustrated with my fellow Southern Baptist whenever I hear them attempting to “Identify” who is, and who is not, a Southern Baptist… The Southern Baptist “Convention” is a Missions Facilitating Organization made up of Self-Governing Baptist Churches that choose to participate with this Organization. It is not a “Denomination” and all participation is strictly voluntary.
Strictly speaking there are “NO” Southern Baptist Churches… only Baptist Churches which choose to participate with the Southern Baptist Convention. The Southern Baptist Convention owns no churches… not even those who are planted with SBC Cooperative Program funds.
And anyone who attempts to create a “Baptist Identity” for the Southern Baptist Convention beyond what is stated in our agreed upon parameters of cooperation (The Baptist Faith and Message 2000) simply does not understand the nature of our Convention.
Grace Always,
Greg,
The SBC does have requirements for who it puts in places of leadership; who we send as missionaries; who gets to teach in our seminaries; and even if a church can be a member of the SBC, or not…i.e….churches that have openly homosexual members cannot be a member of the SBC.
So, yes, we do have parameters. We need to have these boundaries, as well. So, SOMEONE chose which parameters determined who really is a Southern Baptist, and who is not. Do you see how illogical and contradictory your statement above is. In one breath, you state that no one should create a Baptist Identity for the SBC…then, in the next breath, you state that the BFM2K should be the parameter?????
So, Greg, yes we do create a Baptist Identity in the SBC, and it’s very much needed. NOw, I might want it to say a little different than what you want it to say….but it’s still a boundary of cooperation that’s in place right now.
David
David,
Do you troll the internet looking for the key words “Baptist Identity” and jump on anyone who does not agree with your agenda?
What part of “The SBC is not a Denomination”– do you not understand?
What part of “The SBC is a Missions Facilitating Organization made up of Self-Governing Baptist Churches”– do you not understand?
What part of “The SBC owns no Churches”– do you not understand?
What part of “All Participation in the SBC is strictly voluntary”– do you not understand?
Yes David… there is an agreed upon“boundary of cooperation that’s in place right now” and if you BI guys got your way that boundary would be drastically narrowed to “Exclude” many of the Young, Restless, and Reformed of the next generation and anyone else who does not look, believe, or worship exactly like you. That David is why I will never stop opposing the misguided agenda of you BI guys. Yours is an “Anti-Cooperation” Agenda that if left unchecked would divide and destroy the greatest Missions Facilitating Organization ever envisioned (The SBC)… therefore, I will continue to remind the SBC what is at stake here.
Grace Always,
While I don’t agree with the BI guys on every point of doctrine, many but not all, I would rather they have more influence than Mr. “There’s not a spiritual group I wouldn’t cooperate with” Wade Burleson. If, and I’m not saying they are, they’re too narrow that is a far cry better than “faith trumps belief–you can believe what you want and if you’re sincere enough God HAS to accept you”. Well, it’s a far cry better unless you live in Enid.
Once again, Greg, I find your logic to be much like Debbie’s… hard to follow…here and there…accusing someone of something that they did not even say…assuming things, without knowing facts, etc.
Greg, YOU are the one, who brought up Baptist Identity. Also, maybe you havent noticed, but I come into this blog all the time and comment all the time…so, what’s with the trolling comment? I dont know whether to call you Greg, or Debbie.
Again, why are you asking what part of the SBC not being a denomination do I not understand, etc, etc, etc? lol Dude, what?
Greg, your whole rant towards me makes no sense, whatsoever.
David
David,
Who is Debbie?
David,
I think the issue Greg is pointing out is that the BI guys are trying to narrow the parameters of cooperation, or at least re-define the parameters already set.
We all agree that there are parameters for cooperation. In SBC life it is the BFM2000. To narrow the parameters further is unfair, and counterproductive. But that is precisely what the BI guys do…and you know it.
Jason,
Of course he knows it… That is why he and the BI guys go after Debbie and Wade so hard, because Debbie and Wade opposed their agenda at the IMB and SWBTS.
Of course he knows it…
I find it hilarious/sad that us “elitist” SBCers are so against partnering with other networks and yet Acts 29 highly encourages partnering with denominations and other networks… Whose Kingdom are we trying to build? The SBC’s or God’s?
Our pride and elitist mentality is killing us. This is one issue that brings it out.
Im tired of dumb arguments such as, “I cant partner with a network that cusses.” Really? One guy who has cussed in the past means the whole network is a “cussing network.” Things like this are dumb and childish. This is one of the issues were most of the older generation looks at the younger generation and thinks, “we cant let them have it their way” and the younger generation looks at the older generation and thinks, “what in the heck is wrong with these people?”
People need to stop being anti-A29 just because they allow moderate drinking, one guy used to cuss from the pulpit, preached a provocative sermon series, and because they hold to Calvinist-soteriology. it’s just plain dumb and elitist.
*frustration out
Matt, hold on to your horses. Perhaps when you watch your brother bleed out of ever orifice in his body or tried to comfort a little girl who’s Dad used coarse, hard language, or picked up the pieces from “provocative” attitude toward sex, you might be a little more understanding of how some — I’ll speak for myself — of us might see enough of a problem to at least warrant some questions.
And, just for the record, as I understand it, It wasn’t “just one guy who happened to cuss one time.” It was the leader of the group who pretty much “let it all hang out.” It is not the “behavior” that I have issue with, but the character: “from the abundance of the heart, a man speaks.”
And there is a fallacy that the Bible encourages “recreational drinking” because “Thou shalt not drink” is not one of the Ten Commandments. I know you are student of the Bible and realize there are many things “lawful, but not profitable.”
In your rush to judgment over my sensitivity to drinking, cussing, and provocative sex talk, I’m afraid you missed my point: do we need to channel funds and energy into partnering with “any other group?” I’m not for partnering with Campus Crusade for Christ either. That doesn’t make me “anit-CCC.” So, while I’m sorry my point of view seems “Hilarious, sad, dumb, childish, and elitist,” I think I have a valid opinion on this matter.
And, playing the generation card will be as effective in church politics as it is in national politics. It will only engender a false competition and encourage further division, in my humble opinion.
Matt2239,
I appreciate your response. First, realize I was not addressing you specifically. While I know my post doesnt refer to EVERY person that is against partnering with A29, the attitude I showed is certainly prevalent in some.
Also, I am not “playing the generation card.” I am merely stating a fact- this is an issue where we see a clear dividing line between generations.
Well, if you are stating a fact, and I do not (as an older pastor, though not as old as some) hold the opinion you ascribe to me, then does that by some power of deduction indicate you are wrong?
Just asking.
I’d still like to know, why do we as SBC’ers who have been doing missions for — let’s say, some time now — partner with ACTS 29? What can they do that we cannot do? That is a very simple, honest question. Here’s my answer: nothing. If you read my other posts, I do not think we need to partner with ACT 29 or Campus Crusade, or the Bee Gees (just a little generational humor). Attack them, no. Embrace them, perhaps. Partner with them, why?
Matt2239,
Les is the one who played the “generation card” Svoboda. And are we going to hold the SBC to the same standard of Acts-29? Are we going to paint the whole of the SBC as pedophiles because of one man’s sin?
It was Les’s article that encourages further division, not Svoboda’s reply.
I also played the generational card earlier in this thread about the sex-talk aspect… and I’m going to stand by that one.
David said: “or picked up the pieces from “provocative” attitude toward sex,”
I guess it’s a difference of perspective, but in my life&ministry there has been that issue (dealing w/ people who have dealt w/ porn, abuse, pre-marital, homosexuality, shame, guilt, wrecked lives or aspects of their lives, etc)… it’s the main reason why I think we need to be more open, honest, frank, and biblical even addressing the provocative topics…
Yet his experiences lead him to think we don’t need it b/c it only causes more trouble (at least that’s what I’m reading between the lines–correct me if I’m wrong)…
Funny how perspectives work…
Mike, “you’re wrong.” There’s one correction. Second, it was Matt’s quote, not David. You should apologize to David for attaching my quote to him. I’m sure that greatly offended him
And Mike, I specifically did not write between the lines in that post, so I know you are making all your stuff up. Sorry, you got caught
matt… I stand corrected.
Interesting.
“From the abundance of the heart, a man speaks”
So…that said…have you ever said anything you regretted? Spoken unkindly to someone? Raised your voice? Cussed, even? (Let’s just assume the answer is “yes”.)
So, does that mean we should not fellowship with you? Should not help you if you decide to plant a church or head up a fellowship of churches? After all, if you cuss it shows you have a wicked heart, right?
I would think for an issue like this we would take a man’s public repentance and lack of evidence of him doing anything of the sort in the pulpit again (at least for the last 5 years or so), and say “he made a mistake, he repented, it’s over”. Or maybe a man’s repentance over an admitted issue isn’t enough…we need to further punish him and anyone associated with him in perpetuity.
The irony of it is, no one here has ever heard him cuss in the pulpit. But you know who cussed at the SBC? From the stage? Criswell. Hmm. Should we have disfellowshipped him too?
The irony is people want to punish a guy who did what they do in private all the time. Moreover, they want to punish everyone associated with him.
It makes zero sense. It is unchristian. Frankly, it is getting old.
Jason, if you are looking for an award for missing the point, I’ll give you a 9.4.
First, I said in my post that my concern isn’t with “one obscure (I’ll clarify for you bit more) guy cussing,” or one Acts29 person having a beer, or some of the Acts29 really liking sex (assuming they are married). My point is: (and it was phrased as a question), is there a flaw in the foundation we should examine (and I’m willing to examine as I said)?
My point is (and I will restate it for the third time): why do we need to partner with ACTS29, or anyone else? No where in Scripture does it mandate monlithic missiology across the global landscape of the church. That would be impossible. Jesus specifically taught that we should allow individual groups to do individual things. I’m banking on the Lord knowing more about missions than I do.
What “need” is there to align with ACTS29? I’m assuming, “none.” And, so far, everyone has agreed with me (or should I say no one bothered to disagree with that point).
That doesn’t mean we cannot learn something from Driscoll, or others. But, when it comes to cussing, I must let you know, I was a sailor, and a submariner to boot. So, in the cussing category, with a little practice (I’m a bit rusty), I could hold my own
If you are looking for an award for being a jerk in a reply, I’ll give you a 10. No need for that kind of nonsense, brother.
Maybe you are confusing what you posted and when you posted it, but you never said (and let ME clarify this) “one obscure guy cussing” in the post to which I responded. Go back and re-read your post from 3:39 pm and get back to me. In fact, you actually questioned the character of Driscoll and made pretty pointed remarks…no qualifications like you claim in your above reply.
It is THAT issue that I responded…hence my comments.
If you would like to reply to my actual comments, I would welcome your input so that we can have an actual discussion. Hopefully, this time it will be free from the condescending attitude of this last reply, which I think you will see is a little ironic considering your failure to address my point and your claim to have stated something that you didn’t state in the post to which I responded.
That said, I will make a separate reply for your points so that we can carry on two different issues at the same time: Driscoll on one and cooperation on this one. (Make sure you reply to the right post as that will cut down on confusion and help you remember what you say and where.)
Here is where some of you miss the issue…it isn’t about the SBC cooperating with Acts29, it is about individual churches being allowed to partner with whoever they want and not having their NAMB or state funding pulled. No one is advocating making Acts29 a SBC entity, but new churches get funding from lots of places…why can’t that new church get help from both the SBC and Acts29?
That makes your other points moot. Of course there is no “need” to align with anyone, but if a church wants to, they should be allowed to do so. Individual churches are autonomous and if they want to align with both, they can…and if they qualify for NAMB funding then they shouldn’t be disqualified because they also align with another organization. NAMB shouldn’t be allowed to make that call.
BUT…if the issue were cooperation with Acts29 and the SBC…what would be the reasons we shouldn’t cooperate with them?
I forgot to add…I thought your point (from somewhere on this convoluted thread) about if a church plant is truly autonomous was a great topic for discussion.
If they are not autonomous, then the Baptist Identity guys should retire. LOL
I believe they are autonomous, but they are going to have to figure out how their particular cooperation with funding groups will impact how they cooperate with others.
But it cannot be the role of one of the funding groups to refuse to let them cooperate with others, especially when those others do not violate either the church’s or the NAMBs basic cooperative document. Plus, NAMB (nor the SBC) can dictate how a church acts…but it is an interesting discussion.
Jason, go ahead and rant. You are going to make whatever you choose to make out of whatever I write and it will go no place.
I’m sorry for the “Olympic remark.” I did not mean to offend you. It was badly placed humor. I am sorry. I will avoid interacting with any of your posts so as not to offend you again.
You don’t need to pretend we are “brothers.” I get your point.
So, you really won’t respond to my posts?
Wow.
I spent time responding to your points and you call it a rant? You mocked me, and I showed you how your humor was not only ill-timed but not even addressing what I posted. No rant there.
If you post things, you must be prepared for people to disagree and offer counterpoints…and you can’t get your feelings hurt and take your ball and go home when they pick apart your argument.
I will add this one point before we part ways: I read my post at 3:39 and I have no idea what you are talking about. In reference to Drischoll’s character, I believe there is enough in print to demonstrate a propensity for bad decision-making that does not bode well for me wanting to welcome him into the SBC with open arms.
Quite honestly, I do not know the man quite as well as you do. And, I have seen evidence of others continuing such behavior long past Drischoll’s apology. So, my point was: did Drischoll’s many indescretions taint his movement. I believe that is a valid question. It is also the reason I don’t go to Jimmy Swaggart for counsel on personal issues.
I’ve said over and over, I’m open to someone convincing me why we need to partner with ACTS 29? So far, at least in your case, you read things I did not right to accuse me of things I do not believe. If you read my 5:45 post you would see that I really do not have an ax to grind in this matter.
Feel free to have the last word, but I will avoid your posts in the future so as not to offend you.
No need to part ways. I’m not mad, not sure where you get that.
I posted a ton of stuff answering your questions and raising other issues…and you refuse to respond to that. Not sure why. If you want responses, then don’t mock people who respond to you and refuse to address their points.
Now, to clarify, I’m not sure if you noticed but this response system is a little convoluted and it is hard to read all of the responses on here. The best way to check it is to click “reply” under the post to which you want to respond. That is why I responded to your 3:39pm post. You can’t neglect the fact that my response was before your 5:45 post, mine was at 3:50. That means I already posted before you clarified anything. I responded to your comments, you came back and said you made a statement that you didn’t make in the 3:39 post.
Not sure how you don’t get this…but whatever, that is neither here nor there. Let’s discuss the issue and move beyond this nonsense.
Matt,
There are many churches, denominations, and networks that the SBC does not partner with, and will not partner with, and hopefully never partner with. This does not mean that we’re trying to build the SBC kingdom over God’s Kingdom. It just means that we should be concerned that we start sound, good churches that believe the Bible and are theologically and doctrinally sound. We have a responsibility to start churches that we believe are theologically sound and doctrinally on par with what we would call a church that’s preaching the truth of God’s Word.
David
David,
I agree wholeheartedly!! And A29 IS theologically and doctrinally sound. So, now why dont you want to partner with them?
Because one guy is known for cussing, even though he has repented and hasnt done it, to our knowledge, in quite some time? Because they hold a position that says Scripture allows moderate drinking? Because one A29 guy preached a sermon series some in the SBC didnt appreciate?
Matt,
It’s not just about Driscoll. It’s also some of the other things, as well. The churches meeting in bars, and the stance on drinking alcohol. The Reformed mindset of the churches that Les has pointed out is another thing. And, I’m sure that many have troubles with the contemporary feel to these new church starts. And, some pretty wild, far out, out there things have been reported and told about some of these churches…their practices and things they do….some may not be true, some may be true….I dont know.
But, all of this makes a lot of people really leery of Acts 29, especially when all of the stuff about it’s leader comes out….the cussing in the pulpit, drinking liquor at church fellowships, the explicit, blunt sexual messages, etc. That adds to it…big time.
I’m just trying to tell you what I hear out here….outside of the blog world.
David
David,
You can say all these things you hear “outside the blog world” but there are a million other guys that hear the opposite things… My point: it means nothing.
Wild, far out things? Did you just make that up or do you have any examples? Whether they be true or not… What “things have people heard?”
“Trouble with a contemporary feel.” Really? That is a reason to not want to partner with a network?
As my post shows, the things Les said are a bad misrepresentation so it doesnt help to point to him. Not on this issue.
Oh, I know that people out there don’t like Acts 29. But just because they don’t like it, doesn’t mean they know any of that stuff. A lot of people just hear people spout off rumors and innuendos about them, and repeat it as fact.
Honestly, there are some crazy things that happen at SBC churches that i think are crazy and wrong. Yet, we don’t kick them all out or refuse to cooperate with them.
But moreover, the issue isn’t about supporting Acts 29 or Acts 29 becoming a SBC entity. You guys have poisoned the well in the discussion so that this point is missed…the real issue: is a SBC supported church plant allowed to partner with someone we may not agree with on every issue? Is there some parameters that we can say “they agree with THIS” and thus it is acceptable. That parameter is in place…the BFM2000, even though BI guys want to narrow it.
But moreover, you don’t have to agree with everyone that partners with everyone that a church partners with (kids of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon). If SBC Church Plant pastor meets the criteria for support…why add more exclusions??
You have gotten away from the main issue by pointing your finger repeatedly at Driscoll (while denying his response and repentance on these issues). Driscoll isn’t the issue.
“We have a responsibility to start churches that we believe are theologically sound and doctrinally on par with what we would call a church that’s preaching the truth of God’s Word.”
Exactly.
But… 1) what’s the standard of measure?
And… 2) if a church plant is started by someone who goes through NAMB yet also wants to partner their plant w/ Acts29, is that acceptable? (if not, then why not and how does it relate to 1 above?)
Great question.
I know several SBC church planters who go through NAMB but also want to partner with others.
If they meet the NAMB standards, does it really matter with what other groups they partner? I assume that NAMB’s process would exclude them if they were heretical enough to partner with heretical groups.
Then outline for us how Acts 29 is NOT “theologically sound or doctrinally on par” or how they are NOT “preaching the truth of God’s Word”.
That sounds fancy, but you have to prove that they aren’t doing it…not just claim it.
In my statement above, I was not saying what I necessarily think, but what I hear and read from others…why they have a big problem with Acts 29. Whether you like it, or not, those things are the things that I hear floating around.
I was just trying to explain to some of yall…that were wondering…or, at least, I thought you were wanting to know… why a lot of people in the SBC had such a negative view of Acts 29. I was simply telling you what I’ve heard and read, etc.
David
I made note of SBC churches partnering with other denominations in John 3:16 Conference, Together for the Gospel and Poor Arguments.
While cooperation in certain areas may not be the exact same as church planting how do we decide where to draw the line?
Mark,
“how do we decide where to draw the line?”
No need for you to concern yourself with this… Les and the BI guys will be more than happy to draw it for you.
Again, better them than the “Cooperate with anyone no matter what they believe group” out of Enid.
Joe,
You put forth a “false dichotomy”…
If given the choice between the BI agenda of a much smaller SBC, and the “Cooperate with anyone” mentality… Perhaps the SBC should reject both!
Well, let’s put this in a way that is not a false dichotomy…
The BI vision for the SBC–well I might not agree with every point but if I were in an SBC church I would not be sounding the red alert.
The Enid vision of the SBC–must be opposed by all Christians because there is NOTHING biblical or Christian about it.
Joe,
“if I were in an SBC church”
What kind of church are in Joe?
Greg,
I believe Joe IS in an SBC church… I believe it is somewhere in Enid, Oklahoma… LOL- sorry Joe, but I HAD too!
As to the original issue…how many times must people misrepresent the calvinists within the SBC?
If Les is a calvinist, then he should know the distinction between capital R reformed and little r reformed. Honestly, his article, besides being a misrepresentation of the issues, seems unnecessary. What is the point? Why write the article? What does it help? Is there a goal in writing it?
It seems to do more dividing than uniting…and any claims of writing it for clarification or enlightenment to the uninformed goes out the window because of its failure to understand history or theology or even the current and varied use of the terms.
Altogether unhelpful article.
Jason,
You ask “What is the point? Why write the article?”
Just my opinion, but it appears that Les did not have a good time at the Convention in Orlando and he is now venting his frustration on the “Young, Restless, and Reformed” camp that supported the GCRTF recommendations and elected Bryant Wright as SBC President.
Just spilled milk if you ask me…
So are we still hunting Calvinists?
I’m confused now.
Who am I supposed to be backing and who am I supposed to be attacking?
In seminary I read a book for fun (I know!, right?
), I forget what it was called, but the guy was trying to make a case for a singular baptist distinctive.
He surveyed the usual suspects: believers’ baptism, autonomy of the local church, priesthood of the believer, etc.
Then he made his case, quite persuasively in my opinion, that the top Baptist distinctive is division.
It’s been in our nature to hunt, argue, and divide for centuries. Sad…
Including that nasty division by our anabaptist forebears against the Catholic church at the expense of their lives.
Wow! All division is bad! Can’t we just all get along.
My point is: as with many (maybe most) our strengths can be our weakness. But, let’s not throw the baby out . . . there are some good things about being baptist.
Greg,
Appearances can be deceiving. For your edification, I will tell you that I wrote the reformed vs SBC post several weeks prior to the convention. My position is the culmination of my journey to Calvinism and fellowshiping with reformed pastors. Through that experience, I have learned that I am Calvinist but not Reformed. I thought this distinction was important enough to write post on it. I think this distinction is so important in the current ebb and flow of SBC life, that I will write additional posts on it.
BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed the convention and am not angry in the least. Everyone got their say, the votes were taken and congratulations to all who were elected. I plan to support Bryan Wright as much as possible. Also, after the GCG amendment was approved, I voted in favor of GCR.
Maybe next time, before you write about how I’m feeling, you will actually ask me first.
Les
Bill Leonard last night in Charlotte NC; in an address to the CBF for your edification. You can see entire story at http://www.abpnews.com
And I quote:
Leonard said many non-fundamentalist Baptists today find themselves in a similar predicament.
“If conscience dictates, I suppose we can rip the word ‘Baptist’ out of our literature, paint over it on our church signs or delete it from our Web page, Facebook, Twitter and podcast Internet connections,” Leonard said. “But before we do, let’s admit that there is no generic Christianity divorced from community or without an identity that centers us in the world or the Kingdom of God.”
“Tonight, let’s stop worrying about our name and start reclaiming our witness,” Leonard advised. “Let’s quit fretting over the loss of cultural dominance and turn loose our consciences. Let’s go out as children of God, born again, and again, and again, and again in one of the church’s dysfunctional but gladly grace-filled families; children of God in the water and at the table, in the Word and in the world, children of God knit together by grace.”
Fox,
I have no idea what you are trying to say with this comment?
So help me out and just say it…
Greg:
I think that I understand what Stephen is trying to say in this comment.
The “moderate” CBF crowd is struggling with how “Baptist” to be in name and identification, just as are people in the SBC.
Many young conservatives have opted for remaining in the SBC because there is not diagreement with the doctrinal distinctions and confessions. That is a distinct trend among the young in SBC life.
I believe that Leonard is, again, stating that denominational heritage and affiliation is worth keeping. That’s no suprise. I would suspect Dr. Leonard and the CBF would feel that way about that issue. That’s why the CBF people use language like, “Being Baptist…” or “How to be Baptist…”
Greg, I agree that the comment doesn’t relate to Calvinism or being reformed. But it’s a lot closer than talking about Jesse Helms and some he supposedly had killed or something.
Louis,
Thanks for the insight… I was not trying to be intentionally “Snarky”… although after going back and reading my comment it does sound that way.
And I agree… I don’t know what Jesse Helms has to do with any of this.
Jesse Helms come from a different Baptist tradition than Bill Leonard comes from; and Helms people were key folks in defunding the BJC which gave way to Richard Land and His Rovian politics to have sway in SBC life.
It is good to know where you come from, and continue to discuss it now that it lookslike Mike Huckabee may be nurtured by a mindset that has taken root in young SBC Conservatives.
Where did that Helms/Rove/Land tradition come from and how has it evolved and how will Huckabee will graft off it. That effects our national character, thus the CBF discussion of what being Baptist means.
As for Helms and Oscar Romero, I thought you fellows would know about that by now. See the last columns of Hal Crowther’s latest take on Helms in Oxford American Mag; published in Arkansas.
Like Greg Alford I confess I have been a little snarky on occasion, but Jesus was not snarky and neither should Ronne Floyd or Al Mohler evidence anything of the sort as well.
For next time the report of the closure of the chapel at Smith College as reported on Joe Scarborough this morning may be a good place to begin discussing young evangelical conservatives and their coagulation in greater Christendom
Here is the overridingpoint from the Friday evening at the end of this year’s SBC. This point is well set up at baptistlife.com/forums faith and practice in response to conversative sbcplodder blogger and Gourley’s Friend William Thornton.
I commend this exchange to you all.
Gourley’s rejoinder:
CBF has not lived up to its highest expectations, it is true.
Yet the fundamentalist-led post-1979 SBC, despite immense assets at hand initially, has not lived up even to the lowest expectations/prognostications of fundamentalists, and indeed is rapidly sinking.
Being Baptist in the 21st century is tough, period. But I’m placing my money on CBF, for its foundations are historical and biblical, which is much more than can be said for fundamentalism.
Incidentally, the centuries comparison was to early Baptists. It will take much less time than centuries for CBF to find firm footing … and for the SBC (should it remain fundamentalist) to finish sinking.
But we can all come up with cooler conspiracy theories if we just assume other people’s motives!
Les,
As you said “Appearances can be deceiving”. Perhaps next time, before you write an article “broad-siding” your Reformed brothers in the SBC so soon after the Convention you might stop and think about how this will be perceived.
I don’t think you need to ask how I am feeling right now
Greg
This is a little “hijacking” of the thread but I hope it is meaningful. Plus, as convoluted as this thread is at points, it was not all that easy to hijack.
This thread demonstrates a major problem in SBC life. It is always about winning and losing and one-up-manship. I am weak and get sucked into it just like everyone else. But, in teaching the youth on “meekness” (Mat. 5:4) I made a resolution to be just that, “meek.” That is “power under control.” It is a word from animal husbandry referring to taming a horse.
Before I say “goodnight” to this blog, I was thinking: “I wonder if I would really be friends with those who attack everything I say, and vice versa, if we were in a room together?
I guess I’ll never know.
“I wonder if I would really be friends with those who attack everything I say, and vice versa, if we were in a room together?”
I’d hope so…I get along with most people I meet…usually. Except when I don’t.
My final thoughts on this thread to your above reply:
You say to receive SBC funds it should be an SBC plant (okay, but how do we define that BF&M2000 or something else?) and if it wants to be Acts29, let A29 fund it… but what I and some other’s are saying: it doesn’t have to be either/or… it can be both/and, unless the SBC comes out and clearly says: you cannot receive NAMB funding if you are a part of A29, which then goes back to how we define the SBC plant, b/c that would be extra to the BF&M.
You also say: “But, would someone please answer my question: “why do we need to partner with ACTS29?””
We, as in the SBC as a whole: we don’t.
“We” as in talking from the perspective an individual church plant, there could be several reasons:
1. Partnership Funding. No NAMB plant that I’ve heard of survives solely on NAMB funding. They also have to be funded by other SBC churches that contribute, state conventions, local associations, individual contributors and that’s before they ever bring in a single dime from “tithes and offerings.” Maybe somewhere out there is a plant that can survive on NAMB alone, but it would be a very rare thing. Let’s face it: church planting takes $$$, and usually quite a bit. For some who agree w/ A29 principles, it can be another partnership for funding with another organization that respects the autonomy of the local church.
2. Common Ideology. All churches (well, almost all churches) want fellowship with other like minded churches. There is much diversity among SBC churches, but we have our common threads: believers’ baptism, regenerate membership, priesthood of believers, cooperative missions, etc. And within the SBC there are also churches that hold to the ideology of elder leadership, the doctrines of grace, and missional thinking. It is entirely possible for a church to share it’s ideology with both the SBC and A29, and it may want to partner with both to expand it’s fellowship.
3. Rigorous training. Depending on who you ask, you get mixed reviews about NAMB training for church planters. Everyone associated w/ A29 that I’ve talked with praises their training as being thorough and on-going with lots and lots of personal mentorship. It could be that some planters want to combine the training from NAMB and A29 to be more greatly challenged and equipped as a church planter.
4. Broader perspective. A29 has a unique perspective on reaching people (particularly the younger big-city types) than NAMB. That doesn’t mean one is right and the other is wrong. Perhaps the church planter desires to learn as much as they can and after thought and prayer they feel that partnering with both is the best way to do that, so they can successfully engage people with the gospel.
Feel free to disagree, but those are some ideas…
Absolutely phenomenal post.
Great post.
I stated some of the same things earlier…but your post is organized much better and lays out the issue very clearly. Good job.
Mike,
”w/ A29 principles, it can be another partnership for funding with another organization that respects the autonomy of the local church.”
You have touched on something here – Oddly enough, it appears that the Acts guys have greater respect for the Baptist principal of Local Church Autonomy than some of the Baptist Identity guys in the SBC who are more than willing to do great violence to this cherished Baptist principal in order to impose their “narrow” agenda on all Southern Baptist.
Good point.
I made a similar statement earlier…but someone got mad and ran away rather than deal with my post.
Why is it that so many SBC pastors feel they have the right to say whatever they want on a blog (or in a sermon), but they are absolutely incapable of dealing with any criticism or observation of their argument? It is mind-baffling how defensive people get when you address their points with anything other than tacit agreement.
Greg,
For you info, the Baptist Identity guys believe very strongly in local church autonomy. I dont know if you were just lying here, or purposely trying to decieve people, or just trying to be mean to the BI guys again, or if you honestly just did not know something that’s been stated many, many times.
We believe strongly in local church autonomy. We just believe in holding SBC leaders and missionaries and church planters to a high standard…for them to be sound and want to start sound churches. I can partner with anyone who believes in the BFM2K.
Just thought you might like to know some actual facts before you comment again.
David
David,
You can’t have it both ways…
You can’t say “we believe in Local Church Autonomy”, and then seek to exclude from the convention Local Churches, which are in full agreement with our agreed upon parameters of cooperation (the BFM2000), just because they have choosen to help or receive other help from another christian orginization like Acts29.
Just an observation… it seems to me that MOST of the concerns with Acts 29 are not theological in nature, but methodological. Thus, the BFM2000, an excellent theological statement I voted for in Orlando ten years ago, is irrelevant to the discussion since it only speaks to theology and not methodology.
To use an extreme example, I’m not sure the alleged “Beer and Bible” outreach nights are specifically condemned in the BFM2000, but if they are indeed taking place, they make many Baptists very uncomfortable, myself included.
There also exists this inherent lack of reciprocation in the SBC and Acts 29 planting philosophies: while the SBC WILL support the planting of both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic churches, Acts 29 will ONLY plant Calvinistic ones. I know you guys are on the other side of this, but can you not see how such a partnership might be perceived by your non-Calvinistic friends as unbalanced in favor of Acts 29 and/or Calvinistic theology?
Rick,
You make good points… I do see how that might look to our non-calvinistic friends…
The problem is, we are not asking for them to be supportive of A29, personally. We are only asking for them to allow us who want to network with A29 to be allowed to.
Matt2239 has been asking the question, “Why do we need to partner with Acts29?”
Obviously, we don’t “need” to do anything, so the real question I think is why would we want to partner with Acts29. That’s a great question and Mike Bergman gave some great answers.
I’d just like to throw out another thought there. The question is a good one and should be answered, but there is also this – clearly we ARE partnering with Acts29. The SBC is made up of churches and many of those churches are partnering with A29. So many of us in the Young, Restless, Reformed movement are choosing to identify both as southern baptists denominationally and with the Acts29 network.
I really just wish for this to stop being such a division. We’re not requiring others to do things our way, but we are legitimate children of the conservative resurgence, and we want a place in SBC life. I personally wish that no other SBC churches still used the KJV bible predominantly or had Sunday school programs. Does that mean I think we can’t be partners?!? Of course not. I also think the seminaries are quickly moving in the Young, Restless, Reformed direction, and honestly I don’t feel like much of a minority anymore. I’m sure that has to do with the “circles” I hang around. We’re just going to have to get along though. We are your children and we want to contribute! The most amazing thing in all this to me is the ones who are engaging and trying to continue on the mantle of truly Bible-believing, Gospel-centered, Jesus honoring churches are being treated like rebels! I know there are exceptions to everything, but it really IS a generational issue, by and large. Pretending like it is not does no one any good. I think the movement we’ve seen in the SBC leadership the last few years points to what I’m saying here.
First, if you are going to make the statement (accusation):
”It seems like many of these “reformed baptists” are more reformed than they are baptist.”
or agree with it, then it needs some support. Who are we talking about? Names? Churches?
Next, in the context of the article, there is the suggestion that being reformed is at odds with being baptist. Well sure, if by reformed you mean presbyterian. But are reformed baptists really closet presbyterians? Some proof please? Any kind of support at all?
Now for the points:
1. Many SBC churches have a plurality of elders because they believe (and I agree) that this is the biblical model. Such churches, as far as I know, also have congregational polity. What SBC churches are elder-ruled without congregational decision making? Names please.
2. All churches have a liturgy. Some are high, some are low, but they all have them. Please explain how high liturgy is antithetical to being baptist.
3. Is societal giving a bad thing? How is this non-baptist?
4. OK
5. I’m not a holder of CT myself, but how is this non-baptist?
6. Paedobaptism is certainly non-baptist, but what SBC churches are practising it? Names please?
7. Certainly many SBC churches have public invitations, but many do not. Is having a public invitation somehow required for baptists? How is not having public invitations (since they began with Finney) somehow non-baptist?
8. Creedal. What does this mean? Are SBC churches enforcing adherence to a creed? Which ones? Names please. Or do some SBC churches regularly or occasionally recite one of the creeds, such as the Apostle’s Creed? If so, how is this non-baptist?
Les asserts that while he does not advocate removal of reformed baptist churches from the SBC, he is “concerned” about their proliferation. (again, I’d like to see some names). I may also point out that this “concerned” argument has been used for several years against Calvinists in the SBC. They will graciously allow us to stay in the SBC as long as we remain a somewhat powerless minority.
Rick,
“While the SBC WILL support the planting of both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic churches…”
I think you have hit on the “True Reason” why young reformed SBC pastors have been turning to Acts29 in the first place… Because the vast majority of them could not get approved by NAMB. And the only reason they could not get approved was because they were Calvinist. It’s as simple as that.
For years now the Anti-Calvinist zealots in the SBC have at the local association, state convention, and national levels denied these young men the support they needed… so they turned to Acts29.
I ask this question several years ago and I will ask it again here… “Did they really think that these passionate, devoted, God called, young men were just going to abandon God’s call on their life and go sell used cars?”
In our arrogance we thought to tell these young men what God would have them do… and now here we are dealing with the reality that God took these young man and passed us by.
Grace Always,
Greg and Matt,
I do think you have clearly identified the primary issues.
The SBC allows each existing local church the autonomy to be Calvinistic if they wish, but is quite reticent to support financially a Calvinistic plant since the convention is perhaps 80% non-Calvinist.
On the other hand, Acts 29 is happy to support financially a Calvinistic plant, but is reticent to allow one of their churches the autonomy to be non-Calvinistic since their network is 100% Calvinist.
So my question is: “What partnership hath the non-autonomous Calvinism of Acts 29 with the autonomous primarily non-Calvinism of the SBC?”
sounds like both are being “non-autonomous” based on your description. you just have switched around the phrases a little so only one looks like it in regards to “autonomy.”
I think the bigger issue (a different post perhaps) is related to money being spent on church planting and how we relate to every church planter’s funding approach. If we are supporting an SBC church plant with CP money, how do we relate to other sources of funding a planter may have? Imagine a plant that isn’t affiliated with a network like A29 but is being sponsored by a church that only will support Calvinistic church plants. Is that different or the same as also being part of a group like A29? But apply that to a plant sponsored by another church that only plants Purpose-driven model churches? Where do we draw the line on allowing planters we sponsor through NAMB (which happens through states currently) to receive outside funds? I think you either have to allow church planters that agree to the BFM2000 who are qualified to receive SBC money AND receive other funds (whether from individuals, churches, and/or other networks)…or you don’t allow them to have ANY outside support other than SBC (this seems unreasonable and tedious, most would agree). But once you go the route of disallowing planters to receive certain non-SBC funds or training, you’re stepping into an arbitrary world which is inconsistent and seems to be one of the sources of SBC church planter frustration.
that middle sentence would be better worded: “I think you either have to allow qualified church planters that agree to the BFM2000 to receive SBC money AND receive other funds (whether from individuals, churches, and/or other networks)…”
Well said Josh
Josh,
Very well said, and I concede that neither group is particularly autonomous when it comes to church planting strategy. I’m struggling to understand why the SBC is inconsistent in its autonomy, allowing it for established and participating churches but disallowing it for the new churches that are planted.
The only possible reason that comes to mind requires that I borrow some terminology that our megachurches use when planting their satellites. They say they want to “reproduce the DNA” of the parent church in the church plant. I can understand that completely. If you give the money, then you want the daughter church to be like yours.
Perhaps the Calvinist mother churches should plant the Calvinist daughter churches and likewise for the non-Calvinists, the Purpose- driven types, etc. Then, when it comes to our common pool of CP funds, we could do a small amount of arithmetic and support church plants financially according to the same percentage of CP funds contributed by each church type. In this way, for example, you would not have a “Dever” type church unintentionally supporting through CP a “Warren” type plant, nor would you have a “Chapman” type church supporting a “Driscoll” type plant.
In other words, let the CP funding formula for church plants be governed in such a way that the new churches we plant together reproduce the DNA of who we are as Southern Baptists rather than using resources from one category to plant churches of another.
Rick,
I was actually going to suggest the “percentage” idea in my first response, but it would be impossible to enforce (quotas always are), unfair to the guys on the ground (for example, qualified guys affirming the bFm2000 are on a waitlist bc they are 4-point Calvinists and the 12.4% funding for that group is gone already even if not all the 3.5 pointer money is used yet, etc.) then, you’re going to have churches wanting only pre-trib planters or amill or Christian-flag loving or KJV-using planters ad infinitum…see the problem inherent there? For me, either we allow qualified sbc planters to receive additional funds or we don’t across the board. None of this inconsistent picking and blacklisting. I would go for the former.
Again, the SBC is not partnering with Acts 29, the individual church is.
That is a key distinction in this discussion.
The issue is: does the SBC have a right to determine from who else a church plant they support gets money?
The follow-up issue is: if they do, does that undermine local churh autonomy?
This discussion has gotten far away from the topic of the original post…so this is my attempt to get it back on track.
I posted a response on Les’ blog, to which he got defensive and refused to post my second response. I guess I hit a nerve. He told me he didn’t want his comments/thoughts/opinions parsed or evaluated…which, to me, makes no sense if you have a blog and post opinion articles. I think what he means is he wants to be able to post his opinions without the nasty complication of having to defend his statements when people make criticisms.
Here was my post:
I think this is an interesting topic, but I think you might have confused the discussion with lack of distinctions with some of your definitions.
If we go by your definition of “reformed” then we don’t have anyone in the SBC who is reformed, thus refuting your original point of the article.
That is the big misstep of your post. Though I could dispute your definition of reformed and say that there is both “big R reformed” and “little r reformed”, and we could hash out what those may look like.
Moreover, if you are going to use Acts 29 statement and use of the word “reformed”, you might want to use their definition of the word. It is intellectually dishonest to apply your definition to their term and then rule them out because of it.
But here are a few more points:
1. The idea of congregational polity is not uniform in its application. Many churches that hold to congregational polity also hold to single pastor, pastoral team leadership, single elder leadership, plural elder leadership, deacon leadership, and democratic rule or some mixture of those models of leadership within congregational polity.
To say that those who hold to elder leadership don’t hold to congregational polity is to over-simplify the issue. It is also to deny history. Look at SBC history (or Baptist history) and look at the use of elders and see if they agree with your definition.
2. I think you need to be clear as to what “covenant theology” actually is.
3. I would also argue that the SBC is very “creedal”. See the BFM and the need to update it. See the Abstract of principles. Not to mention more concrete Baptist creeds and confessions throughout Baptist history.
4. I would argue also that being calvinist is not a move away from being Baptist. I think you would agree with that.
I could go on…but I think all that goes to say that to make a post like this demands theological precision and communicative clarity. That did not happen. You made a big claim, to prove a small point about Acts 29. You did not prove that point, and you caused more confusion because of lack of clarification as to then meaning of terms and the admittance that your definition doesn’t demonstrate a difference in the way the term “reformed” is used.
I appreciate your tone and the discussion, though. Glad we can have a place to discuss things like this as those who are all in this thing together and all seek to honor God within the SBC.
Thoughts?
If you go to Les’ blog now he has posted that he disallows comments that criticize his writing.
Very convenient.
Very hypocritical too…since he made personal attacks at me, while I made none at him.
I find it very sad that many pastors within the SBC are unable to engage in reasonable debate. They want to deal in sound bytes and cliches, and they want their voices heard and their ideas out there…but they are unable to handle it when people see errors in their argument or logic. They cannot address the issues raised, they simply respond with personal attacks and evasion. On this topic I have seen it from Matt2239 (on this thread) and Les Puryear on his blog.
If your opinion and thoughts are valid, then you should have no problem defending them. It gets really old when people think they can write something but not have to defend it. It’s sad, really.
QUOTE They cannot address the issues raised, they simply respond with personal attacks and evasion. On this topic I have seen it from Matt2239 (on this thread) and Les Puryear on his blog END QUOTE
Please forgive me for breaking my promise. I was not going to engage Jason. I was willing to give him the last word — which I did. But, he feels a compulsion to continue to slander me and characterize as a coward, intellectual wimp, or whatever else he wants to imply.
But, let me clarify for myself why I am leaving the blog world. It is certainly not because I believe I do not have the intellectual capabilities to stand toe to toe with someone like Jason. In fact, it is because I can that I’ve decided I won’t.
This blog is proof positive that these are “vain questions that give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience” (1Tim. 1:4-5).
I see not resolution to any matter in this long diatribe. I see people like Jason who attack other people, but in the same breath say they are not making it personal. Usually when you attach a name to something, that makes it personal. It is that kind of semantic game that too many — including myself — are too good at.
Jason, I doubt that in real life you and I would be friends. In fact, I am so much a sinner by nature, I think you would make me mad enough in person to take matters in hand. I need to repent of that attitude, so prevalent in Baptist life. I want to be “meek and lowly” as Jesus was.
So, I’ve decided to exit “blogville” — again. I had only intended to take some time off, but blogging can become an addiction. Last night in my prayer closet I asked the Lord to give me be meek and work in my own yard.
So, Jason, hopefully this will allow you to have the grace to allow me to depart “blogville,” not because of your shortcomings, but because of mine. I just don’t like all the blood in the water, even though, a good fight has always given me a little bit of a rush.
So, rather than speculate, Jason, I’ll set forth the two reasons for my departure, 1) blogging such as on this thread sheds more blood than it does bind up any wounds; 2) Blogging brings our my baser nature and I need to “flee this temptation” (2Tim 2:2). Even if #1 was not so true, #2 would be reason enough for me to depart. I chose the name, “Matthew 22:39,” to remind me of what was of most important in dealing with others, and I have not lived up to that standard. So, Matt2239, as the blogger, has been laid to rest. This IS a personal matter, and I am the person that needs to repent and move on.
Jason, or anyone else, if you choose to respond, it will truly be “the last word in my regard.”
God bless you all.
Just one comment, as I too will agree to let this go. But I think for all future dialogue it may be helpful to clarify what it means to “make personal attacks”.
When someone name calls or avoids the argument by making attack at the person…that is an attack.
When someone addresses the issues raised by a person by identifying them or makes an observation about a tactic made by an individual…that is NOT a personal attack.
That might help all of us in future discussions.
It’s amazing to me that so many learned scholars don’t know how to use a dictionary. Words mean something. Everybody doesn’t get to “define their own terms.” If you guys don’t understand the english language, then we’re really in trouble.
I guess you folks want a dictionary of terms to be linked to every blog post. How silly.
Signing off from this ridiculous thread,
Les
Les,
You are right, words mean something. So why do you try to describe “Reformed Baptists” in terms that are for “Reformed Presbyterians” by linking to a Presbyterian definition of what it means to be a “Reformed church.”
You ‘stacked the deck’ and misrepresented Reformed Baptists by refusing to acknowledge that words do mean something. Next time, use a Reformed Baptist definition of a Reformed church when you are talking about Reformed Baptists… Stop the misrepresentation in order to push an agenda.
Matt,
It isn’t worth the effort. Some people clearly don’t get it.
I want to second Matt here and also point out that words, actually, don’t mean anything. People mean things, and they try to describe those things with words. The meaning that Les has given to the word “Reformed” is unfortunately not very meaningful to almost anyone I know that would consider themselves a “reformed” baptist. Therefore any point he is trying to make is quite unhelpful.
I know a lot of people in A29 (I realize not the point of his post, but a good example), and NONE of them would agree with the definition Les gave. So while it’s a fine definition for something (?), it’s not fine for this issue. I think what would be a good definition of what most “reformed” baptists identify with is the book Vintage Church by Driscoll and Breshears, a baptist seminary professor. That would be much closer to getting at the real issues. Not entirely, but much closer.
Words also have different meanings depending on their region, common usage, and other determining factors.
So, if you want a rubber in the US, it’s also known as a condom. In Great Britain, you just bought yourself an eraser. Big distinction.
I’m not sure what exactly you are referencing here…but I guess you won’t be around to respond. Nothing like hit and run shots that make no sense.
I would guess from your actions, Les, that you don’t want to discuss meaning of words at all. You want to make statements and attacks, but you don’t want to have to respond to valid criticism. Having a blog doesn’t mean getting the right to say whatever you want without question. It doesn’t mean getting the right to re-define terms (the hypocrisy of your post here and your post at your site is comical) and then hold people accountable to YOUR definition.
When you post something for the world to see (whether it be in book or blog form), you are inviting people to dissect your argument and check your logic. To deny that fact is simply dishonest and unfair. You want to do that, and that is sad. I was hoping that you would be more open to discussion about ideas without getting defensive…I was wrong.
I generally pull for the underdog, and I like Les and what he stands for, so let me at least agree with him that “words mean something.” On another thread, I was surprised to discover that when the convention asked entities to “consider recommendations” a very intelligent Christian scholar did not seem to distinguish that concept from the idea of “implementing directives.” To me, there’s a world of difference.
Brothers, if we do not wish to fall completely into the pit of postmodernism, we need to recapture the clarity of thought that is only capable if words really matter and cannot simply be spun according to the whims and desires of the person interpreting them.
Rick,
It is precisely in order to recapture clarity of thought that we must understand that only persons have meaning. Les demonstrated this perfectly when he took a word and defined it how he wished in order to make a point. We all do this, it’s called language. We have to get beyond that and try to understand what people mean, rather than bickering over words. Part of that process is defining words and then using them as such, of course. But the meaning is still held by the users of words. God of course is the ultimate example of this, as the meaning of His words belong to Him alone, not our own interpretation of what the words He used mean. That’s why interpreters have to understand the correct usage of the words in the original language, etc. This is elementary.
Nate,
I do certainly understand that people mean different things even when they use the same word. When Michael Jackson said he was “bad” he meant that he was “popular in urban street culture” but in retrospect, if we can agree that child abuse is wrong, then his behavior truly was “bad” so he was right about himself after all. Of course, many other examples exist, as when we sing the Christmas carol each year about donning our “gay” apparel. I don’t own any myself and if I did I would not admit it in this forum.
I do have a better than elementary understanding of language. However, I disagree with the premise that truth and meaning only reside in persons. I believe I can hold the Word of God in my hand, interpret it using the normal sense of the words, and speak truth. Words themselves do have actual meaning. People are the ones who spin and distort the meaning of the words, as you have accused Les of doing and as I have accused the scholar I mentioned who fails to comprehend the word “recommendation.”
Thanks for your response, Rick. I think it’s a discussion worth having as it goes to the root of so many things on the blogosphere. Aren’t the meanings of the words in the Bible, the Word of God, grounded in the personhood of God Himself? They mean only what God meant for them to mean, and nothing more. I can’t change their meaning based on my understanding of the words. I can either be right or wrong about what they mean, but the meaning is grounded in the personhood of God, not the tools (language) He used to reveal it to us. In your example, the scholar violated the common understanding of the meaning of the word “recommendation.” I think that gets us the same place but is more accurate.
I agree with you and your well chosen words.
Healthcare for Retirees at SWBTS announced cancelled by Patterson.
Matt, good observations regarding Les’ definition of “Reformed”.
I wonder about the tension between being congregational and supporting missions solely, or at least primarily, through recognized Southern Baptist entities. For Baptist unity it seems that there needs to be some adherence to something that unifies the association of our churches in the SBC. However, having a congregational nature also presupposes some independence from a central denominational government that would impose such unity. It seems that having multiple goalposts creates confusion in the discourse over Baptist identity.
If, for example, we use the BF&M as our standard, then where theologies differ it seems necessary to falsely define the beliefs of theological opponents within the SBC arena as being outside the BF&M. Otherwise, there’s no room for Les to complain.
I desire to know more about Reformed Southern Baptist congregations. It occurs to me our congregation may be Reformed, while not using the name.
Joe Smith
Sunset Baptist
Mt. Home, Texas
I don’t call myself a “Reformed” Baptist, because I’m not a Covenantalist. However, I most certainly am Calvinist and Baptist and in the SBC.
Just a quick touch on each of Les’ points.
1. Non-congregational polity
2. Liturgical-based worship
3. Societal giving
4. Calvinist in soteriology
5. Covenant theology
6. paedobaptism
7. no “invitation” at the end of worship service
8. creedal
Squirrel
Squirrelly,
A few thoughts:
1. If the Elders are voted on by the church, and the church votes on a few things like a budget, etc; then you would be congregational. But, if the Elders make all the decisions, and the congregation does not get to vote on its Elders and the budget; then you would not be congregational. Thus, your church would not fit into the BFM2K.
3. Societal giving is designated giving, instead of cooperative giving.
6. If a church accepts people into its membership, people who were baptised as infants, without asking them to be Scripturally baptised, would fall into holding to paedobaptism. Are there any SB churches out there that would accept people as members, who came out of churches that do infant baptism?
7. There are some “SB churches” that dont believe in giving an invitation…from what I hear and read.
I hope that clears things up for you.
David
David,
In regards to selection of Elders, etc, this is how we do that:
(From the Contitution of Superior Baptist Church, Superior MT)
The congregation also votes to approve the budget, call pastors, etc. The board of elders runs the day to day operations and oversees the preaching and teaching that takes place. (The pastor serves as a member of the board of elders, but may or may not be the chairman.
Our church would not accept for membership someone who was baptized as a child before coming to faith.
And, how do you define “invitation?”
Squirrel
Invitation or Altar Call?
Every church should have an invitation to come to Christ. That invitation can take many forms. It does NOT have to be in the form of the altar call. Many of us in the SBC, myself included, are quite pro-invitation and not pro-altar call. There were Baptist churches before Finney.
Squirrel,
Let me add my two cents worth to what David has said… and, no one pass out here, … but I agree with what David (007) has said here
)
1. Here I would only add that in my “Reformed Southern Baptist Church” the day to day, or month to month, operation of the church is handled by the Elders in conjunction with other leaders in the church in what we call our “Executive Committee”. However any major decision, building a building, calling a new pastor, etc. will always go before the full congregation for their consideration… and our Executive Committee operates under the “Sunshine Rule” which means that any member of the church may attend and participate in any Executive Committee meeting if they have something they wish to discuss, and all records are open for members to review.
3. Societal, or Direct Giving, is decried in the SBC as a bad idea (predictably) by those who currently control the allocations of the Cooperative Program funds. Actually Cooperative Program giving is direct giving… only the State Conventions direct who get what percentage instead of the local church.
6. While the official theological position of the SBC is not to accept paedo (child) baptism… In truth the churches of the SBC practice paedobaptism on a grand scale. If the SBC were to stop baptizing all the children they get to fill out a card, or repeat a prayer in mass, at the end of VBS our baptism numbers would plummet faster than Enron stock.
7. Of the “Reformed Southern Baptist Churches” that I have knowledge of, most have opted to drop trying to get people to repeat the so called “Sinners Prayer” after each service. That does not mean that they do not seek to see souls saved, they are passionate about soul winning. What it does mean however, is that they have abandoned what they see as a dishonest approach that produces large numbers of “False Professions of Faith”.
Grace Always,
Hi, Greg,
RE: #1, yeah, that’s pretty much how we do it, except that the Board of Elders is it, there’s no “executive committee”
I still don’t understand “societal giving.” I think I’m just misunderstanding the term.
What it does mean however, is that they have abandoned what they see as a dishonest approach that produces large numbers of “False Professions of Faith”.
Yes, exactly so!
Squirrel
Squirrel,
Yes, our Board of Elders are the final authority in all matters of governing the Church. If any matter cannot be fully agreed upon by the Executive Committee then it is automatically taken up by the Elders alone. This happens very rarely, but it does happen.
The reason we have an Executive Committee is that while we have Elders and understand and respect their authority to oversee the ministry of the church, we also try to keep those engaged in each area of work within the church involved in the decision making process pertaining to decisions impacting their particular area of ministry within the church. Therefore we have an Executive Committee and give great deference to their opinions, but also have an Elder Board that is unafraid to step in when needed.
Concerning matters of doctrine, discipline, and the teaching ministry of the church the Board of Elders alone bear this responsibility.
Just thought I needed to clear that up a little bit…
Grace Always
So, does your church vote on the yearly budget? Do they vote on the Elders?
David
David,
Believe it or not, we don’t even have budget anymore…
We post the financial report of our income and expenditures once a month and a yearly summary, but we gave up on the whole idea of a yearly budget a few years back. For a Church of our size (about 80) it was more of a hindrance than a help, so we just stopped trying to compile one a few years ago and it’s gone rather smoothly so far.
Like I mentioned above, because of our open door (sunshine rule) for our members, and the fact that we are a small church and try very hard to listen to our members, we have had not even one complaint so far. I guess you might say the Elders (3) have earned the trust and respect of our members… Now if we start doing stupid things and stop seeking input from others in the church I am sure this method would no longer work, but for now it works great for us.
One amazing thing that going to Elder lead church with an Executive Committee did for this congregation is the incredible level of harmony that it produced in the body… One thing I did not mention, that I need to mention at this point, is the fact that each member of the Executive Committee has the power to “red-card” (put on hold) every decision that we are considering. In other words, every decision coming out of the Executive Committee must be 100% unanimous or it simply is put aside for more prayer and considering until we are all (7) agreed. This has produced a very humble spirit among those who serve on the Executive committee, with each not wishing to stand in the way of the leadership of the Holy Spirit among us. I have actually seen men who were once very assertive become humble and meek, not wishing to assert their opinions above those of their brothers… This has truly been an incredible experience for me!
Yes… the Congregation votes on the Elders… and the Congregation retains the power to dismiss one, or all, Elders if needed.
Grace Always,
Mr. Puryear might be on to something. When I did a little thinking (and one has the advantages of over a half century), there came to mind the memory of one of our institutions going out of its way to put the skids under a sovereign grace preacher back in the 50s. That same insitution in the past 15-20 years published a work by one our leading Reformers. And yet they are a moderate outfit. They would giv your ordinary everyday faithful Sovereign Grace Southern Baptist pastor the time of day. The cooperation between some in all of the camps seems to point to some other bond of allegiance. Not long ago I heard of a moderate church whose pastor told one of his members, “We had a fellow come in and tell us how to adjust to the new way the state convention is going. Whether I get to continue as pastor or not is a moot questio for no.” He did continue, but I thought it interesting that someone from outside that church determined what it would do. I remember when I was a studnt at SEBTS and I stumbled across a work in the libary that in a foot note explained how the associational missionaries were being changed into Directors of Mission who would be under the control of the exec. secretaries of the state conventions. There are a few other items like the foregoing I could mention, but tese seem sufficient to give one pause for thought. Stop and Think, brethren. Stop and think.
Greg,
So, do you consider your church Elder ruled, or congregational ruled? I think your church is really stepping close to the line of being Presbyterian in polity. I mean, your church does not even vote on at least a budget. I know of Presbyterian churches that vote on Elders, but the Elders make all the decisions of the church. I mean, you also have an Exec. Committee, but that could also very easily be looked upon as a Board of Elders, as well; just under a different name.
Greg, I really think you have to be a little more congregational than what yall apparently are…to really be classified as congregational.
David
David,
I dont see that at all. You act as if you cant have elders and be “congregational.” The church doesnt vote on a budget because they dont have one…. Its not like the Elder does the budget and doesnt allow the congregation to have a say.
Matt, or Greg,
Then, who decides on how much is spent on what? If there’s no budget, then someone decides on how much to spend on VBS, or on the Pastor’s salary, or on how much money to give to the CP. Right? So, if they dont vote on this, and the Elders decide it all, then is that truly congregational? It sounds just like the Presbyterian Church to me. What’s the difference?
David
David,
Or Executive Committee decides how much is spent on what… and remember each member of this committee could stop anything they thought was not appropriate, so it is not as if the Elders were just imposing their will on the Congregation. Also, remember that the congregation can remove unruly, or unwise, Elders at any time.
“Is that truly congregational?” Honestly, I don’t know… and honestly, I don’t give it much thought. As I mentioned above, I find that the scriptures teach that every local church is to have a plurality of Elders… I do not find in the scriptures a “Hyper” form of congregationalism that denies the office, and necessity, of a plurality of Elders to oversee the congregation and the work of the local church.
Actually, I am absolutely convinced that this great Southern Baptist exterminate of the last 100 years, with this “Hyper-Congregationalism” (you heard it here first) form of church government without Elders, has utterly failed the churches of the SBC in a disastrous way. Congregationalism without the oversight of Godly Elders in the church, has often lead to rise of abusive and domineering Senior Pastors, power hungry Church Bosses, divided an ineffective congregations, and a vast number of church splits. It is, in my opinion, unbiblical and the most disastrous policy that Baptists throughout history have ever pursued…
So you see, I am not at all concerned that someone might think I am not a Congregationalist… I am a Baptist!
Grace Always,
But, Greg, there are quite a bit of arrogant SBCers that think to if you arent congregational as they see it then you arent a “true Southern Baptist.”
The Bible teaches Elders, period. I would rather be biblical than “Southern Baptist” in the way that some interpret what it means to be “Southern Baptist.”
Amen, Matt.
Matt,
I would rather be biblical than “Southern Baptist”
Now what’s wrong with you? You know you can’t be biblical without being a Southern Baptist!
My keyboard is acting up again…
The above should read “Actually, I am absolutely convinced that this great Southern Baptist [Experiment] of the last 100 years…”
David,
Honestly I’m really not the least bit concerned about what classification I am put in… My grandmother once told me that we (my family) were “Deep Water Presbyterians” although we attended a Baptist Church all my life… So if someone wishes to call our form of government more Presbyterian than Congregational that’s fine with me… I’m not offended
We have Elders because we find them over and over in the New Testament… I don’t ever remember seeing the adoption of a budget in the New Testament? Makes me wonder when this practice (along with monthly business meeting) actually entered the church, but I digress… We have had a budget in the past and yes it was approved by the congregation (without a single change or comment)… So I’m not opposed to churches who feel a budget helps them function better, it just got in our way a lot so we stopped doing one.
——
All,
Here is an honest inquiry. Every Baptist Church I have ever been a Member (or Pastor) of that did not have Elders, and who held monthly business meetings, was severely divided, and the fellowship among the members was greatly damaged, by what went on in the business meetings. So much so, that the witness of the church in the community was just atrocious.
Is this your experience as well… or is it just something limited to small churches in North West Florida?
Grace Always,
Greg,
That was my same experience in Arkansas… Our business meetings got nasty. There is a reason that the New Testament teaches the need for Elders.
Greg,
Dont misunderstand me here. If yall decide to not have monthly business meetings…fine. That’s the choice of your church. But, if the only thing that members of a church ever get to vote on, or make decisions about, are electing the Elders; then that’s not congregational. That’s Presbyterian. That does not fit with the BFM2K.
Now, if yall voted on a yearly budget….where the members got to decide on how much was spent on what for the year…and you had no other business meetings whatsoever….then I’d say that you were congregational. But, for the Elders to decide everything…that’s Elder ruled, Presbyterian….not congregational Baptist.
Right?
David
David,
The BFM2K does not contain the word “Congregationalism”.
Here is what it says “each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.”
Again, our Elders do not decide everything… actually I have never known them to make even a single financial decision.
Grace Always,
David,
The BF&M2000 says:
It says that “…congregation operates … through democratic processes,” but it does not say that every member votes on every thing. Both Greg’s church and my church select (& retain) the eldership of the church through democratic processes.
The BF&M also says that “(the church’s) scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.” A simple study of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 clearly shows that “elder” = “pastor”. It is also interesting to know that it is always used in the plural; i.e. “the elders of the church.” The phrase, “the elder of the church,” is just never used.
We Southern Baptists, being committed to the Bible as our standard for faith and practice, need to have a truly Biblical ecclesiology.
Squirrel
Thank you Greg and Squirrel… Volfan saying that being Elder-led doesnt fit with the BFM2000 is absurd.
The BFM allows each autonomous church to decide for themselves as long as it is through “democratic processes.”
I might also point out that our church constitution, which establishes our “elder rule” system, and says right at the top “Adopted By The Congregation January 29, 2006” was voted on and passed with unanimous consent. Isn’t that “democratic processes?”
Squirrel
Let’s play a little game of “Softball” here…
The Holy Scriptures clearly, and repeatedly, teach a “Plurality of Elders” in the Church. And the SBC holds to the inerrancy of the Scriptures as a core doctrine of our beliefs … Therefore, if a Baptist Church does not have a plurality of Elders that is “Strike-One” against that church being a “True Southern Baptist Church”.
As Squirrel has pointed out… The BFM2K actually states that the officers (plural) of a church are pastors (plural) and deacons (plural), and as Squirrel correctly points out the word “pastor” = “elder”… Therefore, if a Baptist Church does not have a plurality of Elders that is “Strike-Two” against that church being a “True Southern Baptist Church”.
Lastly, neither the Holy Scriptures, nor the BFM2K, mentions the use of Business Meetings, Budgets, or Congregationalism… Therefore, if a Baptist Church abandons the Biblical model of Church Government by a plurality of Elders in favor of these means that is “Strike-Three” against them being a “True Southern Baptist Church”.
Now before anyone gets mad at me for striking out in our little game of “Softball” here… they need to get mad at our “Conservative Resurgence Fathers” who taught us that the Bible was inerrant and the doctrines expressed in the BFM2K were to be adhered to… Now that’s a home run!
Grace Always,
Greg.
Ouch! That’ll leave a mark! (or, maybe, 9 marks?)
Squirrel
Squirrel,
Ya, the score is [9 marks] to [zero]
LOL… you guys are on a roll.
Greg, Matt, and Squirrel,
Of course, Pastors and Elders are the same thing…as is Bishops. They are all describing the same office. My church has 2 Elders/Pastors…I’m the Sr. Pastor, and we have a Student Minister. I dont see anywhere in the Bible, though, that mandates that you have to have more than 1 Elder/Pastor. I do know that many of the Early Churches did have more than 1 Elder.
Also, Southern Baptist are congregational because they believe the Bible teaches congregational. Please dont go there….accusing SB’s of not being Biblical. The entire BFM2K is based on the Scripture. It’s what we commonly agree that the Bible teaches about things… including Ecclesiology. And, SB’s have said that they believe that congregational, Church polity is the most Biblical way. That’s why we believe it. Now, that doesnt mean that you have to have monthly business meetings. That doesnt mean that you cant have 4 Elders, 7 Elders, or whatever. That doesnt mean that the Elders cant make the majority of the decisions thru out the year.
But, the congregation should have more of a say in determining what God wants for the church than just electing an Elder every once in a while in order to be called congregational.
Presbyterians elect an Elder every so often, too. They’re not congregational. And, BTW, I’ve known of Elder Boards that dominated a church…fired Sr. Elders, or Pastors, or whatever you want to call them…caused big fights within the church due to decisions that were made, etc, etc, etc. So, just because you dont have business meetings and a plurality of Elders does not mean that you wont have troubles.
I know of a Prebyterian Church where the Elders fired the Sr. Pastor and the Youth Pastor one night….and the rest of the church didnt know anything about it. You talk about a humdinger of a fight. woo weeee….and many, many people left that church.
I know of another Presbyterian church where the Elders decided to make a major change, which the congregation did not like at all. Man, they had one big’un over that. I mean, this Presbyterian Church turned into a big fight. And, you know what I heard those people saying? They didnt like that the Elders made all the decisions without them having a voice!!!
Matt, the BFM2K says, “Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.” What do you think democratic processes means?
David
See Gregs and Squirrels responses… They have already answered that question.
You are using the BFM2000 in a legalistic way… You are saying- “The SBC is congregational because of my interpretation of ‘democratic processes’ and any other way is wrong and un-Southern Baptist.”
The simple fact is that the church voting on Elders to make a majority of the decisions is in fact by, “democratic processes.” The BFM2000 does not in any way say that Elder ruled churches do not fit the BFM. You might not want them too, but that is yo adding to what the BFM is actually saying. You are putting more restrictions on the BFM than it does itself.
How do the mega churches do it?
Oh yeah, the senior pastor says it and it happens.
The congregation is there to rubber stamp the budget and rubber stamp anytime a new senior pastor is presented to the congregation.
Your defense of democratic processes and congregations falls apart when you look at the churches of our convention’s leadership and celebrity pastors like Ed Young, Jr. and Rick Warren.
I guarantee you that the congregation hardly has a hand in that church’s operations.
Scott, that is an excellent point. It will be very interesting, and informative, to watch what happens to those organizations after their superstar big-name pastors leave or pass away. It will definitely show just what, exactly, those churches are built on.
Squirrel
In all of my time as a member at Fellowship Church Grapevine, no elders or deacons were ever mentioned from the pulpit. Or maybe I should say the words elder and deacon were never mentioned. We never learned or were taught any thing about the authority structure of the church when we joined and went to the new members class. That kind of understanding was non existent there. I understand now that Ed Young’s church has a business model, or CEO model of leadership. There was never any church vote on anything. No budget meetings. No financial records were ever published. Nothing like that at all. I went there from 2005-2008. I left when I learned Bishop Jakes, who Young let’s preach there annually, had heretical anti-Trinitarian views, and Young wasn’t telling anyone about it.
David,
The men & women who wrote the BFM2K decided to use the words “democratic processes” and not “Congregationalism” for a reason.
Simply put, the reason they selected the words they did was in order to make room in the Big SBC-Tent for both your church and my church to be able to cooperate together for the cause of the Great Commission. (Which, by the way, is what the SBC is really all about.) I do not think they were attempting to tell the local churches how to conduct their business affairs at all… I think they were dealing with the election of church leadership.
However I must say that (in my opinion) the phrase “democratic processes” does limit/exclude from cooperation with churches that do not elect their Elders, Pastors, or Leadership… Those would be Churches where Leadership is appointed from outside the congregation, or Churches who are governed by self-perpetuating boards without congregational approval.
Grace Always,
David,
You wrote, in response to Greg, “Southern Baptist are congregational because they believe the Bible teaches congregational. Please dont go there….accusing SB’s of not being Biblical.” David, please. Greg was showing the absurdity of your argument by using the same criteria that you are using, but just pointed the other way. He was demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.
Now, as two your example of non-congregational churches who’ve had “issues,” I know congregational churches that are involved in rank heresy. I don’t blame their church polity for their poor doctrine.
I’ve seen churches of every imaginable polity that were rife with gossip, political dirty dealing, good ol’ boy backslapping crony-ism, back-biting, slavish devotion to ungodly leadership, and every other ill that is common to any group of post-Genesis 3 human beings. I’ve also seen churches of every conceivable polity that were gracious, loving, welcoming, and committed to living out Biblical Christianity in a fallen world. How a church determines it’s budget or approves a contract to repair the roof has no bearing whatsoever on the Godliness & Christ-likeness of the people.
Squirrel
The most biblically consistent reformed Baptist I know is James White. Most guys are simply parroting around. But James knows his Bible very well. I disagree with some of James’ calvinism but he presents his biblical research. Rare among parroting Baptists.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }