We get a lot of comments here at SBC Voices. Most are thoughtful and helpful. Some are bewildering, petulant, even mean. A few I have to delete.
But every once in a while I read a comment and think it should be a post of its own. One such comment appeared on Thursday, from Randall Cofield. I only read it because I saw Jeremy Parks reference it in our “Reader Comments” sidebar. But I did not hold Jeremy’s praise against Randall and I went ahead and read the comment.
Wow. Gold medal/Hall of Fame stuff!
Here is the comment (made at 11:11 PM on 10/4) from Randall Cofield.
Cooperation (the very essence of the CP) in any endeavor requires both maturity and the ability to wisely compromise on non-essential points of difference…for the sake of a worthy objective.
In relation to the Great Commission, the oft-cited axiom “in essential things,unity; in non-essential things, liberty; in all things, charity” comes to mind.
Brothers, the fundamental problem plaguing the SBC (and the CP) in our generation is this: We apparently lack the maturity and wisdom to distinguish between essential things and non-essential things. And we are demonstrating precious little charity in anything.
The lost now in eternity don’t give a rip whether we are Calvinists or non-Calvinists, Cessationists or non-Cessationists. They died without Christ, and they are in hell while we quibble over non-essential things.
Nero’s fiddling while Rome burned pales in comparison…
Chew on that one for a while, folks!
Quibbling Schmibbling! (How’s THAT for maturity?) There is a point where “in-house” discussions cross the line to injurious and pointless. There are many that don’t consider “Discussing” calvinism or cessationism as purely inconsequential (read non-essential.) But since, apparently, the preaching of the Gospel STOPPED for a while when these subjects were hot topics, then we should be ashamed and STOP THAT!
Unless, of course, the gospel didn’t stop being advanced and the conversations regarding these issues were to clarify our beliefs and what we understand as truth. Because, it seems to me, Truth is important.
What I Truly don’t appreciate is rudeness and meanness in discussing the truth. Toward that I end I attended a Reformed baptist Missions conference recently. It was great!
Hi Clark,
Brother, I agree that it is good to discuss these things, and I certainly enjoy being sharpened by those with whom I disagree. But I think the previous post demonstrates that we have moved far beyond a friendly “in house” discussion.
Is it wise (or even justifiable) to withhold funds from the CP if we disagree with Calvinism or Cessationism? Is agreement on these finer points of theology essential to the propagation of the Gospel? Our forebears didn’t think so. Are we suddenly wiser and more mature than they?
I pose these questions out of genuine concern. If we don’t learn to disagree with charity and use wisdom in compromising we’re headed for trouble.
While there is merit, definite merit in Randall’s comments, there is still something to be said for the arguments and differences, something that is an opportunity to exercise the maturity for which he longs. The something is freedom, liberty. Several years ago, a historian from Wake Forest Divinity School gave a lecture and called attention to an Episcopalian’s critique of Baptists here in North Carolina back in the 1700s who, as usual, were up to their eyeballs in arguments and fusses over calvinism and other issues. I did not take quite the critical approach. Instead I pointed out that those Baptists during that period were uniting Separates and Regular Baptists, convincing General Baptists (who were neither very evangelistic nor very missionary minded) to become Particular Baptists (who then were both evangelistic and missionary minded), experiencing the Second Great Awakening, employing educated and uneducated ministers together, making the South a Baptist Kingdom, securing religious liberty, and launching the Great Century of Missions. While arguments can certainly get out of hand and deserved to be curbed by the participants, we must remember that 40-50 years there were few arguments going in the SBC, merely distant rumblings like summer thunder and lightning as the Moderates in control would not allow for such. Then the arguments begin to arise over the teachings on the Bible, and a great change came about and a return to the word of God. Now we are in a period in which prayer has been going on for many years for a Third Great Awakening, even perhaps for a century or more, and the arguments over the very theology that produced the First and Second Great Awakening and the launching of the Great Century of Missions have arisen. Could it be that we are in the same situation as those Baptists in North Carolina were, fussin over theology that the Episcopalian complained about, just before the Second Great Awakening and the launching of the Great Century of Missions occurred? Could it be that we are nearing the time of the Third Great Awakening in which every soul on earth will be won by the Lord in a visitation that shall begin in this generation and continue for a 1000 generations? Maturity says we can bear the strain and that we expect our ministers to do so and to learn to be charitable in even the worst of strains of such arguments with agape love triumphing. After all, if God is going to give His people the whole she-bang, we can surely grow and develop to the point where we can play the part of adults who understand the children’s squabbles as a part of the stages of growth. Even by the arguments they can become better, stronger, more compassionate and caring ministers and servants of God.
Well now…I certainly didn’t expect to see my name “in lights” when I wrote that post. A tip of the hat to you, Dave, for the fifteen minutes of fame. I guess every dog has his day. (emoticon inserted, then expurgated)
This tendency to penalize the CP over everything we disagree with seems a dangerous response to me. How do we pull back and keep the main thing the main thing?
I will continue to reiterate that I believe in autonomy. Every church has to make a decision whether supporting the CP is the right thing or not.
But I believe (more than anything else) in the work of our IMB. We have a great worldwide mission force and I hate that any of our intramural squabbles would, in any way, affect our mission force.
When I heard Tom Elliff say that we had lost 700 from our mission force, it hit me how much our choices were affecting our mission. Think what 700 full-time mission personnel could be doing around the world.
That is something we have to factor in to our decisions.
Can we continue our internecine wars when we see what they are doing to Kingdom work?
Of course, that is a decision each church has to make, but I just hope these churches will look at the big picture!
This post begs the question, “Who’s doing the fiddling?”
I think I would answer that question: the local church. We have become “studio musicians” to the rock stars running the Convention.
Many have sought the answer to the the question: “What has caused the decline in CP giving?” What if the answer is: God? What if God is finished with the CP? What if it has become a hindrance to souls being saved rather than a help?
Take Disaster Relief. I don’t know anybody that would say this has not been a fantastic expression of godly love and concern over the years. But has it helped extend the Kingdom? For example: did we see a revival among the churches in New York City? The DR Teams were there for over a year.
For the last at least 50 years there has been a steady decline in baptisms in the U.S. It is the “drunken uncle” that we don’t talk much about. We are losing America hoping to win the world. I’m not sure that is going to be a good strategy.
Notice in DAve’s original post that when he laments the decline in CP giving, the only part of the CP he defends is the IMB. I’m sure that was not intentional, but perhaps Freudian.
What would happen world-wide if there were a revival of the 45,000 plus churches just in the SBC Convention? What would happen if we layed off Frank Page followed by closing everything but the IMB which takes oversight of the NAMB? I’m sure Frank is a nice guy, but exactly how many souls are saved directly related to his salary? I know how many are saved “directly related” to my salary. I can count them weekly or confess my fault when there are none to count.
All my ministry but one year I have been in the SBC. I’ve loved it. I’ve supported it. I believed in the CP strategy. But, is it time to find a “new way?”
After all . . . wasn’t the CP a “new way” at one time.
I unfortunately have more questions than answers I must confess.
Hi Frank,
I share your frustration with inefficiencies that exist beneath the CP umbrella…to a certain extent. But I would ask this question: Are you aware of any other organization (of comparable size and Baptist persuasion) anywhere on the face of the planet doing a better job of reaching the nations for Christ?
The missional outreach of the SBC (IMB, NAMB, Seminaries, etc.) is a pretty powerful machine, warts notwithstanding.
And I’m not completely convinced that problems within the SBC are exclusively attributable to leadership at the top.
We are structured quite differently than are top-down secular corporations. The longer I pastor and communicate with other pastors, the more I am convinced of the following: If we get the Gospel right, get evangelism right, and get Church membership right a the local level, our national leadership will be compelled to align itself with the vibrancy and effectiveness of the local Churches.
The decline in baptisms and the deplorable ten million-absentee-Church-members problem in the SBC are not attributable to our national leadership–they are attributable to the local Churches and pastors.
Wouldn’t you agree?
“””” Are you aware of any other organization (of comparable size and Baptist persuasion) anywhere on the face of the planet doing a better job of reaching the nations for Christ? “”””
I have not done the research, but I will tell you that there are organizations that are many times more effective in spreading their message than we are spreading ours. Mormons, a cult comes to mind, as well as Seventh Day Adventists.
Now, you could argue their message is defective, but the CP is not a message but a method. I’m referring to an ineffective method of presenting the good news.
“”””and get Church membership right a the local level,””””
I agree with this.
“”””And I’m not completely convinced that problems within the SBC are exclusively attributable to leadership at the top. “””””
I disagree with this. We have allowed the CP to become a “substitute” for mission involvement not a “support” of mission involvement. We are very much like a “top-down secular organization.” Roberts Rules of Order are not particularly religious. Voting on presidents. Trustee systems. All the secular elements are there even if we try to hide them under a Christian veneer.
“”””The decline in baptisms and the deplorable ten million-absentee-Church-members problem in the SBC are not attributable to our national leadership–they are attributable to the local Churches and pastors. “””””
I partially agree with this. I think the CP gave churches a way to look like they were Kingdom institutions without Kingdom involvement. Slowly, the State Conventions, the Convention politics, and to some extent NAMB have usurped and supplanted the ministry of the local church.
The Association used to be the hub of activity coordinating ministry among like-minded churches. It is in many cases if not most nothing more than a “step-child.”
I want to be convinced that the CP is still a vital part of a global mission strategy. But, it will take more than guilt-trips and clever descriptors to convince me.
And, one more thing: why do we have six seminaries to train our ministers? This is a huge waste of money and mostly an exercise in “pride” rather than strategic thinking. Just count how many seminaries we have east of the Missisippi and how many we have west.
I recognize that my views may be radical, even heretical for some, but I think there are more and more people we are leaning in the same direction I am and it has little to do with “race, or any doctrine beginning with a ‘C’ “
that’s “who are leaning.”
With ten million of our members not in church on Sunday mornings, it’s not only overseas that we’re underperforming (read: failing at the Great Commission, i.e: making disciples). Maybe if we got THAT right, God would take care of the rest.
I mean, why WOULD God want us to send out more missionaries when we can’t even get it right, where we live?
Amen, brother, that’s why I posted in another article that it’s not the missionaries that are declining that is the problem, but here at home. Many would agree with me that Southern Baptists churches mostly consist of unregenerate church members, or God is not hearing our prayers due to sin. One of the indications of this is the lack of, or negligence, of making disciples for the Lord in our country. When we don’t care for our own, it’s kind of hypocritical to say that we want ‘to win the world for the Lord;’ and yet let the majority of Southern Baptists go on their own way, And you know what I believe is the cause of it: No doctrinal foundation of the “one faith;” and since there is no doctrinal basis of one’s beliefs of the Gospel of the Grace of God, there can be no Practical Living of what one claims to believe of the Gospel. If we are not in the Truth, how can we Live and Do for the Truth as it is Jesus? Amen.
I don’t like the word “compromise” but it seemed to fit here. Is there a word between compromise and tolerate that we could use better? Maybe not, or maybe we Christians can make up one for Kingdom use. For me, I’ll just use “deal with”. That’s better for me.
How long do we stay on topics like this in our churches before the people get the point. Should we center around this topic and build a church on this truth. I’ve learned that our morals are built on the importance of standards within our lives. If God is most important to us we must centralize Him and build His morals within our lives. The line in the sand is, will our approach to this eventually fall into a legalistic or grace approach?
Excellent post.
there is a word . . .
‘CONSENSUS’
it is a dynamic that was used in the early Church
That’s good. Thanks, Christiane.
We’re a 10% CP church, and I’ve made some passionate critiques in years past about some things practiced by some of our IMB missionaries. Thus, I am living (or, at least, trying to live) out what is the major point of this post.
However, I want to be careful about the critique I might level against other brethren. Often, when we are debating theology, I do not think that the point of theology being discussed is utterly irrelevant to our effectiveness. For example, I believe that healthy New Testament ecclesiology makes for planted churches that share the gospel more effectively. Mistakes on the mission field today often lead to enormous messes that are difficult to clean up tomorrow.
And so, just maybe, sometimes churches divert funds because, in their opinion, the differences in believe or practice are serious enough to make other pathways more effective means for accomplishing the same mission.
It is a foolish and baseless thing to attempt to dissect theology and effectiveness—they are so intricately interwoven! Many, many times, he who is vigilant about theology is the best friend of long-term gospel efficiency. And so, I will not accuse brethren in the SBC of any lack of gospel seriousness that would lead them to fiddle while Rome burns.
Bart,
Well stated.
Dwight
Looks like we cross-posted complimenting one another. Not a bad thing.
Hi Bart,
I couldn’t agree more on the need for sound theology. My church members will tell you I am rather dogmatic about it. I would never attempt to divorce orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
However, my comment was made in the context of a thread where some seemed to be contending that CP giving should be withheld on the ground of disagreements over Calvinism and Cessationism. I don’t see these disagreements rising to the level of essential for cooperation in advancing the Gospel.
These are not disagreements on essential points, such as whether salvation is by grace or by works. In point of fact, when all of the heated rhetoric surrounding the Calvinism issue is stripped away, we agree far more than we disagree.
We are disagreeing on things that are non-essential for cooperation in the propagation of the Gospel. We should be granting one another liberty of conscience.
As I stated above, our forebears possessed both the spiritual maturity and wisdom to make the necessary concessions to work together.
I’ll say it again, brothers: We need to be able to distinguish between that which is essential and that which is non-essential.
May God grant us wisdom and a cooperative spirit.
And yet, Randall, “non-essential” is a different standard from “irrelevant with regard to effectiveness.” Let’s consider a hypothetical:
You and I are planting churches together in a poor overseas context. I conclude that we should construct a church building in each village and fully fund a pastor’s salary in each church for the first five years. You conclude that injecting so much money into the situation will create dependency and invite abuse. Neither of us considers this topic to be an “essential.” Both of us, however, consider it to have a significant impact upon our likely effectiveness. We conclude that, because of our methodological differences, we will pursue church planting separately, each in his own way.
Considering my hypothetical situation, I would not describe either of us as people who are fiddling while Rome burns. One of us may be going about this the wrong way. Both of us may be going about this the wrong way. Perhaps there is some way by which we might have avoided separating our efforts. But certainly we are both earnest and we are both active. We’re just laboring incompatibly.
The Acts 29 folks are going to plant Calvinistic churches, and ONLY Calvinistic churches. They believe that they are more effective when they are planting Calvinistic churches. I can’t possibly imagine why, but that’s their belief. Are they fiddling while Rome burns? I’ve never seen a Pentecostal or Charismatic church planting a church that didn’t practice what passes today for speaking in tongues. Have you? They believe that they are more effective when they are planting churches full of unintelligible sound. Again: Entirely a mystery to me as to why. Are they fiddling while Rome burns?
Well, I don’t think that they are. In each case, I think they’re wrong, but I don’t think that they are passive or distracted, necessarily.
I again find myself in agreement with you on the micro level.
But on the macro level, if we sink to withholding funds from the CP on the grounds of disagreement on the finer points of theology (i.e. Calvinism and Cessationism, issues I termed “non-essential”) I think we are on dangerous ground.
Shall we dismantle what is possibly the most effective missional machine on the planet (IMB, NAMB, Seminaries, etc.), warts notwithstanding, for the sake of theological minutia?
Are we not substantially more effective as a whole than we are individually?
I think we are. Despite our relatively minor differences, the whole of the SBC is greater than the sum of its parts, especially when it comes to advancing the Gospel.
My reference to “fiddling while Rome burns” was made in an effort to simply illustrate this: Our differences are quite insignificant when compared to the larger and much more important task of accomplishing the Great Commission.
Grace to you, brother.
Here’s my case for sticking with the CP:
1. It is indeed true: There are problems both theological and methodological within our SBC system. Such problems are probably unavoidable in a system of this size.
2. And yet, our problems are not so serious and widespread that they typify the work of Southern Baptists.
3. The CP and our arrangement for cooperative missions offer a number of practical and theological advantages.
4. Those advantages outweigh the problems.
5. Therefore, although you are no enemy of the Great Commission for having chosen to fund missions through other means, I would encourage you to consider how you can accomplish more and better Great Commission work through the Cooperative Program. If you leave the Cooperative Program, whatever you may be gaining, I think you are losing something more significant.
Well said, Bart. I’m in complete agreement with what you have stated here.
Thanks for the exchange, brother.
Of course, each Church must decide what’s the best way to support missions….hopefully, every Church will have missions on it’s heart. But, whether it’s the CP, or just supporting missionaries individually; each Church has to decide. AND, it’s not wrong, or sinful, for a Church to decide to not give a single dime to the CP.
BTW, my Church gives 20% to the CP. So, we feel that CP giving is the best way to do this….although, we’ve started supporting more individuals, here lately.
David
It’s likewise hardly mature to blindly give money for the sake of some presumed unity. It’s far better to give in an informed way. If the goal is missions, we have many Southern Baptists involved in missions and ministries outside of Southern Baptist institutions that also merit our support. My church has enough that we have our own missions board for handling budget and policies for these folks. Should we dissolve that, abandon these multiple interests and give all money budgeted to missions to the CP?
What’s the mature thing to do?
Hi Jim,
I don’t think we should ever give solely for the sake of unity, presumed or otherwise. I do think our giving should be predicated upon a passionate love for Christ and for the lost, coupled with a desire to be the best stewards possible.
The context of my statement was a thread where some were defending withholding of CP funds because of disagreement with Calvinism or Cessationism.
A Voice From SBC History
“What, then, is the cohesive force which holds Southern Baptists together doctrinally? It is their time honored principle of unity in diversity. This does not mean doctrinal indifference nor a theological hodge-podge. It means that each Southern Baptist extends Christian charity to those with whom he differs. It means that he recognizes the integrity of those with whom he honestly disagrees. By this principle Southern Baptists have been agreeable in their disagreements. They have resolved their differences in the greater unity of purpose as stated in their Constitution of ‘eliciting, combining and directing the energies of the whole denomination in one sacred effort, for the propagation of the Gospel.’ It is thus that Southern Baptists have and will continue to preserve their unity and strength.”
–Herschel Hobbs
David: Would you believe it: I got deleted on SBC Today for calling some fellow a barefaced liar after he said I was deceiving and deceptive. The fellow in charge deleted me with dire threats of permanent barring. When you are raised to tell the truth, when you have the imprint of many whippings to that end and purpose, you learn the painful lesson that deception, lying, is a bad policy. Period. However, I refrained from doing what my great grandfather would have done, namely, called out the person responsible for the deception charge and the administrator of the blog and settled the dispute in a fast draw. Now mind you, I can’t shoot the heads off of guinea hens, but I can put five shots in a small tree from an 8 shot revolver at about 25 paces. Well, I could 30 years ago.
There’s a lot of Pastors, out there, today, who are playing the fiddle while Rome burns. They are trying their best to please people, and soothe people, while the world goes to Hell. They seem to be more interested in gaining power and position in the Church and in their denomination, than they are about God’s Word and souls going to Hell, forever.
David