As long as there are Southern Baptists, there will be disagreements about doctrine. The Baptist Faith and Message unifies us around a common core of gospel imperatives and Baptist distinctives. At the same time, our statement of faith allows for a variety of views on important aspects of church practice, eschatology and soteriology. Because of our common faith, we partner together in Great Commission work. Because we disagree on important issues like election and the atonement, we have the potential for conflict and division that threatens that cooperative spirit.
While there will always be those among us who seek to divide, there are others who earnestly desire to work together despite our very real differences. But such unity does not happen unless we aim for it and work hard at it. We need models of how we can engage one another in productive ways that build up rather than tear down. I experienced one such model at the Southern Baptist Convention last year.
One of the bright spots of our gathering in Baltimore was the panel discussion at the Gospel Project breakfast. The panel included “Traditionalist” Executive Committee president Frank Page, “Calvinist” pastor now International Mission Board president David Platt, and Gospel Project editor Trevin Wax. More than 500 people attended the event for free breakfast, free books (including Page’s the Trouble with the Tulip) and a spirited discussion. Ed Stetzer was in rare form as he guided the panel in a frank and lively dialogue entitled “Salvation and the Mission of God.” Stetzer led the panelists to explore issues of soteriology that have been a fault line in the SBC for some time.
The event was the most helpful discussion I have heard on the issue in recent years and I believe it provides a good model for further discussions going forward. I thought it might be helpful to revisit the event and draw some lessons from it on how we might approach such disagreements moving forward. You can listen to the audio of the event here. Here are a few takeaways from the event:
1. We must be willing to engage in serious discussion about theological issues. There’s no pretending we do not differ from each other on important issues. And, though the issues regarding Divine sovereignty and human responsibility will not be resolved this side of eternity, we must be willing to engage on these issues as we seek to faithfully live by God’s word. The panel discussion at the Gospel Project breakfast provided a good model for profitable theological discussion. The panelists were willing to ask pointed questions and receive honest criticisms of their views. Moderator Ed Stetzer left no wiggle room as he prompted discussion on some of the most divisive topics.
During the panel, Stetzer noted the importance of having such healthy discussions. Reflecting later on the panel, Ed Stetzer noted that “these kinds of discussions are relatively useless if you won’t ask hard questions.”[i] Some people dislike conflict and any kind of debate. Avoiding such confrontations, however, does not resolve divisive issues but pushes them under the surface to arise later. A willingness to have healthy discussions on the issues on which we disagree is vital for cooperation among people with significant, though compatible, theological differences.
2. We must treat one another honestly and with charity. The men on the panel modeled how to engage on these issues in a way that was constructive rather than destructive. The panelists, even when sharing their concerns, presented facts and not conjecture. They neither caricaturized one another’s views nor questioned each other’s motives or commitment to evangelism.
As the conversation developed, we saw an honest attempt by the panelists to understand each other’s views. The panelists avoided using “straw man” arguments and sought to treat their opponents’ view in the most charitable light possible. Even when warning about extreme positions of opposing views, the panelists did not assume their opponent held those extremes. When language was fuzzy or could be interpreted in a number of ways, the moderator pushed for clarity and precise language while the panelists listened to each other instead of making assumptions about what the other believed.
In one very lively exchange about the sovereignty of God and whether God’s will could be thwarted, the panelists (prompted by the moderator) carefully articulated their views, asked questions of one another, clarified how each other were using terms and defining theological concepts, and listened intently to understand one another. There was vigorous discussion but no heated rhetoric or tense exchanges. Rather, the conversation was lighthearted and jovial, even as it dug deep into controversial topics of election, grace, and the sovereignty of God. The result was a challenging, “iron sharpening iron” type of exchange. The panelists dealt honestly with each other and the result was genuine dialogue and fruitful theological discussion.
3. We can let others be honest about their real concerns without taking personal offense. I found it remarkably refreshing that the panelists allowed one another to speak candidly and pointedly about their concerns with each other’s views. No one got offended or defensive nor did the conversation turn antagonistic and hostile. In a light-hearted but direct way, Stetzer challenged each of the panelists to defend their views, express their concerns, and challenge one another.
Frank Page openly shared his unease about Calvinism and especially its belief in irresistible grace. He expressed his concern that the view could lead to “an extremism that kills passion for evangelism.” He worried that even among Calvinists who expressed a belief in evangelism, that they could fall into a “functional hyper-Calvinism” that resulted in a lack of evangelistic fervor. Trevin Wax acknowledged the potential of Calvinism to harden into a hyper-Calvinist lack of zeal.
David Platt was questioned on his previous statements about the sinner’s prayer. He shared his concerns that the practice, though not wrong in itself, had the potential, functionally, to obscure the biblical language to repent and believe and reduce salvation to a “formulaic set of words.” As Platt fleshed out his view, Page listened attentively and ended up affirming Platt’s concerns and his method of calling sinners to respond to the gospel.
The panelists listened to one another and found themselves agreeing on much. Even where they continued to differ, they set aside their “theological distrust” and spoke openly with one another about those differences. There was no outrage, anger or offense. The panelists neither attacked one another nor became aggressive in tone. Even when the discussion was most pointed, I saw in the panelists a genuine appreciation for each other as brothers in Christ. One could sense the brotherly affection these men had for each other and the mutual respect they had as co-laborers in the gospel.
4. We must partner together in gospel work. At a time when Southern Baptists were discussing the continual decline in our baptism numbers, all the panelists expressed concern over the current state of evangelism in the SBC. Instead of placing blame on one theological camp or another, however, they challenged all to increased participation in evangelistic work. Each of the panelists acknowledged a lack of fervency in evangelism across the theological spectrum.
When asked directly, Page said he saw no correlation between the rise of Calvinism and the decline in Baptisms. “I am seeing a lessening of evangelistic passion across the board,” he lamented; “I see them [the anti-Calvinists] witnessing less than I’ve ever seen people witness before and that’s the problem. It is both a Calvinist problem and a non-Calvinist problem.” Similarly, Wax and Stetzer acknowledged that there is sometimes a lack of urgency in evangelism among reformed believers. Wax also noted the tendencies of both views, in their extremes, toward non-evangelism and warned against both a functional hyper-Calvinism or a fuzzy inclusivism that lessens the urgency to evangelize.
When asked about how Calvinists and Traditionalists can come together when they differ on the ordo salutis, Page challenged “The way we come together on this is when I go out witnessing…are you going to come with me?” Page quipped, “I don’t care if your order is wrong, as long as you get it done!” Wax admonished Calvinists to stop being defensive about the Calvinist missionary spirit and instead to model evangelistic fervor. Instead of saying “look at Carey” or “look at Spurgeon,” Wax challenged, they should be able to say “look at me.” Platt described his own zeal for evangelism and his desire for Southern Baptists to work together to take the gospel to the nations.
Beyond the challenges for Baptists on all sides to increase their evangelistic zeal, the panelists demonstrated a desire to partner together for kingdom work. They shared a passion for evangelism and missions. They demonstrated a shared passion for cooperative work even when disagreeing on these issues. The focus should be not our theological differences on the balance of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, they argued, but on cooperation for the cause of the gospel.
When asked how he looks out at a denomination in which the vast majority were not Calvinist and who practiced many things that he did not, Platt responded,
“With joy! Our theologies may not be identical down to every single point, but they are more than compatible. . . . I feel no need to think any pastor or any missionary or anybody in whatever position needs to be Calvinist or non Calvinist, this [the BFM2000 ] is our umbrella under which we joyfully lock arms together in gospel ministry here and among the nations.”
Page agreed. He emphasized that panel members have compatible but not identical theological views, which means they can cooperate in ministry, even if they don’t always agree on everything. He called on Southern Baptists to focus on doing evangelism and not just the theology that informs evangelism. All the panelists agreed that we must be willing to focus on cooperating for the cause of the gospel.
Can such divergent views exist in the same denomination? Can we dialogue on these issues in a way that unifies rather than divides? I think so. If you’ve read this far, you have a pretty good picture of the discussion that day. These men demonstrated the desire and possibility of working together for the cause of Christ and His gospel. Midway through the panel, I tweeted to Stetzer, “This is the most fun I’ve had at a panel discussion & the most honest candid discussion I’ve heard. Well done!” I was encouraged by the exchange. When it was over, I left with a renewed optimism about the future of our cooperative work. From my perspective, the breakfast gathering was a huge success.
In the end, the panel did what it set out to do: to “model charitable discussion and point people toward gospel-centered mission.” My take-away? Let us follow their lead!
______________
[i] Ed Stetzer shares his reflections on the discussion in this Christianity Today article. Trevin Wax shares his own reflections here.
Photo courtesy of Lizette Beard
BRAVO! A GRAND SLAM HOME RUN, TODD. Your comments reflect the same spirit and attitude of the Baptists, when the Separates and the Regulars united and agreed to be called, “United Baptists.” They also reflect the launching of the Great Century of Missions, a view reflected in Luther Rice’s Memoirs. Again, they are reflected in James Petigru Boyce’s response to a student’s rejection of the Sovereign Grace view which Boyce had presented in class. Boyce said something to the effect that he wished the student would accept it and went on with the class. (note: It has been many years since I read about that discussion, and I stand to be corrected by any who have read it more recently.)
Some, no doubt, will think my aim and desire is to make Calvinists out of everyone that I come in contact. UGH! Absolutely not. A cold dead doctrinalist of the Calvinistic variety is not really making any contribution to the cause of Christ any more than an immoral minister of either a Calvinist or Traditionalist persuasion, and I have known both. What my aim has been and is, is to present the doctrines which were key factors in the First and Second Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions. These truths of Sovereign Grace played a role, a major role, in those visitations. People who preach them and then set down and do nothing have utterly missed the point. Those who think of them as points for controversy also miss the point. The real issue is to have another Great Awakening, the Third, the one in which every last soul on earth is converted, and I expect nothing less, and then the souls on other planets to which we are not beginning the process to spread (so the elect will be from one end of THE heaven to the other). All of this, not for a mere millennium of years, but for a millennium of generations, yes, 1000 generations (I Chron. 16:15) which allowing for 20 years for a generation would be 20,000 years and, if man reaches the age of Methuselah, then 900,000 years or longer.
These truths, as Dr. Truett pointed out his justly famous remark at the Spurgeon Centennial in London, when he was introduced by the Prime Minister of the British Empire, are those (Truett used the term Calvinism) which press down the crown of responsibility on the brow of the common man. I must add these are the truths that allow for differences and variation as is proven by the actions of Roger Williams and Dr. John Clarke, when they established religious liberty in Rhode Island in the 1600s. The Jews thought so much of it that they build a synagogue there during that time (and it still stands and is in use at the last account I had of it). Immediately, the religious arguments began, and they have continued among the Baptists, off and on, ever since. Thank God, we have the freedom to differ, because your true Liberal is a Bible believing Baptist who believes that we must persuade, not manipulate, force, deceive, trick, or otherwise mislead, but persuade with the evidence, even when the evidence is seemingly most unacceptable and unfavorable. Just think of Jonah winning a whole city, when he did not want to and his message was that of UNCONDITIONAL JUDGMENT WITH NOT A HINT OF MERCY. so let’s argue and continue on together, while we support the missionaries abroad and at home, support our local churches, support those with whom we do not fully agree, whether in the pastorate, the mission field, or a teaching position, so long as they buy the word of God written as verbally inspired, inerrant, and infallible. Let us also remember that a clear statement ain’t necessarily meant to turn out the way it reads; it is the purpose of the statement that counts, and Jonah knew it was God’s purpose to spare the Ninevites. The same goes with the idea of women in ministry for example. It is in the exceptions to the rules that we find the other part of the equation that constitutes the whole truth. I forget who it was that said, “If the rule is true, and the exceptions are true, then the truth is the rule and the exceptions.” Same with the matter of Divine Sovereignty and Free Agency, with Perseverance and Preservation, with Particular Redemption (Limited Atonement, but then every one preaches that including those who preach that every one will be saved (they sure show no indication of being saved in this life and it is hardly to be counted on in the next life)) as to universal presentation, offer, or compulsion (seems John Wesley as Spurgeon has indicated somewhere used language concerning that approach that even Spurgeon would not use), Sovereign Grace leads the way, and even Jonathan Edwards preached on Pressing into the Kingdom, of the violent taking it by force. How does such a stress on Divine Sovereignty lead to such liberty? Ever hear of therapeutic paradoxes. If professional therapist can and do use such, surely it is not to be imagined that God is any whit behind on that matter.
My aim is another awakening, and to that end I call for prayer in every church for that purpose, in every association, in every state convention, and the whole SBC, which has begun, and which I have been praying for these 41, nearly, 42 years. It is coming, because it is promised, brethren.
Todd, we sat near each other in that breakout session….it was tremendous and you have captured the spirit and tone of it well.
Great job.
Funny thing happened just before the panel started – Frank Page went to get his coffee and someone jokingly told him him that it was Calvinist coffee – and Dr. Page jestfully retorted something about tulips not producing coffee beans. It was funny. It was genuine playful banter – I appreciated it.
I have mad respect for Frank Page for numerous reasons but one is because, while he is NOT a Cal by any stretch – he is just as clearly not a divider and seeks to be a uniter.
Number 4 seems to bme to be the heart of the matter. If my “visitation partner” and I can set down and agree on how to tell a man how to be saved, I am happy and see no conflict. If he wants to tell the lost person that he must be baptized to saved,I have a problem. If he want’s to say that he can be saved today but must wait until a second blessing in which he receives the Holy Spirit I have a problem. However the Cal/non Cal thing where the order is not agreed upon just is not a problem for me.
Is there any possibility that we can admit that the issue between the two groups is not really theology as much as it is denominational politics. If, and I say “if” that is true, then God forgive us.
“While there will always be those among us who seek to divide…”
That’s kinda pejorative, with regard to motive. I’m not sure there are that many who are truly *seeking* division. They may have convictions that disallow certain forms of cooperation, while allowing many others.
Suppose my church adopts an Unengaged Unreached People Group. If the IMB appoints a missionary to reach this group who engages in a PPL and is also affiliated with Acts 29, my church is not likely to support such an action. But the lack of support will not be due to the fact that we are “seeking to divide.” It will be due to the fact that our convictions regarding glossolalia and Calvinism do not match those of the missionary with whom we have been asked to partner.
Does that make sense? We would not be seeking division. We would simply be “holding firm our convictions” in the same manner that all Acts 29 churches are required to have pastors who are Calvinistic. They would be holding their convictions just as we would be holding ours. We may not be able to partner, but it is not due to the “seeking of disunity.”
I’ll agree that many who choose to separate are not merely seeking to divide if you’ll concede that there are indeed a number of people in the SBC with a divisive spirit who refuse to act with the kind of grace and charity I’ve described here.
I would also submit to anyone in the SBCvoices audience that whenever we ascribe sinister motives to one another, fail to deal honestly with one another’s position, build straw man arguments, refuse to listen, speak unkindly, get angry and offended often, refuse to give others the benefit of the doubt, interpret people’s words in the most uncharitable interpretation possible, refuse to engage in conversation, are always the contrarian and snarky in tone, refuse to trust others unless they are in our theological camp, etc, etc — We are acting divisively. Are those not characteristics of a person who seeks to divide?
If the pejorative shoe fits …
Rick/Todd
I certainly had my fill of “snarkyism” with the CR. However, how can two walk together if they are not agreed.
In the Christian life, and in the Church, it is inevitable there will be certain issues on which you will have to agree to disagree agreeably. It is inevitable.
The tricky part is dividing between the essentials and the non-essentials, and especially between the level two and level three issues.
Exactly. I agree completely. Part of the issue is definition. Again for me the issue is the presentation of the Gospel to a lost person. I can walk with a man who tells a lost person of his PPL. I cannot walk in agreement with a man who tells a lost person that speaking in tongues (whatever that means) is essential evidence of one’s salvation. The integrity of the Gospel is the line of decarcation in walking together in agreement.
The men on the panel are in agreement. They agree on the Gospel. They agree that the BFM 2000 is a sufficient basis for cooperation. They agree that the issue of Calvinism/non-Calvinism is not worth dividing over. They agree that such theological issues do you need to be discussed. They agree to do so honestly and with charity. They agree to love each other. They agree to partner with each other, despite their differences, for the cause of Christ and his gospel.
Good model.
Amen, Todd.
I contend that this same love and charity is very often displayed on the local church and individual interactions levels quite frequently.
As was discussed the other day there are countless numbers of churches where members and even pastoral staffs hold varying disagreement over numerous 2nd and 3rd level matters – yet since there is a spirit of unity around the fundamentals and respect for the others positions and stances – not personal compromise but respect – there are no wars and manifestations of the flesh that you mentioned above.
Dear Rick: My brother-in-law who has commented on this blog a number of times is a Traditionalist like you. He was, however, won to Christ by a Calvinistic Youth Minister and ordained by a supralapsarian hyper Calvinist who also ordained me, when I was not a Calvinist at the time. Dr. Ernest R. Campbell would not have withheld one penny of support from you, if you were the missionary. In fact, he very likely would have increased it. Your Traditionalism would not have stopped him one bit with reference to you or any one else of that persuasion. Now I do not like glossolalia and/or PPL any better than you do. There was a missionary who was right in front of me to receive the Doctor of Ministry at SEBTS in ’76, and he had a PPL. I never let that stop me from giving to the Cooperative Program. In fact, in one year I led my church to increase its giving to the program by 100%, and then we began to encourage members to go on mission trips, actually one did go, and later he sponsored me for such a trip. Our son, however, had his church send 14 to Haiti (actually paying their way, men, women and children for a week’s mission), while we have another member on an 11 month mission tour of Central and South American countries (doing actual mission work). Not bad for a country church with about 167-220 in attendance. They have two groups going to Kentucky for mission work in Appalachia on two separate occasions this summer.
I have even less reason for liking the Pentecostal view (so called than you do), but I realize that we have a greater goal and even a person who is mixed up can still point to Jesus as the Savior. As to Traditionalists, I have had some who treated me pretty bad, something that as far as I know I have never done to them. Rick, are you saying your going cut out of here and leave this great mission program in the lurch? Have you forgotten the Separate and Regular agreement and union?
No, I am not saying what I think you are saying that I am saying.
Well, Rick, then what are you saying?
Rick,
Based on what you are writing here you are teaching your church that Calvinists do not preach the Gospel. Is that what I am reading?
I can think of no other reason why you would deny support to a missionary seeking to reach an UUPG. You would have to believe that the missionary would do more harm than good for the advancement of the Gospel to those people.
I will be honest, I am shocked and dismayed by your statement. I know you disagree with Calvinism but to openly and proudly proclaim that you would rather not send a missionary to an UUPG than send a Calvinist or someone who practices private glossolalia seems indefensible, especially given your Traditionalist theology.
Can you enlighten me and others as to how you would justify this decision in light of Scripture?
Great point and question Ryan. It seems odd that an SBC who supports the CP would personally act and/or teach/encourage thier people to withhold funding from the IMB unless they felt the gospel was not being proclaimed by the missionaries the board is putting in place.
I don’t think that is what Rick is saying. I think he is saying that he wants to partner with missionaries who share his theological convictions rather than those who don’t. To suggest he believes that Calvinists preach a false gospel is a misreading of his words.
I would have no problem in support Rick himself as a missionary, even with his anti-Calvinistic bias, but I think I would be hurting, if the shoe was on the other foot. At least, that is what I gather from his comments, regardless of statements to the contrary. Look, if he had said he did not approve of Calvinists but that he would support them anyway, it would be a bit more assuring. I know I will support the PPL people as missionaries, and have done so. When I found out that the fellow in front of me in the doctoral line was a missionary, I did not go after him, I continued to support the CP and never gave it another moment’s thought. After all, virtually anyone, including a lost person can point others to Christ. I have one book in my collection where a soldier WWII was dying and asked a man to help him find Christ, and the man who helped would later die claiming that he did not believe it. The fellow he helped died at peace. But the PPL and the Traditionalists might not have things right, they might not dot every “I” and cross every “T” like I do, but they need the room to think, differ, change their minds. I don’t want a single person to be forced to believe like I do; I want a person who has looked at the evidence, biblical especially, and comes to the sober and reason conclusion that such a teaching is scriptural. But, if not, I will not throw out the baby with the bath water.
No, that is not what I am saying at all. We continue to support many Cals through our CP gifts and possibly now some people who practice PPL.
My hypothetical scenario had our own church *adopting* a UUPG, which I view as basically church planting overseas.
This would be an arrangement no different from a Calvinist Acts 29 church calling a Calvinist Only minister–which is exactly what they do.
I’m saying that if OUR church calls leaders, we do already screen for Calvinists and for Charismatics. That’s not who WE are, just like Acts 29 churches screen for Trads since that’s not who THEY are.
We would NOT *deny support* through CP for IMB approved missionaries going other places, but in our own church planting process, whether Send NA or adopting a UUPG we would plant the theology of our own church, just like many others do.
That’s fair.
Rick,
I did not understand your example as your church personally supporting a specific church plant among an UUPG. I do now. I don’t agree but I get it.
I also did not mean to insinuate that you were withdrawing from the CP. That wasn’t even a thought and if my question came across like that, I apologize.
Oh, gotcha now – The church planting a part of your explanation makes sense – thanks for clarifying.
Rick: It is difficult to read your comment without concluding that you think no ministry to an unreached people group is preferable to Gospel ministry conducted by a Calvinist or someone who had a PPL (how would you know that, by the way)? It is hard for me to believe you really think that.
It seems to me that the only way to ensure that no Calvinists reach the mission field is to withdraw all CP support or give completely around the IMB.
I don’t think that is what Rick is saying. I think he is saying that he wants to partner with missionaries who share his theological convictions rather than those who don’t. For example, I would rejoice if a presbyterian missinary planted a church among an UUPG — I would not, however, support them financially in their effort but would direct my giving to people who more closely held my theological views.
I think the difference here is that while many of us are comfortable supporting missionaries who are either Calvinist or non-Calvinist or have a different view of PPL, Rick is less so. It is not a gospel issue or a heart for the nations issue, but a “what are the boundaries of my cooperation” issue. That’s why we’re having this discussion — to be able to have charitable conversation on important issues with the hope of coming to a cooperating consensus.
Again, three people have misread my earlier comments. I am not at all talking about withdrawing CP support for Cal or PPL missionaries. Your conclusion was based on an erroneous assumption.
I was talking about the hypothetical situation of our own church adopting a UUPG in which we provide resources, training, ongoing support, and have some influence in calling the missionary. We would call someone representing our convictions, just like Acts 29 calls someone representing theirs.
We do the same thing in our NA church planting. I think most of us would follow some variation of what you describe here, Rick. It comes down to a levels of cooperation issue. I am more than happy to support through CP and NAMB those who, for example, affiliate with the Acts29 network. I am much less likely to be a direct partner in planting a church with them by giving funds directly, offering mission teams, or sending key people to form the core group. I will support the work through CP and Annie and will pray for their success, but for higher levels of cooperation, I will look for those who hold more closely to my philosophy of ministry.
Thank you, Todd. You have just demonstrated the kind of charitable theological discussion addressed in your article.
And what is the highest level of theological cooperation? Wait until you find a godly Calvinist or a godly PPL, while you have some ungodly Traditonalists available. What then? Well, if I had some godly Traditionalists or godly PPL persons (and I am not at all a happy camper with the latter for various reasons), let me tell you that I would prefer them to an ungodly Calvinist of what ever stance. Rick, I try to cover everything I can get my hands on, when I study a position. Even so, I still have to recognize that people do not know from whence their understandings come. They think it is from God, but the truth is it might be of man. Apprehensions, fears, desires for acceptance can have as much to do with acceptance of a particular view as anything else. It is where they end, as where they begin, that counts, and along with a real connection to the Lord or true Godliness, and God can let His children go through much and stray way off base before bringing them in line with what He desires and what He really wants them to believe.
The research is never done. I found that the beginnings of the present Traditionalism, according to the evidence, probably began with a Baptist preacher in Virginia, named John Waller. He fell in with some Methodists and picked up the Arminianism of John Wesley and began to preach it among the Baptists who were the Regulars and Separates who, in the first case, held with the Philadelphia Confession of faith and in the second, they held with a church covenant which was Calvinistic as John Taylor a knowledgeable contemporary of the situation and a friend of John Leland. In any case, there was a falling out between Waller along with two others and Elijah Craig and two with him. After the falling out, they all became ashamed of themselves for such conduct after having called one another brothers and having suffered imprisonment and abuse together for the cause of Christ. This sense of shame led to their reconsidering what they were doing and they got back together about 1787 or a bit earlier with Kentucky uniting the two groups about 1803. A Circular Letter written by John Waller indicating his happiness with the resolution of getting back together can be found in the Georgia Baptist Association’s Minutes about 1785 which is followed by an Letter a year or two later by Silas Mercer, the Father of Jesse after whom Mercer Univ. was named, on the subject of Predestination as a soul winning doctrine.
On another blog someone cited a church in Missouri and the record of that pastor associated with it, but I pastored in Missouri and I served a church which put a bit more stress on the Calvinistic side. In any case, Dr. John Priest Greene would lead William Jewell College to purchase the library of C.H. Spurgeon which I saw for the first time during the semester I attended that school (Fall of 1960), and Spurgeon, well you know him. He thought free will was a slave, but he fellowshipped with people who were not full persuaded as to the doctrines of grace as he was. And some folks want to change Spurgeon’s writings. I have a book lying nearby right now, and they actually altered the words in Spurgeon’s sermons in order to get them to conform to their views. As they say, that ain’t kosher. God forbid that I should knowingly change any man’s words to get them and/or him to conform to my expectations. The one in charge is the Lord. So, I were pastoring today, and God led me to ask Rick Patrick to preach a revival for my church, I would write or call with an invitation to preach whatever God lays on his (your) heart. That is the way it should be. And I would expect the same in return.
I do my best. Appreciate you, brother.
Rick, I’m trying to do better – I apologize for misunderstanding your post – once you included in your explanation the specifics of talking about a church plant – I still disagree – but I now understand it and support your “right” an obligation to leave at your church based on your convictions and those of your people.
*and obligation to lead…
Excerpts from an appeal by our President, Dr. Ronnie Floyd, concerning our gathering in Columbus …
“I pray we will come together in unity. While our uniqueness and various perspectives express themselves at times, we do need to resolve: We will come together, stay together, and leave together as followers of our Lord in our Southern Baptist family.”
“As a people who love the Bible so much, we also need to love one another…. Now in the day of endless blogs, articles, emails, and interviews, the tendency is to criticize more than love and to create suspicion more than trust. We need to fall in love with Jesus again. When we do, we will love one another.”
http://www.sbc.net/presidentspage/article.asp?id=120