REFLECTIONS AND RUMINATIONS ON THE SBC AND HER FUTURE
BY WM. DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.
PART II (PART I)
WHAT THE SBC IS DOING RIGHT AND HER SINGLE GREATEST NEED?
Nathan Finn referred to the vital statistics health decline of the SBC as a “Free-fall.” Because Dr. Finn is not just a casual observer, but a critical thinker, historian, and seminary professor regarding SBC life and history—I found his description, “Free-fall,” fascinating. When I prodded him to give an analysis and antidote of the “free-fall,” he gently pushed back and said that the critique and construct relative to the free-fall from him would come at a later time.
I have been a casual observer of SBC life, and a participant—at varying levels of intensity and engagement—for at least forty years. By the grace of God, I successfully planted a SBC church, thirty years ago that I am privileged to currently serve as Pastor. The SBC has invested a lot in my ministry; and until recent years, our church invested a lot in the SBC. While anxiously awaiting the scholarly and critical analysis and antidotes of the free-fall that Dr. Finn will eventually give, in the interim, I feel burdened to share reviews and remedies for the free-fall from my neck of the woods.
It has been reported that Ed Stetzer will also address the SBC statistical concerns in the not-to-distant future. The Stetzer analysis needs to be read widely and carefully and taken very seriously. I’m convinced that he has his hand on the pulse beat of American Evangelicalism. Our convention would be wise to pay careful attention to what Finn and Stetzer will have to say on this subject.
In the name of full disclosure, much of what I say here was inspired by a message that was recently preached by a guest preacher at our church, Dr. Julius Malone of Milwaukee, WI. He is an independent evangelical. He was not addressing the SBC and her issues in the slightest way. He was teaching an adult VBS class when he gave these remarks. But certainly they were applicable to our church and to the SBC.
The truth of the matter is that the SBC is in decline because many, if not most, of our churches are in decline. The church that I pastor is no exception to this decline. Pastor Malone’s message was very encouraging to our church; and I trust that what the Lord has laid on my heart here will be encouraging to the SBC.
I. WHAT THE SBC IS DOING RIGHT
I give God praise that there are still thousands of souls being won to Christ through SBC churches, even if we aren’t reaching as many as we once did. SBC churches minister the word of salvation to God’s people faithfully and consistently, year after year (I Cor. 1:2; 6:9-11). KFC often advertise, “We do chicken right.” The SBC could as easily say, “We do salvation right.” There will be multiple thousands of saints from throughout the world in heaven—some already there—because the SBC has ministered the gospel of salvation all over the globe.
- I give God praise for the multiple thousands of souls that have been water baptized through the ministries of SBC churches (1 Cor. 1:13-16). The Great Commission specifies that those who receive the gospel ought to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Multiple thousands are still being baptized in SBC churches, although we are not baptizing nearly as many as we once did. But praise God for those who were won to Christ and baptized just this past year. Cornerstone has baptized about 2500 souls in our thirty-year history. But until 30 souls (primarily children and a few adults) recently came for salvation and baptism at our VBS, it was appearing to become the lowest baptismal year in the history of our church.
- The SBC does Spirit Baptism well (I Cor. 12:13). One of the reasons that the Lord continue to bless the SBC and her churches is because we make it clear that “by one Spirit, have we all been baptized into one body.” We believe that there is, “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism” (Ephesians 4:6). And we believe that “one baptism” occurs simultaneously with salvation. The SBC believes that there is one baptism in the Holy Spirit—again, that occurs at salvation—but many fillings. Multiple thousands have been baptized by one Spirit into the Body of Christ, and have united with SBC churches. For that, we give God praise.
- Multiple thousands in SBC churches have discovered at least one gift given to them by the Holy Spirit. It can be said of the SBC as Paul said of the church at Corinth, “…you come short in no gift” (1 Cor. 1:7; 12-14). The SBC is second to none when it comes to gifted persons in our congregations. I believe that the apostolic gift is a missionary gift (Eph. 4:12). I believe that our Disaster Relief Program is an example of the “helps” gift on display (Mt. 5:16). Every spiritual gift that’s listed in Scripture, we find in large measure in SBC churches. Even to the dismay of some, most SBC churches have members and some leaders who regularly pray, praise and give thanks in their private devotions in tongues (I Cor. 14). The IMB was led by a person who openly acknowledged his practice and belief regarding tongues. Current and past IMB missionaries regularly exercise the gift of tongues in their private devotions. There is not one gift listed that we don’t have represented in most SBC churches. For that, I give God praise.
- The indwelling of the Holy Spirit means when I have Christ, I have all of Him. The filling of the Holy Spirit means that, he has all of me. The SBC is comprised of multiple thousands who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, some are even filled with the Holy Spirit (II Tim. 1:16, Rom. 8:9).
- Good preaching, sound doctrine, and exposition of Scripture are what SBC preachers are known for (I Cor. 1:11-12; 3:21-22). The decline in the SBC is not because of a lack of good, solid, scriptural preaching.
The church at Corinth had every characteristic that I’ve mentioned thus far. Like the SBC, they were saved, baptized in water, Spirit baptized, spiritually gifted, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and they had good preachers—Paul, Peter and Apollos (I Cor. 1:11-12).
So what was missing from the church at Corinth? The answer to that question may identify the problem and the solution that our convention and many of our churches are missing.
II. THE REASON(S) AND REMEDY FOR OUR DECLINE
The main missing element from the church at Corinth is addressed in that great love Chapter, I Corinthians 13. The reason love (agape) was missing from the church at Corinth is because the filing of the Spirit was missing. We know that the filling was missing because the fruit was missing. The filling of the Spirit produces the fruit of the Spirit; and the first fruit is love—agape (Gal. 5:2). The fruit of the Spirit was missing from the church at Corinth because the filling was missing. The key to everything is the Spirit-filled life; and the key to the Spirit-filled life is obedience.
Although there are many biblical, positive, spiritual and wonderful things going on in the SBC, what is missing across the length and breadth of our convention—and I certainly include myself and congregation in this—is the filling of the Holy Spirit. That’s it. We can dissect, dialogue, or deploy a research team to determine our malady. We can organize, administrate, mobilize and pontificate until the cows come home. But, until we become desperate for God and seek a moment by moment, day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year, filling of the Holy Spirit—and then start over every new year—walking in the Spirit and walking in obedience, we will not be filled; and we will continue the decline.
When the filling is missing, we become known for something else other than for our love for Christ and His Kingdom. Jesus said, by your fruit you shall know them. Jesus said, by this shall all men know that you are my disciples, by your love.
The SBC is not known by her fruit or her love. She is known for many things that has caused her branding to need a rebranding—a Kingdom branding.
The SBC is known for battling over the Bible. As important as this battle was and is, it is not the battle that the Lord told us to be known for. We are to be known for our fruit and the filling of the Holy Spirit. The SBC is known for neither.
We are known to have been formed for the propagation of the gospel and slavery. The SBC still has not overcome this branding. Until at least one African American, Asian, and Hispanic occupy entity head positions in SBC life—as exemplified in Acts 13:1-2—then we will not be known by outsiders for what the church at Antioch was known for: “Christians,“ Christ-like behavior consistently. We are known for our racial animus. Significant progress has been made. Ken Weathersby and the EC, Gary Frost at the NAMB, and Dr. Fred Luter, our illustrious President—represent quantum steps in the right direction. But we still fall short of the Kingdom inclusion at all levels—particularly at the entity head level.
We are known for hyper-complementarianism. We should be known for holy complementarianism. We are known for telling women what they can’t do. When will we be known for telling women what they can do? God promised to pour out His Spirit upon all flesh (Acts 2:17). God promised to equip and empower sons and daughters. When will the SBC equip and empower a Lydia to play a key role in church planting. Lydia was the first person to plant a church on European soil. When will we empower a Phoebe to serve in a highly visible capacity under the leadership and authority of God’s Word and God’s male servant (Roman 16:2)? When will we empower a woman to prophesy with her head covered as Paul did in I Corinthians 11? When will the SBC become known for releasing women, not restricting women?
We are known for “spiritual gift(s) profiling”—singling out certain gifts of the Spirit to enact an emotional prejudice against. This defies all logic, rationality and the plain simple reading and understanding of Scripture. When will we appreciate and affirm all the gifts of the Spirit?
The SBC brand is suffering greatly from many years of battling over these issues. We are bruised and battle-scarred. We abandoned the bold mission thrust for the inerrancy battle. Now that this battle is over, can we return to the bold mission thrust and become known for what Jesus said we would do when we are filled: “Be witnesses” (Acts 1:8)? We are still fighting battles and causing our brand to be tarnished. We need to focus on spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom.
The key to the renewal of the SBC is one thing and one thing only: And that is, the filling of the Holy Spirit. Every pulpit, every choir member, every Sunday School teacher, every state member, every deacon, every elder, every usher, committee member—we all need to understand the Spirit-filled life and daily seek and surrender to His filling. And that my friend is the reason(s) and the remedy for the SBC decline.
A moment by moment filling of the Holy Spirit is the key to spiritual victory in the believers’ life, congregational life and the SBC. That, my friend, is the only hope for our declining churches and convention. If the SBC can answer the question, “How to be filled and keep on being filled?” our setback was only a set-up for a great spiritual comeback—that will take us to heights that we’ve not known before. May it come to pass, Lord, according to your will, way and your Word! In Jesus’ Name, Amen!
Interesting, Dr. McKissic, very interesting. I have been ordained Southern Baptist Minister for 51 years, a licensed one for 55 years, a believer for 56 years, and served as a pastor for a total of about 28 years in four different churches. In addition, I have served as chairman of the Historical Committees of the Sandy Creek Baptist Assn. and the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina. I was motivated to do research in Baptist History by the great Black historian, Dr. Lorenzo J. Greene, of Lincoln Univ., in Missouri. It was in that research, 6 years and more than 250 sources that I stumbled across the theology of the Great Awakenings and the theology that launched the Great Century of Missions, the theology that was preserved among Black churches more than among White Southern Baptists, the theology of Sovereign Grace. Everyone will think I am only interested in making a bunch of Calvinists by what I am saying. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I am interested in is the answer to Free Fall, namely, a Third Great Awakening for which I have been praying since the Fall of 1973, when I addressed the Pastors Prayer Meeting of the Sandy Creek Baptist Assn. on the subject, A Great Awakening. I was privileged to address the meeting on its fifth and tenth anniversaries on the subject, A Third Great Awakening. What we need to stop the free fall of which Dr. Finn m writes is to implement a prayer meeting venue like to that of William Carey, Andrew Fuller, and others, using the promises and guidance of Jonathan Edwards’ Humble Attempt. They were praying then for the propagation of the Gospel Among the Heathen, and they launched the Great Century of Missions or what we know as the modern missionary movements. Some of the most memorable givers that I noted in history in support of that effort were the poor slave Blacks of the old South, some of whom were of such faith that, in several cases, they were freed to preach the Gospel and in one case the African American became the pastor of a White church for about 10 years in Virginia. It is also true that they provide us with an indication that the real nature of our congregational churches is that of egalitarianism, of a qualified complementarianism, one with checks and balances, like where God told Abraham do what Sarah said concerning Hagar. Hardly, an expected reality, if the complementarianism was unconditional. Also I found where a church excommunicated a White fellow for his objections to the treatment of Blacks as equals in the church’s fellowship. It is even recorded on his tombstone. Baptists, due to the Liberal period, have forgotten their history, and many of the conservatives do not understand it. But I think better days are coming, a Third Great Awakening, one that shall take the whole world beginning, hopefully, in this generation and winning every soul on earth and continuing for a 1000 generations and reaching a million billion planets. Some of the leaders in that effort will be Black ministers, I think, as I have been praying for some to be raised up. I can think of two or three in particular, but they do not know it…as of yet.
As Adoniram Judson said at one of the darkest periods in his ministry in Burma, “The future is as bright as the promises of God.”
Just curious, you’ve been a licensed minister for 55 years, and a believer for 56? Is that a typo, or did you really progress in that fashion? Interesting…
Dr. Willingham,
Thanks for your encouraging and insightful comments.
I would like to add something if I may to this with no disrespect or ill will but there is a bigger problem looming over sbc and that is salvation in general. What we are preaching from our pulpits is not bringing forth true
repentance. The message today is that we can continue in sin but Paul said shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid! As we study Jesus message to the rich young ruler we see Jesus deliver a totally different message than today! Todays church and sbc as well would have loved to put this young man under the water for a statistic but Jesus was more
concerned with his soul. I think that we need to reevaluate our preaching compared to Jesus than compared to statistiscs or mens opinions, if Gods word is holy, infallible,inerrant as we say it is why not use it for its true purpose to lead us. Jesus took a totally different approach to evagelism than we do. He took the rich young man to God first as to the only one as good amd then of all things the Ten Commandments. Jesus showed this young man who he had offended and why! By this message we have all we need to learn how to have our pews full of people truly converted, hearts that have yruly repented. When we have this then we will see people filled of the spirot not just washed in the water. Water will not get you to heaven but the blood will. When souls are truly saved our churches will become mor than just a social club.
Rev. Tester,
Jesus preached “the gospel of the Kingdom of God.” That is a theme seldom heard in most pulpits, SBC, or otherwise. The gospel of the Kingdom is a message of repentance, for the Kingdom of God is at hand. Although biblical and expository preaching is often the style of preaching heard in many SBC pulpits, as you have noted it often lacks the heart of the message that Jesus preached.
I preached on the parables of Jesus for the past nine months, because I am determined to preach the same gospel that Jesus preached.
I am reminded that the first thing Jesus told his followers to do was to gather and wait because he was going to send the Holy Spirit. They obeyed, were both baptized and filled with the Holy Spirit and 3,000 came to faith.
We can only counterfeit the fruits of the spirit without the filling of the Holy Spirit so it strikes me that this prescription for being changed by God will effectively respond to the problems if we can figure out how to accomplish it.
I think the temptation is to do everything other than pray to be filled. I believe that is the only way you can be filled with the Holy Spirit is to appeal directly to Gid in prayer for that to be accomplished.
I further believe that obedience to precisely what God directly leads you to do via the still, small voice is the way to respond to that filling and to avoid grieving the Holy Spirit. I further believe that the greatest impediment to being filled with the Spirit and directly empowered by God is pride in the past.
It cannot be a small thing for a pastor who plants a successful church to admit that the church is in–as Paul noted about Corinth and Dwight is noting about Cornerstone–a heart struggle. It is hard for me when I see myself or my wife or my kids struggling with the opposite of the fruits of the spirit: anger, bitterness, depression, selfishness, divisiveness, and so forth. I feel personally responsible when I see those things because I lead our household spiritually and I am accountable to God for the spiritual condition of my house.
I appreciate Dwight’s continuing heart cry to us for us to take more seriously the opportunity of the indwelling and empowerment of the Holy Spirit as our first step in correcting course regarding the direction the churches associated together as the Southern Baptist Conventiin are headed. I don’t view his prescription as onerous nor improper. Just as Jesus’sburden is light, I’ve always been taught that we are in a yoke with the Holy Spirit and this is the primary means by which God bears our burdens: because one partner in a yoke always provides the most power but BOTH must pull in the same direction or that power is ineffective.
I know I could use more of the dynamos power of the Holy Spirit in my life today, right this very second.
Greg,
Amen and thanks for your commentary. Your commentary is always clear, and sometimes convicting and convincing. You said some things here that caused me to read and ponder what you were saying. And that is a good thing.
I don’t think “free fall” can be justified in any sense other than hyperbole, but I’ll read what he has to say.
I think you are correct in the “hyper-complementarianism” paragraph. No one is fighting this but my sense is that churches are just choosing not to be as supportive and involved in SBC stuff as before and this is one of many causes.
Is a call for all to be filled with (in, with, by) the Spirit something more than a call for those who have been saved, baptized in, with, by the Holy Spirit to be obedient Christians, walking with Christ moment-by-moment?
William,
Your perception is correct sir: The call to be filled is nothing more, and certainly not nothing less than “those who have been saved, baptized in, with, by the Holy Spirit to be obedient Christians, walking with Christ moment-by-moment.”
Dwight:
You said:”We abandoned the bold mission thrust for the inerrancy battle.”
What a true statement.
Who else in the SBC will admit that bold mission thrust vanished almost over night because of the inerrancy battle?
I also believe what I hear you saying is some serious repenting is necessary in the SBC and yes that very much so includes me.
Tom,
The more I ponder the idea that I believe Bart Barber or Dave Miller proposed regarding holding a prayer meeting on the Saturday preceding the SBC annual session in Baltimore next June–the more I like that idea. I would suggest that if such a prayer meeting is held after prayers of adoration to God are expressed, we then offer prayers of repentance for the sins and failures of our churches and our nation. The Bible says that “judgement begins in the house of God.” In order for our nation to get right, the church must first get right. What better place to start than with the SBC asking God to show us our sins and offering prayers of repentance. Your perceptions are correct sir; the SBC need to lead the way in offering prayers of repentance. It cpi;d bring healing to the SBC. And on this cite it is an unpopular thing to say, but one of the places to begin is the SBC conservative reaching out in an effort to heal and reconcile with the SBC moderates. The SBC moderates need to reach out to reconcile and heal the breech with the SBC conservatives.
At the end of the day we will still have some differences, but we need to affirm each other as brothers and sisters on the Lord, and express the areas where there are commonalities, mutual respect, and love. I am appalled by the fact that a conservative would refer to a moderate as “filth.” This needs to be repented of. And as one who has been identified as a conservative–though I prefer the label-Kingdom Citizen–I certainly express regrets and apologies that there are those among those who wear the title conservative that would harbor and express such vitriol. If this prayer meeting is held, I sure wish the planners would invite moderates to participate. The SBC and the world needs to see this display of love, forgiveness, and mutual repentance of unholy attitudes and acts that both sides exhibited toward one another.
Dwight,
I do not disagree that we need a season of repentance within the SBC for many things. I affirm wholeheartedly that judgment needs to begin with the household of God.
And yet, my aspiration for the prayer meeting is that it not be a day of judgment for anyone. Rather, I’d just like for us to live out 1 Timothy 2:1-2. That’s not the only sentence in the New Testament that we ought to obey. It’s not even the most important sentence in the New Testament for us to obey. It’s just that, while we’re all traveling through Washington, DC, we have a unique moment for obeying that sentence in the New Testament that most of us do not normally have.
I’d prefer that the focus of the prayer meeting remain upon that sentence, not because there are not other agendas that could be worthwhile, but because I think that the addition of other items would ultimately result in the obscuration of the objectives of 1 Timothy 2:1-2. I don’t want it to get lost in the mix.
We abandoned the bold mission thrust for the inerrancy battle.
Well, since that thrust would have been for the spreading of the gospel according to the likes of David Goshee and Bruce Presscot I along with most Southern Baptists are MORE than thankful for that trade. I am also very thankful for the pain caused and harm done to those that opposed the battle for inerrancy.
Joe: For a Christian, which I don’t deny that you are, you say the most anti-Christian things I have ever seen in the Christian blogosphere. You continually post about how you enjoy the pain and suffering of those you perceive to be your enemies. That isn’t right. It cannot be justified. You need to stop.
Dwight, there are some battles worth fighting. Paul took on battles with those who perverted the gospel or who advocated what was false.
I will go to my grave thankful that the SBC did not simply drift in the tide of liberalism, but stood against false teachers and said we would be a bible-believing denomination.
I shudder to think where we would be today if we had not taken this stand.
I think there are a couple of mistakes we made in the fight.
1) Some became so consumed by the battle that they became “men of war.” When the CR was over, they turned their sights on those who were more contemporary, those who had different practices (the IMB BoT as an example) and Calvinism – the most notable example.
I think that there are some in the CR generation who feel they are not contending for the faith if they are not fighting against someone.
Honestly, it would be hard to be more conservative than I am, or more loyal to the CR. But I’ve been accused of being moderate more often than I can count.
2) Our biggest failing was that we “lost the peace.”
When we defeat the Axis in WWII, we then befriended those whom we defeated and helped to restore them.
There was a large contingent of conservatives who did not agree with the CR’s necessity or tactics, but were conservative nonetheless. We should have told them, “if you believe the Bible is 100% true, even if you didn’t agree with our movement, the SBC has a place for you!”
We failed in reconciliation. We failed to realize that someone could be a real, conservative Christian and not agree with the CR.
But, that being said, if we had not fought that battle, we would be in REAL free-fall like the CBF and other liberal denominations. I am forever glad we are not there.
Dave:
I would like to make one more comment and then bow out of this discussion.
You said:”I will go to my grave thankful that the SBC did not simply drift in the tide of liberalism, but stood against false teachers and said we would be a bible-believing denomination.
I shudder to think where we would be today if we had not taken this stand.”
My response–I will go to my grave always wondering what happened to the great SBC that once was but then began disappearing because of the unending hunt to remove the “liberals”.
I shudder at what has brought the SBC to its current position of decline.
No, I will not blame all of the decline on the Takeover, but it is a major cause of the decline IMO.
Tom Parker and all,
Are you/we really sure that the SBC is in a true decline? It seems that when several factors are examined and then comparisons with denominations which have actually decline over the last half century that we, the SBC have many manifestations of life still in the body beyond the standard measurement of numbers alone.
I am in no way declaring we do not have problems. We do. Yet, it seems to me that Southern Baptists are refusing to surrender our “Flag” during an evident time of cultural shift in both North America and the world-at-large.
This past Lottie Moon offering was one of the biggest on record.
John Wylie,
That is true in spite of the financial woes of the country and rising unemployment.
I noticed the CBF’s missions offering were more than 2 million dollars less than it was in 2011 when they lost over 20% of their missionary support.
All I’m saying is if the SBC is in decline because of conservatism why is the CBF in a much steeper decline?
I agree! I’ve said many times in discussions and on this blog that I’m not convinced the handwringing, weeping and gnashing of teeth over an imminent decline of the SBC is premature at best but has the potential to be a self fulfilling dooms day prophecy.
The comparing of our baptism and membership numbers today (during a time of tremendous and necessary focus on soteriology and regenerate church membership) to periods of easy believism and country club church membership mentality is not appropiate statistical practice.
I with you…we have our problems but – “stories of our demise are greatly exaggerated”.
Ooooppppsssss…. I AM CONVINCED (instead of “not convinced”.
I’m trying to get a shorter version written of a post-CR perspective on the whole thing. Here’s my situation: I was 3 when the CR “started” so it’s an historical event to me.
Not a life event. I know it has effects, but I do not know a Southern Baptist Convention that is not inerrantist. Anyway, I think there is an overemphasis on the CR, the warriors of the CR as the heroes, and the end-result is that those of us who had no part are pushed to the edges. Especially if we dare to question the methods, though we may like the result.
I’m with you: we needed a Marshall Plan idea for moving forward. Instead, we rolled over into a Cold War and find continuing proxy wars to get involved with.
Doug, you hit the nail on the head. It is just an “historical event” for you, not a “life event.” That makes all the difference. If you are “pushed to the edges” I would submit it is because you perhaps have not earned a right to disparage our heroes and you are benefiting from the efforts of those you “question.”
As a veteran, I see this type of discussion in regard to warriors all the time. It is easy for a “warrior” to question the “questioning” of someone who benefits from the warrior’s efforts but condemns the warriors methods. I understand, all war is imprecise and messy.
I’m not accusing you of such, necessarily, but only expanding on your own confession. I think it was George Orwell who said, “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
I think this is sort of what happens with me in regard to my discussions of race with a distinguished black gentleman who occasions this blog. For me, slavery is a “historical event” and discrimination is not a “life event.” You have put an explanation on where the tension in these types of conversation sometimes arises.
I don’t fault you for being 3 years old when the CR began, anymore than I accept fault for not being alive during our slavery days. That’s just a fact. But, it is an “important” fact as I have come to learn through interactions here on Voices. I think you speak wisely, even if you may not fully comprehend the depth of your wisdom.
Again, I am not making any charge against you personally, but trying to pick up and process your distinction between “historical event” and “life event.”
Please do not take offense.
Wow.
Don’t take offense that I don’t have the right to question the methods of the CR?
Don’t take offense that I don’t have the right to speak to what happens in the SBC?
Sure.
And when the rest of my generation continues to not take offense and not have a voice, what will you have left?
It is an historical event. Too many of the decisions in the current SBC are made by those who assert their right to do so simply because they were “foot soldiers for the CR” and not because their decisions are reasonable, intelligent, or Scripture based. Simply because they took part in the actions that, looking back, need to be examined.
And to accuse me of disparaging the “heroes” of the CR? At what point have I done that?
“Please do not take offense” at being told to, essentially, keep silent about the SBC?
No thank you. I’ll take offense just fine.
Doug,
OK. I gave you too much credit. I went out of my way to say that it is not the “questioning” of a warrior, but doing so without a deep appreciation for the benefits you enjoy at the expense of that warrior.
It is obvious that you did not mean what you said, or as I said, you do not fully understand the depth of your wisdom in distinguishing the difference between an “historical event” and a “life event.”
You are the one that disparaged those involved in the CR as “an overemphasis on them being heroes.” I will tell you I know some of the foot soldiers in that battle and they were indeed, heroes. That is no overemphasis.
In fact, I lost a two churches and my family home by taking a stand against “self-defined moderates.” I know people who paid that price and much more. Show me who was looked up to as a hero of the CR that was not a devout, godly, sacrificial man of God.
It is clear, you do not know what it means to be a “veteran” of anything. You do not know what it meant to be a “foot soldier” in the CR. I also, have not seen any action of the Convention taken in the last ten years or so, and could go back further, where a person asserted, “You must do it my way because I was involved in the CR.”
I could be mistaken. I don’t follow the Convention politics anymore. In fact, I’ve stated on voices that I would not be involved in the CR, or any similar movement today, because all the gains of one generation are lost as soon as a generation comes along for which the war is “just a historical event.”
There would be no SBC for you to question if it were not for the CR–at least nothing of the SBC that we see today. If you want to see where the SBC would be today, look at the CBF.
So, let me say, “thank you,” to those who sacrificed much, were bloodied greatly, to provide “peaceable bed you sleep in each night.”
That attitude is why the SBC declines among the next generation.
And you did charge me personally. You stated that I have not “earned the right” and deserve “pushed to the edges.”
That’s personal. It’s insulting. It demeans the efforts that I have made to strengthen the SBC because they do not match your standards.
No, you are parsing my words to mine for an offense.
OK. You have it. As I said in my answer, I believe I gave you too much credit.
But, because I know what it means to sacrifice in a fight for people who only see that fight as an “historical event” worthy of nothing more than analysis, I will give you the last word.
As a military veteran I’ve often had to endure criticism of those for whom I fought to give the right to criticize.
Now, not only am I insulting your SBC experience but your military experience.
I have dealt with my share of issues in this convention, and yes, most of them have been negative and then justified by those who did it as they claimed authority from being “foot soldiers” in the CR. Therefore, they could not be wrong.
So comfort yourself by calling me stupid, as you have done. I am reading your words for what they are: the words of a person who desires that anyone who disagrees with him to bow before his superior experience and go sit down and shut up.
You said initially that your accusations were not supposed to be taken personally, but you have certainly made it so. I will now take myself who you “gave too much credit” and go out to the “edges” where I belong.
I owe Frank an apology here—I failed to articulate my respect for those who did sacrifice to keep us from plummeting into the depths. My words did not communicate that respect appropriately.
For that I am sorry.
Dave,
You may be correct in your analysis. I don’t know. Because I didn’t grow up SBC perhaps I look at things a little differently.
The horse is out of the barn now, so nothing is going to change what is. However, I don’t buy the belief that we could not have lived together under the same tent. The BGCT is still a part of the SBC. I believe the the SBC would have been healthier and whole had the split not taken place.
Men like yourself, Adrian Rogers, Paige Patterson, Judge Pressler etc., and certainly Bart Barber would have kept the SBC from going off the rails into liberalism. There was a way to correct what was wrong without the destruction, ill will, and broken relationships that were caused. No one side is innocent by the way.
I know pastors who will publicly state that they are inerrantists, bit they believe that the CR was more about power than theology; therefore they did not side with the conservatives. To have isolated and alienated those pastors was not good from my perspective.
The CR was also about certain preferred interpretations of Scripture, as much as it was about inerrancy. I believe that is why we still don’t have unity and solidarity in the SBC because the CR was more about uniformity rather than unity.
The notion that if we had not split the SBC would be a liberal, gay affirming, egalitarian, abortion on demand affirming, and pacifist denomination is hyperbole from my perspective. That would not have happened.
Finally, I recall a professor at OBU in Arkadelphia, Ar., where I finished saying, “The Bible is a Divine-human encounter. It is perfect on the Divine side, but subject to error on the human side.” That is liberalism if I ever heard liberalism. I immediately rejected his view of the Bible, because my pastor was a strong inerrantist and had drilled us into an inerrantist mind set. So I understand fully that a problem existed, but we could have and should have resolved the problem short of a split. Now that we have split, there needs to be a gathering to acknowledge the sins on both sides, seek forgiveness, acknowledge our differences and move on.
Our disagreement here is really only one of degree. I agree fully (as I said above) that there was a lot of CR overkill. Too often, it was not about inerrancy, but about whether one agreed with the CR agenda.
From my college years, I am sure that the CR was necessary and I am glad it happened.
Could it have been done better? Could it have been carried out without some of the collateral damage that was done? Probably. Were there personal agendas involved? Unfortunately – human beings seldom leave their power agendas completely behind.
So, we agree about inerrancy and the need to uphold it. And we agree that things were done that shouldn’t have. Our disagreement is about, it seems, the extent of the problem and the justice of the solution.
We are not at 0 and 100. More like 45-55, if you catch my drift.
Also, I think it is a little too easy to say, “The SBC’s numerical issues in 2013 are because of the CR in the 1980s.”
I think the CR contributes, but the real issue in the SBC is that we were part of the culture of the South in the 50s and 60s. The culture changed, we tended to stay the same and because of that, we now tend to be culturally anachronistic.
I think that it is a little too easy, and probably inaccurate, to draw a line between the CR and the current numerical problems. There are some other reasons – and I think reasons that are more probably at the root – than simply saying, “the CR caused it.”
By the way, Ed Stetzer (I think it was) had some interesting stats showing that the decline has actually been 50 years in the making – since the 60s – long before the CR.
Dave, this is a good analysis.
I had a conversation last night with one of my Associate Pastors. He is a young twenty-something with two babies, a background that is foreign to Southern Baptist life, and a real heart for missions.
He is also my son-in-law.
We both agree our church (First Baptist) must change, and in fact is changing. I say that with a bit of a lump in my throat. My SBC is aging. My SBC is in hospice. But, “the” SBC still has the opportunity to affect a new generation or two (or maybe three or more). But, we have to come to grips with the fact, as you say, “the culture changed and we tended to stay the same.”
I’m not quite ready for the pasture, yet. I am ready to help a new generation of leadership rise up and take charge. Hopefully, maybe they will come by the pasture ever now and again and bring me some oats.
The battle for verbal inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility was a necessity from the view point. I saw ministers who were ruined for Gospel preaching by the departure from Scripture. The Jesus who was to be the one by whom we judged the Bible was what anyone wanted to conjure up out of his own mind and heart, whereas the only Jesus we can truly know and have for a model was the one who stood for the Bible as the word of God speaking to mankind in every generation whether they listen or not. There is also truth in factor about the way we win our battles; if we are harsh, hateful, and hidebound, we but sow the seed for future discord. Reconciliation is a part of the package; we must learn how to win people to our view point with the truth alone, not be force. Make no mistake about the conflict still going on; it is between naturalism and supernaturalism of the biblical kind, but the winning of this battle will take lifetimes of commitments, years of research, the willingness to use the mind, a respect for the fact that God does address the intellect, contrary to popular opinion, that supernaturalism attends as the blessing on the willness and the effort of continued investigations and reflections on the realities involved.
Dave,
You are correct. The decline began years ago and follows the cultural decline in America pretty closely.
The SBC is full of dead churches that are churches in name only and has been for a long time. There is nothing “corporate” that can be done about those places. I think we waste time even typing about them. We all know they exist. They are groups that became so inward in their focus that they are simply clubs controlled by a few and determined to not upset the controlling group. We ought to wipe the dust off our feet with them move on. In these places one cannot find a desire to anything other than what the group desires.
Our focus should be placed on those that have signs of life and are seeking to be faithful in reaching people and to disciple them. Not much emphasis is placed here at all. And when it is, the bureaucracy of our system wants to control any and all work.
And what about the large amount of new plants that have begun. Is there any sign of life in them? This is an honest question. If a new church plant is not reaching out quickly these days, the plant can only grow to a certain limited size – it gets labeled and tagged within a three year time frame.
And then how do we navigate this discussion when there are those (even on this site often) telling us to not look at local numbers but wanting to point to the corporate numbers?
Dwight mentioned Bold Mission Thrust. In those days numbers mattered because numbers are people! And it is people that we are to be reaching!
The reality is that a huge percentage of people in times past went to church on Sunday out of habit, due to social/family pressure, to socialize, for moral instruction, or because they equated going to heaven with their attendance. This was aided in a lot of areas by the tendencies of a lot of businesses in many areas to be closed on Sunday. In other words, it was a cultural thing.
Now the culture has changed. Probably the easiest way to tell is how people will walk or drive right by a church while screaming curse words or playing loud raunchy music on their car stereos. 20-30 years ago even the worst sort of people would have never done such a thing. Another example: not so long ago when a person or family had to move to a new city, one of the first questions asked was “what are the good churches in the area?” Not so anymore.
If you remove the societal pressure/expectation for going to church, and if there are now a lot more places to go and things to do especially if you live in a suburban/urban area (the rural population has been in steep decline for awhile now), going to heaven is no longer tied to church attendance and you can be your own source of morals/ethics or “being a good person” without having that dictated to you by a religious structure or authority, then why attend?
It may well be that the SBC itself was never responsible for the high attendance numbers to begin with. Instead the culture might have been. So the SBC needs to adapt and find another way of “doing church” in a context where the culture isn’t practically bringing people to your doorstep anymore, but instead is a culture that is growing increasingly hostile to your very existence.
And incidentally, churches that aren’t strict inerrantists or strict complementarians aren’t doing so hot either. Not only that, we Baptists are never going to be able to compete with what the Pentecostal churches offer (health and wealth prosperity doctrines, worship services as entertainment, the emotional crutch that their extra-Biblical special revelations and the self-induced ecstatic states that they refer to as “being in the spirit” and “speaking in tongues”) so no use trying to do even part of it. Going Pentecostal lite won’t help the SBC because folks who want what Pentecostalism offers will always choose the real thing.
Job,
I appreciate your thoughts on this subject. Being Spirit-filled is not being “Pentecostal-lite” it is being obedient to the Scripture; “Be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
BMT was under way when I was in seminary in the late 1970s. It did get overshadowed by the CR but we continued to increase offerings and send more to the fields. There is no question that the exit of some moderates and the reversion of many others to a more passive SBC participation had an impact on the CP. That impact is not sufficient in my view to account for the slow slog downward of SBC baptisms, a half-century trend.
Of course, CR leaders said we were about to blast into the baptismal stratosphere. We manifestly did not. Demographics have a way of bringing things down to earth.
I have a blog piece in mind, “How the moderates were right” but I don’t think Dave has the guts to use it. 😉
Dave has more guts in his little finger than many of us have in our large intestine…including the colon!
I’d run it, then refute it!!
I encourage William to submit it. Dave will only refute the parts that are clearly incorrect anyway. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, or so the old saw goes.
I absolutely agree with William. The moderates were right . . .
“to go and do their own thing on their own dime.”
William Thornton,
That will be an interesting post. The comment thread may be surprising in its content.
John Wylie observes correctly that Lottie has almost recovered to pre-economic meltdown levels. It is doing better than the CP which is down 2% YTD compared to the same period last year.
My thinking is that SBCers are catching the vision for NAMB’s church planting and are getting more serious about the IMB, since LM is up and CP is down.
While I recognize we are not a growing denomination, I’m not preparing for suppuku.
What we need here is a little spiritual optimism.
With so many changes in idealogical methods along with some theological implementation, CP giving may stay down while LM may surge!
Interestingly, CP is down for the year but is on-track for the budget. Did we get common sense involved in planning?
I’m inclined to think the same thing: IMB is seeing an increase in support overall from churches and individuals. There hasn’t been a major controversy with them in a few years, while there have been several questions raised re: NAMB and some seminaries.
I think it opens up this question: are churches moving away from the CP while still keeping the support in the SBC family? It will be interesting to see end-of-the year situations for the states as well as the SBC. I know of at least a small handful of churches that are trimming CP and adding a budgeted give to Lottie Moon and their state missions offering. Total missions is staying the same–essentially they are upping the amount of their “Great Commission Giving” that goes to their in-state work and the out-of-the-country work.
These are smaller churches, so it’s likely no real impact will be felt, but if we see that grow, it will be interesting.
Doug, I’ve noticed that the XComm works hard to put a positive spin on languishing and declining CP receipts. I commend them for being forthright with the numbers every month.
The only problem with that position is that the numbers don’t tell the story of the purchasing value of the underlying currency at all. Which isn’t to say the sacrifice wasn’t still worthwhile nor is it to suggest God can’t make up for whatever shortfall is there with his own, personal power. Just a suggestion that we practice great care in talking about numbers of any kind.
My point was the comparison between CP and LM giving. If the former is down and the latter up, inflation adjustments would be the same for both.
Yep–and that the issue at stake is not churches being unwilling to fund missions. The communications from some corners of SBC life seem to suggest not funding CP is not funding missions, but it’s hard to say that churches that cut CP but up LM are either abandoning the common missions cause or abandoning missions at all.
The rhetoric tends to be corrective more than persuasive. That needs to change.
Well, the thought I actually was chasing was that no matter which area recovers, unless the recovery accounts for inflation, then it isn’t the same purchasing power. I wasn’t paying attention to the up v. down comparison to be honest.
I agree with Doug that there is a hint of browbeating in the GCR and so forth. I don’t think that works. And I’m not sure it should work. It tends to smell of man rather than God.
Doug,
You have hit on one key subject-people in the churches are viewing CP in the same manner as the national economy. This is not new. I began hearing this in the 90’s and with the “close to originator” generation passing from this life or moving out of church leadership due tonhealth and age, the younger generations are revealing that a gap existed in CP passion-it never caught on with the younger ones-on average. Pastor influence played a key role. But add to that the increase in para-church ministries and missions and you have a CP perfect storm.
The adoption of the GCR giving label equals trouble for CP. it will not change in my lifetime. I am planning a post on this in the coming weeks. It is not a pretty picture.
Tim, I look forward to your piece. I haven’t seen any GCG stats that demonstrate anything negative about that new category.
There is a lack of passion in many churches that I know out here in rural areas. Grandpa was convinced it was great, Dad didn’t want to mess with Grandpa’s tradition, but now Son wants to know why we can’t use that budget percentage for other projects. And this is from churches that run double-digit budget percents for CP. It’s a habit, not a passion, and when there is something to chip a bit away here and there, it gets embraced. Especially if it’s something that draws enthusiasm.
The stats are not the issue – its the change in effections that people have for local, hands on ministries. It will show up in stats soon IMHO. Post should be out next week.
I don’t see the statistical decline now occurring in the SBC as a “free fall.” It’s not even close to what groups like the mainline denominations have experienced since the 70’s, and it appears to be as much a demographic issue as it is a spiritual one. I think Dr. McKissic’s analysis of some things, particularly what Southern Baptists have become known for, as opposed to what the Bible says Christians should be known for, have had some effect.
I’ll be interested to see Ed Stetzer’s statistical analysis come out. I’ve noticed a few things myself. If you look at the numbers, membership declines are occurring in those states where there are large numbers of SBC churches and church members. The denomination has saturated the upper middle class populations of the South, and the suburbs of Southern cities. Some of what Dr. McKissic noted may be at work here. Where Southern Baptists are in the majority, the membership is declining. Maybe the reputation we have among out neighbors needs to be improved.
Another thing I have noticed is that, while we are impressed with mega churches and their leaders, “intoxicated by numbers” as an old professor of mine used to say, the growth of mega churches corresponds, in most communities, with the decline of other churches. Mega churches as a rule baptize far fewer people per capita than smaller churches do. So if a mega church slowly puts several smaller congregations out of business, the number of baptisms declines. If I point one church out in particular,
The places where Southern Baptist churches are growing, and the numbers are moving up are those places where church planting has been an emphasis, and the focus of resources goes into making sure new church plants have adequate support. Many of those places are outside of the deep South.
You know, I won’t nor can’t disagree with the comment about mega churches and baptisms. Anecdotally though the three most recent large churches I’ve been in (in reverse order) New Covenant Bible here, Great Hills Baptist in Austin, and the pre-Village Church FBC Highland Village between Dallas and Denton definitely had healthy baptism rates. A fourth church–Immanuel Baptist in Highland CA–had very rapid growth during the time my dad served there as associate/MinEd/administrative pastor. There was a LOT of cycling of people at that time just due to the mobility of Southern Californians but enhanced by two local Air Force bases (one in San Bernardino and one in Riverside).
What I do remember in San Bernardino was that Rob preached the Bible and the church drew people in–sometimes from other churches–because of the clarity of the preaching. I know for a fact that there was no intentional strategy to pull people in from other churches. So I’ll offer that while SOME megas might pad numbers, it might be simply because those who go to them are excited about their churches and tell others about them.
I guess Occam’s Razor applies: the simple explanation is usually the correct one.
I’d also note that the phenomenon of small church to large church matches the move from rural to urban/suburban areas. Perhaps people who live in cities prefer larger institutions whether it’s stores or banks or restaurants? And there is also the question of whether it is appropriate to have multiple congregations in a city or not. SBs traditionally have them, though if I were a betting man, I’d wager that some significant portion of congregations in cities are more the result of unplanned fission than intentional planting.
With all of that said, the propensity for us to find things to argue over should cause us to really think hard about how we directly address that propensity. It is not something that is particularly consistent with the Bible other than in the negative example sense. This is where I believe Dwight’s prescriptive offering could actually be especially helpful.
Ever prune a tree to make it healthier?
After pruning, does it have less wood?
Yet it is healthier!
Which is better….
A greater number of people in a church, many who only think they are saved, or…
A smaller number of people in a church, where most are truly saved?
Are we the ones who add daily to the church? Are we the ones who save? or…
Are we called to be witnesses for Jesus, and leave the results up to Him?
As individuals, we need to walk in the Spirit, which means in obedience.
Which means staying in the Word, in prayer, and in fellowship.
I suggest we do not worry about the size of the SBC. All man made organizations will fall.
Rather, we have a king to serve… and to trust.
Pastor McKissic said:
We are known for “spiritual gift(s) profiling”—singling out certain gifts of the Spirit to enact an emotional prejudice against. This defies all logic, rationality and the plain simple reading and understanding of Scripture. When will we appreciate and affirm all the gifts of the Spirit? –
and said,
Even to the dismay of some, most SBC churches have members and some leaders who regularly pray, praise and give thanks in their private devotions in tongues (I Cor. 14)
Speaking in tongues-in-private is not one of the listed gifts of the Spirit. If one goes by the lists and what is said in the Bible, speaking tongues in private is not a spiritual gift at all. In fact, it isn’t even Biblical.
If there is an emotional prejudice involved here, it is for an un-Biblical personal experience. This personal non-spiritual gift [at least one not mentioned in the Bible] has no grounds being affirmed as Biblical in our public discourse, whether from the pulpit, in our Bible studies, or in any other communications we make, like our blogs.
If anyone can faithfully do it in their prayer closet, then that is between them and God and the rest of us should know not of it.
If churches leave the SBC or fail to join because they want to preach un-Biblical experiences as Biblical truth, should we but pray for them and encourage them to adhere to sound Biblical teaching?
You throw around the term unbiblical as if you have given evidence to the same.
You base this on the assumption that it is not mentioned in a list. Which list is the definitive one? Did Paul forget which ones go where because the lists differ?
You assume ther is an exhaustive list.
You also assume that the gift of tongues is limited to your interpretation. It can and has been argued the gift of tongues has a broader expression than Acts 2.
I would counter your argument by simply saying it is unbiblical.
This is always where the discussion ends up. You are free to propose that persons like myself be excluded from fellowship in the SBC. So far aside from NAMB and IMB this has not been proposed.
If it were to be proposed I think the outcome would be surprising
Frank,
I proposed nothing like excluding anyone from the SBC.
You said,
“You assume ther is an exhaustive list. ”
Let us say that there is not an exhaustive list. But still we can say two other things which back me up and go against a personal private Biblical gift of the Spirit tongues prayer language.
First, it isn’t in the Biblical list. Thus we can not preach or teach that it is a Biblical gift of the Spirit. If it is a gift of the Spirit to be used when alone in one’s prayer closet then should those who have it teach it as from the Bible? Uh… nope.
Second, it doesn’t meet the Biblical criteria for a spiritual gift. It is a personal thing, not a common thing. And it is nor can be used or employed in the serving of others. And we are told that it does not edify others. Specifically told that.
Does God need a special language in order to be able to discern your prayer and thus aid the rest of the body? Nope. And neither foes the Word tell us that He does.
Now as the gift of tongues being limited to my interpretation, that is only true IF I mirror what the Bible says.
OR Frank, can we all just choose to have our own private interpretations of every gift, or tenet or doctrine?
For example…
“Based on my own experience,” someone has probably said, “homosexual marriage is a godly love.”
Is such a statement Biblical? Nope.
So where is the line to be drawn?
Well should it not be drawn where the Bible draws it?
So give me the Biblical case for your position.
Why. You are convinced I would be wrong. Your mind is made up. Nothing you write even suggests you are open to any other view.
I would bet you have never heard a message in tongues with the interpretation in your Baptist church. That’s in your list. Why don’t you observe it?
How about a word of knowledge? I really believe there is more to your position than the proper use of tongues.
Am I wrong? I know this is usually the case.
You throw around the term unbiblical as if you have given evidence to the same.
You base this on the assumption that it is not mentioned in a list. Which list is the definitive one? Did Paul forget which ones go where because the lists differ?
You assume ther is an exhaustive list.
You also assume that the gift of tongues is limited to your interpretation. It can and has been argued the gift of tongues has a broader expression than Acts 2.
I would counter your argument by simply saying it is unbiblical.
This is always where the discussion ends up. You are free to propose that persons like myself be excluded from fellowship in the SBC. So far aside from NAMB and IMB this has not been proposed.
If it were to be proposed I think the outcome would be surprising
Frank,
You may say my argument is unBiblical.
But that is not the same as either showing it is unBiblical,
or showing your position as Biblical.
Which I encourage you to do if you so desire and are able.
The Bible is where we get our instructions and derive our understandings. personal experience is valuable at times but must always be examined in the light that the Word of God shines on it.
Since I desire to side with the Word, I by all means, will be open to your teaching based on it. And i welcome a brotherly discussion on its truths.
Dwight has placed all the Scripture’s in view as have many others.
The point with this discussion, in this century as in the last, is that both sides use many of the same Scriptures but approach them quite differently.
One of the most helpful–among many–scholars in regard to a fair approach to the texts is Wayne Grudem. I like Dr. Grudem’s approach because he is a first-rate scholar, but he writes in a way that does not require I have my Greek Primer on Syntax at the ready.
It is quite clear that there is an “angelic” language so that tongues, if you translate that as languages, must include languages not spoken on earth, nor spoken even by humans.
Also, if you take the hard-line position that Acts 2 limits all expressions of the gift to men speaking to men in a known, yet unlearned language, then you have a problem.
Acts 2:11, when the apostles are heard speaking in tongues, are not speaking “to” the crowd, but are speaking praise to God for His magnificent works. Peter does not address the crowd until verse 14.
This is a portion of the Acts narrative that is overlooked by those that take a hard-line position limiting tongues to communication between men for the purpose of evangelism. When Peter spoke to the crowd, there is no indication that he did so in any other language than his own.
I always assumed they did evangelism in tongues and each man heard the gospel message and were saved when they heard the message. That is: the evangelism took place in verse 11. In fact, the evangelistic message begins in verse 14.
This is just one instance of how the tongues issue has been slanted by one side. Of course it would take volumes to outline each text.
My argument goes to another issue: even those who argue for a “biblical” (code word for opinion that agrees with mine) approach to the gifts of the spirit, including tongues, see no operation of those gifts in their worship services.
Set tongues aside for the time being. Have you heard many prophecies lately? Any word of knowledge? Anyone lame walking, dumb speaking or deaf hearing? Any message in tongues with an interpreter?
Could it be that we use the issue of “tongues” as a “whipping boy?” Are we missing the “big picture?”
I confess to inadequacy in regard to proving anything along the lines of the miraculous, including the manifestations of the Spirit. That is why I am involved in this conversation late at night when I should be in bed.
But, if you believe your postion is a “desire to side with the Word,” as opposed to mine as a desire to elevate experience to the level of inspiration, then we are never going to have much of a conversation.
We will both be the lesser for seeking such a dichotomy.
Frank,
Thanks for a reasonable response.
Nothing in Acts 2: 11 helps the case that declares that the gifts of tongues are legitimately done in private.
My position is not that tongues were used only for a #strict# Gospel message. So your objection there has nothing to do with what I am saying.
But consider this possible scenario from Acts 2. The various people heard the disciples praising and giving thanks to God in their own languages so that their attention was drawn to the speakers so that when Peter preached the good news of Jesus, they were listening. Thus it was a sign from God that this new message was from Him.
And whether or not tongues can include angelic languages or languages not spoke on earth by earthlings still does nothing against my point that tongues is to be practiced in fellowship with others and never privately when alone.
It is there Frank, that neither you, nor Dwight, nor anyone has shown that speaking while alone in tongues is a proper manifestation of the gift.
Does that mean one shouldn’t speak in tongues when alone? That I am not saying, but only if one does so it is between them and God and should stay between them and God. As we are told in Romans 14:
22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.
So if one has a private prayer language and is convinced that God has supplied it and approves of it, may he stay happy in that place. But that does not mean he has the right to tell others he is speaking in the Spirit given Biblical gift of tongues.
Again Frank, if there is any place in the Bible that tells us that the Spirit given gifts of tongues can be used alone privately then by all means cut and paste the evidence and I will certainly go over it.
BUT what every argument does is FIRST assume that such a usage is Biblical and then tries to stretch the Word to back it up. That is an improper way to gain and understand God’s truth.
Parsonsmike,
It seems to me the clearest answer to your challenge to Frank is 1 Cor. 14:2 & 28. But we seem to disagree on the proper interpretation of these verses, and, more specifically the context that would lead Paul to say what he said in these verses. I can agree there are some challenges involved in getting to the bottom of this. But I think it is unwarranted to keep demanding scriptural evidence for a personal prayer language, when various of us on various occasions have pointed to these verses. Yes, the interpretation is contested, but it is not correct to say the NT says nothing at all about PPL. In the meantime, I will continue to present my evidence for my understanding of 1 Cor. 14:2 & 28 in other comments.
David,
The Gift of Tongues is mentioned with other gifts of the Spirit.
When these Gifts are spoken of together, their purpose and usage are the same: Peter says as each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. And Paul says, but to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. And in reference to tongues specifically, Paul says, one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.
Thus the Word of God says, and not my own personal interpretation, that the Gift of Tongues is to be used in serving others and for the common good, and such usage includes interpretation.
So until a person deals with what God is saying, why quibble with me? Is it wrong for me to demand that our teachers and pastors and leaders use the Word of God and its OWN interpretations and not supply their own?
Now fellow citizen of the Kingdom, and brother with me of our Lord, if what I call the Bible’s interpretation is not true, please point where i have erred.
But simply asserting that we have different interpretations while I have #showed# you why yours is wrong, and you just #assert# you are right is an improper way of discussing our differences as we seek unity in doctrine and understanding.
Pastor McKissic said:
We are known for “spiritual gift(s) profiling”—singling out certain gifts of the Spirit to enact an emotional prejudice against. This defies all logic, rationality and the plain simple reading and understanding of Scripture. When will we appreciate and affirm all the gifts of the Spirit?
Now the Scripture plainly tells us that the gifts of the Spirit are to be used in service of others.
1st Peter 4:
As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
and 1st Cor, 12:
4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
Like wise we are given examples in the Word of God of the gift of tongues in use, and as we all know not one example was one where it was used privately.
Does one with the gift of healing, only heal himself? Does one with the gift of miracles only perform them in private? How about apostles, prophets, and teachers, is their gift to be used for their own edification?
Rather we are told that in verse 4: One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church [1st Cor, 14].
Then how do tongues speakers edify others? Because they are to be spoken only if an interpreter is available. And they are a sign to unbelievers. That is what the Bible tells us about tongues. No where does it tell us that it is a private prayer language one does when alone. NO WHERE!
Whether they are a viable gift yet today, I do not know. But if and when that manifestation of the Spirit happens, it will be in a church with an interpreter, and never when one is alone.
First of all–statistics don’t prove anything. They have to be interpreted. Dwight has an obvious axe to grind with the SBC, so he interprets them to see what he wants to see. Big surprise there.
If you want to be in a denomination that is open to women preaching, the CBF will take you and it doesn’t matter what you believe (as long as it’s not conservative).
For anyone to suggest that inerrancy was not a battle worth fighting is patenly absurd. As far as trading the BMT for inerrancy, that is a trade I and many other SBCer’s would make every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Particularly since the gospel that would have been preached under the BMT was not the gospel that Jesus and Paul preached, the biblical gospel. Rather, it was the gospel of Rachel Held Evens, Cecil Sherman and their ilk–a false gospel that doesn’t save.
In short, if anyone is unhappy with the SBC being complimentarian (since, well, that’s what the Bible teaches), or standing for the unborn and against gay rights (since, you know, that’s the position that God takes) then my suggestion is to go join the Cooperate_with_anyone Baptist Fellowship. Their doctrinal statement could fit on a postage stamp and you find any restrive theology that could hurt your itty, bitty fee-wings.
you wont find any restrive theology that could hurt your itty, bitty fee-wings.
Sorry, missed a word in there. Added in bold.
“””Does one with the gift of healing, only heal himself?””””
Paul does not mention one who heals himself, but he does mention one who prays alone to God in tongues (I’ll let you fish for the reference).
Also, you seem to make the same error that comes up frequently: equating private with secret. They are not the same. The Bible speaks directly of praying in private. In fact, Jesus said this is the preferred method. Paul refers to praying in private to God. This does not mean “secret” as in “don’t let anyone know you pray in tongues.”
Also, you neglect the Scriptures in Acts where men pray in tongues to God and it has nothing to do with any interpretation, but is hailed by Paul as a manifestation that God has come upon these people.
Private prayer does not mean “secret prayer.” Tongues are of various kinds, not just those with message and interpreter.
Also, in Acts 2 they speak in tongues, before the evangelistic message.
Frank,
“I’ll let you find the reference.”
There is no reference.
“Also, you neglect the Scriptures in Acts where men pray in tongues to God and it has nothing to do with any interpretation, but is hailed by Paul as a manifestation that God has come upon these people. ”
here is the passage from Acts 19:
It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.
When one interprets tongues it becomes… prophesying.
Certainly praying in private or secret is a godly means of communicating with God. But it isn’t the Gift of Tongues even if one is speaking in an unknown tongue. The Biblical gift of tongues is a gift given by the Spirit to be used as Peter tells us:
10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. [1st Peter 4],
The gifts are to be used in serving one another.
Or as Paul tells us in 1st Cor, 12:
4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
The gifts are to be used for the common good.
But tongues by itself [without others and without interpretation] is spoken of in this way in 1st Cor 14:3-5
But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.
Thus there is no edifying of the church UNLESS there is interpretation. And obviously if one is not speaking tongues aloud there is no interpretation and no edifying of the church. Thus to speak in tongues w/o interpretation is a misuse of the gift or as others have said, not really a manifestation of the Spirit in the first place.
“””When one interprets tongues it becomes… prophesying.”””
Where does the Scripture teach this. Tongues are a separate gift from prophesy according to Paul.
“””greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.””””
“”””The gifts are to be used for the common good.””””
Most people who ask me to pray for them do so I would suspect because they perceive it to be for their “good.”
“””The gifts are to be used in serving one another.”
This goes with the one above. There is no higher service it seems than to agonize in prayer over the need of others.
“””here is the passage from Acts 19″””
But, I was referring to Acts 10. The Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles and they spoke in tongues. No interpreters. Not private. A sign that they had received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Also, nothing in the text suggests they spoke in any known tongue–at least not known to the Jews.
Thus, my view of the gift of tongues is completely compatible with the conglomerate texts dealing with the issue. All texts taken together, not a few texts taken apart.
This only addresses the misuse of one “kind” of tongue gift. Paul said there are many kinds of tongues.
Frank,
Sorry brother I got the wrong passage. If you would please put down the reference, it would help me avoid messing up.
Okay, Acts 10.
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.
Maybe they were giving Peter a grocery list? Sorry, not mean=t to offend. How did Peter know they were praising God?
And besides my point is that the Gift of Tongues is something done, not in private and not alone, but outspoken in the presence of other believers. Thus when Peter understood what the Gentiles were saying [probably praising God in his own, Peter’s, language], he, Peter was edified.
You ask:
“Where does the Scripture teach this. Tongues are a separate gift from prophesy according to Paul.”
We read in 1st Cor 14:
One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.
My answer goes to the nature of what prophesying is and what is interpreted.
But Frank, even if there is no mention of interpretation that does not mean there wasn’t any.
And besides my point is that the Gift of Tongues is something done, not in private and not alone, but outspoken in the presence of other believers.
The Word of God says that the Gift of Tongues is to be used in serving others and for the common good, and such usage includes interpretation.
That you pray for others is good. But could you not pray for them in a language you understand? If so, then how is it the Gifts of Tongues? if not, then how do you know what you are praying? Maybe you are not praying for them but praying something else? Either way a private prayer is not the Gift of Tongues.
Actually, in the narrative in I Corinthians 12-14 where Paul deals with spiritual gifts, and with tongues and interpretation in particular, he makes several references to it being both something done in public to edify the church, and something done in private to edify one’s self. Edification is not necessarily a bad thing, as believers, we are constantly in need of being edified by the Holy Spirit, and that is one of the purposes of this particular spiritual gift. In fact, as Paul outlines it, the privacy of it is a built in guarantee that it doesn’t become something in which we glory in front of others, but something by which we are encouraged in private. No one else is to know when it happens privately. 14:26-29 delineates the difference between the public practice, which Paul says should happen when everyone comes together, with an interpreter, and what should happen if the gift is present without an interpreter.
I think there is additional scriptural support for the practice in Paul’s description of Spirit-directed prayer in Romans 8:26-27. That would certainly be consistent with the use of the gift of tongues as a private prayer language.
Lee,
Thanks for your answer.
Romans 8
In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
Groanings too deep for words are the same as the Gift of Tongues? Groanings too deep for words might be a PPL but it certainly isn’t a language and this not the Gift of Tongues.
And asserting that in 1st Cor, 12-14 that the Gifts of Tongues is mentioned several places as being done in private to edify one’s self is simply wrong. No where is the Gift said to be done in private. That the speaking in tongues does edify the speaker, yes., but no mention of privacy there. That if there is no interpreter that one is to be quiet and speak to themselves and God, yes, but that is not done in private for one is in a group, and whether it is tongues or not that he is to speak to himself and God is in dispute.
Certainly no where in the Bible does it advocate speaking in tongues alone and in private. Not a single place.
Regarding “Bold Mission Thrust,” it is historically accurate to note that the Conservative Resurgence took place during the time when BMT was being promoted. It is also historically accurate, I think, to conclude that the CR, not the BMT, became the focus of the SBC during the 1980s.
But the assumption often made, and without due warrant, is that the BMT would have succeeded (or even made a significant difference) if it had received our undivided attention during the 1980s. The SBC has a long history of announcing big goals and lofty ambitions, and then not meeting them. Covenant for a New Century, Great Commission Resurgence, Great Commission Baptists, etc.
I’m not announcing my opposition to big goals and lofty ambitions. I’m not saying that Bold Mission Thrust was worthless nor am I saying that it is not possible that more might have been accomplished had it gone a different way.
I’m simply observing that it is not sound thinking to conclude that Bold Mission Thrust would have ushered in the Third Great Awakening had it been left unmolested.
Southern Baptists, from the denominational launch pad, have tried all kinds of emphases, programs, events, and themes to increase baptisms and help churches with kingdom growth, few of them having met with the kind of success that was expected. But then, the SBC is a denomination of independent, autonomous churches, and independent, autonomous institutions, agencies, associations, state conventions and a national convention.
Bold Mission Thrust came along at a time when baptisms were already in decline, and attendance growth was becoming flatlined. It had been going on for a while and hadn’t really accomplished anything. But in all fairness, no denominational emphasis that the CR has initiated has done anything, either, including the quite interesting bus tour one of the past SBC presidents undertook.
I’ve been a member of SBC churches since I was 6 years old (I’m 55 now) baptized into the membership of one long before I ever knew Jesus as my Savior. We have solid theological roots, and a highly trained group of pastors and church leaders because we have made theological education as affordable as possible, and have undertaken the responsibility for providing it, as well we should. But in all of that time, I’ve been in relatively few settings in churches where the presence of God was sought and welcomed by the worshippers. We have services that are the product of well thought out themes, choreographed praise and worship, good music, and theologically sound, Biblically focused preaching. And we proceed according to the order. We’re usually done in time for most of the seniors to get to the cafeteria by the time the Methodists and Lutherans have already been through the line. But we don’t teach our people how to seek out, and encounter, the Holy Spirit. It is a missing element in most of our churches.
As the result of a move, and a geographical relocation that put me in a county where there is no Southern Baptist church, I have been attending a small church of another denomination for the past three years. The theology is almost indistinguishable from that of the SBC churches I’ve attended, the worship is similar to what many SBC churches experience today, a small praise band singing mostly contemporary music, and the preaching is soundly Biblical. But this church is open to the Holy Spirit, and they respond when He shows up. It’s not an every week occurrence, but it does happen frequently, and when it does, people come under conviction and hearts and minds are transformed. It’s not something in the order of service, it is just something people expect, and it happens. It is manifest by a strengthening and deepening of the worship, sensed by those who are leading, by visible conviction, resulting in salvation experiences and rededications, and on occasion, by a healing, with anointing and prayer being a regular part of worship. I have not heard the gift of tongues being used, as there is not ever an interpreter present, but there have been times when a silence descends on the congregation, that the Spirit is literally a presence in the room.
“After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and spoke the word of God boldly.” Acts 4:31.
The problem most of our churches have is that they are not shaken, because they are not filled with the Holy Spirit.
Doug,
Somewhere up there you registered an apology.
I’d just like to say thank you for restoring my faith in you. As I said, I gave you much credit for being a thoughtful blogger.
You did get under my skin a bit, but that is more a weakness of mine than yours.
Take this SBC that you have been given and make it better. It’s you ballgame now. I’m confident you will do just that.