Todd Littleton blogs at “The Edge of the Inside.” There is much to consider here and much to discuss.
The Ring of Fire just gave us a tectonic shift punishing Japan with a devastating 8.9 magnitude earthquake. Tsunami waves washed over acres of land, destroying property and killing people. There will no doubt be someone with an Internet connection firing up the keyboard to announce that Japan suffered judgement for ancestor worship, or some social ill. (Paragraph 7) Quickly the suffering and pain will be marginalized as the train wreck of such wretched projections make the rounds on the Interwebs.
Meanwhile, the SBC is stirred again. What is new. Not much. Bill J. Leonard’s “prophetic” prediction for the SBC seems more and more likely despite all attempts to avoid the icebergs. Tucked away in his 1991 book, God’s Last and Only Hope, is the conjecture the Southern Baptist Convention will splinter. Because he was considered on the “wrong side,” his prognostication has largely been ignored.
Andrew Jones (a.k.a. tallskinnykiwi) recently weighed in on the Rob Bell kerfuffle. As I was pointed to the recent stir in the SBC blogosphere, where young pastors are urged to say what high profile pastors think, I could not help but think of a paragraph from Jones’ piece,
There is a power struggle going on that ventures beyond doctrinal categories and theological correctness. It’s a battle for the empire! And if you don’t understand that, you wont appreciate the intensity of the Reformed backlash. Or why John Piper broke Lausanne etiquette by veering from his script to add “eternal suffering” to his Ephesians talk in Cape Town last year. I was there. I heard the murmurrings.
You guessed it. It is the sentence in bold that came to mind. “It’s a battle for the empire!” And, in the fray between those who are young, restless, and reformed in the SBC and those who are young, Southern Baptist, and irrelevant. Sounds like a queue for DeYoung and Kluck of the “why we’re not and should be” fame. This group is a much larger group when you take into account the “traditionalists” that often feel as though they are losing the convention. The real losers are those in the excluded middle and the ignored edge.
Whitt writes admirably of his growing sense the SBC is really no longer about cooperation understood in the sense of his heritage as a Southern Baptist pastor’s son. (Albeit interesting that in his melancholic piece he notes he has served at nearly every strata of the SBC. Too many have not and do not appear dejected by it all. Still trying to find him “irrelevant” with such a resume.)
Ed Stetzer responds framing the discussion as something of a “hardly one “Pastor’s Conference” does a shift make. Like maggots to dead meat, the defenders of those two sides offer anecdotal illustrations as to why their side is right and the other side is wrong. And, the battle for the empire goes on.
Typing from my mother’s basement in my housecoat – some of you will remember the disingenuous caricature from Greensboro – I admire those who now type unabashedly from their church offices and seminary offices, or as it were entity offices. Spare me the technicalities that you too have donned your housecoat and are hiding in some clandestine hideout typing away your diatribes. Some of us who found it uncomfortable under the bus as others of our contemporaries were angling for a seat at the proverbial table. These new up and comers now write to the applauds of the power now apparently gaining traction in the SBC.
And for what. Winning the empire. But, alas, the Kingdom of God is about subverting and overthrowing the empires we make. So, I feel for Whitt. I am amused at Stetzer. (Amused in the sense that he would take time out of holding hands in a genuine way with Christian tribes from West to East to weigh in on such a mess.) Maybe Stetzer is attempting what no one has been able to do since well before the CR, Conservative Resurgence for you non-insiders, point to something bigger than “my” vision, my “wish dream.”
Bonhoeffer learned in community that his expectations must die or the community to which he desired to belong would become no community at all. Were our leaders as valiant to demonstrate this on a public, national scale, our churches would have something worthy to point to when disagreements arise within local congregations. As it is, all we can do is hope they are not reading.
Yes, the excluded middle would be represented by those quietly toiling, hand to the plow, having little interest in SBC celebrity culture and hoping to remain unstained by the glitter of the platform. I am thinking of a friend like David Phillips. As long as he was building up another’s kingdom he was quite the popular guy. For many things he was a dependable “go to” guy. His small church runs into difficulty and must reduce their CP giving and he gets overlooked. Rather than a denomination serving his struggling church, he was included so long as his church was able to give. He may well now more fit the ignored edge. Yes, it is this excluded middle that for some time has thought the battle for the empire not worth fighting, but instead have held out hope that the way of Jesus in their town might win the day when people who give themselves to follow Jesus actually look like him.
And, the ignored edge. You rightly guessed it – that is where I prefer. I am a Southern Baptist but rather than just say I am a Christian first and then fight for my Baptist heritage like it were my life’s blood, I really believe in the victory of God in Jesus, the Christ. I really believe that is the Kingdom we should pursue and for which we should keep our hand to the plow. I really believe we should live out the character of Jesus in all we do. I really believe there is no place for a pragmatic, utilitarian ethic when it comes to the hard work of living out the life of Jesus in our own lives as he would were he us.
One final thought, that is for this rant that is now too long. Many in the SBC have found David Platt’s Radical to be quite compelling, if not disturbing. I wonder why it is we cannot hear the same from Shane Claiborne. I realize he shares a different politic, but he follows the same Jesus. Maybe the real reason is we need someone in a large church, not wearing homemade clothes and dreads to get to our ears. So be it. But, let’s stop parading around battling for our vision of an empire that in the end does not merit the energy and live in those radical ways whether you prefer Armani to an untucked shirt, or you prefer a goatee to a clean shaven face.
After all, to quote Jones,
There is a power struggle going on that ventures beyond doctrinal categories and theological correctness.
Because he was considered on the “wrong side,”
Hmm, let’s see here–he works at Wake Forrest Divinity School. Therefore, he is ok working at a school that accepts homosexuals into the program. I would bet you a Hardee’s thickburger that he rejected inerrancy or at least would not consider excluding someone from fellowship who did reject inerrancy
Sounds to me like he was properly pigeon-holed.
And certainly his position on inerrancy combined with who his employer is make his historical analysis and subsequent predictions moot. He could not possibly say anything helpful and so he is properly pigeon-holed and, for you, rightly dismissed. After all, the view of a historian, any historian I suppose, is only valid if he carries an a priori commitment to inerrancy of the Scriptures.
This is reflective of the nexus of this post. And, I am wondering, you noted in another comment somewhere, “when i was in the SBC.” So, your interest is?
I didn’t say antying about his his analysis or predictions. I made the point that I was perfectly happy for him to have been marginalized since, by his theological positions and where he now works, he has demonstrated the gospel is something that’s pretty unimportant to him–regardless of whether his prodictions or historical analysis was corrent or not. I still have friends in the SBC. I also have a lot of respect for what conservatives have accomlished over the 150+ years of SBC life in missions. The church that we happen to go now is not SBC. And your point… Read more »
Joe,
I did not have a point. Just asking.
Todd, specifically, what ideas of the “excluded middle” and the “ignored edge” are being excluded and ignored?
Jared, I am not referencing an ideology. Nor do I have in mind a particular theological system. Instead, my thoughts center around the idea that for Baptists we have created a false dilemma between two poles and in the process of beating each other up for the right to name the vision, cast it, and execute it, there are a number who would as soon give their energies to King Jesus. One only need witness the difficult time carrying on a conversation before assumptions are made because someone is “liberal.” Joe has been my best illustration. I could not ask… Read more »
I think that while it is possible that Todd and I would come down on very different sides of this discussion in terms of where the SBC should go, I think he is exactly right that we are witnessing a “battle for the kingdom.”
I don’t know if it is cultural or theological or whatever, but we have pretty much lost our denominational identity and we are in a tug-o-war over how we will be redefined. Reformed. Traditional. Hipster. Megachurch. Small Church. There are so many factions right now.
Dave, Often I am left wondering why it is we must clarify before agreement that we may “disagree” at some point. It is akin to adding a “but” to an apology. I wonder if it is not the very climate I describe. For, had you simply noted your agreement, then you would then be guilty by association of other positions I might hold. And, of course, that is our first concern. That is why I prefer the edge. I don’t care what conclusions another person draws if they will not take the time to actually discuss nuances and meaning. And,… Read more »
I think I learned that in the early days of blogging when if you expressed agreements with certain people you were assumed to be a mindless supporter of all that person’s beliefs.
So, yes, I often do clarify my areas of disagreement before I express agreement. Never really psychoanalyzed it but I do think it goes back to the us-vs-them, pick-a-side debates of 2006/2007.
I wonder why it is we cannot hear the same from Shane Claiborne.
Probably because he’s a left winger and therefore doesn’t deserve to be heard. I’m sure he applauds Rob Bell’s new book.
To quote: “I would urge you to contemplate the possibility that someone could disagree with you and it not mean they are stupid or bad (not counting [Shane Claiborne]. of course).”
Joe, is it true that people who don’t agree with us on everything don’t deserve to be heard? If that’s the standard then do we deserve to be heard by God? Is it possible that Shane Claiborne is a Christian even if he is liberal? If he is, does that not make him a brother? Todd is my brother. Todd and I do not agree on everything in life. Should I quit listening to him and he to me simply because we don’t agree on everything? That just sounds ridiculous. Balaam learned something from an ass. Is it not possible… Read more »
Joe, is it true that people who don’t agree with us on everything don’t deserve to be heard? Everything? Where did I say everything? I disagree with RC Sproul on infant baptism and I am glad to listen to him. I disagree with Matt Svboda about some stuff in eschatology and I enjoyed reading his stuff here on SBC voices. The idea that just because I think it’s a good thing for left wing nutjobs like Claiborne, Bell, McLauren, folks at WF Divinity school to be marginalized and ignored does not mean that someone has to agree with me on… Read more »
Sorry Joe. I guess I missed what part of “Probably because he’s a left winger and therefore doesn’t deserve to be heard” included something. As I note to Mark below, the context of Todd’s statement and your reply is not about some liberal theological concept, but about things our own David Platt says, yet you exclude Claiborne from that conversation. So, what it sounds like, especially in light of your reply, is that Sproul deserves to be heard regarding many things excluding baptism, but exactly what is it about which you are willing to hear Claiborne, when you state he… Read more »
Well, the cousin thing is more a figure of speech—I’m not saying he’s not a Christian but more that I think of him like a cousin because, well, he’s an embarassment. As Freud said to Captain Picard “Nein, nein, nein, do not be so literal.” Secondly, you said that I meant that people who don’t agree with us on everything don’t deserve to be heard? That is not the case. I’d listen to Sproul about anything. I’d listen to him about infant baptism even. That is a position about which Christians can disagree and still be Christians. People who reject… Read more »
Joe, sometimes you can be a little scary, but what I love about you is your consistency. You have a solid grasp of your identity. You have a consistent expression of theology.
I especially love the “third cousin once removed.” That was brilliant. I also love that you do not allow people to caricature you to push you to the margins.
Brilliant post.
Frank,
My best friend from high schoo, a dude I’ve known for 30 years or more, and I were talking one day. I told him “Scott, I’m grumpy, ill tempered, and…I’m just difficult for anybody to get along with.” He said, matter of factly, “Well….yeah, but that’s just you.”
Like Popeye, I am what I am. 🙂
Paul,
Your comment shows why it can be difficult to have a discussion on the internet. Your reply to Joe assumed his position without clarifying his actual position and his reasons for it.
I thought that line was ironic since it would have to be your own line of rhetorical questioning applied to Joe that sounds ridiculous.
Mark, How am I assuming a position with a question? I’m just saying what things sound like and asking if I’m hearing it correctly. Joe’s welcome to correct my impressions and if he does then it might not sound ridiculous at all. His statement comes across to me as if he’s saying that people who don’t agree with him are not worth listening to. “Probably because he’s a left winger and therefore doesn’t deserve to be heard.” What do you make of that statement, Mark? In context, Todd brought up Claiborne as an example of one saying the same thing… Read more »
Ah, but what I didn’t say was the people had to agree with me on everything in order to be heard. That’s where your statement became ridiculous.
Joe, I’m happy for you to clarify for me. That what I take as an implication of what you did say. Feel free to let me know what it is you think a liberal like Claiborne has that’s worth our hearing.
[correction] “That’s what I take….”
But you didn’t say what a liberal like Claiborn says that’s worth hearing. What you said was that people who don’t agree with us on everything (not liberals, but by saying people you’re saying any person–i.e. liberal, moderate, conservative, yadda yadda, yadda) don’t deserve to be heard? Quite obviously I don’t mean that any person who disagrees with me on anything doesn’t deserve to be heard. As far as what Claiborne deserves to be heard on, well, I guess if I wanted to know how cold it was and he’d just come in from outside I could ask him and… Read more »
Joe, my brother, you are equivocating on your definitions now, though I suppose it doesn’t matter all that much. Obviously the specific context of “doesn’t deserve to be heard” was related to theological content, just as Todd’s point was related to theological content. But then you change the definition to include the niceties of the weather outside. Well, brother, if that’s your defense then I guess my point stands because you’ve declared that a brother in Christ has nothing to contribute to a theological conversation, even if what he is saying is the same thing a theological conservative is saying.… Read more »
Actually, you’re the one who took something I said and tried to use it to paint me as meaning something I didn’t. I said Claiborne, or whatever his name is, is not deserving of being heard because he’s a left wing nut job (and I mean that in the kindest possible sense). You are the one who said that I meant anyone who didn’t agree with us on everything didn’t deserve to be heard. Then you took an example I used, RC Sproul, and said that I meant I’d be willing to listen to him except for infant baptism when… Read more »
No, Joe, I didn’t. You need to go back and look. I asked questions and then I have repeatedly since offered you an opportunity to correct my understanding. You have repeatedly done so, so you can quit accusing me of putting words in your mouth. I’ve done no such thing. Questioning someone is not putting words in their mouth. I’m fine with your explanation that you didn’t mean “agree with everything,” ok? So I’m not misrepresenting you. A question was asked and an answer was given. Surely you understand the nature of discourse. I did not change definitions because I… Read more »
Paul,
What?! When did you stop agreeing with me on everything? You are no longer my sycophant? That’s it, you are dead to me.
(big grin)
Sorry to hear that Joe…er….I mean, Todd.
Oh, brother.
LOL
You can’t use the word sycophant on this blogsite.
It offends people, especially the ones who fit the description.
And yet, strangely, you have.
Bill, I’m not sure at whom your venom is aimed this time.
Actually, no venom in this one.
Just trying to help people out…
I’m actually waiting to comment because I’m interested in what people have to say here and some other threads. It’s been quite fascinating.
Dave writes “I don’t know if it is cultural or theological or whatever, but we have pretty much lost our denominational identity and we are in a tug-o-war over how we will be redefined.” Here is the problem with the SBC (well, one of the problems anyway)… We keep forgetting what the SBC is and what the SBC is not. The SBC is a missions facilitating organization; the SBC is NOT a denomination. I know I have been guilty of saying this many times here in blog-world. So, come on everyone repeat this after me… “The SBC is NOT a… Read more »
Greg, “A Rose By Any Other Name Smells As Sweet.”
I think people laugh at us when we say we are not a denomination. I understand what you would like to convey, I just think you fooling yourself.
At least we have never convinced anyone in the real world we are NOT a denomination. It is similar to saying Christianity is not a religion.” That takes some explaining.
My take is this: if it walks like a denomination, quacks like a denomination, it is probably a denomination.
Based on the way the conversations have been going lately, I think we may be seriously quacking up or something.
I have to give you credit for making a good analogy though. It would take a serious amount of verbal gymnastics to convince anyone on the outside and most on the inside that the SBC is not a denomination. We have enough trouble defining who and what we are without playing that game IMO.
“Quacking up?” Really?
I admit it was lame, but I couldn’t resist the joke. I am going to duck out of this conversation now and go get ready for AWANA tonight.
By the way, the official documents of the SBC say that we are both a convention and a denomination. Not to oversimplify, but we are convention in June and a denomination the rest of the time.
I’m curious as to where this “We are not a denomination” idea comes from?
I’m sitting here searching a PDF of the 1845 SBC Annual and the word “denomination” specifically “our denomination” is used to describe the SBC at least 100 times….
I guess if we repeat it enough then it becomes true?
I hear it stated as a fact, “We are a Convention, not a denomination.” I’m not sure where it comes from, but the governing documents of the SBC define it as both a Convention and a denomination.
Online Dictionary Definition of Denomination: “a religious group, usually including many local churches.”
I have no problem identifying the SBC as a denomination, but not because in our documents we define ourselves that way. It’s not a term that each group can either embrace or not according to their particular preference. For example, the CBF and Acts 29 would consider themselves a fellowship and a network, respectively. But they are both really denominations.
At least if words still mean anything, according to Dictionary.com.
Right there.
Gentlemen, My point, which seems to have eluded everyone here, is that a “Denomination” exercises authority (great or small) over their member churches; and thereby the Denomination determines the “Identity” for all. If you join a church belonging to a particular Denomination your Identity is determined by your membership in that church and denomination. What I am trying to communicate, and apparently failing to do so clearly, is that in the Southern Baptist “Convention” (made up of fully autonomous churches which choose to cooperate together for missions work) it is improper for any group in the “Convention” to attempt to… Read more »
Where’s the “Like” button?
You write that it is “improper for any group in the ‘Convention’ to attempt to foster and force any form of an Identity beyond the broad meaning of ‘Baptist’ upon the member churches of the SBC.”
Why would that be true if the group seeking to foster that identity truly possessed the same autonomy as everyone else? Shouldn’t they be “free” to advocate for any meaning of Baptist they like, just as others would be free to oppose that understanding?
I understand your point, Greg. You are just misusing the word denomination. The word you are looking for is hierarchy. We are not a hierarchy.
But denomination simply means a name or designation within a larger group. There are a lot of bills, but a $20 is one denomination. There are a lot of Christian groups, but we are grouped into one class, one part of the larger group (Christianity). We are a denomination of Christianity.
Your concept I get. Your use of the word denomination is incorrect.
By the way, Greg, you also are not correct about Baptist Polity. In Baptist polity, the individual churches are autonomous, but so are the entities with which those churches fellowship and cooperate. The association is autonomous. State conventions are autonomous. And the SBC is autonomous. It does, in fact, have an identity. So, the battle today is for the direction that this autonomous convention is going to have.
Once the autonomous convention decides it’s direction, then autonomous churches are able to decide if they wish to remain in fellowship.
Autonomy belongs to all Baptist bodies, not just the local church.
Which, by the way, is why we send “messengers” and not “delegates” to the SBC Annual Meeting.
Dave, I understand Baptist Polity very well thank you! You may be comfortable being a part of the SBD… but regardless of all that, I am not comfortable with the word denomination. Perhaps I am the only Baptist who believes the use of this the word denomination implies submission to an authority outside the local church, and perhaps I have misused the word here, but you can mark my words here… Any attempt, by any sub-group withing the SBC to take control of the SBC as a whole and “Re-brand” it in their own “Image” will not end well. It… Read more »
That’s just not what the word denomination means. As I said, I don’t completely disagree with what you are saying. I’m just pointing out that you are misusing the word denomination to make your point.
I am not having a good day typing… you will have to do some interpreting in reading the above comment 🙂
Dave, Far be it from me to disagree with you and agree with Greg, but I cannot help but come to Greg’s defense in this matter. While denomination can mean “a group,” another perfectly legitimate use of the word “denomination” is as Greg has used it. I rarely, if ever, use the word “denomination” when referring to the SBC because we are not a denomination in the sense that Greg is using the word. A denomination, in addition to denoting a group of like-minded churches, can also mean a heirarchical organization where those at the top of the denomination dictate… Read more »
Evidently, it comes as a surprise to the SBC that we are not a denomination. On the SBC website there is a document that explains why we are a denomination. And one that explains why we are a convention. The two are not exclusive.
We are not a hierarchical denomination. We are a denomination.
Dave,
Lots of things come as a surprise to the SBC these days.:-) Suffice it to say, one could loosely use the word “denomination” to mean “a group of like-minded churches.” The way that Greg has used it, with which I concur, is that a denomination can mean “an hierarchical religious organization whose power structure and polity flow from the top down.” Therefore, to put “hierarchical” in front of denomination is redundant.
Greg, If you are going to define it that narrowly then there are no denominations at all. I say that because in practical terms, I have observed churches out here in the “sticks” that don’t conform to their Denominational authorities in all areas of identity all the time. Our local ELCA affiliated church has essentially elected to ignore many of the pronouncements from on high in the last few years and in talking to their pastor their attitude sounds a lot like the one you describe above for Baptist churches. If you want to use your own definition of denomination,… Read more »
To take this point further, the convention does exert some forms of control over the autonomous churches. Just ask Broadway… Sure the church still exists and continues to do its own work in the community and by sponsoring some of its own missionaries I would presume, but it is out of fellowship with the Southern Baptist Convention because it is in clear violation of the BFM2K. And to echo Dave, I get what you’re saying, but you’re just using the wrong nomenclature. We do have autonomy, but there are some vehicles of control from the larger entity being exercised over… Read more »
Well, since Broadway is not a Christian church by virtue of their disobediance to the clear teaching of God’s word they shouldn’t be in the SBC. Also, withdrawing fellowship does not equal controlling anyone.
Joe, If you do not hold to the tenets of the BFM2K, you will have your fellowship with the SBC withdrawn. That is a form of exerting control. Likewise, a church can voluntarily withdraw itself from the convention. This is also a form of control. I’m merely stating this because the Convention does exert some forms of control over churches who wish to be associated with the Southern Baptist Convention and therefore be a part of the denomination or convention, which ever word to suit your usage. However, the church also can exert some control by being allowed to withdraw… Read more »
No, it isn’t. The SBC is not obligated to maintain fellowship. The ball, as it were, is in the church’s “court” and they are the ones in control. Therefore, the SBC is not “controlling” anyone by withdrawiing fellowship.
Bill, again, that is a misunderstanding of polity. As autonomous bodies, each organization gets to set the parameters of fellowship for themselves. My church gets to decide who will be in fellowship with our church. The SBC gets to decide who will be in fellowship with the SBC.
If the SBC tells my church what to believe, that is a violation. If my church demands to be a part of the SBC even if we deny SBC doctrine or practice, we are violating the autonomy of the SBC.
And Broadway did not run afoul of the BF&M, but the membership section of the bylaws.
The SBC has parameters, be it the BFM2K or its by laws, to be a member in good standing. That is a control. The church can choose to either follow, leave, or be removed. That is also a control. I’m not sure what I’m not getting. And no, I’m not trying to defend Broadway here though I’m sure some would love to have THAT to jump all over. We can discuss that another time, though many of you will find that I agree with the removal of Broadway much to your disappointment. I’m merely suggesting that there are some controls… Read more »
Dave,
I stand corrected then, please substitute bylaws where I stated BFM2K then.
Greg, your narrow interpretation of denomination is absolutely correct — in theory. However, we don’t live in theory, we live in reality. Science faces this same conumdrum in regard to quantum theory versus relativity. The theories are incompatible (at least at present) but both produce accurate experimental results. However, no one can “live” at the quantum level. We all live at the general relativity level where balls on a billiard table act according to common sense expectations. The same goes with the “convention vs. denomination” theories. If your theory were correct, it would be impossible according to the perameters you… Read more »
that’s conu”n”drum.
Ouch! Oh well, and Really? The denomination is a bunch of Baptists, the missions organization means is the SBC, and the fact that our commitment to the faith is so weak that we are all afraid we are going to lose it is our big problem. We need to have the confidence that our view of the faith is the right one, that it will win the day, that it will win those who disagree with us, that our cause will triumph in the end by the most opposite of means, that is, by losing and dying, if need be.… Read more »
Todd, let be honest and say I pretty much reject your premise out of hand–though I’m not absolutely sure I understand what it is. I’m sure you mean well and don’t want to suggest my disagreement with your point is disparaging your character. I think you are far too negative and the “sky is falling” is not a new prophecy. I do believe that some sort of split is inevitable in the Kingdom–all kingdoms split eventually. I see this as healthy and not something to be feared. I pretty much agree with Joe and others: I don’t think much legitimate… Read more »
Frank, A warning. Be careful whom you call a heretic. I walked the grounds many a day at NOBTS and entered the C.H. Dodd building. There are several more like that across the SBC. The famed William Barclay, he of The New Daily Study Bible, is a favorite of many SBC pastors. Both were universalists. C.S. Lewis was possibly a universalist. John Stott is an annihilationist. So is the famed Isaac Watts who wrote such great hymns as “When I survey the wondrous cross” and “Joy to the World”. Do we need to exclude their voices? Are these men to… Read more »
David, let me ask you a question? Why would you assume I “throw the term around?” I only used it specifically about Rob Bell who denies the Biblical doctrine of hell (among others). Let me give you a warning: do not be so quick to accept that which God in His Word clearly rejects. Twice in the Pastoral Epistles within a couple books Paul warns to clearly identify AND AVOID heretics. So, my warning to you: be careful riding a high horse, the fall can be devastating. PS–I don’t recall saying I was a fan of either Dodd or Barclay.… Read more »
C.S. Lewis was converted to Anglicanism by his friend J.R.R. Tolkien, a Roman Catholic.
There is a recognizable resonance of Christian orthodoxy that shows up in the writings of both men . . . and the more recent films based on their work have brought many Christian people into theaters who, on seeing these films, have recognized the underlying Christian themes woven into the stories and characters.
(Reference: the Narnia films, Lord of the Rings series).
Frank, you crack me up! I love it. I mean that sincerely. I certainly appreciate your position. Now, on to associating with heretics… It’s settled then. You will never sing “When I survey the wondrous cross” again, nor will you sing “Joy to the World” because those songs were written by a heretic. Please make sure you discard all your John Stott books. Oh, and please make sure you stop listening to those who are quoting Stott as well, people like David Platt and others like him. Also please check your footnotes in your theology books that you rely on… Read more »
David, Just to clarify. I didn’t say I remain ignorant of a heretics writing or thought. I think the difference is in what one believes “listening to” implies. See Todd for why I should not use the word, “implies.” One, I don’t read Bell anymore because I don’t feel the old heresy couched in new language is any better. In other words, I do not find him “refreshing in any way.” I distinguish between reading for scholarly purposes and “listening to” for advice. That is the distinction I was making. In that regard, I see no reason to set a… Read more »
Frank, If my post made you think, then I will feel I have accomplished something good with it. My premise that you reject? There is not one denomination that bears the mark of “God’s Last and Only Hope,” though a peering into our SBC history and rhetoric you would think that is precisely what we think. So, when one side whom some refer to as “Traditionalist” or “Baptist Identity,” is pitted against a “Younger, Hipper, Neo-Reformed” group I think we have vacated the core of our identity and are less concerned about saving it but more inclined to “win” for… Read more »
Todd, I guess your premise that “all opinions are of equal value” which you imply by stating, “a Baptist should never refer to someone as a heretic” is where we cross swords. Also, your premise (again implied not stated) that there is no such thing as “Baptist Identity” simply sounds like an absurd statement, or a carefully crafted statement to achieve an ulterior agenda. As a Southern Baptist we have described our basic identity–the BFM 2000. So, I don’t buy your “floating platform identity” or amorphous understanding of what is a Baptist. There may be disagreement on particulars (that’s why… Read more »
Frank. We definitely have grammar issues here Frank. Case in point you determine for me my premises by implication. This is why there is no conversation in Baptist, especially Southern Baptists, circles. For instance, if you are still unclear as to my premises after me stating, what for me was quite clear, then better to ask if my premise is, “Are all opinions of equal value.” That is an interpretive move. And a disingenuous one at that. I have been a Baptist, Southern one, since the cradle roll. In all that accounts for my nearly 48 years in “Baptist” life.… Read more »
Todd, So I can get my grammar right. I want to get it right because that is what I teach, in part. You said, “Our “confessions” were borrowed until ’25 and we “adopted” our own.” Now, the term borrow to me, implies “from someplace else.” Did we borrow them from “non-baptists? Did we borrow them from Presbyterians? We may share some affinity with other groups, but I don’t think our identity is borrowed from them. I don’t think your argument of which BFM we choose supports an idea that there is no thing that can be identified as “Baptists.” All… Read more »
Frank, there wasn’t a reply link under my thread, so I’ll put it here. You were right, there was sarcasm in my comment, and that was intended. I was using it to make a point. You had challenged me to avoid heretics: Let me give you a warning: do not be so quick to accept that which God in His Word clearly rejects. Twice in the Pastoral Epistles within a couple books Paul warns to clearly identify AND AVOID heretics. So if I should avoid the heretics, you should as well, correct? Therefore, Joy to the World was written by… Read more »
David, I think we agree on much. I’ve been a fighter all my life, but I’ve decided to hang up the gloves. I don’t regret the many church battles, association battles, and personal battles where I defended what I believed to be right. But frankly, its a new day–certainly for me. My fear is that the SBC will leave me with only two choices: 1) accept theological compromise for the sake of unity; 2) continue to draw the net smaller and smaller until the only people I’m left in fellowship with is me, and I’m not always sure about my… Read more »
Frank (re:#48), When I distinguish between Baptist Distinctives and, say, the BFM as a Confessional Statement I mean what is described at a site like this – http://www.allaboutbaptists.com/distinctives.html. Our confessions, that is those used prior to 1925 were from a variety of Baptist groups that predated the SBC. Here is a brief look – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Baptist_confessions. My apologies in referencing the “old adage.” I feared that unless we took a moment and clarified, I would at least bear the resemblance to the statement. “Conversations” in this format are tenuous most days. That is why I suggested more of a “is this… Read more »
Todd,
Just a heads up, when you put more than a single link into a comment it tends to get caught in moderation and has to wait for approval. That is why it didn’t appear right away.
I’ve been preaching through 1 Corinthians and reading Gordon Fee’s commentary as I go. I liked something he wrote as part of a summary of 3:18-23: “The Corinthians error is an easy one to repeat. Not only do we all have normal tendencies to turn natural preferences into exclusive ones but in our fullness we also tend to consider ourselves ‘wise’ enough to inform God through whom he may minister to his people….” We throw labels on our opponents as a way of dismissing them, “which means that we no longer need to listen to him, since his [perspective] has… Read more »
Gordon Fee is always worth reading!
I agree concerning Gordon Fee. :o)
You might want to reconsider, though, because Fee believes the Holy Spirit does not discriminate in who He equips to preach.. women preaching even to men. GASP
http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/effortless-egalitarianism-interview-gordon-fee
I agree to some extent about Fee. He has written some great commentaries, but he certainly has his blindspots. In his NICNT commentary on 1 Corinthians he opposes all other scholarship in his complete rejection of 1 Cor. 14:34 as being written by Paul. I remember my Greek textual criticism professor, who incidentally oversees the largest Greek manuscript collection in North America, point out that no other textual criticism scholar has ever agreed with Fee on this point and that it is clear that he is so blinded by his devotion to Egalitarianism that he is unable to admit that… Read more »
To everyone: We try to walk a fine balance at SBC Voices. By the very nature of this site, we have different voices with different opinions. So, disagreement is encouraged here. It is not unusual for me to contact someone to lodges a dissenting opinion to something I write and ask them to write it up and post it here. The whole point is to be a place where discussion can take place. On the other hand, SBC Voices was known as the Wild West of blogs for a while – very little law and order. I sat back and… Read more »
Dave, er uh Sheriff,
I certainly do not want to bring disparagement to SBC Voices. If at any point you believe me to have crossed your line, please alert me. I would prefer to slip away than to stomp on your graciousness to consider any post I might send your way.
Thanks for maintaing decorum. I appreciate it.
(And, no there is no sarcasm at any point in this post save the playful reference to “Sheriff” in this here “Wild West.”
Nothing to worry about, Todd.
Since this has made it into this thread I will add one thought. I should note, I am not willing to call Bell a heretic. He may not comport to traditional Baptist theology, but in the course of what Evangelicals have accepted in others attempting to think through the Scriptures (C.S Lewis), Bell has not moved outside the broader scope of Christian theology. Now, I am not finished with his new book so there is still time for me to change my mind. I may disagree with his vision, but I cannot for the life of me understand why someone… Read more »
Actually, pitching Bell into the dung heap with other heretics is the result of the hope we have in God. The gospel is the power of God that saves people. So, when someone completely perverts the entire gospel and in fact calls that gospel “toxic” as he does, they declare themselves the enemy of the gospel. Paul declared anyone who preaches a different gospel to be accursed. Bell preaches a different gospel. Therefore, Bell is being rightly raked over the coals for telling a bald faced lie which has no biblical support whatsoever. Perhaps you can call him brother and… Read more »
Be nice, Joe, or I will tell your wife!
DOH!!!!!!
“”Bell has not moved outside the broader scope of Christian theology.”” I don’t know why you keep comparing Bell to C.S. Lewis, but I don’t see the comparison, frankly. I do know exactly what Bell believes about death and judgement because he states it clearly in an interview a few days ago. He said, “If we have the freedom to choose these things now, that Jesus came to offer us and show us, then I assume that when you die, you can continue to choose.” Now, there is no way I can see that the above statement squaring with the… Read more »
Frank,
For anyone to declare Bell to not be outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy is laughable. But of course, you and I haven’t read Bell’s book so we’re just a couple of fundementalist idealogue chickens who can’t stand people who ask innocent questions–pure hearted truth seekers like Bell.
Ok, that last sentence was even more sarcasm than I can stand.
Joe, I have not read “This” book, but I don’t need to because Bell states his position clearly in the aforementioned statement. Those that defend Bell in this thread purport to take “the high ground,” but I don’t buy it. If Bell is wrong about what happens after one dies and causes people to think they will have another chance after death, I can’t think of a greater disservice or more unloving act. It is an error of old liberalism to so focus on the higher ethic of love that they caricature God and make Him less than what He… Read more »
Frank,
Amen. Love demands that we tell them the truth.
Frank,
I am glad you and Joe are saving the world from we heretic, liberal types.
But, just in case you do not mind reading other folks on a given subject, this might help with the ongoing comparisons between Bell and Lewis – http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/03/23/rob-bell-and-c-s-lewis-by-jeff-cook/
I continue to be glad you two illustrate one of my contentions every time you comment.
Todd Just like I would expect when you cannot defend Bell with reasonable argument you resort to attack. You also throw in a smokescreen. If you prove Lewis is a heretic it does not spare Bell from the charge. That is easier than defending Bells own words. But I most say your schoolboy name calling is not becoming. Why not just let Bell speak for himself? This is a blog so I’m not trusting it will save the world from anything. Bell clearly believes in the possibility of being saved after death. I don’t have any problem calling that heresy,… Read more »
Frank, Defend Bell? I have no interest in defending Bell. I stated that I have not read his book and soundbites do not an argument make unless of course you and Joe are the one’s making your points. I do think orthodoxy is not your prevue. And while you and Joe have self-identified as the “magisterium” to which we must all submit under your rubric of needing Scripture for a basis is laughable. Name calling? Here is where it gets real funny. You were offended by my reference to an “old adage.” I sought a conciliatory move for I did… Read more »
You know, Todd, it’d be a lot more fun if you’d pretend like you could defend Bell’s position of post-mortem salvation–from scripture. Or his position that people of other faiths can come to salvation through Christ without ever hearing about Christ. Again, from scripture. I don’t give a rip about C.S. Lewis. I’m not talking about him. Besides, bringing C.S. Lewis into the mix really just shows how weak your argument is. “Appeal to authority”=logical falicy. Defend Bell’s views from scripture. Put up or shut up. I’d prefer you did the later. Oh, and if you’d be willing to fellowship… Read more »
Joe, I have not defended Bell. Nor does he need me to defend him. I read Bell saying he is “hoping” for the things with which you charge him. If you had read what you use to whip him with in context, you would know he says much of what we talk about beyond this life with any specificity other than it is where God is and all is good, is speculation. I have not read far enough to see where he goes from there, but unlike you I prefer to read him for myself rather than spew venom without… Read more »
He is not saying what he “hopes” is going to happen. He’s saying what he believes is GOING to happen. I haven’t, and certainly don’t plan on, reading his garbage but I’ve heard sermons of his, listened to interviews with him, and read reviews of the book. Since, not if, Bell believes what he believes he has denied the gospel, preaches a false gospel, and most certainly is not a Christian and therefore is not my brother. He is outside the bounds of Christian fellowship and should only be welcomed into such fellowship if he publicly repudiates what he has… Read more »
Joe,
I will be content with “my” problem. If you have read the Bell book and capture the context of your reference and maintain your position, that is “your” prerogative. If you have not then I will, as Frank did earlier, acknowledge your consistency regardless of my agreement or disagreement with you.
The one way to work out the differences is by a closer study of the Bible – albeit with a more perceptive methodology than is presently employed. We need a (shall I say it with trepidation as many will surely misunderstand me) a more intellectual approach, one that respects the place of analysis and history but one that has a more synthetical comprehensiveness. It was by such means that I was enable to discover the two-sided and apparently contradictory truths of the Bible which were evidently designed to set up a desirable tension in the mind which enables the believer… Read more »
“I don’t care what conclusions another person draws if they will not take the time to actually discuss nuances and meaning. ”
Todd, Thank you for this! My sentiments exactly.
“Many in the SBC have found David Platt’s Radical to be quite compelling, if not disturbing. ”
And we saw the same ‘disturbed’ response by some of the celebrities in Christendom to Francis Chan.
Todd, quick question. You said:
Question: How do you view/label Rob Bell as evidenced by his writings, teachings, etc.?
Mark, Great question. Interesting that of all my comments you pulled that one. I refuse to label Bell as I have had no direct conversation with him – email, online, chat or otherwise. I have read a book or two. I have watched a few Nooma videos. When I hear him say there is not hope without/apart from Jesus – his life, death, and resurrection, I cannot agree he is preaching another Gospel. Is he speculating as to the extent and efficacy of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection? I think he may well be. But, his more broadly gracious speculations… Read more »
If he preaches inclusivism, which he obviously does, then he preaches another gospel. There is no biblical support for the idea that people of other faiths will be saved apart from personal, conscious faith in Christ. Therefore, Bell is a false teacher. He most certainly isn’t a Christian.
Interesting Bell review by evangelical Baptist theologian Roger Olson:
http://rogereolson.com/2011/03/25/the-promised-response-to-bells-love-wins/
Chapter 6 is about what is usually called inclusivism–that salvation through Jesus Christ is not limited to those who hear his name. (I’ve discussed problems with restrictivism here before.) I find nothing in that chapter that Billy Graham has not said. (Go to youtube.com and look up Graham’s responses to questions from Robert Schuler.) From the Billy Grahm Association: At the time of the interview, Mr. Graham was struggling with physical symptoms related to a then undiagnosed condition called hydrocephalus, involving fluid on the brain. These issues, in addition to his age, were evidenced by a weariness and instability in… Read more »
So, no matter how badly moderates and liberals (and really, is there a need to make a distinction there. I mean, one group is just as worthless as the other), want to pretend otherwise…
Left some words out.
It is interesting that one commentator uses the argument: if you disagree with me that proves my point. That’s the ultimate debate strategy, Very postmodern and emerging.
Frank, we’re just a couple of ignorant ol’ hateful fundy’s. We actually believe that people who deny the gospel and preach false doctrine aren’t Christians. We care to think that such people should be excluded from fellowship. Gasp. We’re just two narrow minded, exclusivist hicks.
(/sarcasm)
tee-hee 🙂
Joe, some people who post betray their age. They think their ideas of inclusivism and “big tent,” Rodney King theology is new. Anybody who would dare challenge the aberrant theology espoused and propagated by the flavor of the day talking head, is condemned as narrow-minded and unloving. Liberals in the early 1900’s (I remember many of them) used the same argument to defend their aberrant theology. I don’t hate Bell–I nearly know him. I hate what his theology causes–people to be misled and their souls put into jeopardy by teaching doctrines the Bible exposes as heresy. I’m sure many other… Read more »
When the two of you are gathered – Frank L & Joe Blackmon – everybody listens. ( sarcasm )
Jack, even Baalam was smart enough to listen to a jackass. (more sarcasm).