“The main point was that although theological issues were involved in the decision because of the strongly Calvinistic doctrine of PVCC, the decision appears to have been based more on attitudinal issues by PVCC that the member churches of DMBC felt could be divisive.”
Dr. Lemke states that the bigger issue in denying membership to Pleasant Valley Community Church was not Calvinism, but bad attitudes. He mentions these specific attitudes later in his post:
“The Credential Committee’s findings noted that PVCC had not given evidence that it ‘would be sympathetic with the purpose and work of the body of the DMBA,’ and noted that PVCC had practiced ‘an overall lack of the key elements of cooperation found in patience, humility, kindness, compassion and gentleness.’”
Maybe you recognize some of those characteristics—patience, kindness, and gentleness. They’re from the list of the fruit of the Spirit. I don’t know about you, but if someone rejected my church because it didn’t exhibit the fruit of the Spirit, I would be deeply offended. I’d want to know the specific reasons how someone had come to that conclusion. Yet there wasn’t much discussion on the particulars of the church’s actions, attitudes, or beliefs on behalf of the DMBA.
Can I be frank here? Though I can’t speak to the conscience of each individual voter who participated in the associational gathering, on the whole I believe the association denied membership to PVCC on the basis of stereotypes and fear. That’s a long-winded way of saying, “Discrimination.”
I work in human resources. I find it amazing how some many people, both in the workplace and even in the church, can say or do something discriminatory and attempt to claim it was because of something else. The association wrongly discriminated against PVCC. And Dr. Lemke trying to prove it was something else.
In reality, the thought process was probably something like this:
PVCC is a Calvinist church and will try to impose its Calvinist beliefs on the other members of the DMBA—elders and determinism. They believe in unconditional election and irresistible grace which means they don’t church really support missions since they believe God’s already picked who’s going to heaven and who’s going to hell.
Lemke’s Arguments
Since Dr. Lemke is really one of the only people I’ve seen put forward a detailed defense of the DMBA’s actions, I think it’s only right to look over his arguments and see if they prove something other than what I’ve just stated. He says,
“The local churches in Daviess-McLean Baptist Association were perfectly within their rights to deny membership to Pleasant Valley Community Church. This determination was made not by associational officials, but by duly authorized messengers from the member churches of DMBA. They were voting as representatives of their own local church, not as representatives of the association as a whole.”
This is the worst way to begin an argument. Too often churches and religious groups justify their actions because they were “within their rights.” Did you know that the “ministerial exception” means a church is not subject to employment discrimination laws? So if a church is looking for a pastor, the selection committee can say, “Sorry, we’re looking for a white pastor,” and turn away a godly African American man who submits his application without even considering his qualifications and calling. My point: just because you are “within your rights” doesn’t mean you’re “in the right.”
Lemke continues:
“In this case, while acknowledging that the theology of PVCC was not heretical, and not going into specific detail about their theological concerns, the association did ‘recognize that it [PVCC’s theology] is vastly different than the majority of churches within the DMBA,’ and thus would be potentially divisive.”
Potentially divisive? Does this not prove my point about stereotyping and fear? PVCC came to them with the stated intention of joining the association, not dividing it. There was no discussion about the PVCC being divisive, but apparently both Dr. Lemke and I agree the underlying fear was there. If the messengers were really afraid the PVCC was going to advance a Calvinist agenda, they should have expressed that concern and allowed the church to respond. Instead they believed the stereotype that Calvinists are arrogant and divisive and made their decision from there. This decision was based on fear, not love (cf. 1 John 4:18). How can anyone be happy with a decision made that way?
Having defended the DMBA, Dr. Lemke moves on to attack Pleasant Valley Community Church:
“Those who want to be accepted should make themselves acceptable… Without knowing most of the details of this situation, it is evident from the overwhelming 104-9 vote of [the] DMBA that PVCC did not take common sense steps to connect in positive ways with the association.”
Just how does a 104-9 vote make it evident that the church didn’t take common sense steps to connect in positive ways with the association? Apart from associational gatherings, with how many churches does your church “connect with in positive ways” throughout the year? PVCC had at least two good relations in other churches. Lemke and the DMBA completely ignored the voice Barry Rager, pastor of Utica Baptist Church, as reported in the Baptist Press article:
“In my dealings with the pastors from this church, I experienced good fellowship [and] good cooperation. These men love the Word, they preach the Gospel; … they are taking the Gospel around the world… I didn’t see any reason they shouldn’t be in the local association—whether their theology is Reformed or not.”
This is by far the most offensive charge Lemke levels at PVCC, but he isn’t done yet:
The Credential Committee’s findings noted that PVCC had not given evidence that it “would be sympathetic with the purpose and work of the body of the DMBA,” and noted that PVCC had practiced “an overall lack of the key elements of cooperation found in patience, humility, kindness, compassion and gentleness.” It clearly appeared to be these perceived uncooperative and somewhat arrogant attitudinal problems that “ultimately” led to the denial of PVCC from DMBA. This was a preventable tragedy, but PVCC (perhaps in part because of the inexperienced leadership and/or a doctrinaire inflexibility) must bear much of the responsibility for their own rejection.
The Credential Committee’s language sounds more like an unfounded fear of PVCC pushing Calvinism and the stereotype that Calvinists don’t support missions, which is apparently the “purpose and work of the body of the DMBA” to which the church would not be sympathetic. The only ones showing themselves as having “uncooperative and somewhat arrogant attitudinal problems” are the DMBA and their defender, Dr. Lemke.
A coworker of mine was pulled over while doing some house hunting with a realtor. The officer took his license without explanation and told him he should “move along.” We all know what he was guilty of—DWB (driving while black in a white neighborhood). Blaming the PVCC for their own rejection is like saying “Serves you right for being Calvinist in a non-Calvinist neighborhood.”
Lemke moves on to argue that the action of the DMBA doesn’t harm PVCC’s ministry:
It does not bar PVCC from participating in the evangelistic or missions efforts of DMBA (if PVCC’s theology did not prevent the church from desiring to do so)… It does not prevent PVCC from inviting other DMBA pastors to speak in their church for revivals (if PVCC’s doctrine does not prohibit themselves from having revivals) or in other worship services.
Note that Lemke can’t resist taking a few cracks at Calvinists based on a caricature of Calvinists.
He then says,
If PVCC were genuinely interested in demonstrating their cooperative spirit to DMBA, doing any or all of these things (and doing so in a sweet spirit) would go a long way in changing the perception of the churches in the association that PVCC has an uncooperative spirit.
Perhaps PVCC should try to emulate the “sweet spirit” Dr. Lemke has shown them (if their theology doesn’t prevent them from doing so). The fact that Dr. Lemke doesn’t know if their theology allows them to do so shows more evidence that this reason for their rejection was not their attitude, but their Calvinism.
Lemke’s conclusion contains the following, again appealing to the vote as evidence of his point:
Unfortunately, the association’s written findings were rather vague both in regard to the specific doctrinal issues which were problematic and in listing specific examples of the attitudinal issues which they found problematic. However, DMBA’s overwhelming 104-9 vote suggests that PVCC wasn’t even close to being acceptable.
Dr. Lemke has no logical basis for interpreting a 104-9 vote to mean PVCC was unacceptable. The fact that the DMBA has nothing to back up claims of problematic doctrinal and attitudinal issues is unacceptable.
I’m probably not much better of a statistician than Dr. Lemke, but I can tell you on good authority that the only thing this 104-9 vote shows is that a caricatured Calvinist church is not welcome in the DMBA. And neither Dr. Lemke nor the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association knows if Pleasant Valley Community Church matches that caricature.
It is great to have Andrew Wencl aboard the writing team here at SBC Voices. You may be familiar with him from the articles he has published at sbcIMPACT. Looking forward to your contributions here, Andrew.
Thanks Dave. Glad to be here.
I did appreciate that Dr. Lemke, though clearly not unsympathetic to the association’s action, tried to strike a somewhat conciliatory and balanced tone.
I still think the association’s action was unfortunate.
Good analysis.
I do think it is funny to look at the written justification (“they are not cooperative”) for the decision and assume that it is definitely true and not simply justification for making the decision they wanted to make.
I would hope that we would not be as gullible to buy that without critically thinking through it.
All of the initial press reports seemed to indicate that Calvinism was the key issue. Later, the issue of cooperation was raised more fully. I don’t know if this was illumination or spin. I guess those of us on the outside will never know, will we?
Exactly.
We cannot assume that the report of them being “uncooperative” is accurate just because the DMBA put that out. Every discussion point from the moderator on out was on theology not their “spirit”, so to say they lack “cooperation” after the fact should raise some red flags, IMO. The fact that they wanted to cooperate with the DMBA also undermines this claim.
I have a friend in another church in the association, he knows the guys at this church and the situation well and he was very disappointed by this turn of events…and even moreso by what he called “a character assassination” attempt after the fact.
I’m not sure what all went down – but I also have been in churches and associations long enough to not be naive about the politics involved.
It is a little disappointing that Lemke seems to uncritically accept that report as being accurate…when it is at least reasonable to consider that it was a “we need to cover our six” sort of report.
I come from a unique perspective because I work in human resources. With issues of discrimination, we look at other employees and ask if they were treated differently. We look at the employee claiming discrimination and ask, but for this person’s (race, gender, disability, etc.) would the supervisor have taken the same action?
Here, the articles pointed out at least two church leaders from different churches who believed there was no issue regarding cooperation. The charge was leveled that PVCC wasn’t establishing enough relationships with other associational churches (hence they were “uncooperative”). Questions: How many churches do DMBA churches partner with in the association outside of associational events? Do they admit new Southern Baptist church plants that haven’t partnered with other associational churches beyond receiving their money? How many churches have the DMBA allowed in on the basis of their affirmation of Southern Baptist beliefs alone?
If PVCC wasn’t Calvinist, is it likely they would have been denied entry to the association? I think the answer is clear.
I think the real question is is not whether the association acted on fears and stereotypes about Calvinists. The real question is: Is that an acceptable basis for discrimination?
We’ve got two directions we can go as a denomination: both/and or either/or. If we take the either/or approach – non-Calvinists trying to root out Calvinists and Calvinists trying to “take over” SBC structures, we will splinter.
So, because I advocate the both/and strategy, I think the association was unwise. They can fellowship with whomever they decide to fellowship with – I have no voice. But I think making Calvinism or non-Calvinism a point of fellowship in SBC-affiliated entites (national, state, associational) is a bad way to go.
Dave,
I too advocate a both/and direction, but Calvinism must be allowed to grow or die on its own for a both/and solution to work. That may mean that one day Calvinists outnumber the non-Calvinists. Is that a “take over”?
If the Calvinist/non-Calvinist debate can only be solved by the majority remaining the majority, we’re going to see “crack downs” on the growth of Calvinism within the denomination and a real splintering in the near future.
Andrew,
I think that Dr Lemke’s writings were fair, balanced, and kind in spirit. As a seasoned veteran of SBC life and polity, he understands that each denominational body (beyond the local church) is uniquely autonomous. The local association, state convention, and the SBC have committees to examine the credentials of messengers and each body decides who they will accept. Fellowship can be withdrawn or not extended if certain criteria are not met. No person or group can override decisions and actions that each body makes; we have no hierarchical structure and no outside authority can force a change in decision.
Every local Association has a committee that interviews potential new churches or existing congregations desiring to join. They each have process they follow. Historically, the local Association deals with theological issues since they (the Association) is the nearest to the local church.
Andrew … you stated:
“Since Dr. Lemke is really one of the only people I’ve seen put forward a detailed defense of the DMBA’s actions, I think it’s only right to look over his arguments and see if they prove something other than what I’ve just stated.”
I would, also, encourage readers to go to “SBC Tomorrow” and read Peter’s writings on this matter.
Andrew … you quoted Dr. Lemke:
“The local churches in Daviess-McLean Baptist Association were perfectly within their rights to deny membership to Pleasant Valley Community Church. This determination was made not by associational officials, but by duly authorized messengers from the member churches of DMBA. They were voting as representatives of their own local church, not as representatives of the association as a whole.”
Then you (Andrew) said: “This is the worst way to begin an argument. Too often churches and religious groups justify their actions because they were ‘within their rights.’”
Andrew … do you really understand SBC autonomy or the workings of a local Baptist Association? They were most assuredly within their rights based on their proceedings and process.
We do not have a bishop or outside council making these calls. Elected messengers from local Baptist churches made this call in Kentucky and I have to respect it.
Ron,
1) I, too, thought that Dr. Lemke tried to be fair. That does not mean that we have to agree that he was right. We can disagree with him even while appreciating his tone of argument.
2) Autonomy gives the DMBA the right to do as they please. It does not mean that we lose the right to say they made an unwise decision.
“Andrew … do you really understand SBC autonomy or the workings of a local Baptist Association? They were most assuredly within their rights based on their proceedings and process.”
Being within their rights doesn’t make them right. They had the right to do what they did; that doesn’t make what they did the right thing to do! (is that a convoluted enough sentence?)
So we can say that they autonomously did the wrong thing.
Ron,
I think Chris has understood what I mean. I thought my example of a minister being rejected by a church merely because he was black would help explain.
I think I do understand autonomy. I’m not suggesting there’s some kind of corrective action that can be taken by an outside source (aside from proposing a resolution at the KBC or SBC annual meetings to denounce it).
My point is that it is not valid to appeal to autonomy as the justification of an action. If the church had voted to deny the divinity of Jesus, they would have been fully within their rights to do so, but it wouldn’t have been right for them to do so.
Ron,
Andrew’s piece remains little more than a hack job on Dr. Lemke. I have read few pieces which stand more indicative of misreading material not to mention reading into someone’s thought-processes than Wencl’s job here. And yes, I’ve explained myself fully on a lengthy piece just posted.
With that, I am…
Peter
I think that is an unfair and unkind characterization of Andrew’s piece Peter. You don’t have to be dismissive and derogatory to people you disagree with, you know.
Dave,
Thanks. Here’s you on Mohler:
I think that pretty much covers your summation of Mohler’s words. Now, when you can show how my piece is either equal to or more “dismissive and derogatory”, I’ll gladly listen. Until then, perhaps someone will actually deal with the points I made about Wencl’s criticism instead of just dismissing it as unworthy. If not, that’s fine as well. I’m a very patient man…
With that, I am…
Peter
“hack job”?
“indicative of misreading material”?
“reading into someone’s thought-processes”?
I’m sorry, did I just walk into the twilight zone or is the same person who wrote article after article doing the exact same thing to Mohler this summer?
With that, I am…
Laughing at the irony
I’m not really interested in Peter’s opinion of Andrew’s piece, nor do I want a lot of people venting their spleen about Peter’s activities here. So, let’s drop this one now, okay? If more comments in this vein appear, the whole exchange will probably disappear.
Dave,
Feel free to delete my comment, if you see fit. I just thought it was a cheap shot at Andrew, and a highly ironic one, considering the source.
I didn’t mean to divert the discussion…I just thought it needed to be pointed out. I apologize if I caused a problem.
It’s just better if we don’t stoke that fire, but thanks for your spirit on that.
I’ll leave my responses to Peter’s opinions in his article’s comment stream.
Andrew
Thanks. I’ll look forward to the exchange.
With that, I am…
Peter
Andrew,
You refer to this church as Calvinist. Yet the church does not self identify as Calvinist.
Do you think it is acceptable for a church or pastor to believe and promote what Calvinists believe, while telling people they are not Calvinist?
They are apparently more proud of being Acts 29 than they are of being SBC. Acts 29 requires members to be Calvinist. Do you think that is discriminatory?
David R. Brumbelow
Why must you force YOUR labels on THEIR beliefs?
Why does having everything in a neat and tidy box intrigue us so?
I am not Andrew, but I will respond:
A) A church can identify itself in any way they want to. Many people reject certain labels for a variety of reasons. rejecting a label is not disingenuous. Lying about belief is, but they clearly didn’t do that. Just because they reject someone else’s label for their belief does not make them less honest.
B) How do you judge their apparent amount of pride in being Acts 29? How do you know they are “more proud” of anything?
C) No one is denying that DMBA has a “right” to deny whoever they want. But there are still guidelines for that “right”. If a church meets the STATED guidelines for cooperation, should they be denied admission? I think Acts 29 and DMBA both have those rights. The question is, would Acts 29 use something OUTSIDE of their written and approved guidelines for cooperation to disallow fellowship of a church that DESIRED fellowship? That would be a more accurate way to frame the question.
D) On a lighter note….David, are you attending the SBTC? I would love to sit down with you and talk a bit.
Jason G.,
I have read they indentify at their website they are Acts 29, but have nothing about their being SBC. If I am wrong, please correct me.
Yes, I plan to be at the SBTC.
David R. Brumbelow
They might decline to self-identify as Calvinist for similar reasons to why many Baptists decline to self-identify as Arminians – less to do with whether or not the label fits and more to do with whether or not people understand the label.
A lady in my church came to me all a-flutter about Calvinists and the anti-Christian doctrine that they promote. I tried to tell her that what she thought was not what Calvinists believe, but she would not give up her preconceptions.
David,
You ask two major questions, so I’ll try to answer each faithfully:
1) The pastor isn’t going around telling people he’s not a Calvinist. He just prefers not to be defined by that label. He’s not out to promote Calvin, but Christ. Anyone who says the pastor is trying to hide the truth is actually hiding the truth himself.
2) Yes, it is discriminatory for Acts 29 to require its members to be Calvinists. My point isn’t that all discrimination is bad. We want employers to discriminate against applicants who are under-qualified. We don’t want them to discriminate against applicants who are of Asian descent.
Acts 29 was founded to promote cooperation between like-minded Reformed churches. The SBC, as I understand it, was intentionally more broad in its requirements for entry.
SBC blogs need to take a break from discussing Calvinism for the rest of this year. The conversations that result are rarely fruitful.
There’s been a lot of conversation today that was very good. A lot of it I thought was personal and insulting, but there have been some good discussions.
Let’s see. You state that you cannot speak for the conscience of the associational messengers but you evidently know enough to assign them motives? So much so that you go on to outline their thought process?
The association’s actions were indeed confusing and lacking in clarity. So are yours. Guess you cancel each other out. You both should start over.
William,
I’m sure each person voted his conscience. But based on the information we’ve been provided, I believe my assessment is better than Dr. Lemke’s. His was pro-DMBA. Mine was pro-PVCC. Were you as critical of Dr. Lemke’s article for the things he said about PVCC as you are of mine? How do you assess the facts of this situation?
I’m not a judge nor a private investigator. I’m merely applying what I do at my job to this situation. If you’re looking for 100% proof, you’re not going to find it. But if you’re looking for something that is more likely true than not true, you should weigh Dr. Lemke’s article and mine and determine for yourself which takes a better account of the facts.
I am merely saying that you declared ignorance and then merrily proceded to your conclusions on that basis. I would probably not want you on my side in a personnel dispute. Crystal balls are so gauche.
Thanks for telling me what I should do. I’ll consider it. If you however are able to judge my state of mind from afar, feel free…:)
Note that I am offering this somewhat tongue in cheek. I wish you well.
Ditto!
><>”
My reservations on your WHOLE take on this article are centered on your statement, “I believe my assessment is better than Dr. Lemke’s.”
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>”
Andrew,
I agree with William… here are a few thoughts on your “take” on the DMBA issue:
You make a couple comments that I find interesting. Your first comment is: “Fully recognizing Dr. Lemke as a brother in Christ, I believe his strong bias against Reformed doctrine has colored his perspective to the point that he’s completely wrong in his assessment of both the DMBA and PVCC.”
Your second comment is: “Can I be frank here? Though I can’t speak to the conscience of each individual voter who participated in the associational gathering, on the whole I believe the association denied membership to PVCC on the basis of stereotypes and fear. That’s a long-winded way of saying, ‘Discrimination’.”
You have challenged BOTH Dr. Lemke’s perspective as well as those of the voter’s in the DMBA and been so bold as to accuse the latter of “discrimination.” Perhaps it is your perspective that is itself skewed.
Note another comment you made; “In reality, the thought process was probably something like this: PVCC is a Calvinist church and will try to impose its Calvinist beliefs on the other members of the DMBA—elders and determinism. They believe in unconditional election and irresistible grace which means they don’t church really support missions since they believe God’s already picked who’s going to heaven and who’s going to hell.”
Once again, this appears to be your perspective on why the vote was 104-9. Your closing comment is again interesting: “Dr. Lemke has no logical basis for interpreting a 104-9 vote to mean PVCC was unacceptable. The fact that the DMBA has nothing to back up claims of problematic doctrinal and attitudinal issues is unacceptable.” Once again, your perspective is interestingly insightful as you dismiss that of Dr. Lemke’s as well as that of the messengers who voted in the DMBA. The messengers are the ones who are the boots on the ground and understand the relationship that they share and the contribution that PVCC would make to their association.
You have every right to interpret their lopsided vote as you see fit. However, if I were one of the voting messengers of the DMBA I would be appalled at the audacity that you demonstrate in passing judgment on their decision. Your statement, “The fact that the DMBA has nothing to back up claims of problematic doctrinal and attitudinal issues is unacceptable” is in and of itself egregious.
You final concluding comment is equally appalling as well. “I’m probably not much better of a statistician than Dr. Lemke, but I can tell you on good authority that the only thing this 104-9 vote shows is that a caricatured Calvinist church is not welcome in the DMBA. And neither Dr. Lemke nor the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association knows if Pleasant Valley Community Church matches that caricature.”
Let me say, “on good authority” the ones who DO KNOW about the DMBA and PVCC are those who voted resoundedly, 104-9 against accepting PVCC as a member of the DMBA.
Grateful to be In His Grip
><>”
Bob,
You have challenged BOTH Dr. Lemke’s perspective as well as those of the voter’s in the DMBA and been so bold as to accuse the latter of “discrimination.”
That is the basic thrust of my article, yes.
Your statement, “The fact that the DMBA has nothing to back up claims of problematic doctrinal and attitudinal issues is unacceptable” is in and of itself egregious.
Explain how it is egregious?
The vote of the DMBA was in and of itself FACTUAL enough to “back up their claims of problematic doctrinal and/or attitudinal issues”. 104-9 is NOT a close vote AND it is evidence of SOME issue with PVCC’s request to join the association don’t ya think? If it was the influence of some SUPER DOM (as someone has suggested) then he ought to run for President…
From my experience it is VERY DIFFICULT to get that kind of vote out of a group of Baptists… I don’t care what you are voting on.
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>”
Bob,
I agree there was an issue. The issue that was reported. The issue that was the main point of discussion. Calvinism.
Egregious how?
I keep seeing this. I really don’t like where we are going when we fault churches for not being “proud” to be Southern Baptist. Pride is never presented as a virtue in scripture. Never.
I’ve always said we need a word to describe this other than pride. When my son’s band performs, or when my daughter does her poetry slams, or when I see that my grandkids are the brightest and cutest in the land, I feel something.
What is it? Pride? I don’t think its sinful but I don’t know what to call it.
I think it’s called ‘love’.
I will brag on my kids. I don’t brag about being Southern Baptist.
There is a sinful pride…its called arrogance, vanity, and cockiness.
There’s a good kind of pride….like pride in a job well done….proud about a child that’s done well in band…proud of a church member, who went on their first mission trip…etc.
I think there’s a huge difference in the two.
The only thing about being pride mentioned about this Church was that they displayed their affiliation with Acts 29 proudly…all over the website last time I looked….and I couldnt find anywhere where they were proud to be a Baptist…any kind of Baptist…SBC, KBC, or anything else Baptist.
This kind of shows to me that they’re more happy to be identified with a 5 point Calvinist, Presbyterian type of organization, than they were with being connected to the SBC.
David
In what way is Acts 29 a Presbyterian type organization?
And where, besides the sidebar, is Acts 29 displayed “all over the website”? I didn’t look exhaustively, but I didn’t see anything except the one link on the sidebar. It is possible I missed it.
Bill Mac,
Good luck getting a straight, coherent, rational, non-rambling, and/or direct answer to that question…
Maybe they don’t want links to the SBC up for fear people would find out about the association’s vote and eschew Baptists altogether. 😉
The Bible does use words for the righteous definition other than “pride”. “Rejoice”? “Joy”? “Delight”?
We can have sinful pride in our children where our goal is to vicariously share in their glory as though we deserve to be commended for them. We can righteously delight in our children as we seek to glorify God in His achievements in and through them.
But they seem to be proud of being Acts 29.
Is it only okay to be proud to be Southern Baptist? An American? A Yankee [or other sports team] fan? There’s nothing wrong with taking pride [i.e. delight] in an organization you care about and are a part of.
IE: Conform
If the church was petitioning to join the association, that means it was not a member of the association. How in the world do you measure how cooperative a church is when it doesn’t yet have a cooperative relationship? The point has been raised about the degree of involvement and relationship between churches in an association being highly variable, and not always terribly close. How much less do we find churches in a Baptist association spending great time and effort relating to non-member churches? By petitioning for membership, the church obviously expressed a willingness and desire to be cooperative with the member churches. If the association was skeptical about their sincerity, why not take the church under “watch-care” status (or a probationary status) for a year or so and gauge their actual cooperativeness?
Very fair points.
But the reality is that DMBA/the DOM had already decided that the church was not acceptable because of their theology. That is the only reason they made this move. The rest was simply “theater” to further demonize PVCC and justify their unjustifiable position.
This is from the PVCC website:
Is this enough “pride”?
Probably not enough for some.
But you know full well that the reason that people here (and the DMBA) are saying they are not SBC-enough and/or cooperative enough is simply because of the calvinism. It is a lie to say it is anything else.
Jason: It may not just be Calvinism. Acts29 absolutely terrifies a lot of Southern Baptists. Calvinism, Mark Driscoll, and moderationism; all SBC bogeymen.
True. But the issue brought up by the people in the association, those quoted, was calvinism and not anything else.
If the DMBA excluded them because of “guilt by association” with Driscoll, then it is even worse than I thought it was.
I guess it isn’t enough pride.
Reading between the lines, it sounds like this church was not voted in because it contained an element of stubborness. It sounds like they believed some things and felt others could either be correct with them or incorrect apart from them; they probably didn’t want to join in wholeheartedly, but to acquire a superficial connection. From the little I know regarding the Acts 29 Network of which they were previously involved, its spirit and temperament may be at odds with that of most Baptists in the SBC.
Sal,
The main emphasis of the discussion was on the church being “Calvinist”. And I’m getting grilled on how I can judge the motives of the DMBA in my article, but PVCC has been judged by bloggers defending the DMBA as being stubborn, prideful, and uncooperative.
Your mentioning the Acts 29 Network would imply a kind of “guilt by association”. I believe that is exactly the case. Guilty by association with Calvinism. Guilty by association with Acts 29 Network. But is that how anyone should be making these decisions?
Andrew, Perhaps it is not “Calvinism” but the rhetoric of some New Calvinists. Perhaps they were claiming that only they are really theologically minded, (See Mohler’s words in the GC video) because they are Reformed. (Their belief statement was a huge flag to me in this respect). And they are in a pretty small town where such things get around quickly in those circles. This would also play into their being accused of not being kind, gracious, etc. I mean if Mohler can say such things that paint non Calvinists in that light with conviction, why not the young pastors of this church?
You’re going to find bad statements and bad people in any organization. Does that mean you can’t be a Democrat because Jonathan Edwards cheated on his wife or a Republican because Rush Limbaugh is a nut? I don’t think so.
Beyond that, if they perceived the church would aggressively try to convert the association to Calvinism, shouldn’t they have addressed it instead of making an assumption?
I don’t know about that. I just find the Acts 29 Network shocking, exaggerated, and highly literal. And I’m very familiar wiht Calvinism. I don’t think one can improve upon mainstream Christianity. St. Paul has called us to lives of faith, hope, and love. So our work is cut out for us!
Discrimination is not wrong.
I’ll assume you are speaking here of this specific case of theological discrimination, not discrimination based on sex, race, color, disability, etc.
I’m not saying the DMBA can’t establish theological criteria for membership. But PVCC was discriminated against not because of what they believed and did, but because of what they were perceived as believing and doing because they are Reformed.
“Sorry, we’re looking for a white pastor,” and turn away a godly African American man who submits his application without even considering his qualifications and calling. My point: just because you are “within your rights” doesn’t mean you’re “in the right.”
That didn’t seem loaded to you? It deserved an equally loaded response.
Let me put it another way. Use the Bible to justify the position that a General Baptist association is required to accept a Particular Baptist church as a member.
Job,
If the DMBA were a General Baptist association, I’d concede the point. They haven’t made agreement with some kind of “General Baptist” statement of faith a requirement for membership, at least, there wasn’t one when PVCC requested to join.
Are we going on technicalities (i.e. strict wording on their membership guidelines) or are we basing in on the general character and nature of the vast majority of the churches in that association?
Allow me to propose something to you. A Baptist association is not a local church. A local church cannot deny membership to another Christian (that is willing to submit himself to that church and its pastor) and be in line with the Bible. By contrast, a Baptist association can and should discriminate amongst which local congregations to include and exclude and still not necessarily be in violation of the Bible. DMBA, for instance, would be well within their rights to exclude an Assemblies of God, Methodist, Presbyterian church, or even a broadly evangelical church that is basically Baptist in doctrine and practice.
Thus, if PVCC wants to associate with DMBA, it is incumbent upon PVCC to meet whatever requirements – written or unwritten – that DMBA has. If PVCC is interested in harmonious, mutually beneficial fellowship and association, it is incumbent upon them not to make trouble.
I know that such ideas do not fit in with our (post)modern society that has been defined and influenced by the various “rights” movements, but Christian life is defined by the Bible, and the Bible does not speak of rights but responsibilities. The great commandment is not some idea of inalienable human rights for which we must contend and defend, but to love God first with all our heart, soul and strength and then to love our neighbor. Responsibility. Not rights.
If you want to join an association, then it is your responsibility to meet the requirements of that association. Our modern society tells us that we need to find a way to accommodate everyone who decides to sidle up next to us for whatever reason, but our standards aren’t set by modern society. And that’s yet another reason why this post’s inserting the typical civil rights industry language and scenarios was so inappropriate … and manipulative.
Job,
I’m sorry that you view my position as manipulative. The DMBA never made it clear that PVCC had to be anything other than a cooperating Southern Baptist church to join their association. If they want to make non-Calvinism a requirement for entry, that’s their prerogative. But they didn’t.
I dearly hope their actions don’t reflect the seniment of SBC churches in general. I’d hate to see Calvinists denied entry into the SBC merely because of fears of “aggressive Calvinism.”
In short: disagreed.
Andrew,
Being a part of an association in South Central Kentucky that bears the rancor and divisiveness of hardcore Calvinism, and witnessing the fracturing, declining, and splitting of once great association churches, Lemke’s actions are viewed as that of a thoughtful, prayerful, and theologically astute kingdom leader.
Lemke is part of such an association?? Which association is that?
I love the bias present in that statement…Lemke is thoughtful, prayerful, and theologically astute…those who disagree with him are probably not. Sure, you didn’t say it…but aren’t you trying to imply that? or at least implying that he is MORE of those things than others? Or at least more than Andrew?
Cheap shot…and weak.
correction:
Lemke’s opinions are….
Yes Mr. Jason, I am implying that Dr. Lemke’s view of the Kingdom, rising above the pettiness and real divisiveness of a tertiary aggressive doctrine is above that of this article. It is no cheap shot since I fully intended to make this implication. It is a real experience some of us are having in South Central Kentucky.
Still a cheap shot…intended or not.
Because you agree with someone, you think that person is more thoughtful, prayerful, and theologically astute that someone with whom you disagree? Yikes.
I am not willing to grant that he is rising above the “pettiness and real divisiveness of a tertiary aggressive doctrine”, because he clearly took a side. Taking a side is NOT “rising above” it, it is getting right into it.
Out of curiosity…who is the divisive one in this debated issue? Which side is aggressive? Which set of beliefs leads to aggressive division? If you ask those questions of PVCC and DMBA, which one is which? I almost can’t believe you made that comment with a straight face.
Rick,
I’m sorry that you’ve had some challenges from “hardcore Calvinism,” but when a Reformed church reaches out to partner with people it calls brothers and is denied, it certainly doesn’t help the situation either.
If disagreeing with Dr. Lemke implies I think he’s unthoughtful, unprayerful, and theologically naive, there’s no point in blogging anymore, or carrying a dissenting opinion.
It’s hard for me to really evaluate this thing based on the information that is available to us.
Having said that, our church was not immediately accepted when we applied to the local association. We were accepted “under watch care” for a year, and then we were approved. Before that we were a mission of another church.
I agree that the association is within its rights (whether it’s right or not) to accept or reject a church.
If a local association doesn’t want to accept a church, it is not a fatal blow. Just move on.
In my opinion, the Association’s actions in this case look pretty petty. What in the world could one little church like this do to the association?
This church can still be a member of the SBC. I would punt the association and not look back. I would even start a new local association and invite churches to join, and really promote the new association.
I have looked at the church’s website. I can’t believe the doctrinal statement is as long as it is. But there’s nothing in the statement that is inconsistent with the BFM that I could see.
I just don’t think that this is a big deal. This church will survive well without the associational connection, and they may actually be able to start a movement that will leave the association struggling to attract new and younger churches.
Oh, and let me add that it is poor form to label churches as being “this or that”.
My own church does not label itself as a “Calvinist” or “Reformed” church. We are definitely on the Reformed side, but not all of us are so-called 5 point Calvinists.
So, it would really be untrue to say we are a “Calvinist” church.
I would hope that churches could self-identify.
I found the real problem in Kentucky. -> The Real Problem.
Thank me later. 🙂
It looks like the IMB has discovered that PVCC is Southern Baptist enough, and evangelical enough.
http://www.imb.org/main/news/details.asp?StoryID=10222&LanguageID=1709
Bill, I thought Calvinism killed churches, evangelism, missions, etc.?