This was originally posted at Bart’s blog, Praisegod Barebones.
The following post refers extensively to the framework that Dr. Al Mohler articulated in his own blog post of 12 July 2005 entitled “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity.” You can find that article here.
The official statement of faith for the Southern Baptist Convention is the Baptist Faith & Message. I have signed this document several times. And, in point of fact, not only have I signed it, but I also have read it and I agree with it. My signing of this document has been a matter of informed consent.
And yet, agreeing entirely as I do with the content of our statement of faith, I’d still like to toss out something to consider about the document’s format. Although it would make these documents slightly more complex, would it be a good thing to organize statements of faith according to the varying priorities of the doctrines listed therein?
At the very least, one might create a statement of faith that acknowledged Dr. Mohler’s three-tiered system of theological triage by organizing the doctrines into three tiers. The document could begin by stating: “These are the essential doctrines of the faith. Whoever does not affirm these truths, let him be anathema. Any so-called ‘church’ not embracing these truths in teaching and practice is a cult.” And afterwards, the statement could give a list of cardinal, tier-one doctrines.
In the next section, the preamble could go along these lines: “Following are the distinctive beliefs that identify a Southern Baptist. Any church not embracing these truths in teaching and practice, although it may genuinely be a Christian church, is not qualified to cooperate within the Southern Baptist Convention.” The statement could then go on to list which are these tier-two doctrines.
In the final section, the document could stipulate: “The following can be identified as important Southern Baptist beliefs both in our history and in our current practice, and yet we acknowledge that diversity of opinion has and does exist within our convention on these matters, and that some level of cooperation is possible even among those who disagree. Therefore, although we require that the ministries of this convention be conducted in accordance with and not contrary to these beliefs, we do not believe that they rise to the level of importance that would warrant the breaking of fellowship among sister churches due to differences over these matters.” And then the doctrinal statement could enumerate those matters that belong in this category.
Of course, I acknowledge that it would be an absolute political bloodletting in the Southern Baptist Convention actually to work through this process. Nevertheless, I want to make something absolutely clear: I believe that we ALREADY have and are using something like this. It’s just that most Southern Baptists didn’t get a say in how the tiers were created and applied, and the scheme (or schemes), however they exist in the minds of Southern Baptist leaders, aren’t published for anyone’s review or correction.
I know that significant discussion and disagreement might ensue in the comment section over which particular items belong where, and that’s fine, but I hope that you’ll also all make some statement about the overarching concept—whether a tiered statement of faith would be a good idea in general, presuming that doctrines were placed correctly. I think the idea would provide greater clarity than we now enjoy.
As a final note, I should acknowledge my own friendly interaction with Mohler’s Triage (which I published here) in which I suggested that triage is a bit more complicated than a rigid three-tier system could accommodate. This being the case, I believe that a local church’s statement of faith might include even more levels than these three.
As one who believes in the importance of some form of theological triage, I agree with you that such a thing would be good. But I also agree that it would become, as you said, a “political bloodletting.”
Those would be some exciting SBC meetings!
The only point that seems to me to be third-tier is the section on the Lord’s supper which, as has been pointed out, is largely not applied by most in the SBC. There are other parts which have room for differing interpretations but that wiggle room does not move them from being tier-2 issues because the wiggle room still contains some constraints. I suppose it might be helpful to distinguish tier-1 versus tier-2 for the sake of apologetics and outreach and to clarify who we believe are brothers in error and who we believe to be false professors.
Based solely on anecdotal evidence (mostly from hearing professors at school talk about church horror stories they were either involved in directly, or have had direct contact with people involved), I am of the firm opinion that more baptists churches have split over building issues (color of carpet, pew vs chair, permanent or portable baptistry, or in one story replacing old building that members built with their “own hands” thus they left to start a new church [yes that was really an example]). As such, since many would quickly place “building” issues in tier 2, I too question if such a system could ever take place. lol.
Seriously though, while most people think of Calvinism/Arminiansm as the big issue in the room, what about music type? What about bible translation type? What about carpet color type? While many of these issues may be “smaller” in SBC circles, to the few that hold to them they are BIG issues. And it is my belief that when such issues are brought up, all those people scramble out of the woodwork to make big noise and to get attention. All the while real issues such as evangelism, missions, discipleship, and true cooperation are thrown by the wayside. That has to change, but given that it is likely rooted in human nature, I doubt if it ever will.
Bart,
In theory, your proposal is interesting and may indeed have a good bit of merit. But, in practice, it is appears to me to be next to impossible to work out in a productive and edifying manner.
Here are some of the minefields I foresee:
1. Identifying those who don’t hold to certain doctrines as “cults” will almost certainly be very controversial and cause some very visceral response. Will inerrancy, for example, be one of these? It is certainly among the most important of Baptist beliefs; but are we prepared to say everyone who does not subscribe to inerrancy is actually on the level of a false cult? What about justification by faith alone? Are we as Southern Baptists prepared to go on record proclaiming the RCC as a false cult? What about baptismal regeneration? Will we have to throw Lutherans and Church of Christ in the false cult bucket as well? Let me make clear I am not making an argument here one way or another on the appropriate answer to each of these questions, just pointing out how deeply controversial trying to work them out would likely be.
2. In your level 2 description, you seem to infer a difference between cooperation “within the Southern Baptist Convention” and cooperation outside the bounds of the Southern Baptist Convention. I think it would be important to clarify that, though cooperation as Southern Baptists per se is limited to those who agree on level 2 issues, there is another type of cooperation that may be broader, in which we as Southern Baptists may be able to work with those who agree on level 1 issues but not level 2 issues.
The wording on your level 3 description is a bit uncertain in this regard, where it states that, on level 3 issues, “some level of cooperation is possible even among those who disagree.” In other words, some could read into this that among those who disagree on any level 2 issue NO level of cooperation at all is possible.
3. Your description of level 3 appears to leave open the idea that a belief (e.g. close/closed communion) that is not accepted by the majority but is regarded to be a “historic Southern Baptist distinctive” may well be a sufficient standard for eliminating someone from denominational employment/service. If it were interpreted in this way, I, for one, would have major problems with such a development.
Obvious that we would be in interesting times if we attempted this.
If you are not already familiar with this, here is a model proposed by C. Michael Patton that takes Mohler’s Triage model and expounds and dissects it further. His general categories make a lot of sense to me (though I am not always in agreement with which doctrines he places in those categories).
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/03/chart-to-help-distinguish-between-essentials-and-non-essentials/
David,
Thanks for posting this. It is very interesting. It would at least be a good exercise to have individuals develop their own such set of circles is only to gain respect for each others distinctions.
I agree with what seems to be the consensus so far in the comments: the result would probably be helpful but the process costly. Also, I think the 3rd tier section would be pretty short because most third tier issues are left out or left vague on purpose in the BF&M.
It’s an interesting thought process. I don’t see it turning into anything useful precisely because it would highlight disagreements rather–in essence–hiding them among other words that we have more agreement on.
But I think it’s fair to note that taking a committee through the process of attempting it would tell you a lot about today’s Convention through essentially a well-structured (and tiny) subset. Remember that such a committee would necessarily attract those who are most likely to exert power to protect their own agendas. You could see that process in all of its glory.
What would determine where to place something in the heirarchy? Everyone ascribes different levels of importance to the matters.
How about this–Everything God has clearly revealed is important; what he has not clearly revealed is not.
Most of the members of churches I know have no idea what the Baptist Faith and Message says. As I DOM I am on a campaign to change that. We are hoping to make the BF&M the required value to be a member of our association. Most of our members would not understand the concept of three tiers of beliefs.
Steve,
From experience I know very few who know what is contained in the Baptist Faith & Message. To help combat this I developed a “101 Class” for our church that has the BF&M as required reading before the first week. We then proceed through the main elements of the Christian & Baptist faith while highlight key phrases and sentences from the BF&M.
After having taught the class a few times, I would say that many who learned what it said have grown in appreciation for it. However, I agree that some tier concept would be practically lost and borederline useless among many congregations.
I am surprised there is so little response to this post.
It ain’t 2009, is it?
I don’t think a triage would work effectively because there is too much diversity in the SBC, and too little sense of solidarity regarding tradition. There’s nothing monolithic there. Congregations, not to mention congregants, are simply far too diverse and opinionated, which is no bad thing, but certainly an obstacle to the idea.
Jon, triage is most important when there is diversity. We must distinguish what we MUST all agree on and what is open for disagreement. Must we all hold to the divinity and substitutionary atonement of Christ? I would certainly say yes. Must we all believe that Christ will rapture the church before the tribulation? (Tempted to say yes but…) Of course not.
The more diverse the SBC, the more the need for triage.
Oh, I see. Yes, well, the rapture of the church, I mean the terminology of rapture usually pertains to a premillenial view, and probably of the dispensational variety, so I wouldn’t expect to see that on any of the tiers, would you? I don’t know the percentage of dispensationalists or mere premillennialists in the SBC, but I find no scriptural or traditional basis for either. A few premillennialists existed earlier on in church history and there have always been some. Dispensationalism is far more recent and dualistic, and ignores the climax and summing up we find in Pauline theology.
You find “no scriptural basis” for the premillenial position? Let me help you, it’s Revelation 19, and 20. And as far tradition goes the historic premil position has had a number of adherents over the centuries with a significant showing among the early church fathers.
Jon,
I would love to see a SBC study on the number of people who would hold Dispensational and Premillennial views. I’d especially be interested in knowing how many of the views came after or because of personal study of all available millennial options.
I personally hold to Postmillennialism but have witnessed a rise in general Amillennialism with those who have endured my non-eschatological teaching.
Fortunately, when the end comes, your errant views will be corrected. Amen?
Dave,
If you mean “amen” as “so be it”, then I can certainly say “so be it” within the assumption of your truth that I am wrong.
If you mean “amen” as “truly”, then of course I can’t accept the truth of your statement. 🙂
I’m going to take a gander that Dave’s point is that your eschatological perspective will be tested and proven either true or false based on what Scripture actually says. And you’ll repent of whatever was wrong and confess the shortcoming while happily casting your crowns at the feet of Jesus.
Can I get an amen? 😉
Greg,
Amen! 🙂
No, I meant he’s wrong and I’m right.
Nyah Nyah Nyah!
I always give Dave credit for being the very mature person I perceive–against all prevailing evidence–that he ought to be…talking about grace-colored glasses…
I apologize to everyone for basically dropping out of the conversation. I leave Monday for Senegal, and as is usually the case, there’s a flurry of activity going on with me today.
Bring me back some of those peanuts they sell in Dakar.
Having watched our teams negotiate in the “marché,” I’d say you’re better off not having any of us buying anything for you in Senegal.
Be safe, Pastor Barber . . . may God protect you and bring you safely home again
Isn’t this about your 12th trip there this year?
No one seems to be able to explain who will determine what is central, what’s secondary, and then tertiary. Southern Baptists don’t agree enough to develop that kind of scheme. Why not go creedal? Everyone must at the very least believe the common creeds of the first few centuries, as well as a few Baptist distinctives like craedo-baptism, the Lord’s Supper, congregationalism, etc. Much easier.
Jon,
The answer to your question is simple. Who would decide what belongs in which category? The same people who, under the present system, decide what goes into the BF&M and what does not. How we make decisions as Southern Baptists is no mystery. We have an annual meeting. We register messengers. We elect officers. We appoint committees. Changes to the BF&M are generally proposed by a committee and approved by the messengers.
That’s who.
If it’s that easy, why hasn’t it been done?
The process is simple. Carrying out that process would be nuclear war!
Yes, I think so. Southern Baptists are fiercely opinionated oftentimes.
Dave,
I believe you are right. My question is how are we ever going to call whatever outcome “unity?”
Bart, why not simply adopt the creeds, the apostolic and nicene, for example, and consider that the first tier? Then have all fundamental Baptist distinictives on another tier? The rest is probably irrelevant, no?
Jon,
I imagine, were this to be done, that the content of the first tier would pretty much be precisely what you have indicated: A collection of items that appeared in the historic creeds.
The second tier would consist of a set of evangelical and Baptist sentiments, perhaps including a thing or two that is distinctively Southern Baptist (for example, there are free-will Baptists who are generally evangelical, but perseverance might well wind up as a tier-two doctrine in a Southern Baptist statement of faith).
I’ve been surprised to read people suggesting that tier two is the major category in the present BF&M. As a point of fact, we only have one item in tier two right now: Acceptance of homosexuality. Do that, and you’ll be kicked out. The preponderance of the BF&M is, at present, relegated to tier-three status by our present practice.
Well, that sounds right. The first tier is historic, apostolic teaching. The seocnd is denominational distinctives. What then is the third? Is there a need for one?
The third tier, according to Mohler’s framework, is everything else! I’ve argued that there is often a need for more tiers than three.
Within the confines of the Southern Baptist Convention, there are matters of belief over which we probably wouldn’t expel a church, but which are nonetheless boundaries for the work of our cooperative agencies. Right now, pretty much the entirety of the BF&M is, formally considered, in that category (i.e., the convention’s organizational documents do not make any tenet of the BF&M mandatory to cooperation in the convention). Consider, for example, support of the Cooperative Program (although that’s methodological, and not something that would appear in a statement of faith). We don’t require churches to support the CP, but we do require our institutions to promote CP support. Probably there are doctrinal matters that fall into that category: Things important enough to have institutional unity built around them, but not important enough to exclude churches over them.
I see. I suppose it eventually grows rather complicated, especially if you see a need for more than three tiers.
I wrote a series of posts here (search “Brick Walls, Picket Fences”) that delineates 4 levels of doctrine and truth.
One difficulty I have is the effect our view of so-called “second tier issues” will have on the authority of Scripture. It seems clear the apostle Paul with the full authority of God’s Spirit, refused to allow women to teach in the Church or have authority over men. Then, lest anyone should think this merely a “cultural issue,” bases his argument on creation and the fall. Adam was formed first and Eve was deceived in the transgression. This seems to be the clear and unambiguous teaching of the NT Scriptures and can only be denied by a cultural bias to the contrary. There is no question a person can be a Christian without agreeing to what I wrote above. Many who call themselves Christians may not even be able to find the passage to which I am alluding. My issue is that if we deny the authority of that passage for modern practice, how can we depend on Paul’s teaching about justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone?
I am not sure the proper criterion for deciding what is essential doctrine is what a person needs to know or believe in order to be saved. What about what a person needs to know and believe to grow in grace? What about what a person needs to know and believe to know how we are to behave in the house of God, the Church?
Gracewriterrandy, I don’t think the bible stand or falls with our acceptance or rejection of one thing. We always think in terms of tiers whether or not we actually have them. There were some cultural messages but we need to grasp what’s transcultural. In the Bible wars, people often worried about all of this. I don’t think it’s the problem they imagined.
I posted a short comment earlier. I want to add to that comment an additional perspective (my pardon to Bart for the stinkbomb I’m hereby throwing):
If you study the creeds, they start out simple and get more complex over time. EACH addition is precipitated by some sort of present-day (at the time of the change or addition) faith crisis. The creeds are mostly reactive documents designed to position the (then) modern believer with respect to a set of theological and doctrinal choices. The intention is to outline orthodoxy (well, at least MOST creeds are aimed at that).
The explosion in words in creeds is due to the progression of response to heterodoxy and heresy. As such, you might say that the BF&M2K is precisely tier two in all of its statements for ministerial employees of entities even if it isn’t authoritative for churches. Bart’s sensation that the Tier 1 elements that trace to the more ancient creeds/confessions are still Tier 1 in the BF&M is (I assert) accurate.
The one Tier 2 element actually deserves more attention. We probably would exclude a church based on non-immersive baptism (at least other than for truly unusual circumstances). That isn’t really the wheelhouse of any of the older confessions though some address it. Similarly, we all remain committed to believer’s baptism while cutting finer and finer exceptions for younger baptizees. But the idea of infant baptism (aka paedobaptism) remains a clear nonstarter for SB churches. That’s a Tier 2 though I’m sure the majority of SBs would prefer it would be a Tier 1 (but we cannot argue that all the paedobaptists are simply and irredeemably heretical…just “wrong”.)
I viewed Mohler’s triage as a political effort to construct a common ground in the Convention that was–pardon my phrasing–a somewhat less restrictive tent where many conservative Christians could gather. It very precisely isn’t a BIG tent because we’re not discarding adherence to Scripture as inerrant as a primary requirement for significant political participation (i.e. any role more significant than voting as a messenger on the floor.)
If we gathered a group of people together to go down that path for our sake, though, I will revert to my comment from previously: it won’t go well. Not because it is the wrong thing to do. But because in the middle of the discussion we get more focused on absolute correctness and incorrectness of our interpretation of Scripture THEOLOGICALLY rather than POLITICALLY. So the effort collapses.
I think Mohler was merely suggesting that the thought process permits us to CONSIDER a political consensus that isn’t restrictive and therefore that includes the current coalition in its entirety.
The opposite is how we’re handling the concept of “closed” / “close” communion. The majority of SB churches simply ignore what the BF&M says. And if an entity were to require “closed” / “close” doctrinal instruction and were to make a big deal out of excluding those who didn’t hew to that, sufficient sound and fury would be generated that there would be a change either at the entity or to the BF&M. Because the only choice past that is to split. And we haven’t reached that fork in the road, so to speak.
The concern that Wade Burleson and others have raised in dealing with the Boards of Trustees that remains worthy of consideration is if those Boards pursue divisive doctrinal policy on purpose with the intention of excluding members of the coalition that the messengers at the Annual Meeting have consistently embraced. I think that if we generally believe that has happened, that there is more urgency to take Bart’s proposal seriously.
I think we have a “canary in the coal mine” in the form of Jerry Corbaley that knows exactly whether this should be a concern or not since some of us are under the impression that he cooperated in writing new policies for the IMB that are especially restrictive and that at the time seemed specifically designed to embarrass the sitting President of the IMB. I’m not trying to reopen those wounds, per se, but Jerry ought to be able to address the concern without delving into specifics if he chose to do so.
To wit: are politics afoot that seek to restrict embraced coalition participants based on doctrinal differences from serving at the entity level? Or has that effort petered out? I’m sure if Jerry wouldn’t like to answer that there are other qualified commenters, by the way, but I thought of him, first, since Wade raised the issue while both were on the IMB and Jerry is a noted supporter of the policy changes (including commenting on them here.)
BECAUSE: if there is an effort to call for division of the house via political disinclusion at the entities, the Convention as a whole deserves a say in whether that will be tolerated or not. It still might happen based on the selected Presidents, but if it were actively discouraged it would be harder to do. And Bart’s process is a very good way to discern whether the Convention as a whole is metaphorically sufficiently divided on the subject that a theological/doctrinal coalition could not be preserved.
IF political disinclusion isn’t “afoot”, then I think Bart’s process likely would do more harm than good. Though it might still be instructive…
Sorry for all the distraction, Greg.
What I wanted to respond to was some of the good points you made.
Hope the conversation can get back to something fruitful.
It’s fine. Your suggestion of considering limited term for executives surprised me in a rather positive way. I was trying to figure out how to–or whether to–respond.
Where power collects it takes enormous character to avoid extracting privilege and building networks of influence. It should be a problem that especially concerns Southern Baptists…
I agree. The heads of agencies should lead their staffs toward fulfilling the objectives set by the trustees, who should publicly state the rationale for adjusting previous policy.
Leadership at “the helm” should be seasonal, not a career. The SBC entity should not be the child of the Great Leader.
Yes, SBC boards and agencies are susceptible to manipulation by a few. But the manipulation possible is minimal if the trustees are faithful Christians. In my opinion, it is rather stupid to attempt to get people who walk in the light to attempt to keep the majority in darkness.
Hi Greg,
Thanks, but no thank you, brother. What is left of this canary will not re-enter that pit; his song was clearly not wanted. I would as soon lay my small feathers on the interstate as a speed-bump.
I think your presentation regarding the growth of the creeds is accurate. In a sense, even the New Testament Scripture grew in a similar way: From the letter of Acts 15:28, 29, to the total writings of all the epistles.
Rather than change our statement of faith by adopting a triage “form”, I think making minor changes in the administrative “form” should be tried first. Simply adopt term limits. Seminary and entity heads – 7 years. SBC Executive Committee Director – 5 years. In my opinion, the accomplishments of SBC entities are the gifts of God. What glory is due to man is due to their staff as much (or more) as to the Great Leader.
Are the Boards of Trustees currently subject to efforts to undercut the influence of those outside the power group? Less so than blogs, the Trustees can hold one another accountable.
” I would as soon lay my small feathers on the interstate as a speed-bump.”
I don’t think anything that drastic was ever suggested. However, if memory serves me well at this time, I do believe a suggestion was made of a trip to a place in France and a proposition was proposed for him to join the French Foreign Legion for a seven year hitch.
CB Scott
Yes, your memory serves you well. You remind me of your insults toward me that you repeated for years in the past. Now you update your insult to keep it current.
Is this how you serve our Lord Jesus Christ?
You two need to swap phone numbers and hash some stuff out.
What a marvelously simple idea, Dave. Seems so very basic for Christians.
We exchanged a coupe of emails at my initiation. CB shut it down since December 16th. I offered to talk on the phone on February 18th by email. No response at all.
I bear CB no ill will. Would like it if that cut both ways.
Jerry,
I’ve known you for over 35 years and I will vouch for your integrity and sincerity anytime — and that’s from someone with whom you did not always see eye-to-eye.
Stay true, Brother
Jerry,
Insult? Do you just say stuff like that to get Dave fired up so he will kick me off the thread again and tell me not to be mean and nasty and put me back in blog prison and make me listen to Kumbaya day and night?
Come on, Jerry. I was being nice and sweet to you. I would far rather you join the FFL (a finer bunch of fighting men you’ll never find), than for you to get your feathers run over by a bunch of trucks on the interstate. What kind of depressed talk is that any way? Lay in the middle of the interstate and get run over? Makes no sense, Jerry. . . . no sense at all.
On the other hand, if you join the French Foreign Legion, you will certainly add to the security of peaceful nations. I think that would be a great thing, especially with the nutcase who is now running North Korea wanting to blow us up.
I have an idea. Let’s go to France together and join the FFL on the Buddy Plan. I bet that you and I together could go and give the North Koreans what for and then Hollywood would do a remake of Beau Geste and let us star in the lead roles.
What do you say? Sounds like a winner to me. Let’s do it.
CB Scott,
You are just joking? It is not meant as an insult?
The beginning of your humorous statements to me about moving to France and joining the Legion was in the context of your repeated public calls for me to resign from the IMB Trustees because you believed I was unworthy of service there. Your joking reference here was misunderstood by me in the context of your recent flurry of efforts to publicly confront me in disparaging ways. Perhaps you don’t remember some of the things I said. It is no bother for me to repeat them here, from December 12, 2011, 7:33pm:
“CB Scott,
Your innuendo drags this brother down publicly, and is not accurate. Such words are sinful on both counts. Please stop.
Your attitude toward me, which can be clearly seen in all our blogging interactions for the past six years, is disrespectful toward me. I turn the other cheek and turn the other cheek, only to taste knuckles again. Please stop.
You deny it, but you seem hateful and bitter towards me. I suppose you can just sweep my opinion aside, but if you are serious about healing old wounds, you should refrain from making new ones. You wound me.”
Further, your current joke follows your refusal to respond to email regarding previous conversations and my offer to talk on the phone. When I have told you that you cause me pain, hurt and harm, you have no response other than to sidetrack another comment stream with personal slights toward me.
You are just joking? Really? Tell me true, here, brother. I am powerfully tempted to believe Proverbs 26:18-22, 24, 25a, 26.
I would find it a lot easier to build trust between us if you demonstrated some effort to follow Ephesians 4:29 and 1 Corinthians 13:4 and 5. Where is the grace? Where is the kindness? Where is the humility? Where is the politeness? Even if you consider me your enemy, our Lord’s great commandment is not negligible, is it? Let me remind you again, also from December 12th:
“I want no public confrontation with CB Scott. I will not seek any such confrontation.”
And let me remind you also, from April 5, 2013:
“If you will kindly refrain from disparaging me, I will gladly refrain from pointing out what you are doing.”
It seems clear to me that you desire a public confrontation with me where you can interrogate me about the past. Perhaps I am wrong. I hope I am wrong, for I would quickly confess it as sin and ask your forgiveness. Perhaps you can just tell me, and those who read this publicly, what is it, exactly, that you are trying to do when you engage me publicly. I would expect your answer to be consistent with your many, many words to me over the past months.
You can treat people lovingly, CB. You can do it. It is God’s first priority for Christians. You are at the height of your spiritual maturity during your pilgrimage on earth, I hope I am close to mine. We wanted to begin well, we want to end well. End well, brother.
Jerry, I will admit that the inner workings of CB Scott’s mind lie beyond my abilities of understanding. But, when I read this comment, I do believe it was meant in a light-hearted tone. I think he was trying to take some of the tension out of the mood.
Always hard to tell in blog communication, but I really think he meant this as a joke.
Dave,
I hope you are right.
I would like to hear it from him, with a substantive reply to the question: “Perhaps you can just tell me, and those who read this publicly, what is it, exactly, that you are trying to do when you engage me publicly?”
Doesn’t seem too much to ask.
“If you will kindly refrain from disparaging me, I will gladly refrain from pointing out what you are doing.”
One of the finest justifications of my sin I have ever put into words.
“If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another,…” Galatians 5:25, 26a
No matter how I strive for accuracy in pointing out the wrong, I cannot do so perfectly. To think I can is conceit. And even if pointing out the wrong is done with commendable human accuracy, the act of pointing out the wrong is, itself, a provocation. Returning provocation for provocation is returning evil for evil.
Therefore, I have been sinning. Please forgive me. I don’t intend to do so any longer.
I speak you from the mission field (all that area between Portland and Seattle inclusive). Up here these issues just don’t seem to come up. We are so occupied with just trying to reach people with the gospel we don’t seem to find the time for these other things. The three tier structure sounds very similar to what I learned from Dr. Habermas at Liberty University. Portland and Seattle are ranked as the two most unreached cities with the gospel, excuse me if I don’t get to involved in this subject matter. I agree most SBCers up in the NW don’t even know what BFM2000 says and many don’t care. Sorry to throw water on your enthusiasm.
And this is one reason I’d love to get back to the Northwest. This plus the fact that it’s the most beautiful place on this earth.
Dale and John, I agree with you that the NW is incredibly beautiful. I’ve heard those cities are hte most unchurched. Either of you happen to know the reason? Was it because it was the last settled territory, or is it a different culture, etc.? Thanks.
I can’t say that I know the reason, and I don’t know that there has been any research on it. Anecdotally, I would say that there is a strong independent spirit there, possibly finding it’s roots in the pioneer days of the area.
One shouldn’t assume that the Northwest is “irreligious.” The problem is that so many are open to so many divergent viewpoints. Spirituality is honored, but it is very independent and has a strong personal flavor to it. Any appeal to “authorities” (i. e., the Bible) is usually met with derision and skepticism.
The SBC in the Northwest is made up of hundreds of small, struggling churches and a handful of those that are running 100 or more. There are churches of other denominations that have grown to significant numbers. Hopefully, with the election of a new executive director, there will be a renewed purpose and fresh vision for Northwest Baptists.
Given the opportunity, I’d leave TX and go back there in a heartbeat.
News, please, Dale…
News about the new exec? Here:
http://www.gonbw.org/
Jon, Greg’s dad was a NW Baptist staff member and could most likely speak to your question more articulately than I. Has he given you any insight Greg? I’d like to hear it. If I ever do get the opportunity to return I’m sure it would be helpful.
We’ve talked about it more in the general context of the Pacific Rim–remember Dad served in Indonesia, as an associate pastor in Southern California, and in a similar role with the Hawaii Pacific convention (plus Texas and BSSB/LifeWay stints)–than just regarding the NW. I don’t think he put his finger on any one thing, THOUGH I will offer what I consider central insight into his perspective on the WHOLE thing.
He loves missions. He loves being where it is a challenge. And he loves people. Serving in mission areas and “pioneer” areas just really appeals to Dad. And the Pacific Rim–especially the West Coast–really speaks to his primary calling as a minister. The need is great. The people practically call out with the urgency of the Macedonian call to Paul. But then they can be very difficult to reach. But when they are reached, they tend to be fully committed and are hungry.
Now I might be playing to a stereotype in writing that and I apologize if a West Coaster finds it “quaint”. But it really reflects what I believe is my Dad’s urgency–in his 70s–to continue pastoring and ministering. The job is very much not done along the West Coast. It is very much not “mission accomplished”. The opportunity is enormous. The challenge is great. The need for workers is beyond number. The resources are very limited.
You sense that it is practically impossible that God could reach the West Coast. But for our God, nothing is impossible. And that’s why my Dad remains drawn to that area and continues to invest his life their (along with my mom who is active at the church alongside him.)
P.S. Dad mentioned in passing that they were voting on one, but I hadn’t heard the outcome.
Randy Adams served as Pastor of Fairview Baptist Church in Rhome, Texas, a few years before I served that same church family. He is a terrific guy. Northwest Baptists will be blessed by his ministry.