David Uth, pastor of First Baptist, Orlando, and president of the 2020 SBC Pastors’ Conference, has responded to the movement by some to pressure him into changing the SBC Pastors’ Conference schedule he has designed. He is not backing down, but he has removed one point of attack for the critics.
Some were seeking to pressure the EC to refuse the normal $100,000 in funding they receive for help with the venue costs. Uth has declared that First Baptist, Orlando will underwrite all the expenses.
- No money from any SBC entity will be sought.
- Donations from churches and individuals will be accepted.
- Non-SBC sponsors will be sought.
Here is the letter, from the PC website. After the relentless Twitter attacks, a response such as this is understandable, if regrettable.
Since this is now totally a local church endeavor and accepting of donations from individuals & churches… should we call this an impromptu “network?” ?
I’ll show myself out.
He is applying the old maxim, pick up your marbles and go home. There’s a Peggy Lee song, I believe.
Absolutely wrong. He is standing up to bullies and saying he will not be pushed around.
Respectfully, no one is bullying him. Some have contacted him in private and requested that he reconsider his lineup. It appears he is doing the bullying… picking up the tab to promote his agenda…
According to his statement, his agenda is to challenge and encourage pastors.
What part of that do you object to?
I have no problem with his desire to challenge and encourage pastors. I am all for challenging and encouraging pastors. I need and welcome challenging and encouraging. I probably should have used the word “lineup”, rather than the word “agenda.” God willing, I will attend the PC and I will exercise my privilege to skip out on many in his lineup card. I intend to be there to vote on the next president of the Pastors’ Conference.
Brother Ryan, the part that says we are giving voice to heretics when we should be admonishing them. They preach another gospel
Galatians 1:8 “But even if we or an angel from Heaven preach a gospel to you beside what we preached to you, let him be accursed (anathema) which means, BANNED, or EXCOMMUNICATED (Strong’s G331
To clarify, anyone who disagrees is a bully? Do you typically apply such terms so broadly? I’m asking, instead of assuming.
No. Bullies are bullies.
The Apostle Paul was a bully, by your definition. Jesus was a bully as well (those poor Pharisees and Sadducees)
John the Baptist was a bully for calling out Herod for adultery and lost his head over it! And what about those Bereans?
May God help us!
What Mr. Miller said.
So Dave, I don’t know what the “bullies” have actually done. Just wondering; what should one do who believes this is theologically wrong?
I assume you are saying you are bothered by some of the speakers? Here’s my advice:
1. Put it in perspective. These are fellow believers who differ from us on some non-essential issues. They are not heretics. Actually, they are great preachers with theological differences.
No one will be doctrinally destroyed by the PC.
2. Feel free to express your disdain.
3. Don’t attend. Go to some, not others.
4. Run a candidate for PC president who will get speakers you like.
Until Mike Stone set himself up as the President-in-chief of the pastors Conference, the president had free choice.
Writing a check does not absolve him of the moral culpability of all the previously mentioned issues with the speakers. In my estimation, it seems more of an end around that seeks to circumvent rather than address. Just because FBC Orlando has the financial ability to underwrite this does not mean the issues associated with these speakers will go away. In fact, it may make it worse.
To me, your reaction is an overreaction.
Not sure I would assign “moral culpability” to disagreement on secondary and tertiary issues.
Certainly, the Gospel of Jesus is of supreme importance. That does not mean that the other doctrines outside of soteriology are unimportant. Just because a person, such as Albert Mohler, develops A system that delineates primary and tertiary doctrines, that does not mean there is unanimity in agreement with those designations. You may see these issues as tertiary/insignificant, but many Baptist pastors see these as very important.
Hi Todd. Was wondering if you view the BF&M issues raised in the previous article as secondary and/or tertiary?
Let me jump in. By definition, BF&M issues would be either Category 1 or 2. They are either issues that define us as Christians (doctrine of God, of Christ, of Scripture, etc) or what define us as Southern Baptists – category 2. interpretations of these are tertiary at times.
Thanks Dave. More specifically, would you view the eternal security of the believer and male-only pastors as secondary?
Certainly.
Tom Buck and his Twitter attack corps used this answer to show horror, as if I view Eternal Security as unimportant.
Of course, they know better and are simply engaging in gotcha attacks – trying to tear me down by twisting the truth. It is ungodly and unworthy, but it is standard for some.
Primary truth is that which is fundamental to salvation.
Secondary truth is what defines us as Southern Baptists.
I am fully committed to security and think it is essential to our denomination. But there are many saved people who do not believe in security.
Predictions. They have a gotcha moment against me. It is a lie, but that doesn’t matter to Tom, to Pulpit and Pen, and others of the attack and destroy ilk. You will continue to hear that I view security as unimportant on and on in the future.
We need to ask ourselves if we want this kind of destroy-the-body movement to lead. His friends have declared their intent to take control of the SBC and they are brutal in their methods.
We need to glorify Christ and honor him…not follow these men.
Also, not sure who “my friends” are of whom you speak.
Since the original question was asked of me, let me answer and be as clear as I can so that when my comment is screen-shotted over to Twitter I am at least pummeled for what I actually believe. If by secondary you are speaking in terms of Mohler’s triage taxonomy then, yes, I believe these are secondary issues. Neither our Baptist distinctives of perseverance nor our view that the office of pastor is reserved for men is an identity marker of a true Christian. The issues are important enough for us to separate into different denominations and churches, however, they are not primary. You can deny this doctrine and I still count you a brother or sister in Christ even though I need to function in a separate body.
I am consistent in this. I regularly fellowship with Arminian and Pentecostal believers. I am part of an organization that assists denominational partners of Baptist, Reformed, Arminian, and Pentecostal persuasions to train church planters and plant healthy churches. I have participated in joint worship services, evangelistic crusades, and community service with churches and brethren that hold either or both of these secondary doctrines. Our church will join an Arminian church across town on Good Friday for a joint service. If the twitter mafia thinks that makes me a liberal or calls into question my Baptist identity or my commitment to inerrancy, so be it.
Thanks, Todd.
You said, “The issues (ESB & male pastors, in this case) are important enough for us to separate into different denominations and churches, however, they are not primary.”
I think that is precisely why many are concerned about the SBCPC20. A female pastor from a SBC church is being platformed at a distinctly SBC event, as I understand it.
If these issues are important enough for us to separate into different denominations, they are certainly important enough to be avoided at a distinctly SBC event–especially when some within the SBC are pushing for female pastors, wouldn’t you agree?
I’m thankful the EC seems to be addressing these issues.
Grace to you, brother.
Randall, you asked “If these issues are important enough for us to separate into different denominations, they are certainly important enough to be avoided at a distinctly SBC event–especially when some within the SBC are pushing for female pastors, wouldn’t you agree?”
I think that argument can be made, sure. But that is up to the discretion of the elected president. It’s up to our discretion whether to attend. Besides, It’s pretty standard PC fare to include speakers from outside the SBC fold — nearly every year since I’ve been coming. Using the nuclear option as the EC just did is pretty extreme. As far as some in the SBC pushing for women pastors, I know of only 1 and his name is not Dwight.
100% agree Dave and I also think Tom does know who “my friends” are, not all of them are SBC.
Dave,
Your comment was made in the context of inviting someone to speak at the pastors conference. I don’t doubt that you believe eternal security to be essential to the Baptist Faith. But I take strong issue with you saying it’s a secondary issue in the context of the discussion. You say the doctrine of Scripture, for example, is category 1. But believing in inerrancy isn’t necessary for salvation either. Although, we would both believe it to be a critical doctrine. And we wouldn’t invite someone to speak at pastors conference who preached against that or didn’t believe that.
I don’t know what I said was a lie. I said that you believe eternal security to be a secondary doctrine. But what you accuse me of is exactly what you are doing. Just because you do it in this public com box and I put up a screenshot of what you said on Twitter (in context) doesn’t mean your actions are righteous and mine weren’t.
And your prediction is wrong. I won’t be repeating that about you in the future.
But I do wish you had as much fury over what is taking place at the Church by the Glades are you do me. I guarantee you that if someone invited me to speak at the pastors conference you would say FAR MORE than it isn’t a choice you would make.
Tom
Isn’t Church by the Glades an SBC church Tom? I believe it is, so if this church’s theology is as bad as you say why is it still and SBC church and has been for quite some time.
I wish you and your group were as concerned with the racism and sexual abuse that is in our churches as you are being with non existent ” heresy” hunters.
I know little about the church by the Glades. Not being a busybody, i am not sure how that concerns me.
I have seen your unkind, unfair, and untrue attacks on friends and fellow saints. I wish you had a conscience about those.
What I know of that church – it isn’t for me. Neither, from what I can tell, do they preach a different gospel.
I know might be semantics, but maybe it be more helpful if we used the term from Mohler’s triage: second order beliefs. Sometimes “secondary” seems to communicate unimportance, but I do not think that is what anyone means. I agree both of those would be second order doctrines.
Randall, that’s an important question and I want to answer it in a different comment so I can affirm you here and at the same time be pointed for some Baptist leaders who want to comment on this conversation in other forums. Blessings!
AMEN!
After a five year hiatus from attending the SBCPC and Annual Meeting, I am picking a doozy to start back. I agree with much of what you have written regarding the PC kerfuffle. While I wouldn’t have chosen some of the guest preachers/musicians, that doesn’t mean that I can’t be blessed by hearing from them. I appreciate Dr. Uth’s letter, but in his initial response as reported by Baptist Press, he said, ” All preachers and presenters were chosen after prayer with God’s guidance, with the intention of edifying and encouraging pastors.”
If that was the case (and I have no reason to doubt that it was), then it is not at all surprising that the SBCPC leaders are not changing the line-up, but instead trying to “ease conflicts or tensions that exist over the slated program for the conference” by having FBC Orlando assume all financial obligations for this year’s SBCPC. While that is commendable, I do not believe this will tamp down the controversy, simply because there are too many pastors and other leaders invested in stoking controversy. If not for this, it would be something else.
The SBC is a big tent. However, the further away you get from the center ring (solidly conservative, but not fundamentalist nor wildly “contemporary”), the greater the risk of the sideshows (whatever those may be) thinking that they are really, truly the main attraction. There are legitimate concerns about some of the speakers on the program, but this particular dustup could have been avoided by leaders who were more aware of where the center ring is located in the first place. It’s probably not where they think it is. If future SBCPC leaders learn that lesson, that will be profitable for all concerned.
Agree.
Eddie
As a pastor in Florida for 23 years I always looked up to Pastor Uth. I served with him in the Florida Baptist Convention on many occasions. But I must say, this response is very disappointing to me to say the least. What Pastor Uth has just done, is to say that the only reason that brothers and sisters in Christ were upset, was because of the money! To me that is very insulting. I for one serve God not money. Whether FBC Orlando foots the bill or not it is still the SBC Pastor’s Conference. It BELONGS to the Pastor’s of the SBC, who by the way are the ones who voted Pastor Uth as president. This is another colossal mistake by a mega church pastor who is thumbing his nose at legitimate concerns raised over the direction of the SBC Pastor’s Conference and his spiritual discernment in planning it. Unfortunately, a selfish response that has at its core to be more divisive instead of bringing people together will only add more fuel to the fire of dividing us instead of unifying us around the mantra of the Gospel above all!
I think the SBC is and has been thumbing it’s nose at legitimate concerns about women’s role in the church as well as all the sex and spiritual abuse scandals. As Rachel Denhollender put it so well, where was the outrage over abuse, as opposed to so much outrage over a woman taking the pulpit. The perspective, or lack thereof is telling.
The PC is NOT a democracy. I know this.
We elect a PC president annually. He has unfettered power.
You can choose to attend or not.
You can run or support a candidate who with run.
You can VOICE your dissent from Uth’s choices.
All valid.
But the PC is not under the control and command of the SBC. It is a separate entity. Always has been.
The only voice we have is our attendance and our vote. Once a president is elected, he is free to act.
Then why not call it the Pastors Conference- Not the SBCPC?
This is not a response. It is a buyout! This will only increase the controversy. But it will likely INCREASE PC attendance ;). An unintended consequence may be a more divisive SBC since so many SBC attendees will enter the annual meeting already ticked off.
I am a layman struggling to stay within the SBC due to my affection for my local church, that honestly I now wish was not associated with the SBC organization. This issue is yet another example of SBC leadership being concerned about inside baseball issues. The vast majority of SBC do not know about the Pastors Conference and would assume it is a good idea for SBC Pastors to get together and share together. Would most SBC churches be comfortable and want to be subjected to the speakers and programs promoted by the invited speakers at the PC conference. What is the purpose of the Pastors Conference? I do not know. However , this does not sound like an agenda that is needed at this time for SBC unity. I agree with Allen Calkins above. My small to medium size church struggles to contribute to CP, the missions giving and keeping the doors open. No time for this type of unneeded controversy and money spent for what? Is the announced schedule of speakers at this PC not already sending a message? Are we supporting this to send the SBC agenda out into the world or having the world explain their agenda to the SBC? In closing, all insider issues that most SBC are totally unaware of , which is good for the SBC.
Brother Steve,
I think that many are asking themselves the same kinds of questions and here are my thoughts. The SBC is a huge animal all its own, there is nothing like it in Christianity it defies labeling. Because it is comprised of so many diverse and often competing theological persuasions it is amazing that we do not fuss a lot more than we do.
I am a Southern Baptist because of our doctrinal statement and because I believe that with a little civility and a whole lot more transparency and honesty we can work together for the Gospel. I pray for our convention because unity without compromise is essential for us moving forward.
Blessings in Christ,
woody
Did the congregation vote on this expenditure 2) must be nice to have an extra 100k lying around. just kidding I think
Since FBC Orlando is hosting/paying/running this event now, will there be an election of the PC officers at this event, and if so, is that considered to be an actual SBC event? Will it not be out of order if new officers are elected since the SBC is NOT paying and sponsoring this event?
The SBC has never paid for or sponsored this event. It has never been under the authority of the SBC or its entities. It has worked in cooperation with them.
Will continue to do so.
The EC has provided a half cost discount on the venue. They aren’t doing that this year.
C’mon man.
If the SBC has NEVER paid for or sponsored this event, then who has?
Lifeway, one of the Seminaries, other Christian entities interested in promoting their ministry/products to SBC churches…it varies. I cannot remember when a single church just foot the bill because their pastor was in charge. But I do forget many things too.
I am going to state this kindly
Uth has lost his way
Again, there should always be at least 2-3 pastors from SBC Congregations of less than 150 attendees
I read it on the internet
If the SBC does not pay for the pastor’s conference or endorse anything that happens there, then why is it called the SBC Pastor’s Conference?
Then it will not be the SBC Pastor’s Conference, but First Orlando’s Pastor’s Conference and they can do as they please.
We are to love everyone as Uth states; however, love from a Christian means we declare God’s Holy truth regarding sin and repentance. (Way too many Scriptures to reference here.)
We must, “come out from among them and be separate.” Given his reasoning, we must agree to invite LGBTQ churches as “cooperative.” Or perhaps Westboro Baptist?
When we give platforms to such groups Uth desires to associate with, we are saying that we agree with them. We do not, and we admonish them for their unbiblical teachings, etc.
We are Baptists for a reason… many have died for what we believe, teach, and hold. Not traditions, biblical truth.
While I’m on a roll, the ERLC needs to be defunded and abolished immediately. Never been a fan!
Research……