“We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
That quote, of questionable provenance, is attributed to Benjamin Franklin (or to Richard Penn, or to an anonymous American General) at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Whether he actually spoke the words, the sentiments are beyond dispute. In such a time of extremity unity is essential, not optional. Those who came together to craft, discuss, debate, and finally sign that document had disparate backgrounds, beliefs, agendas, and purposes. Yet, they were able to unite in the belief that the course of human events had made their action necessary and that they must come together for a cause greater than that which separated them. They believed, whether anyone stated it or not, that they must hang together or hang separately.
The Southern Baptist Convention, which we love, is at such a juncture. Our convention has never been perfect, but it has been blessed. We’ve had divisions and blind spots, we have made mistakes that we now regret, but we have held fast to the truths of God’s word and stood strong for the gospel when many denominations have sacrificed it on the altar of cultural relevance, modernism, or popular opinion. By God’s mercy and grace, we have been a powerful force in this nation and in the kingdom of God in spite of our flaws and dysfunction.
The last fifty years have been tumultuous in our denomination’s history. We have engaged in a battle for the Convention’s theological soul, a battle that was noble yet left some deep scars in our collective psyche. Gone are the days of the 50s and 60s when there was a discernible “Southern Baptist Culture” that was nearly universal and united us throughout our stronghold in the Bible Belt of Southern states and even marked our existence in so-called pioneer areas. A series of cultural, sociological, religious, and theological forces have shattered that monolithic Southern Baptist Culture and we find ourselves now in a deeply splintered and fractured world searching for a new denominational identity.
If you asked a group of pastors in the 60s to describe Southern Baptists, they could have done so with ease. Ask a group of pastors today to answer the question, “What is a Southern Baptist?” and a lengthy debate will ensue, with no satisfactory conclusion. The SBC is in the middle of an identity crisis. Who are we? What is our heritage? What is our future? Disparate groups vie for the right to describe our past, define our identity, and direct our future. In the midst of this battle of wills we have seen a disturbing statistical trend; one which research shows has actually been going on since about 1950. Our growth rate as a convention has consistently slowed, resulting in first a plateau and then over the last decade a statistical decline.
We have reached our Benjamin Franklin moment and must declare that “if we do not all hang together we will all hang separately.” If we care about the future and the witness of the people of God known as Southern Baptists, we must lay aside the petty divisions, the rancor, the secondary pursuits, and unite in Christ. We must find a focus for the future, an identity around which we can unite or we will splinter into a dozen smaller and less effective denominations or denominational-type entities.
We raise our voices today to encourage a New Baptist Future that is founded upon ancient principles, issuing a call to lay down arms and take up our cross to follow Christ in the mission he has set for us.
Who Are We?
We are an informal coalition of Baptists who share common concerns. We lay no grandiose claims to representing some mythical majority in the SBC. We do not stake out territory as the special heirs to grand traditions of the founders of the SBC. There is not a one of us involved in the production of this document who is a “mover and shaker” in denominational life. No one among us pastors a megachurch or one that even comes close. Most of us have been involved in blogging at one level or another.
We are concerned pastors and church leaders who think the SBC, which we love, can be better, do more, and have a brighter future. We share some ideas about how that can happen and we want to promote those ideas. There is no secret handshake, no structure, organization, officers, or meetings. Right now, we are a Facebook group of pastors and bloggers batting some ideas around. Those may shift, sharpen, and adjust as the future unfolds, and other interested parties are welcome to have a voice in that. You are part of us if you share our goals and outlook and want to help influence the SBC in that direction. You do not need a membership card.
It is not completely accidental that we are calling ourselves “Voices for New Baptist Future.” Though SBC Voices will remain a place where a variety of views can be voiced (and responsible articles in opposition to this document will be welcomed), many of those involved are part of the SBC Voices community. SBC Voices will be one place where our views and plans will be discussed.
We have no firm plans about the future at this point. The purpose of this document is to set forward our ideas and to see how they are received. We will continue to advocate for these convictions but our precise agenda has yet to be determined.
The SBC as We See It
Every voice among us is an unabashed and unreserved Southern Baptist, a supporter of our denominational work. We love the SBC, adhere to the BF&M 2000 as our confessional document, support the CP as our missions vehicle, and are in general support of our entities. That does not mean that everything is as it should be in the SBC. It never has been and it never will be. That is the nature of institutions comprised of and led by fallen people. God’s grace works in spite of our flaws, but we must constantly seek to be conformed by God’s work to the biblical ideal.
There has never been a Utopian time in the life of the SBC, a pristine moment of spiritual glory that should serve as our standard. No leader of the past, no era, and no movement is our reference point, but the Savior and the Word he inspired to lead us into all truth. We are “people of the book” not “people of the traditions of the past.”
And so, while we affirm the SBC and we value its history and work, we also believe it can be improved. It is our desire to influence our denomination in a direction we believe will benefit it and be a blessing in its eternal work. We are fully aware that some will disagree, but these are the convictions that drive us.
- The SBC must unite around biblical principles to stop the splintering.
Since our cultural uniformity disintegrated, we have struggled to find other uniting principles and have to this point been unsuccessful. Some have fought to define our denomination theologically either by its perceived Reformed historical roots or by rejecting that and appealing to various non-Calvinist streams. Some have advocated for a return to that monolithic cultural past. “If we did today what we did then, we’d see today what we saw then.” Others argue that we must change with the times or become hopelessly irrelevant. The 25 year “worship war” was but one battle in this conflict. There are personality conflicts, and battles between young and old. There is a significant conflict in the SBC today over the importance of the culture wars in the church – whether they are a distraction from our task or essential to it.
We are never going to agree on all these issues. The issue of soteriological sovereignty has been argued long before Southern Baptists were a gleam in the radical reformers’ eyes and it will be argued until Jesus returns. Arguments on strict tithing, moderate alcohol use, the culture wars, worship styles – these will not be solved no matter how much or how long we argue them. If we insist that our unity rests on uniformity on these issues, then we might as well call a lawyer now and seek legal separation and an equitable distribution of property! Divorce is inevitable.
But we believe there is a better way, that there are solid biblical principles on which we can unite that will bring us together, establishing our identity on a confessional core, a missional system, and a love for Christ and the lost world. If we will allow this to supersede the internecine squabbles that divide and splinter us, then our future is hopeful.
- We must remember that Jesus died for a united body, and that unity is a divine mandate.
The Bible calls us to doctrinal fidelity and we are thankful that the previous generation of Southern Baptists heeded that call. But for every call to doctrinal fidelity there are multiple calls to unity, to oneness in Christ, and these often go unheeded. This cannot be. If we believe the Word, we must obey its call to unity in the Body of Christ.
Jesus redeemed one Body. We do not have to create unity; the Savior did that and the Spirit continues to unite us today. Our duty is simply to maintain that unity of the Spirit which Jesus produced in us. We must prize unity enough to take those actions which preserve and promote it. We must love one another, forgive one another, show grace to one another, believe the best about one another, and seek to build up one another.
This unity is a primary concern of our Savior and a fundamental command of Scripture. We cannot be obedient Christians or “good Baptists” if we are not seeking to build up the Body and maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace. We must “speak the truth in love.”
- We must unite for a New Southern Baptist Future.
Once, our unity came because we sang the same hymns from the same hymnal, used the same literature from the same Sunday School board, and heard similar sermons from pastors trained at the same seminaries. That cultural identity is gone and must be replaced by something new. We believe our future will focus on the following items. That future will be set as we maintain the proper focus .
- Our New Southern Baptist Focus must remain confessional.
The Baptist Faith and Message is not an infallible document, but it is a sufficient ground for our denominational cooperation. Not every Christian agrees with our confession and someone can be a good Christian without being a Southern Baptist. But if you disagree with the BF&M in a significant way you are not Southern Baptist. A fellow-believer who shares our fundamental gospel fidelity but diverges on Baptist doctrine or practice need not be treated as the enemy. We shake their hands, bless them, and pray for them as they go out from us to other fellowships. We must hold to gospel truth and to Baptist doctrine – unswervingly, uncompromisingly, and unfailingly. Biblical confessionalism is non-negotiable.
Though it is neither a perfect or inspired document, we have no desire to renegotiate or rewrite the BF&M 2000.
- Our New Southern Baptist Focus must be cooperative.
For nearly a century, the word “cooperative” has been central to our existence as a convention and the Cooperative Program has been the channel for our missions giving. Will it be tweaked in days ahead? Perhaps. Will it look exactly like last century’s CP? Perhaps not. But we believe that the CP is best the foundation for the future and that efforts to return to societal giving are ill-informed and unfortunate. We recognize that autonomous Baptist churches have freedom to choose their level of support and their methods of mission support, but we believe in, support and will promote missions through the Cooperative Program.
- Our New Southern Baptist Focus must be marked by freedom.
Romans 14 teaches a powerful concept with which many of us struggle. We have a Lord who died and rose again for the right to rule our lives. He earned that right and we ought to obey him. But as a corollary to that, we must remember that the Lordship of Christ precludes us lording it over one another. On issues of conscience, on disputable matters, we ought to live by our conscience under the Lordship of Christ and allow others to do the same.
This attitude must be part of our focus. On gospel matters we must be like iron – unbending. On Baptist doctrine we hold our convictions both firmly and graciously. But on other issues we follow our biblically-based convictions with the realization that others will do the same. We do not judge or disdain those who disagree. We may discuss, even argue, but we accept as full partners in Baptist life those who disagree on these issues.
What does all of this mean? It means that we are seeking a Southern Baptist fellowship that is confessional, cooperative, and free. We need to accept that we will be young and old, traditionalist and culturally-relevant, rock-and-roll and piano-and-organ, we will wear coats and ties and jeans and t-shirts, and most importantly, we will be inerrantist Baptists with divergent views on the sovereignty of God in salvation, on eschatology, and on several other issues.
We must be willing to join with others who share our gospel, our commitment to Baptist doctrine, and are willing to cooperate around our missions program, even if they are drastically different than we are in other ways.
- We must seek unity by broadening participation in the SBC’s leadership.
For a denomination as large as ours, leadership has been held in a relatively narrow corridor. That must change. We have two primary concerns here.
- We must continue the progress and increase the pace of racial reconciliation in the SBC.
The election of Fred Luter as president was not the sign that racial reconciliation had been finally achieved in the SBC, but merely a step along the path that began in Atlanta in 1995. Much remains to be done. We are encouraged by the responsiveness shown by SBC presidents and by the leaders of the Executive Committee in this area. But we believe that the progress we have made must be maintained and the pace accelerated.
The number of minority trustee appointments has increased, but a greater representation is needed. Increasing diversity in upper management and administration at our entities is crucial. It is happening and will continue to happen. We also believe that the convention needs to continue to elect officers from various minority groups. We simply need to keep our eyes open to see that the rate of progress increases and that we do not become satisfied before the job is complete.
- We should include smaller churches in the leadership of the SBC.
We understand that 95% of churches in the SBC average under 400 on Sunday morning. On the other end, there are only about 150 megachurches, churches that average over 2000 in attendance on Sunday. That means that about 1/3 of 1% of all SBC churches are megachurches. However, the leadership of the SBC is drawn almost exclusively from those 150 megachurches and trustee representation often favors those churches disproportionately.
We are not going to engage in class warfare of any sort. Megachurches have a role, a big role in the SBC. They are reaching people and doing a great work and it is not our purpose to engage in the anti-megachurch rhetoric some use. Since the explosion of Baptist blogging, when many of us became active in the convention, we’ve seen megachurch pastor after megachurch pastor elected president of the convention, and each has done a wonderful job.
But our individual admiration for these men does not change the fact that the presidency of the SBC is not the divine right of megachurch pastors. The constitutional duties of a president could be performed in exemplary fashion by many from smaller and medium sized churches and there is no reason to dismiss the vast majority of our pastors from consideration simply because their churches do not match up statistically with the megachurches.
We believe that both in the election of officers (including president) and in the selection of trustees for the entities of the SBC, greater effort needs to be made to expand the circle of participation.
- We must build unity by allowing for principled and constructive dissent.
Unity is not advanced by the suppression of dissenting voices. Godly leaders are always willing to hear and respond in humility to those who give a counterpoint to their point.
This has been a delicate balance for leaders. Harsh voices have spoken, seeming more intent on destruction, insinuation, unsubstantiated conspiratorial allegations and character assassinations than on productive, godly edification. It is not always easy to discern hearts or differentiate constructive criticism from that which has no godly intent. Denominational leaders are subjected to criticism for nearly every decision they make or action they take.
But this reality must not blind us to the fact that principled dissent is both a godly thing and a cherished part of Baptist history. Our denominational roots are in opposition to the establishment churches of Europe and even of colonial America. Those who raise concerns or even criticize a leader ought not be branded as trouble-makers or sentenced to the denominational gulag.
Among our group are those who have faced that kind of response when they have raised issues or expressed disagreement. We believe in working inside the system, but we also believe that no leader, no entity, and no board is above challenge.
Destructive criticism is sinful and can be rejected. Yet, if we as a denomination refuse to hear critics, if we bully those who ask a question or raise a concern, and if we ostracize those who disagree with decisions that are made, then we are not honoring the Savior and we are not fostering unity. True unity is not enforced uniformity; it allows dissent and disagreement so that godly agreement and spiritual unity can be reached.
In Conclusion
We are plotting our course for the future and discussing options. We believe in the power of God and in the future of the SBC, and we intend to raise our voices. None of our plans are set, but they will undoubtedly include the following.
- Networking – we will talk to others and seek to advance our goals and beliefs.
- Writing – blogging and other writing provides a forum for us to advance our convictions and we intend to make use of those opportunities, here at SBC Voices and at other places as we have the ability.
- Politicking – It has become a bad word, but at some point, you have to try to win a majority vote at the annual meeting! As Dr. Patterson and Judge Pressler showed us, the election of the president of the SBC is a key component to this and we are looking at either enlisting candidates or endorsing them.
We submit this document for your consideration and critique. We are preparing other documents which will further express our views, our intent and our purposes. Our first step is to see how many share our concerns and our convictions.
This was a group document. Dave Miller was the initial author, but it was edited by several of those signed below and redrafted several times. It is presented as the group effort of the following:
Todd Benkert
Mike Bergman
Adam Blosser
Alan Cross
Scott Gordon
Doug Hibbard
Brent Hobbs
Mike Leake
Dave Miller
Ethan Moore
Dean Stewart
We are not specifically seeking to do a “sign-up” for this, but if you’d like your name added to the list, all you need do is ask and we will add you.
I’m certainly OK with the concept. One of you guys run for something and I’ll show up and vote.
I’d make an awesome water boy… That’s a position, right?
The nice thing about our autonomy as Southern Baptists is that everybody has the right to assemble a group and seek unity on the basis of their cherished ideals and beliefs. I think everyone should welcome that, whether or not the new group’s ideals and views are completely in sync with those of another group.
I am a part of such a unity group myself, and while some critics may call it a “splinter group,” I know my heart’s desire is to bring unity and peace within our convention, and to make it a better place.
Welcome, Voices for a New Baptist Future. (VNBF) We may have differing ideas on how to get there, but we all want a better SBC.
The difference, I think, is that we would like to see unity among all Southern Baptists, while your document is exclusive of a large percentage of SBC pastors and churches. The Traditional Statement does bring unity, but only for a part of the Convention members and not the whole.
We want to see unity among ALL Southern Baptists as well. I find it interesting, for lack of a better term, that you assume we don’t.
I can’t sign off on all of the items in the VNBF statement above. So I could just as easily say that THIS group does not want unity for ALL Southern Baptists, but that you only want it for those who believe like you do. (I don’t feel that way, by the way. I just think the same can be said for all such groups. One person’s unity group is another person’s splinter group.)
I think each of our groups will have areas of overlap where we agree, and other areas where we disagree. But it would be a mistake to assume that Connect 316, for example, does not want to work with everyone in the convention to solve problems, foster better relations and fulfill the Great Commission.
It would also be a mistake, I think, to assume that Baptist 21, Founders, 9 Marks or other organizations do not wish to work together, but are “only in it for themselves.”
I think the best thing we could do is get some of these groups together and start having more open and honest talks, instead of trying to sweep all the stuff under the rug.
The T5 Report was great and all, but there were never any action plans to implement anything that might bring us together. It was just sort of, “Hush, now and it will all go away.” I think that’s naive and an example of denial.
Anyway, I do hope our groups can work some things out. I really like the paragraph about people asking questions not being troublemakers.
This group does seem to demand conformity and unanimity in order to belong, or even to identify as a Southern Baptist. So, nothing new in this declaration.
The difficulty rests with embarking on a “New Baptist Future”, while still trying to define the “Old Baptist Past”. At some point, we just need to put our behinds in our past and take the fork in the road.
“Does not wisdom call out? Does not understanding raise her voice? At the highest point along the way, where the paths meet, she takes her stand” (Prov. 8:1-2).
Excellent! This is precisely the kind of conversation that we need to be having in the Southern Baptist Comvention. While I appreciate all five action steps at the end, numbers three and four resonate with me specifically. Number one is the most important one, but it’s also one that most Baptist would hardly say that they agree with. But, if one and two are going to be true, then three and four MUST logically follow. We need more voices, and more voices from different perspectives involved in setting the direction of our convention.
For me, this kind of article gives me hope, and a reason to cheer. Thanks for posting it!
Derin
Thanks sir
It has been said that, in the life of any organization, its purpose will eventually become self-perpetuation. Keeping itself going, as it were.
That’s what I read in this document. And, to me, that stands totally separate from making disciples, which is the Great Commission.
To me, the real failure of the SBC has been the failure in making disciples. And focusing our attention and efforts on correcting the current situation of easy believism and casual Christianity might just take care of the other problems mentioned in this paper.
Bob, I guess self-perpetuation was one of the things I was hearing in this post that prompted me toward my question below.
Bob and Robert, in our discussions there has been no talk of saving the SBC that I remember. Self-perpetuation by definition has “self” interest. We are not seeking a platform to promote ourselves but are attempting to start a discussion about our future as a denomination.
If it would further the Kingdom of God I would gladly cast the vote to dissolve the SBC. My allegiance is to Jesus. However, at this time I am a SB pastor and my church does give just north of $100,000 a year to SBC causes so I want to be part of a discussion on our future.
As for as discipleship is concern, the confession we hold to makes clear our denomination understands we are to make disciples. Disciples will not be made by a convention but through the ministries and individuals in local churches.
Dean, to clarify: My mention of “self-perpetuation” has no reference to any “self-interest” on the part of the writers and/or signers. I’m sorry that it may have sounded that way. I meant rather that this seems to be just another direction of coming at how the SBC can continue to perpetuate itself. And I don’t think it would be wrong to say that there are many different “SBC Voices” who have their different ideas of how that could and should be done. The title had given me hopes that it might be something broader than that.
I understand Robert and I agree no one has a monopoly on ideas about what the SBC should do. However, what you and Bob see as self-perpetuation I see merely as improvement. VBC will exist even if the SBC ceased. We will carry on with kingdom work. Until the SBC does cease I am for any conversation that can improve her.
Who is in a position to analyze the situation re: discipleship in our churches, and “diagnose and prescribe” the cure? The SBC itself, yet I don’t recall the SBC as a whole trying to lead churches to solve the problem, or even tell the churches they’re failing at it.
According to figures published by the Alabama Baptist a few years ago, attendance in SBC churches, in the 6 major population centers of Alabama, was 33.28% of membership. And remember, attendance includes children and visitors who aren’t members.
Other denominations report 52.97%.
God pays for what He wants done, and He pays it to the people He can trust to do it. Perhaps we have lost God’s trust.
I have admired and wanted to be a Southern Baptist all my life. Last year, I made it happen. Please help my dream to remain true.
Interesting start of a conversation. But if there is a need for a “New Baptist Future” in extreme times, why should the conversation, unity and program be limited to the SBC? For example, one medntioned goal is that “We must continue the progress and increase the pace of racial reconciliation in the SBC.” Racial reconciliation is a worthy goal. The context seems to emphasize black-white reconciliation — but the vast majority of black Baptists are not in the SBC. Would you suggest they must come over to the SBC, or do you have in mind something else?
Well, we are SBC. I guess we’ll start here!
I have no disagreement with the concept that we all must start from where we are.
If the VNBF would invite Presbyterians, they could be bigger than The Gospel Coalition.
I think there is a place for interdenominational partnerships among Baptist groups as a means toward racial reconciliation. I thought the meeting between Ronnie Floyd and Jerry Young (NBC president) was promising and look forward to what the study group comes up with.
On a local level, I am a member not only of our local SB association, but have been invited to participate in the “Baptist Ministers’ Conference,” a a group of traditionally African American Baptist Churches (both NBC and PNBC). My church is the only Anglo church and one of only two SBC churches.
I agree with Dave that we must start where we are, but there are indeed additional opportunities to fellowship and partner outside the SBC.
I’m not much of a “joiner” (and I am bi-vocational, and the ministerial alliances of the past which are around here tend to lean liberal) — but I am making this kind of effort church to church and pastor to pastor. Not setting the woods on fire, but have made some warm friendships. There is a great need to work on this kind of fellowship at the local church level.
I was saved when I was 17 in a Southern Baptist Church in St. Louis, Mo. That was 55 years ago. At 18 I was called to preach. I was in Oklahoma Baptist University from 1962-66, and SWBTS 66-69. I spent nearly 30 years pastoring SB churches. I Moved to Montana with HMB/NAMB in 93 and retired that position 20 years later. Currently I serve as Dean of the Chapel at Yellowstone Christian College where I also teach Systematic Theology. I am a veteran of the CR (starting for many of us long before 79) and more recently the “worship wars”. Why the bio? To simply admit that perhaps the reason for the comments that i am about to make is that I am tired, in fact bone tired…perhaps that is clouding my judgement. I would willingly accept that accusation.
My comments as follows
(1) I am hearing nothing in this document that I have not heard many times before.
(2) We are 7 comments into the post (when I started typing) and already I see the seeds of strong difference of opinion, which I am confident are held not only in the head, but also the heart.
(3) While SB numbers are going down, kingdom numbers are going up in Montana….not all SB, but kingdom…evangelistic church planting people with a solid gospel but a different label.
(4) The survival of the Kingdom of God is not dependent upon the survival of the SBC. God has always had a people and in his sovereign will He will raise up those which He desires to accomplish His task…those with perhaps another label.
(4) Historically the strength of God’s people called Southern
Baptist has not been in the structure of the denominational entity but in the hard work of faithful pastors and churches at the local level.
(5) IMO the only thing that will accomplish the unity that the document seeks is in the words “If my people, who are called by my name”….well you know the rest of the verse.
I am certainly not opposed to what has been stated in the document. I just do not believe that therein lies the solution if indeed there is one.
D.L.,
Your first statement speaks to our point. These things have been said before, indeed. We are in constant need of heeding the call of the Reformers: semper reformanda. We must always be submitting to the reforming work of the Gospel in our lives and be working on ourselves, encouraging that reforming in our churches, and among those cooperative efforts to which our churches are connected (the most primary of which for us as Southern Baptists is our convention of churches).
We simply are speaking our heart-felt evaluation of the current status of the SBC, while then seeking for ways to have our cooperative ministry efforts strengthened going forward. This statement and the proposals we have outlined are, as others have noted, general in scope. I happen to think that the various ideas have significant import in many specific applications for us for the future.
I hope we will always have the desire in our lives, our churches, and our convention to examine ourselves and constantly be transformed by the truth of God for the glory of God.
“We are in constant need of heeding the call of the Reformers: semper reformanda.”
Okay, let’s seek a little unity here. When I hear statements like the above, it sounds like a very Calvinistic nod to the magisterial reformers. For a Southern Baptist with my convictions, it sounds exclusive and discriminating toward those of us who prefer the Radical reformation—Hubmaier, not Platt. It sounds like you are trying to reform those of us who embrace the Hobbs-Rogers tradition.
Of the ten VNBF signers, I believe every single one is a Four Pointer or a Five Pointer.
So here’s the thing: if you want to reach across the aisle and show unity to ALL Southern Baptists, I think it will involve ACCEPTING people like me and INCLUDING people like me, and not SEEKING TO REFORM people like me.
I am glad the aim of this group is to seek unity. I am not sure what that looks like yet, but I hope it looks like sitting down and sharing ideas and discussing our areas of agreement and disagreement and charting a way forward that can be productive.
No one’s seeking to reform you, Rick. In fact, there is nothing “reformed” or “Calvinist” at all in what we’ve said. As one of the signers summarized, we are
“Calling the SBC to abandon pettiness, lay down its weapons of warfare, and embrace a future based on confessional agreement, cooperation in missions, grace and freedom in other matters, broadening the leadership base and encouraging the right to principled dissent.”
It should be something you embrace, but it seems you reject it based on who signed it and not on what it says.
(On the politicking side, informally, this group of signers has actively campaigned now for two presidential candidates, neither of whom were Calvinist or reformed but both sought to broaden participation in the way this post describes)
“It should be something you embrace, but it seems you reject it based on who signed it and not on what it says.”
I am not rejecting the effort to find unity. I believe finding unity means sitting down and talking honestly about the problems and working out solutions—not pretending issues don’t exist or scolding people for mentioning them.
One of the problems is the disproportionate Calvinist representation in the SBC’s entity leadership, especially new leaders. I hope VNBF will be open to working toward solutions that will lead to greater unity in this area.
And on the issue of whether or not someone is trying to reform my church, consider this statement from a website: “The purpose of ___ is the recovery of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in the REFORMATION of local churches.” That sounds to me like this SBC group wants to reform churches, by which they mean to Calvinize them.
I am glad to know that is not the desire of VNBF. I hope VNBF can be a tool God will use to build bridges and create greater understanding between our various SBC constituencies.
D.L. Patton,
I have thought about why it is important to me to be a Southern Baptist a lot over the years.
I have concluded that for me it is theological. I still believe we (Southern Baptists) are more closely in harmony to a biblical theology than any other identifiable group in Christendom. So, I guess I will stay the course as a Southern Baptist.
And finally, Ole Charlie always told me to “dance with the girl you came with.” So I reckon I better dance with the SBC, even when she stomps on my toes a little, ’cause she’s still the prettiest girl in town.
C.B.
I understand what you are saying and respect your position. What follows is a short synopsis of my journey and where I am today and I ask you to keep in mind that for the 30 years I pastored, those churches gave no less that 16% nor more that 26% to the CP, to be blunt under my leadership and encouragement.
(1) The girl that brought me to the dance isn’t quite as pretty a she used to be.
(2) Since I left the South I discovered that there are a lot of pretty girls around with which to dance who are not SB
(3) Being 72 I don’t have that many years left and I don’t want to spend my time dealing with the things we are dealing with here, plus i have paid my dues in the CR and “worship wars”…that’s a cop out I realize but nonetheless a part of my journey.
(4) I am not sure in what part of the country you reside but in my neck of the woods these discussions are not on the radar of churches that are growing and vibrant.
I would share more of that journey but hopefully it will become a book which means I would have to charge you 🙂
Blessings my brother
D.L. Payton,
I understand. A short time ago, I had an offer from the United Methodist gal, but there are just too many “Connections” in her life for me and I have “Persevered Securely” with this SBC gal through a lot of “Slip-Slidin’ Away” on the convention dance floor, so I guess I will “Save The Last Dance For Me” with her.
But hey, let me know when the book comes out, I will gladly pay the price to read about your “Last Waltz.” 😉
C.B.
I will not even attempt a come-back…that comment is untoppable….boogie on my brother boogie on!
Rick, my brother, if anyone calls me a Calvinist they are lying.
Ok, Dean. My apologies. At least one of the ten are not Calvinistic. If eight or nine of the ten do indeed identify as Calvinistic, then it seems to me to be a bit more Calvinistic than the rest of the convention as a whole.
One of my general concerns about the SBC is the apparent disproportionate level of Calvinists in many of our groups. VNBF would seem to lean Calvinistic to me.
All Baptists are Calvinistic to one degree or another. My Nazarene buddies laugh when I suggest there are non-Calvinist Baptists 😉
Todd,
What would you say, if I told you that some of us, Baptists, out here, reject the whole Augustinian philosophical framework of Calvinism and Arminianism? That we’re just plain old, Bible believing Baptists? That we don’t try to make the Bible fit into a philosophical framework?
We really do believe that this is a real fish that really does swim
David
“All Baptists are Calvinistic…”
This statement is unhelpful and unfortunate, in my opinion. It can easily be misunderstood.
A few comments above, Dean said: “If anyone calls me a Calvinist they are lying.”
Many of us disaffirm the U, the L and the I, while seriously redefining the T. We agree on the P, as long as you mean by that, once saved always saved.
I don’t think the P and half a T is enough to really make the label “Calvinist to some degree” stick.
It’s kinda like, “We’re all Democrats, to a degree.” Well, we believe in democracy and in the people having a vote, but you don’t really want to call a Republican “a Democrat to some degree.”
Do you see where I’m coming from? If you mostly disaffirm something, you should probably not call yourself that thing “to a degree.” In fact, you are mostly *not* that very thing.
And if I’m a Calvinist, I’m the least Calvinistic Calvinist in the Calvinist world.
I can say this, Rick, though I realize you still view credibility on the basis of adherence to five points or your document, Calvinism has NOTHING to do with this, other than to say let’s move beyond petty squabbles about it.
I wish you would join us in that.
Guys, Jesus got me before the Baptists did.
Outside of our intramural discussions among fellow Baptists, the rest of the Christian world puts Baptists on the Calvinist side of the ledger. I did not mean to get everyone riled up. Just because I don’t identify personally as a Calvinist does not keep my Arminian friends (by which I mean my Methodist, AG, and Nazarene buddies) from rightly putting me on that side of the aisle. The idea of saying we’re just Baptists is fine, I suppose, but it should stand to reason that as Baptists we uniformly reject the Arminian view.
Note too, that I did not say that all Baptists are Calvinists. I said all Baptists are CalvinistIC. For the life of me, even having been a Baptist for now 25 years, I don’t know why we fight about this.
Rick & Dave & Others,
My use of ‘always being reformed’ is precisely what another has said here, we must be teachable, changeable by the Word of God and for the glory of God. That must be true in my life, in our churches, and in our convention.
I happen to believe that the swings to make our issue-based huddles the forefront of our cooperative identity moving forward is nothing but detrimental to our future. That is why you do not see me as part of the Founders. That is why I bowed out of SBCToday.
Having an affinity group with which you like to meet is not being maligned here. Making that the primary vehicle for encouraging cooperative missions and ministries moving forward is certainly being questioned. I do not believe that we should be moving in such directions…theologically, ethnically, or congregatinally (by which I mean mega or non-mega).
I believe that Scott Gordon is one of the most level guys I have met in several years who frequents Baptist blogs.
I know he is a Calvinist. I have known he is a Calvinist for a long time, since I met him. I also know he is a Southern Baptist from the bottom of his foot to the top of his head in every way imaginable.
I also know he is trustworthy and has integrity. Therein is the primary point for me. Why? Because I know far too many in Baptist life who are not. Some call themselves Calvinists. Some call themselves Traditionalists. Some are well known and have many “followers.” Some are not well known. Some wish they were. But, what they have in common is a lack of trustworthiness and integrity.
So, in my journey as a Southern Baptist, I have come to the conclusion that to be holy before the Lord is far more important for us to have a future than is a concern for who is a Calvinist or a Traditionalist or even yes, an Arminian.
I’ll say this, an Arminian with holy hands is a better Southern Baptist than a Calvinist or Traditionalist with dirty hands.
Todd
You say all Baptist are Calvinist to some degree. This statement in itself is divisive. Calvinism is not the only or axiomatic base of systems of theology. It is one. I do not define myself by how many point of Calvinism I believe. Better to say there are some BIBLICAL teachings upon which we agree. By your statement you are part Catholic, assuming you believe in the virgin birth.
D.L., I maintain the statement shouldn’t be divisive at all (And for the second time for the record, I never said all Baptists were Calvinist, but that they were CalivinistIC — i.e. they have some qualities that resemble Calvinism as opposed to Arminianism),
but very well, I retract it. Southern Baptists are not Arminian, NOT all baptists are Calvinistic.
S.G. Gordon..VERY well said!
Todd
Not trying to be picky, really not…I simply cannot understand why we have to use those terms at all unless theology is the focus of the conversation.
I think we would agree on this if I am understanding you correctly
D.L., I agree, but if you go back and read the comment stream from the beginning, You will note that it was Rick and not me, who first used the term “Calvinistic.” I was merely pointing out that the document is Baptist, not particular to one soteriological camp.
We need to get to the point where we are not triggered every time someone makes an innocuous statement.
C.B. Scott
Well said! I suspect the you and I might disagree on the following…I am at the point the the label “Southern Baptist” is not as important to me as it once was. One reason is, where discussions like this take us. This come from an old man who pastored churches that gave between 16 and 26 per cent to the CP. I did not come to this point easily
Pure gold nuggets, CB.
“So, in my journey as a Southern Baptist, I have come to the conclusion that to be holy before the Lord is far more important for us to have a future than is a concern for who is a Calvinist or a Traditionalist or even yes, an Arminian.
I’ll say this, an Arminian with holy hands is a better Southern Baptist than a Calvinist or Traditionalist with dirty hands.”
The whole comment was great, but I especially liked this part.
Todd
Last paragraph @12:38…I totally agree. If i am honest to myself I would have to return to my main focus in this stream. I don’t think what the document seeks to accomplish will be accomplished by more discussion, more statements, more groups with signers. I think SB are at the point where we must the seriously “if my people which are called by my name…….” I truly believe that only a fresh movement of God is going to bring healing and unify our convention. This will be accomplished by open hearts on our knees not sharp minds with pen in hand. I say again I did not come to this position lightly, it is a 15-20 journey.
Vol,
Thanks for your kind words. The journey has been rocky at times, but I have found God’s grace to be sufficient. And the friendship of guys like you has been a great solace to both Karen and to me. She often asks me to read humorous things you write.
Your ability to write things that make her smile and laugh even when she is sick and in pain has given me much joy. You’re top drawer in my book.
Roll Tide to you, David Worley, Roll Tide.
CB,
I’m glad that I can be a blessing to Karen, and help in a small way to deal with her physical problems. God bless her. That’s what I try to do, with FB. Put funny things to lift people’s hearts, a little bit. And, put some inspirational things on there, to point people to the goodness and the greatness of our God.
I’m glad that I’m your friend. That is something that I value, Brother.
Go Vols!
David
Volfann
Comment 9:25..Exactly. Why is that need so important. Those who keep calling for unity seem to think those buzzwords are important. The man I considered my pastor was a Ph.D out of Bob Jones Univ…he was a 5 pointer..Dr. Curtis Vaughn was my favorite prof in SWBTS, a Calvinist.
My Point: We had a lot of dialogue in the SBC and those terms were not on the radar. When they came in vogue the result was more division.
Perhaps it was that Evangelism vs. Social Action or inerrancy vs error occupied our time. Unity did not result from that discussion either. It could well be that we have some genuine differences and maybe we should go our separate ways i.e. the CR, painful but needed.
Divorce is never good, but sometimes it is the only way.
Todd
Comment 19 @at 10:25..quite a stretch my brother, not sure that can be defended..perhaps in your world but certainly not mine. I don’t think that most of the contemporary Evangelical community gives two hoots and a hollar about that discussion. Th only place I see it is one a SB blog. The greatest blessing about being in Montana for 23 years is the acquired knowledge that there are a lot of evangelical groups out there besides SB doing a fantastic job. The “World” is mighty big my brother and SB re not the center of it.
I’m sorry, D.L. What on earth are you objecting to?
I was affirming that there are many evangelicals outside of SBC life and I have been a Christian for longer than I have been a baptist. Further, if i don’t give two hoots and you don’t give two hoots and they don’t give two hoots, then why are we still discussing this at all? I didn’t bring up Calvinism and am happy to not discuss it on this blog or anywhere else.
Todd
You asked what i am “objecting to”. Not “objecting” to anything. I am questioning your statement “the rest of the world puts Baptist on the Calvinist side of the ledger” I simply said that perhaps in your world but not in mine or the Pacific NW. This discussion is not on the radar. To be clear it would be my prayer that God would give us the good sense to drop words like Cal, Non Cal, Trad etc. None of these define me, or those in my world
Anytime I hear that we need to go to Reformation theology, I take that as we need to got back to the 5 Solas…that is only a good thing in which all Southern Baptists should be quick to join in on.
Good point Tyler.
I too am under the impression that the “always reforming” statement mentioned earlier in these comments was a reference to the 5 solas.
Rick,
I would hope that our non-calvinistic brethren would not be opposed to certain language without letting time for it to be put in context. Certainly “always reforming” is not in itself, a promotion of calvinistic doctrine…it is the belief from Martin Luther that the church should always be examining it’s beliefs and practices in the light of scripture, and making “reforms” where necessary. Simply put, not all uses of “reform” are equivalent to “advancing calvinism.”
In a similar way, the calvinistic crowd need not get worked up about words like “decision”, or “Sinners prayer”.
I know in my non-calvinistic church growing up, I was, none-the-less, taught a healthy appreciation for Luther and several other “reformers.” I hope that is not being lost.
Fair enough, Andy. I will make an effort to unplug my “Reformed Radar.” It does not always mean Calvinism—though sometimes it does.
Perhaps, in turn, my more Calvinistic friends will, in the interest of unity, graciously permit us to self-identify as Traditionalists, or, as Ronnie Rogers prefers in his article today, Extensivists.
Erring on the side of letting others self-identify is probably a great first step toward getting along a little better.
That gave me a chuckle–nothing bad, just that Ronnie sure has a love for unique words. 🙂
D.L. Payton wrote “The survival of the Kingdom of God is not dependent upon the survival of the SBC. God has always had a people and in his sovereign will He will raise up those which He desires to accomplish His task…those with perhaps another label.”
D.L., you appear to be about the same vintage as me. I’ve been a Southern Baptist for 60+ years. I’ve seen so much stuff come under the bridge, I’m not even sure what “traditional” looks like any more! During numerous SBC battles over this or that, I’ve tried to stay focused on Kingdom work. I’ve had to turn a deaf ear to as much SBC racket as I could to sense the move of God around me and join Him there. As a people of God, I think we’ve lost sight of what’s important and what’s not. Even the world knows us as a divisive people. The current skirmish is no different, but perhaps has more far-reaching consequences in SBC’s role (or not) in the Kingdom on earth. Your words reminded me of those from a former SBC leader at the height of the Conservative Resurgence:
“I’m willing to compromise about many things but not the Word of God. So far as getting together is concerned, we don’t have to get together. The Southern Baptist Convention, as it is, does not have to survive. I don’t have to be the pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church. I don’t have to be loved; I don’t even have to live. But, I will not compromise the Word of God.” (Adrian Rogers)
At the heart of the theological rift we are in is really which camp has a corner on the Word of God. It could very well be that none of us do and the torch of a once-great evangelistic denomination will be passed to another.
Yep it is very painful for me to even put this concept into words let alone in print…but…..I believe that the torch you referenced has been or is being passed
You expressed my journey extremely well in what you posted.
I’m having a hard time thinking of what in this document people could possibly disagree with.
They disagree with not having anything to disagree with?
i disagree with the idea that if we all don’t come together we will hang separately.
In fact, i sincerely doubt if we [meaning the individual SBC churches we have now] will ever come together in unity.
But it is a testimony to the grace of God that we come together for IMB as much as we do.
It seems many churches don’t even tell the truth to other churches about disgraced ministers. In other words, we lie to each other.
What I DONT hope for, but expect, is to see one of two things: a downsized SBC as it holds to core principles and thus drives many churches from it; or a SBC that doesn’t hold to its core principles so it can hold to the many churches that will give them up due to the pressure of the culture which is rapidly running from God.
Rather I’m hoping for His mercy…
If those are the only two options, I’d choose the former. Yet I’m praying for and striving for the third option proposed in this post.
Or an SBC that looks TOTALLY different that we now see.
That type of comment really helps to bring unity
Bill Mac,
What in this statement could people possibly disagree with? Parsonsmike disagreed with the very opening quote about hanging together. Here are some other ideas I challenge:
1. Gone are the days of a Southern Baptist culture. (It still exists in MANY places. Too much has been made of this. For those of us who do still serve in something of a Bible Belt, it feels like marginalization when you say this is gone. It has changed somewhat, sure. But it’s not totally gone.)
2. Our petty groups need to lay down arms and have a big hug for the gospel. (I don’t think we are just fighting to fight. There are some principles and convictions that need not be laid down for the sake of a “unity without discussion.” In other words, let’s have unity AFTER we address our concerns and come to some kind of understanding, not BEFORE.)
3. There has never been a Utopian time in the SBC. (I think our glory days were in the mid-Twentieth Century, as the Greatest Generation built America and our denomination. Utopian is too strong a word, but 1950-1990 was a great time for Southern Baptists, even though we had conflicts as we took a strong stand for biblical inerrancy. Note: we had little unity during the CR, but we were growing and giving and reaching people. Sometimes, while peace is being worked out, there may be a period when unity is scarce, but ultimately it will result in good.)
4. Unity is a divine mandate. (Sure, but that doesn’t mean we are obligated to walk in step with those in our own denomination without working out the issues first. I want there to be peace, but that means we have to address the areas of conflict and stop ignoring them.)
I do pretty much agree with the general statements at the end about being confessional, cooperative, including minorities and small churches, etc. Not much to disagree with there.
Bill, I hope that helps you to see that, while I agree with much of the statement, there are some underlying assumptions that I would have to disaffirm. I do appreciate the effort to find unity. I hope that by working together, we can do exactly that.
Rick: Wouldn’t the SBC be rather foolish to include people who wish to fight all the time? Who wish to exclude rather than include?
I don’t think any peace loving person would reject anything from this document. The statements would seem to say to stop doing what you and your site is doing, which is seeking to exclude and I don’t think it will stop at Calvinism, you will wish to go on to the next group to exclude. History has shown that as I predicted in 2006 that Calvinism would be the next issue and that has come to pass.
I think if you would bring your belief system to the table and leave out all the causes, seeking to work together with Calvinists and not against them, your chances might be better.
Like it or not, Calvinism is within the BFM, is part of the SBC and has been since it’s inception.
Rick: I will be honest and say that I have a hard time wanting to include those with your ideology in the SBC, but as for your belief system, I have no problem. None. Although I don’t share it, I do share your belief in the essentials. And that is what should be included in SBC leadership. I do share your love for missionaries.
It’s the grief and downright untruths about those whom you disagree with that I have a problem bringing to the table. That way of doing business is just not what I want in the SBC. That is dangerous and always leads to innocents being mowed down. It has in the past and the future would be no different.
Today’s Drive-by for Debbie:
Debbie Kaufman said:
“Rick: I will be honest and say that I have a hard time wanting to include those with your ideology in the SBC”
I happen to agree for the most part with Rick. Should I any all the others who feel likewise be kicked out of the SBC? What grounds would you use? That they do not agree with everything you do? Do you think we all cause “grief” and use “untruths”? Also, just because you say something is untrue doesn’t make it so.
Debbie Kaufman also said:
“Rick: Wouldn’t the SBC be rather foolish to include people who wish to fight all the time?”
Again, who judges those who wish to fight all the time? You? Arguing a position you disagree with and fighting seem to have the same definition in DebbieLand.
In conclusion and with all due respect, no one short of JD Hall is as combative as you are on any blog I’ve read, BUT THAT’S OKAY! The SBC welcomes you too!
Ken: First a drive by is to make a hot statement and run, never showing up to face account. Not only do I sign my full name, which I see you do not, but I am here to be accountable for what I write.
Second: I feel I am only being honest. If we are going to discuss, for me anyway, full disclosure is always good. I like to put the cards on the table. And if you will reread my statement, there is really nothing wrong or hot about it. I am simply saying, albeit quite plainly, what I have said for the past 10 years.
Debbie
How can you possibly advocate unity when you use such divisive language..you are not the solution..comments like the are the problem…just being honest with you one Okie to another
Debbie,
I guess it’s not a drive-by then, because here I am. As for my full name, please feel free to ask Dave to give it to you for me if you are that curious. I don’t know that Debbie Kaufman is your real name, but personally don’t care if you real name is Debbie Kaufman or Elmer Fudd. I’m just responding to what you wrote.
DL: If pointing out what I believe is keeping the Trad crowd from being at the table, when they have said they are not invited to the table in larger numbers , if being honest is divisive in your definition ,then I guess I am divisive.
Either we talk plain and hash, iron, the problems out and work toward unity or we keep going down the same ole road, be polite, write/talk behind each other’s back and continue to be against each other, and have no solution toward unity.
DL: I don’t think the answer is walking on eggshells so as not to upset you or any one else who is sensitive, I think it’s wiser to put our cards on the table and work from there. Otherwise all you have is false unity and in time the dam will burst on that. True unity is continuous, has respect for each other, and for differing beliefs while working toward a common goal.
I don’t want to settle for less than true unity.
Debbie
We have locked horns on this concept before yet through it all I still have a great deal of respect of you….I just happen to believe that one can be honest and forthcoming and not have to be harsh and nasty…in fact for a child of God I would think it would be essential. Let Trump et.al. speak in that tone. Let God’s people be different.
OK that was a sermon…sometimes the preacher in me gets the better of me 🙂
Debbie
RE. “True Unity”…I have already spoken my take on that..short recap..(1) I don’t think it will ever come going down this path..that will come only on our knees ( if my people…) IMO, we are too far down the road (2) Perhaps it is time to go our separate ways..divorce is never good but sometimes it is the only way (3) I see a future SBC that looks completely different than what we now have.
If there is going to be something to fight against, let’s make it something actually worth fighting against and work doing it together.
As an example: Dwight McKissic is someone my husband and I had the privilege to meet and get to know several years ago at his church in Texas.
Theologically we differ with Dwight in some areas, but our love and respect for him is so great, that it towers over the differences. I would solidly support him for President of the SBC. I hope someday that would come to pass.
Rick,
“1. Gone are the days of a Southern Baptist culture.”
I don’t know for sure where all of these signers live and work, but the one’s I do know of are NOT in the south. So it is very possible that where they live, it is gone.
I don’t live in the south either, and I don’t see much difference (Culturally) between our SBC church and the Independent Baptist churches, or some of the more conservative American Baptist churches in our area.
I know that Adam pastors in the south – and Alan pastored in Alabama for a long time – Not sure where he’s living at now in his new endeavors. But, you’re correct – several of the others do minister up north.
Dean is in the south too.
I pastor in the South and the statement, “Gone are the days of a Southern Baptist culture” is abundantly true. That does not mean there are not still remnants, but things have changed and are changing.
The point is not that there is no common culture among many churches, but that the culture we speak of is neither monolithic nor adequate to be our primary source of unity going forward. If we are going to reach a new generation, an urbanized world, a multi-racial/multi-ethnic world, then our SB identity cannot be built around our Southern, rural, cultural tradition. The SBC is and should be bigger than that. We should value those cultures and traditions, but we should not base our SB identity on them.
Andy,
Dean is from MS…a long time friend – and a great preacher…His perspective comes from a life time of serving in the Bible Belt.
What Adam said.
That is the point. Back in the 60s there was a “Southern Baptist Culture” and THAT was our uniting principle. We argued during the CR whether we were united by missions or theology.
It was NEITHER! We were united by Culture! Yes, we shared the CP and our common theology mattered, but it was a cultural tie that bound our hearts in Baptist love.
The CR was a movement of doctrinal integrity, but it was also a movement that shattered our cultural conformity. The rise of megachurches, the Promisekeepers movement, Neo-Calvinism, the contemporary worship movement, and about a half dozen other key forces shattered that SBC culture.
I never said that culture didn’t exist. That is, in fact, why I’ve resisted using the term “Traditionalist” in the soteriological context. It is the term that accurately describes the SBC Cultural bond and how I’ve used the term.
That traditionalist SBC culture still exists, but it is not the unifying force in the SBC. In fact it is now a splintering force because many who are traditionalist (NOTE: again, I’m talking cultural, not soteriological, though there may be some overlap) tend to reject those who do not follow the traditions.
The traditionalist SBC culture still exists but it no longer UNITES the SBC.
” The rise of megachurches, the Promisekeepers movement, Neo-Calvinism, the contemporary worship movement, and about a half dozen other key forces shattered that SBC culture.”
. . . . . . and the internet. The internet has greatly shattered the SBC culture.
Just as certainly as did Samuel Colt’s Peacemaker make all men equal, so has the internet made all Southern Baptist equal.
Andy
I would want to check my facts to be sure…but I don’t think any of the church plants in the past 20 years in Montana have the name “Baptist’ in them. in addition several of the older churches that had the name “Baptist” took it out and chose another handle. Yellowstone Baptist College is now Yellowstone Christian College.
The SBC is kinda like the “ole gray mare” she just ain’t what she used to be!!!
I do live and pastor in the South. Grew up in Southern Baptist Churches where you never saw the pastor without a tie, you had Bible drill with blue, hardcover King James Bibles, and schools still announced RA and GA events.
And you could easily move (as when the Air Force moved Dad) from one place to another, join another SBC church, and the only real difference was the preacher’s sermon series and whether you sang the Doxology before, during, or after the offering was collected.
I daresay that common culture (way of speaking, dressing, acting, and interacting) is not so common. We have Southern Baptist churches that are in coffee shops, warehouses, and beautiful buildings with stained glass. And our pastors, congregants, and so forth are in everything from shorts to ties. Sometimes in the same service.
So the automatic “SBC” culture isn’t quite so automatic anymore. And we live in a world where it’s not a competition for church-wanting people–‘come here, we’re better than the next church.’ It is a world in which we actually need to reach lost people. Even in the South, I daresay.
This runs along the lines we’re talking of when we talk about the old “Southern Baptist Culture.” Like or not, it’s gone to the Sweet By and By we always sang about.
doug
well said
“Gone are the days of Southern Baptist Culture.”
Well, this is what was actually written:
Hard to argue with that.
“Our petty groups need to lay down arms and have a big hug for the gospel.”
Of course this is not at all what was said.
It was an inaccurate twisting of our words.
Here’s my initial thought – It’s not that I oppose anything in the document itself – it’s just that I am wondering what could possibly be positively accomplished by yet another document with signatories by a group of Southern Baptists.
All these things put me in the mind of resolutions at the convention – they make people feel good – but don’t really accomplish anything – or very little – except in the minds of those who wrote them/strongly support them.
Maybe I’ll share more thoughts later – or maybe not.
I’ve long said we should do away with resolutions completely…Motions only!
Resolutions: I used to think the same thing…But what I’ve come to learn is that “Resolutions are a statement of position for leaders to speak out about & member to know what the convention supports.” A motion control the business, a resolution gives you and I the authority to say, “Southern Baptist have taken this position on ____ (homosexuality, gambling, alcohol, etc)….
Jerry,
The inherent problem in that idea is that a resolution passed at the convention *may* reflect a majority of Southern Baptist messengers (provided more than half of the registered ones are in the room when it is voted on) but there is no connection to the idea that most southern baptists in the pews in our churches feel that way.
Also, with our church polity – resolutions are unenforceable and mean nothing to the local church unless they choose to embrace them.
For example the resolution of boycott of Disney is still “in effect” – yet no church has been dismissed nor has a church member been disciplined for watching ESPN or ABC (both Disney companies) or for visiting Disney on vacation or at the end of a church mission trip.
Shoot, how many pastors and families went to Disney when the convention was in Orlando?
Andy, if you search here, Nathan Finn and I exchanged a couple of posts a few years ago on whether resolutions still had a purpose.
I said no.
Dr. Finn said yes.
I should learn that debating people like Dr. Finn is not that great of an idea.
Andy
Do away with resolutions….that will take all the fun out of it
Tarheel
A big “yep”
I would say that MOST…at least MOST….of the people, who would be considered Traditionalist, would be more than glad to work WITH Calvinists, in the SBC. I would say that this MOST are concerned that a lot of Calvinists would exclude Non Calvinists, or in the least, marginalize them…seat them in the back of the bus….because we’re NOT Calvinists. I mean, when we hear what some of the SBC Entity heads say, and who they hire, then it makes us raise our eyebrows. When we hear things that accuse Non Calvinists of not preaching the true Gospel; Semi Pelagian heretics; leading people to Hell because of the Sinner’s Prayer and asking Jesus into your heart; and a host of other such statements by LEADERS in the SBC, it makes us wonder just how welcome we would be in a Calvinist controlled SBC.
I’m like Rick. I’d love to see unity in the SBC. I would love to see all of us working together to win this world to Jesus, and to bring God glory. I would love to see REAL unity, where one group is not looked upon as the ugly, ignorant, unwanted step child. Because, when we hear some of the rhetoric from some of the SBC LEADERS, and from the militant, aggressive Reformers, who are in our SBC, today, it makes us think that WE are not wanted; or, that we will not be wanted….except our money, of course.
David
I don’t think there can be unity, as long as some people look upon others as being heretics, who preach a false Gospel, which leads people to Hell. It’s kind of hard to feel warm and fuzzy with people, who think such things about you.
David
David: Can you show me any time that a SBC leader has called your belief system heretical. I have searched and have not been able to find one time that has occurred.
I am simply going by the past where destruction has been your guys’ MO.
Semi Pelagian is heresy.
Preaching a false Gospel is heresy.
Leading people to Hell, because we use a Sinners Prayer…heresy.
A person doesn’t have to use the heresy to be calling someone a heretic.
Unless I’m mistaken, Dr. Mohler called the Traditional statement Semi-Pelagian. I respect Dr. Mohler and love his teaching, but I don’t think I would call it Semi-Pelagian (Though, I do have a hard time seeing how they get passed Romans 5 based on the statement, but that still wouldnt make them Pelagian)
I believe he(mohler) said something more like the document tended or tilted toward semi Pelagianism – not that the authors were Pelagian.
Volfan, I said the sinner prayer many times and was never saved. So the conversation should probably happen.
A sinner prayer is fine, but we definitely need to be clear that a prayer does not save us, faith in Christ alone saves us. Some people lead it well and others do not. So I do think we need to at least have the conversation. (though probably not here)
“Volfan, I said the sinner prayer many times and was never saved.”
Well, Tyler, I for one am certainly glad and give praise to a gracious Lord Jesus that you finally, after saying a prayer many times, prayed as a sinner before a just and righteous God, in repentance and faith in Christ and Christ alone and were saved by God’s wonderful grace.
In other words, I am glad you as a sinner prayed and were saved by grace. For had you not prayed as a sinner, you could “say” prayers from now til Jesus returns and still go to hell.
Tyler,
I don’t believe Rick, Volfan, or anyone else I’ve known who uses the “sinner’s prayer” as a means of speaking to someone about faith in Christ believes the prayer itself saves anyone. Ultimately, no pastor or anyone else knows what’s in the heart of man except the Lord. However, there is nothing inherently wrong with the Sinner’s Prayer, just as their is nothing wrong with using the Roman Road or other means. If one uses the RR and asks the person if they believe all those passages to be true, ultimately the person must repent and place their faith in Christ. If they say they do and really don’t it is not the fault of anyone except the person who hasn’t truly believed.
I’m fine with all that CB as long as the we understand that the person praying is not necessarily saved by saying a prayer, but by faith. So the object of his faith should be Christ, not a sinners prayer. When asked how he knows he is saved he should not look back to a prayer work, but Christ’s work on the cross for his assurance.
Also, I don’t remember the exact time I was saved. I just remember someone preaching the Gospel to me for about a year long period, and having the word rightly preached to me. I just remember I once was blind but now I see. I don’t even remember saying a prayer for salvation specifically.
Well Tyler,
I don’t know what others may say or think or believe here in this thread, (Frankly, I think that this is probably going to become what it should not become and that is another debate on Calvinism and that is certainly sad indeed.) but I am going to say that any person who has been born of God will repent of sin and embrace the gospel of Christ.
A person must recognize he is a sinner before a just and righteous God, repent and believe the gospel of Christ in order to be saved.
The prayer of repentance and faith is our response to the Holy Spirit’s work of conviction of our lost condition. The “Prayer” does not save. The Savior saves. However, those who are made aware of our need of the Savior, by the Holy Spirit, do pray repentantly, in faith believing that Christ and Christ alone saves us.
I have no disagreement with you there.
“I have no disagreement with you there.”
So, Tyler,
let me have an understanding with you here, because I will not leave it alone, until I do. (not even if Dave deletes my comments here will I. Every time I see your comments anywhere, I will ask.)
When you state you have “no disagreement with you there” are you meaning that you know a person must repent and believe the gospel to be born again from above?
I agree completely with the things CB has said here. And, the Sinners Prayer and asking Jesus to come into your heart is NOT leading anyone to Hell. We must humbly as a little child ASK the Lord to save us. And, of course, repentance and faith should be true. Romans 10:9-10 and Acts 20:20-21.
Tyler,
Did you miss my last question to you?
Of course CB. I’m a Christian lol.
And when people do call out to God they are doing so in faith. THat shows that they have faith. I think many will say on that day “Lord Lord, did I not repeat the pastors prayer? I walked down the isle too!” But those things don’t save us. Faith does.
Tyler,
I am not trying to be a jerk, but I don’t mind being one if the cause is right.
I realize we do not know each other, but I do care. So, that is why I asked.
As you know, many people claim to be Christians today who have no idea.
Just last night I watched two guys trying to determine that if one builds a wall at a border can he be a Christian or not. Frankly, I without apology, question both guys as to whether or not they have saving faith.
CB,
If you were trying to be a jerk then I didn’t notice, so don’t worry. You seem to be respectful. I don’t really understand why the question was to be honest, I’ve made it clear time and time again that we are saved by faith alone. And there are many leaders in our own convention (David Platt) who would agree with me on everything I said, and we probably wouldnt doubt his salvation just because he does believe a prayer saves us.
Don’t get me started on the Pope. There was soooooo much irony there to make someone scream.
“I think many will say on that day “Lord Lord, did I not repeat the pastors prayer? I walked down the isle too!” But those things don’t save us. Faith does.”
I heartily agree.
I also think that many will say, “Lord, I thought that if I simply assumed I was saved, I was.”
Yes, we are saved by faith, faith in Christ and Christ alone, and biblical faith is manifested in prayerful repentance and belief in the gospel of Christ.
“I also think that many will say, “Lord, I thought that if I simply assumed I was saved, I was.”
Agreed, I’m sure there are people like that. Which is why we need to be clear that we are saved by faith in Christ alone and constantly preach the Gospel to our friends, much like my friend did to me.
“Yes, we are saved by faith, faith in Christ and Christ alone, and biblical faith is manifested in prayerful repentance and belief in the gospel of Christ.”
Amen, that’s what I’ve been saying all along.
Tyler,
I think that D. Platt corrected his statements with some further clarity. He does believe we must pray in repentance and faith in response to God’s revealed grace in order to be saved.
That is the “sinner’s prayer” he believes as do I and as does David Worley.
Platt, scott, nor Worley would say that just “saying” a prayer saves anyone.
As a matter of fact, I do not believe there is such an animal known as “saying a prayer” within the parameters of biblical Christianity. Either one “prays” or he does not. “Saying” a prayer is nothing more than vain babble.
Yes Yes I agree! That’s what I have been saying. Prayful repentance is a response to faith, not the way we recieve faith. Yes! See we agree 🙂
Repentance and faith is the way to receive God’s gracious salvation. We get that by calling on the name of the Lord.
Tyler,
Thanks. I realize we have been discussing this issue long now. However, I think that back when this “Sinner’s Prayer” issue became a hot topic that a lot of people were talking past each other.
Some of us (probably most) who use that phrase would never counsel a person to “just say this prayer and you will be saved.” That is cheap grace and heresy.
At the same time, I realize there are theological dwarfs and charlatans who would tell people such things. The theological dwarf doe so because he is ignorant (maybe willfully so) and the charlatan does it for the money. Sadly, the consequences for the victims of such are the same. They are lost and without Christ.
Anyway, thanks for the dialogue. I appreciate your patience. Hope we are solid and on the square with each other?
Absolutely. Really, you always are respectful and I really do appreciate the dialogue with you. I’m always encouraged by your comments on this site, even when disagreement happens.
CB Scott wrote “For had you not prayed as a sinner, you could “say” prayers from now til Jesus returns and still go to hell.”
I like how a former Southern Baptist leader put it:
“Salvation comes to the soul that comes to salvation. Forgiving Savior and penitent sinner meet” (O.C.S. Wallace, “What Baptists Believe”, SBC Sunday School Board, 1934).
I found a tattered copy of the above book at a yard sale for 25-cents. Best quarter I ever spent! Written as a training manual for Sunday School workers in the last century, the current generation of 21st century Southern Baptists would do well to read it. We seem to be mixed up about what constitutes a “sinner’s prayer” and when Jesus shows up in the life of the truly repentant.
“Just last night I watched two guys trying to determine that if one builds a wall at a border can he be a Christian or not. Frankly, I without apology, question both guys as to whether or not they have saving faith.”
Amen.
See, CB and Tyler had a CONVERSATION and reached some level of understanding
What confuses me is how in the world could Jesus talk about those on the left ad on the right etc. without the benefit of the Cal/Arm or sinners prayer debate…truly astonishes me. It might be beneficial to drop that lingo and go with how Jesus discussed it
Debbie
yet another unifying comment
Debbie
You are waaaayyyyy too hung up on “SBC Leaders”. Whatever unity looks like it will not come from entity heads or “leaders it will come from pastors and churchmen in the local church the vast majority of which are small. The unity I see being called for here is unity among the local congregations, and pastors. Having established that, yes, I have been called a heretic by one of these pastors,not SBC leaders, because I ask folk to “with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation” He muttered something about a “sinners prayer” I believe or “easy believism” or “cheap grace” or something like that when he said I was heretic.
David,
That’s true. I trust you didn’t miss Ken’s comment in Rick’s latest post over at SBCToday where he (Ken) called Calvinism inspired by Satan. Go over and see how many people admonished him for that statement. It won’t take long to count them up.
Bill mac,
Do I have to rebuke every bad thing that is said? Am I the blog police? And, is silence not a rebuke? I didn’t see anyone giving that statement an Amen either.
I think Bills point was that the mischaracterization and bad rhetoric does not merely come from the Calvinist side. It clearly comes from the other side as well. I hear that type of rhetoric all the time. For the sake of unity, both sides should season their rhetoric with grace.
Bill Mac was rebuking me and others for not rebuking.
I guarantee, absolutely guarantee if someone posted at Voices that Traditionalism was inspired by Satan, the rebukes would be fast and numerous, including from Calvinists. Ditto if someone likened Traditionalists to rapists, racists, or Muslims.
Bill,
I think that’s the beauty of SBCVoices. You just can’t have a coherent respectful conversation with people like that.
Tyler
You are correct. Mischaracterization comes from all sides…hence the problem
Vol, you are missing BM’s point.
He simply used that comment to illustrate that vitriol comes from the antiCal side too.
Someone posting that an orthodox view of soteriology is “from Satan” is clearly over the top and those interested in unity should rebuke that.
The vitriol can be rebuked without embracing Calvinism.
Perhaps we could even have a discussion using scripture references and not use the terms Cal or Trad or Non Cal or sinners prayer. While I admit it would not be a much fun it might be more profitable
Bill Mac,
Dude! Give Ken over at SBCToday a break. The man is 84 years old!
Volfan,
I think we need to look at both sides here. I mean, look at the comment section at SBCToday. I don’t think it helps the cause of unity when people say that “The God of Calvinists make people robots”, or equate salvation to cosmic rape, or equat Calvinism to cosmic racism, or claim that Calvinists are targeting Youth as if they are some sort of predators, or that Calvinist’s don’t evangelize. I would think that kind of rhetoric and mischaracterization would not help the cause of unity, in the same way calling a Traditionalists a Semi-Pelagian would probably not help the cause of unity.
Perhaps this should be a lesson for both sides. Most the Calvinists I know personally have to problem working with Non-Calvinist…and visa versa. It’s when we start mischaracterizing the other side when unity fails.
So, I agree with you when you say, “I don’t think there can be unity, as long as some people look upon others as being heretics, who preach a false Gospel, which leads people to Hell. It’s kind of hard to feel warm and fuzzy with people, who think such things about you.” I wholeheartedly agree…and I see this on both sides. And not more on the Calvinists side or Arminian. Both have been guilty of this equally.
For what it’s worth, the opposite side to Calvinism in the SBC is not Arminianism. Traditionalist Southern Baptists disaffirm Arminianism just as clearly as we disaffirm Calvinism.
I don’t really know that many Southern Baptists who would classify themselves as Arminian.
http://bit.ly/1QqhfBp
My apologies. Was not intentional.
David, it seems to me that Calvinists and Non-Calvinists share the same fears — that one would seek to marginalize the other. We need to learn how to move forward with those things we have in common — and it may be that all we small church pastors need to lead the way.
Well said, Todd
Great document.
I could say lots, but will be brief.
I run in many different circles. I count as friends many people on different sides of issues in the SBC, but I really enjoy them and believe they are fine Christians. I can cooperate in missions endeavors with the people who comment on this blog.
The only suggestion that I have is take the word “New” out of your purpose statement. “Baptist Future” is good enough. “New” Baptist Future is redundant and it makes it sound as though you are rejecting the “Old” Baptist Future.
Great effort!
We struggled greatly on a name.
Your point is well taken
Read the document and these comments and you see our problem.
This document has little to do with Calvinism – its only a minor illustration – but a few comments and BOOM – another petty food fight on Calvinism.
I’m tired if not being able to have a conversation about the SBC without it being about Calvinism.
It does not serve the cause of unity to label someone’s concerns as petty food fights rather than to take them seriously.
This may be my favorite statement in the entire document: “Those who raise concerns or even criticize a leader ought not be branded as trouble-makers or sentenced to the denominational gulag.”
Finally. This sounds like we are willing to have a conversation about the concerns. If so, this is an approach to unity I can fully support. I simply don’t think that our current “sweep it under the rug and stife dissent” approach has been working at all over the past few years.
Conversation avoidance is not conflict resolution.
“Conversation avoidance is not conflict resolution.”
That’s true, Rick. So, maybe a conversation with a guy would be a good thing before we write a post about him, ya think? Just saayin’
But we’ve been around this block a hundred times.
We’ve had this conversation a hundred times.
It’s not like anyone is saying, “You are not allowed to talk about it!”
But it is my observation that guys like you, who have Calvo-vision, who see everything within the framework of soteriological warfare, who judge everything by whether it serves a Calvinist agenda or not – are simply choosing NOT to be part of the solution.
Rick, you are free to do as you please, dissent to your heart’s content. But my observation is that framing everything the way you do is just not helpful to the life of the SBC.
Do you have the freedom to do that? Yes.
But I also have the freedom to say I think there’s a better way.
When the chips fall, its not the C and T divide that will split up the SBC, it will be the Gospel and lack of the Gospel that divides.
When brothers squabble they seem to think that their squabble is so terrible, but when persecution from outside comes, they band together and display the unity they truly have.
The Gospel and a false Gospel is the only reason to divide. I pray that we all seek to continue to lift on the crucified risen Lord of all.
thats ~ lift UP ~
How about a trial run? Dave/Rick how about you guys resolving your obvious differences expressed rather distastefully more often than not, in such a way that you two can move ahead in unity. Then share how you did it as a model for the SB family…that even I would sign!!
SBC life: where calls for unity and broader participation are considered divisive and exclusive.
That’s funny!
It is funny.
But, I have seen some of the people crying out the loudest for unity and peace also are the ones, who’ve said very devisive comments and vitriolic declarations. I mean, calls for unity and peace are good words, but it rings hollow when followed by very devisive statements and strong, harsh posts the next day.
I want peace. I want unity. I want to see us rally around Jesus and the Gospel and around sound doctrine. Amen! Then, let us see it, and hear it. Squash the fears and concerns. Put them to rest with action and with our words. And. I’m talking to myself, as well.
You are exactly right Vol.
In fact I pointed that out when Eric Hankins a signer of Frank Page’s Calvinist study group document calling for unity came on this site soon thereafter ahd spewed vitriolic inflammatory post.
I also pointed it out when Paige Patterson – also a member of the aforementioned group has numerous time touted inflammatory divisive rhetoric toward those who tend toward Calvinistic soteriology. (he did so a convention, he has done so by calling for missionaries to be fired if they are Calvinists, I could go on.)
Also, the vitriol and intense rhetoric that flows from that other blog speaks for itself.
So you are right, many times those who speak calls for unity – instead act very divisively.
I only posted that to illustrate that it is not just Cals who bust out the vitriol. Not to rehash all those old wars…
no Dave it is very sad.
Look guys, I don’t want to discourage what is obviously meant as a good faith effort to bring improvements to the SBC, but I think we could have predicted the result. This is seen as simply another pro-Calvinist group promoting their agenda under the guise of unity.
Except that this is not a pro-Calvinist group (at least not any more than it’s a pro-non-Calvinist group), it’s just a group of guys who blog and comment here at Voices. It has no hidden agenda, the agenda is spelled out pretty clearly: unity around the BFM, giving to CP, greater participation by minorities and small churches, freedom to disagree and discuss issues and problems within the SBC as brothers.
We’re not asking anyone to sign on to anything, just live it out with us. We will continue to network, write, and politick as needed to see this kind of unity and cooperation thrive in SBC life. Even if we face critique or pushback from those who question our intention or proposals, we will STILL strive for all these things and unity with these brothers.
Todd: I know you aren’t a pro-Calvinist group, but that was the immediate reaction. There simply isn’t any way that you will convince some people that you aren’t such a group.
I agree. I said earlier that my first thought was my distaste for yet another document with signatories is afloat amongst Southern Baptists and I likened such documents to SBC resolutions….making the authors and supporters feel good but not accomplishing much…
If I may modify that last part…. . It has accomplished something.
It has poked the bears (on both sides) once again.
Just not sure that is a positive thing, I think that unintended negative consequences will rule the day.
I do not think I disagree with the content of the document (I have not studied it like I would if I were considering signing on) – but I, as of yet anyway, simply do not see an upside to joining in.
I am open though to being convinced that this is a good and positive and productive thing that will actually accomplish Kingdom ends….
(NOTE: I know most of the men who co authored and signed this document and am in no way impugning them or their intentions. In fact I think their intentions are good, noble, godly and peaceful.)
yep
Bill, I honestly don’t feel the need to convince anyone of that. I will be a consistent voice of unity and let others think and do what they may.
Todd,
2 things.
1. If politicking is something this group is going to be about – its seems that the first politic must be to convince people that they should join you? Stating that you do not desire to convince others seems counter intuitive, no?
2. Please remember though that should someone choose to not join your group – that does not mean they are not desirous of unity.
In fact, please understand that one may choose not to because they see the endeavor as having a great potentiality to be (unintentionally) divisive.
Tarheel
Yep, all three points
My point to Bill was that I am not going to waste time trying to convince those who are unconvincable.
I think what we’ve proposed here is clear enough on its face that we can convince many to join us without having to worry about a few naysayers who demonstrate by their words and actions that they are really not interested in unity.
We have not asked anyone to join our group. If we politick in the future, then we will ask people to join us and try to convince people to vote or get involved in a particular way. This document outlines our rationale for doing so.
The document itself, however, merely asks people to join us in spirit (not sign anything or join any cause) and pursue unity, increased involvement by small church and minority leaders, and the ability to have disagreements in a constructive way. If I have to convince people that this is not divisive, I’ve lost them already. You can go back and read all my posts over the past several years — I’ve consistently promoted the things outlined in this post. If I’m not to be believed at this point it’s either (a) people aren’t listening or (b) people don’t want to believe.
D.L. and Max, …..Ephesians 3 & 4 came to mind when I read through this article. The churches that cooperate in the SBC do not need more SBC, they need more truth. Because, with more truth, money from those local disciples will flow to and efficiently implemented through a simple organization with the same intent. It appears to me today, more than ever, that the SBC suffers from the same ills hoisted upon the states that ratified the US Constitution. Both institutions were fashioned around the idea of gaining a better way to gather money and pay bills for the collective through trust from the individual. Somehow all good plans seem to coalesce around the idea of “belonging” these days, while missing the the wisdom incorporated in the idea of the Apostle Paul to those at Ephesus, or those within the last 300 years understanding E pluribus unum.
To be successful in the future, the SBC will not be made whole by organizing under groups, no matter how noble the intention. It has never been the grouping/s that made the difference. The nature of groups simply follow the original intent of the individual. In the case of the SBC, the intent of “like minded individuals” was to pay bills more efficiently to perpetuate and share the gospel of God. That worked! The intent was not to agree on a collective of ideas that superseded that intent, because the individuals (as illustrated by D.L, and Max) were already doing the work. Simply put, no agency, or seminary, or state convention, or group will hit the mark necessary for cooperation. The mark for cooperation is centered in the individual around trust. The “how” of the convention must meet the “individual” trust. Trust is broken, therefore the convention is in decline.
Returning to its original intention will make the SBC effective once again. The SBC must focus on trust in order to gain back the individuals that drive the cooperation of the collective. Trust takes time and effort to obtain. Organizing into groups within the collective is an effort in the opposite direction, even as it seeks unity to positively assail the collective.
Well, not “sign on” but definitely “work with” to promote unity. I enumerated my concerns for not signing on to Bill Mac on the 7:37 AM post.
The way I see it, VNBF seeks unity and Connect 316 seeks unity. We can seek unity together the more we are open to talk with each other about the issues without villifying the other side and their intentions.
I do see this as a potentially positive development.
I do think there is a marked difference here in that this article and agenda excludes no one, where the Connect 316 can only be signed by one group within the SBC. If you want a comparison, I think we are more in line with the aims of B21, which also seeks to build unity among all. Not that there is anything wrong with the traditional statement, but it is a statement that cannot, by its very nature, unify all Southern Baptists. We welcome both those who affirm the Traditional Statement and those who cannot — unity in diversity — unity on the essentials of the gospel and our common confessional beliefs as Baptists.
Further, our statement is not an “everybody sign on” type of deal. It merely expresses the desires of a small group of men and an explanation for why we are doing what we are doing in terms of our personal networking, writing, and political actions in SBC Life.
I do think there is a difference in the two. Baptist 21 discusses a whole host of issues related to the Gospel, church, and SBC. Connect 3:16 seems to just talk about Calvinism. (This is not to meant to be a down put. Just an observation).
Todd,
I realize you don’t think you exclude people, but from the perspective of the other person, your document is one some people will not affirm. They are “excluded” by principled disagreement.
I am excluded from the Gospel Coalition, T4G, Founders, 9 Marks, etc. I cannot sign on in agreement with all of their doctrines and their agenda items. That’s okay.
But let’s not assume that just because I “fit in” more with Connect 316 and someone else “fits in” more at B21 that we cannot BOTH be inclusive about working with each other in promoting the gospel as Southern Baptists.
All affinity groups exclude those who do not identify with them. But that doesn’t mean they are not seeking cooperation in fulfilling the Great Commission.
I think that’s a good estimation Rick. I think if we go that route, which is just fine and good, we probably should have the courtesy to represent each other rightly without the nasty rhetoric from both sides, whether it be one call the other a Pelagian or one calling the other spiritual racism. I think we can all (or hope that all) could agree with that. In fact, I think unity depends on it.
Again, (1) our document invites and asks for principled disagreement and bringing issues and concerns out into the open, (2) we have not asked anyone to sign on or affirm anything, (3) our document is a much broader inclusion than any of the groups you mention (including yours) with the exception of B21. It’s not a more or less proposition.
We 10 guys are stating our desire and our intention to act in ways that all all confessional Baptists (including you), regardless of particular views, church size, race, ethnicity, church culture, worship style, political connections, may work together, strive for unity, and have a real stake in the future or our denomination and cooperative work.
We want a denomination that moves forward together for the sake of the gospel, not one that favors one group above another.
The ONLY people excluded here are:
People who do not hold to our confession.
People who do not want to cooperate.
Personally, I think the affinity groups have reached a level at which they have become dangerous and a force for splintering, but we did not demand they be disbanded.
I would guess that SOME who would consider themselves in line with the Connect 3:16 group could support this. Those who have a more exclusivist bent would, of course, not be able to.
Tyler, Google the speakers at the last 2 years that B21 has met before the SBC. Third panel included Mohler, Platt, and a lot of other Calvinists. Talking about issues from that perspective. And, you want to hold B21 up as being more fair than Connect 316?
Oh I didn’t say one was more fair than the other. Both are more than welcome to do their own thing. It just seems to me the focus’s are different. Just an observation.
In principle, affinity groups are not harmful. But I think they have become so, because they have become more than simply affinity groups but subcultures. They’ve become sources of splintering in the SBC. They have become the cracks that are causing the fracturing and splintering in the SBC.
I’m not sure why that is, but I think it is a growing problem.
And,let’s keep in mind that those groups existed long before there was a Connect 316. 9 marks, Founders, T4G, B21, Acts 29, and other Calvinists groups existed long before Connect 316 started, as a response to those type groups.
FYI, Acts 29 probably wouldnt fit into this category because they are actual church, not church affinity groups.
What we are proposing would include Baptists from all of the above — we have no interest in creating yet another affinity group — the only affinity we have is 9 guys who are friends with Dave 🙂
I got promoted to friend! 🙂
It’s now 11 guys.
We added Ethan Moore! (NOT a Calvinist, by the way!)
I applaud the effort Todd and Dave and the other members of the “Gang of Ten” are making to unify the SBC. The comments that follow their statement illustrate how difficult their task will be.
Thanks, Dr. Terry. Just trying to follow your example.
After reading these (151 at last count) comments, I think I’ve figured it out:
If the SBC is going to move to a more united, gospel-driven future, it will be led by people who are NOT:
-SBC Voices contributors or commentators… (me included!)
-SBC Today/Connect 316/Traditional statement contributors/commentators…
-Baptist 21 Contributors…
-SBC Bloggers or Blog commentators of any kind…
Assuming that the total number of people listed above is likely just a few HUNDRED people COMBINED, we have hope that there are a good EIGHT MILLION who are much less interested in these kinds of arguments than we are. They are the future! 🙂
Nice
Andy
not sure if this if tongue in cheek or not…taking it at face value I think you are totally correct
A Bunch of irony just hit me….
Here we have yet another “affinity splinter” (whatever that means – I imagine its definition is subjective) group being formed. This one to call for the ending of “splinter affinity” groups.
The “Founders”: “If you don’t join us you are denying the healthy and biblical heritage of the convention – and therefore will be part of its demise.”
The “Traditionalists”: “If you don’t join us you are denying the healthy and biblical heritage of the convention – and therefore will be part of its demise.”
Interesting indeed. I guess this newest group is a little different though…
The “Voices for a New Baptist Future”: “If you don’t join us you are working against the healthy and biblical future and unity of the convention and therefore will be part of its demise.”
Tarheel,
I don’t recall any of us saying that… “If you don’t join us you are working against…”
In fact, we have stated nothing but issues for which we desire to work and support, inviting anyone to join in on the conversation and working together toward the goal. If one wishes not to do so, that’s fine. No casting aspersions.
“No casting aspersions”
Thanks Scott…I hope it stays that way.
I should have been more clear, with that part I was surmising what this group might become after watching other groups coalesce around signatory documents before.
Here’s more “irony”, Tarheel:
The “Irony Bowl”: If you are not Auburn or Alabama, you will never play in the “Irony Bowl”
The “SEC”: “If you are not in the SEC, your odds of winning a National Championship are slim to zero.”
The main thing that really makes me hesitate signing on to this is the feeling that UNITY will come to mean one BETTER AGREE with SBC leaders or we will say you are not in favor of unity and peace.
The document does not read that way per se, but some of the assumptions and the statements about affinity groups found in the comment stream don’t really match the document.
If we want unity, then we must seek to understand and address the concerns of all affinity groups and not brush them off or call them dangerous or claim that THESE groups want unity but THOSE groups don’t want unity.
In other words, if we are ready to believe the best in others and listen to all concerns and welcome all dialogue, then sign me up. But if our unity does not extend to people who have serious concerns about a broad range of issues in the SBC, even if those issues are somewhat related by a common theme, then I think it is best if I do not join the eleven. However, I wish them well.
Rick,
You make an invalid supposition. When a document “does not read that way per se,” it is quite dangerous to read into it that which you’d like to fight against when it is not there.
Many (dare I say most…all) of us are going to have to drop our defensiveness if any such unity is going to develop as we move forward.
I did not intend to read something into the document, but to state that the document and some comments in the comment stream do not appear to sync very well. Perhaps my disagreement is not with the document itself but with the comments.
“I did not intend to read something into the document”
Just like you don’t intend to read anything into the comments. Rick, I try to listen to you and honestly hear your concerns, but I think you often object just to be objectionable. I don’t feel you give others a fair hearing at all. If you really want to be unified, start with actually listening others and not baiting them into yet another go-nowhere discussion about Calvinism. It’s really old and I believe all the signers of this post would really love to move beyond it if you are able to let it go.
Todd,
I object to the idea that I object just to be objectionable. 🙂
I have real concerns. If you listen closely they are not really about Calvinism, but about participation, fairness, leadership, stewardship, balance, etc. The theologians can talk about the C word. I’m usually talking about the direction of the SBC.
I will try to listen more carefully. I ask the same of everyone else. When you say, “Let it go,” if you mean, “Stop making an issue of the fact that SBC leaders, entities and visions are more Calvinistic than our churches,” well, I could not stop doing that and still be faithful to the burden God has placed on my heart. So, no.
I would say, if you really want unity, help me and others make these inequities in SBC life go away. Let us face our conflicts and resolve them. Then, trust can be restored, and the unity we all seek can come to fruition.
You’ve brought none of those issues up on this comment stream until just now — instead, you’ve questioned our motives and integrity and made our appeal to unity about disunity. You’ve made our appeal for principled dissent about silencing dissent. That’s what I mean about not listening.
If you would speak directly about your specific concerns instead of making everything a sweeping attack against Calvinism looking for the hidden Calvinism in every comment, then you would gain much more traction and we could actually move on toward solutions.
Todd,
This is unproductive. Let me simply restate my earlier position and bow out.
I applaud your effort to bring unity. I hope it will further the conversation we need to have as Southern Baptists.
I, too, seek unity. Perhaps face to face efforts will prove better than blogging.
“Perhaps face to face efforts will prove better than blogging.”
Yep, Rick, again you are right. Some kind of communication other than blogging is best in some situations.
The struggle is balancing principled and reasoned dissent with irrational criticism. Of course, everyone thinks their criticism is principled and reasoned and the one criticized tends to think it is irrational.
But when one of the main points here is the need to protect principled dissent, it’s hard to take your comment seriously, Rick.
But, being as frank as I can, there is a segment on both sides of the soteriological debate which I doubt really is serious about cooperation and unity, but is “my way or the highway.” I’ve seen them in action and I’ve seen the detritus they leave in their wake.
Both sides.
And it is evil.
So here is the thing. Unity is not simply group hugs. Sometimes unity involves confronting those who are fostering DISunity. And I believe that affinity groups, while not inherently evil or destructive, have sometimes become a force for division in the SBC – and yes, that is especially true of those that have a soteriological frame of reference.
So, I defend your right to write, sign, and promote your document and to unite around it. I also think it is a mistake to seek unity around something other than the BF&M 2000.
Let me beat you to the punch. Someone will bring up the Abstract. Well, there’s not much we can do about that. If predated the BF&M by nearly a century. If they brought it up today I’d fight it tooth and nail. But it’s there and it was there when the BF&M was born.
Do affinity groups have the right to exist? Yes.
Are they a net positive in the life of the SBC? I’m not sure they are.
“I could not stop doing that and still be faithful to the burden God has placed on my heart.”
Rick: This is a divisive comment as I do not see this as from God so much as a prejudice bent toward theology that is not in line with you. I would not even say that my convictions are from God on this issue. I will tell you that they are my convictions.
It seems the words “from God” are thrown around to add some kind of stamp of approval from God and there are just too many things from your side of the camp that I do not read from scripture and too many prejudice statements(and not just about Calvinism) that I would have to challenge this part of your statement.
Let me rephrase, then, Debbie. I *feel* or *sense* God’s leadership in my life, along with some like-minded fellow Southern Baptist Pastors, to provide the same kind of theologically driven ministry fellowship for Traditionalists that has been provided for our Calvinist friends over a number of years by quite a few similar ministry organizations or affinity groups.
Again, I am not seeking division, but unity. And I am not trying to use God to justify it. I simply do feel led to participate in such a ministry.
As a dumb layman I’m spared the necessity to see people as being on a theological spectrum. I always thought Arminianism was the idea that people revere the nationality of the country east of Mt. Ararat. I always thought Calvinism was the idea of reading comic strips about a certain cat.
I think many of you are overloading this whole divide. You are casting the disagreement in terms of guys on the other side or how the outworking of the disagreement relates to denominational relationships.
For me I don’t know if I’m a Calvinist or not. Furthermore I don’t see what difference it makes.
I glanced through my Institutes of Christian Religion — both volumes. It looks to me like even Calvin himself was not a Calvinist. So I think this whole argument is based upon a synthetic construct.
Why not take up an argument that actually has real world meaning?
I would like to propose a study. This would take ten years:
First 5 years: All presidents of the SBC and all entity heads and trustees are Calvinists.
Second 5 years: All presidents of the SBC and all entity heads and trustees are not Calvinists.
At the end this experiment we will take all people who have attended at least half of the Sunday morning services in each of the prior ten years at any SBC affiliated church WHO ARE NOT ON THE PAYROLL OF ANY CHURCH OR ENTITY. We will ask them what’s the difference between years 1 to 5 and years 6 to 10.
The null hypothesis is overall across several million people there won’t see any statistically significant difference in their Christian experience between the first period and the second.
Someone will have to tell me what a null hypothesis is.
plus tax
Can I make one suggestion? I think you should do something that frankly I think the TS folks should have done but didn’t. Don’t just defend the document. If someone says “this gives the impression that….”, then don’t just say “no it doesn’t”, consider changing it to something worded more clearly. Now you aren’t going to please everyone, but pleasing some people isn’t a bad thing.
BillMac,
I feel confident in saying that, as we wrestled through the document, we have arrived at that which best describes our perspective and intent. Could it be further tweaked? Possibly. But we are working on a different approach.
We are working on subsequent posts to talk through some of the specific issues we have enumerated, ones such as unity, dissent, and others.
good…another document that will clarify this document that shines the light on the divide that was created in the first document that will be cleared up in the subsequent document for those who has trouble with the first document…whose on first
It’s called blogging. That’s kind of what we do here 🙂
Todd
Thanks for clearing that up, I was getting confused there for a minute.
Can’t wait for the next installment.. I haven’t had so much fun since the hogs ate my little brother….right now however, I have to go hassle my FB friends…catch you on the flip side
This document was given by davine inspiration and is perfect as is.
Nice!
???????
Sorry, those were laughing emoticons. Apparently they come through as question marks.
I’m saying I think the comment is funny 🙂
Derin,
Dave Miller, our editor is emoji-phobic so there’s only a couple of emoticons that work.
😉 🙂
When I logged the (ahem!) first comment on this piece, maybe I read it carelessly. I didn’t see a syllable on Calvinism. Silly me. Then one of the distinguished signatories tossed out a 16th Century Latin phrase that was quickly spotted by Mr. Calvo-vision and we’re off and running. In Rick’s favor is that I find it tough not to see sola/reforma talk as Calvo-code words, tribal talk. Maybe it’s just my age and curmudgeonly demeanor.
Anyone who wants to sign on to this, seems to me, would not be identifying themselves as contra-anything.
I don’t begrudge Rick or the 1000+ signers of the TS the expression of their interests and goals but anyone whose name is affixed to that doggone sure wants to be seen as part of the SBC contra-Calvinist reformation. I think that to be inescapable.
To be fair, Rick is a solid SBC pastor of a church that gives above average to our cooperative efforts. Perhaps the other 1000 or so are also. I can easily live with Calvo-vision if that’s the reality on the ground.
Don’t think you read it wrong… At the core of the document are a few simple points:
Let’s unify around the bf&m2000 and CP, and not divide over secondary dogmas, confessions, or what have you (not to say that entities or organizations can’t have them, just that we don’t push them as Southern Baptists litmus tests).
Let’s broaden involvement in nominations and appointments of minority and small-to-medium church representatives.
Let’s assure a voice for legitimate questions or concerns w/o the questioner feeling ostracized, while minimizing bitter rhetoric.
It’s you being a curmudgeon William. 🙂 If we can’t use lingo that best describes a point, well, that is going a bit far don’t ya think? I know I do.
You may feel free to use the words free will, walk down the aisle, back yard Bible School and other phrases to make a point as Scott did and I promise I will not feel offended or threatened at all.
We’ve passed the Miller Law limit of useful comments (I think Dave posited that happens around 100 comments.) I therefore will not try to intone too heavily.
We’re in a presidential campaign and both parties are currently selecting their presidential nominees. It is fair to view each party as a coalition of interests. And to view the competing slate of candidates from each political party as an opportunity to give an advantage to one party or another both in national, state-wide, and local elections that select the president and send senators/representatives to the federal Congress.
The system that would be more effective for us would be for the factions to work together to assist the Convention president identify potential appointees that all adhere to the BF&M 2000, that affirm that groups with conforming theology/doctrine–emphasizing biblical inerrancy–are all welcome and worthy of serving in leadership positions. I am not smart enough to understand whether this proposal–or the one by Rick’s group–extends that courtesy to other groups or not but I am of the opinion that both groups PROBABLY feel strongly that it does.
At that point we need to trust that the president elected during each Annual Meeting will work directly with all groups to be the representative of all that directly support the BF&M 2000 as written and will work to gain the appointment of individuals who–whether aligned with those groups or not–represent the broad spectrum of theological/doctrinal nuance and belief as well as praxological stances that might be wise positions even if not direct biblical commands.
I don’t think we have to continually argue the wisdom of not drinking for instance. I’m not seeking that–again as a specific for instance–we would necessarily open the role of entity president to on one hand women with respect to our theologically oriented entities (which to some extent or the other would be most of them other than GuideStone) or necessarily to limit Trustee roles to our current interpretation of “elders” in a strict fashion. That could cause us through strict interpretation to miss out on very helpful leadership from some people that are of sound mind and character who have at some point in their lives been ensnared in a disqualifying way but may not be disqualified today. (Thinking specifically of some circumstances of divorce that would be broadly non-disqualifying to many SBs such as being divorced before being saved.)
I’m kind of the crazy loon in the attic. My interest is in a kind of unity that is genuine, thoroughgoing, complete, and reflects Jesus’s commandments to us. To love one another. To be unified. To live in a way that others come to discipleship because of our intentional efforts.
I will say this. We need all hands on deck. Throwing each other overboard shouldn’t be an option. We’re even specifically commanded not to attempt to separate the chaff from the wheat which means there will be times we endure leadership even from questionable leaders in the hope that God redeems the situation and still accomplishes his plan in spite of the flaws of those leaders. (Not that such a situation should be a goal, by any means.)
I apologize if there is anything that offends anyone in what I’ve written. It was off the top of my head in a few moments in a break from my day job. It is intended to be encouraging and (only affirmatively) exhortative.
I guess I should add: I love the 316 in the name of Rick’s group. i think every single one of us is humbled by what that verse says and there is very little that can be done through soteriological argumentation to strengthen the Gospel message as represented by John 3:16.
Well, I guess the only thing we can ever be bothered to discuss in Southern Baptist life is Calvinism and if we are for or against it. Literally every single time I see someone strive to promote unity in the SBC they are labeled a Calvinist, and then dismissed. It’s really discouraging. As a Calvinist myself, I can say unquestionable that I am willing to make space for those that disagree with me on this issue in order to partner together to carry out the great commission. What I cannot, and will not tolerate are those on either side who are unwilling to compromise, and therefore are hindering the work of the Great Commission because they refuse partner with those who disagree with them. I’ll take an arminian who wants to pursue the great commission over a Calvinist who doesn’t any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. I mean honestly, is this really worth staying devided over? Is it really worth compromising the mission? If it isn’t, then how come it’s all we ever talk about when the subject of unity comes up?
This.
I agree, Derin.
Personally, I think it’s just a blog thing.
I rarely hear the discussion off blogs.
I think this is Truth.
I would add that off blogs Cals and non Cals serve on pastoral staffs together and sit in beside one another in pews – working together nicely for the cause of Christ.
Yeah, the three guys I’m the closest to in my association (and all of which I consider among my best of friends), one is a Calvinist like me, one would probably fit more the “traditionalist” label, and one is a self proclaimed Arminian who legitimately struggles with “always saved.”
We pray for each other, laugh together, cry together, speak at each other’s churches, encourage new people to check out each other’s churches when they’re still in search mode, share the gospel together, eat together, play golf together, go to movies, conferences, book stores together… And only once in a blue moon do our specific soteriological differences surface, and it’s usually in the form of a joke.
That’s what I live everyday. So the rhetoric on the blogs about it gets tiresome.
My last comment
(1) Seemingly we can’t unify around the Word of God
(2) Seemingly we can’t unify around the BFM
(3) The way this thread has developed, we certainly are not going to
unify around this document.
(4) The last thing we need is another document designed to unify us that
seeks signatures
No one has asked for you to sign our document or unify around it (though we would like you to agree with it in principle)
Then what’s the point?
Did you even read the document?
We said we were stating our beliefs and convictions, and would continue to hone them, and advocate for them. We will write about them, seek to implement them as best we can.
You can continue to be a wet blanket, but we believe there is a need and intend to try speak to it.
And we saw this document as a beginning of debate and a beginning of our efforts.
Not one of us expected that when I hit the publish button earlier today every knee would bow before our wisdom and agree that THIS was the answer to all our problems.
This seems, DL, like an effort to kill our efforts with unreasonable expectations. Give us a little chance.
Dave
I do not have unreasonable expectations about this. In fact I have no expectations at all that another document will produce much. We already have some and not much has been accomplished in this area.
The point is to give the background for what our desires and goals are for the SBC and to invite others to dialogue with us about these goals. Further, it’s to give notice that when we write, network, or politick — it will be on the basis of these shared goals.
We believe we are not alone in these shared desires and we’d like to use whatever small influence we have to move the Convention in this direction.
Todd,
Being the good Baptist that I am, when I read what you wrote “write, network, or politick;” I saw “write, network, or potluck.”
🙂
David
nerd
Potluck. Now that’s an idea! Maybe we will see more success if we add that to the agenda.
Adam,
Good food always helps people feel better! I can be feeling lousy, and eat a bacon, double cheeseburger, and boom! I feel great, again!!
🙂
David
You know we always share a meal together at Convention — you are welcome to join us!
Potlucks – now that’s a part of SBC culture that will never go away! Lol!
Todd,
Let’s have our annual blogger meal at the St. Louis Cardinals game, this year. The Cards have a great concession stand. And, Dave, Scott Gordon, and a few others in here need to be exposed to good baseball, in a good, friendly atmosphere, where the fans are very knowledgeable about baseball.
David
Any candidate for SBC President who promises more fried chicken is sure to get elected.
Vol,
I will be in Haiti when you all descend on our fair city in June. Wish I could meet up with some of y’all, but alas.
Meanwhile, eating at the Cardinals game is surely a great idea. Short of that, for fried chicken, may I heartily suggest Hodacks in St. Louis? http://hodaks.com. Simply some of the best fried chicken you’ll ever enjoy…outside the south.
Dos some of the best BBQ, try Pappy’s. http://www.pappyssmokehouse.com
Be forewarned though. There is always a line. But worth it.
And then there’s Sweetie Pies. http://sweetiepieskitchen.com. Down home soul food what’ll make you want to slap yo mama.
“And, Dave, Scott Gordon, and a few others in here need to be exposed to good baseball, in a good, friendly atmosphere, where the fans are very knowledgeable about baseball.”
Vol,
That is just a most capitol idea. Yes it is! Miller and Gordon do need help in “all things sports”, for their lack of understanding most surely must be an embarrassment to them and all who love them.
Here is something else, after lunch, you, me, and all the SEC guys could do a FOOTBALL Workshop and explain how that wonderful sport is to be played and properly cheered.
What a supreme convention St Louis would be! Good food, baseball, fellowship, and a baseball and FOOTBALL education all at one time . . . . Oh yeah, I guess we could go to a couple of the business sessions of the SBC also. . . . that is, if we can work it in.
In our fast evolving Post Christian World, I wonder if we will eventually be forced to re direct our Great Commission energies minus the Convention and State Office. I sometimes feel as if trying to fight the obvious trending’s is akin to resurrecting the old 8 track tape.
The energies needed to do the Great Commission must never be brought into competition by denominational demands, or their dysfunctions. Otherwise, reformation is just around the corner.
Theological tears from within and cultural cries from without seem to be more than most denominations can take. How many times can we split into angry sub-groups of what we preach to be “the same”?
30,000+ That’s the number of groups out there today that have Christian adherents and followers to their brand and interpretation of Christianity.
Over 200 of these are “Baptists”. That’s enough to confuse a Millennialist on steroids. Not that they care so much.
To all the adherents of yester-years family traditional denominational loyalty who are watching their children lose interest in maintaining such religiosity; to those who feel such loyalty is unnecessary at best, I hope to see their attitudes proven wrong and worthy of admonition. And if such correction never arrives, well, perhaps we shall at least be thoroughly Christian to a lost world?
Martin Luther, John Wesley and Charles Spurgeon preached this sentiment.
“I ask that men make no reference to my name, and call themselves not Lutherans, but Christians. What is Luther?, my doctrine, I am sure, is not mine, nor have I been crucified for any one. St. Paul, in I Corinthians 1, would not allow Christians to call themselves Pauline or Petrene, but Christian. How then should I, poor, foul carcass that I am, come to have men give to the children of Christ a name derived from my worthless name? No, no, my dear friends: let us abolish all party names, and call ourselves Christians after Him whose doctrine we have.” -Martin Luther (A Compendia of Luther’s Theology, pg. 135, The Westminster Press, 1943.)
“Would to God that all party names, and unscriptural phrases and forms which have divided the Christian world, were forgot…that the very name (Methodist, dm) might never be mentioned more, but be buried in eternal oblivion.” -John Wesley (Universal Knowledge, Vol. 9, pg. 540.)
“I look forward with pleasure to the day when there will not be a Baptist living! I hope that the Baptist name will soon perish, but let Christ’s name last forever.” -Charles Spurgeon (Spurgeon Memorial Library, Vol. 1, pg. 168.
God is good, and I just want to praise His holy name! I thank God for all of His blessings. And, I just want to sing praises to His great and gracious name. What a God we serve! What a Savior!
You know, when I think about God saving a low down, sinful man like me, it just makes me want to praise Him. When I think about a merciful God hanging onto me…in spite of all of my weaknesses and shortcomings and failures, as I live in this weak, fallen body in a sinful world, I just want to love the Lord Jesus more and more. Hallelujah, what a Savior!!
My friends, we need to rally around the person of Christ, and be truly unified by His Holy Spirit. We must awaken to how we desperately need the power of the Holy Spirit on our work and ministry.
True unity will come when we love Jesus, pray for each other, stay true to the Word of God, and spend time in worship of such a wonderful Lord and Savior. He must give us unity. He must make us one. He must mold and melt our hearts together.
Please do it, Lord Jesus.
David
wish i had said that
If you grew up in a Southern Baptist church, and your parents made sure you made it to Sunday school and worship on Sunday morning, Training Union and worship on Sunday night, and Sunbeams and RA’s on Wednesday, then you should know that the SBC is a denomination made up of independent, autonomous churches, each one, while similar in many respects, unique. We had “no creed but the Bible,” and as a result of that, I didn’t know the words to the Apostle’s Creed when I went to church with my Methodist friends.
Generally, what I see here is a collective conclusion that there is a denomination-wide problem that is causing the membership decline, and therefore we must figure out a denomination-wide solution to resolve it. But the SBC is not a top-down denomination. Each of its 50,000 or so independent, autonomous churches has a unique set of ministries, and problems related to them, that have an effect on its membership. A denominational emphasis or program is good to help churches become more aware of a collective problem, and perhaps create a collective interest in helping to solve it, but no denominational program, emphasis, or strong-arm direction will address each church’s need. It just won’t.
Most SBC churches that are declining have similar problems. They are made up largely of people who are much older than the average age of the population, who are dying faster than new members replace them. They’re having trouble at the younger end because 80% of the children they are raising leave the church before they graduate from college. And in some places, the smorgasbord of me-oriented ministries in mega churches are attracting them out of the bodies of Christ where they are the hands, feet, legs, arms and eyes of the churches they are abandoning. It might be a common problem, but each church will have to figure out how to fix it, and will have to put the resources into it.
Lee:
Well spoken! I agree with you that individual congregations can’t outsource to a denominational structure the job of defining and implementing the package of change to fit the situation at hand.
I have been watching from afar the situation going on right now as various congregations wrestle with this. One that I’m tracking is bringing in consultants and doing to bottom to top review of everything they are doing. They just announced that they are doing away with separate “traditional” vs. “contemporary” services. What a concept: Actually, exhibiting unity in terms of worship!
Hopefully, the pendulum is swinging away from this whole idea of excessive individualism. I wonder if the model of churches reaching out to “consumers” is beginning to run out of gas.
I’m neither a Calvinist, nor an anti-Calvinist. I believe the body of Christ – and the body of Baptists – is large and strong enough for multiple views on the matter. As well, except on the most fundamental issues I believe a health level of disagreement is exactly that – healthy. It keeps us from monomania and doctrinal egocentrism.
I asked Dave to add me to the list because I am tired of divisiveness in our body. Racially, ethnically, doctrinally…just sickens me. While the authors of this document are not saying anything radically new, I’m proud that they have taken a step, working towards a noble goal.
Todd & Dave,
My response to this document is Yes and Amen. May the Holy Spirit breathe on the spirit and letters of this document & all who wrote it, read it, sign it, and even discuss & debate it. I would that our convention would seriously consider adopting it. If taken seriously & applied in spirit and in truth in the life of our convention, it would lead to a much needed reset, refreshment, renewal, remake-or whatever u want to call it-of our beloved SBC. Without the spirit, letter, and application of this document being incarnated in the life of the SBC, we seem to be languishing, drifting, and divided with no end in sight for a course correction. May God bless the architects and contributors of this great document. And may He cause it to catch on fire.
I was glad to read that the Gang of Eleven plan to elaborate on their original document. I surely do support their call for more inclusion of ethnic leaders and small church pastors on our boards of trustees and leadership positions. Our boards and leadership should be as diverse as our membership/churches.
The SBC needs to emphasize ethnic evangelism and church planting. Why? Because the Anglo (white) percentage of the population is declining and aging. That is one reason for the decline we see in our SBC statistics.
We worked pretty hard on this one, but one of the things this discussion does is show us where we need to fine tune and what the concerns of people are.
Dr. Terry:
I believe you have zeroed in on the main topic. It is not about Calvinism or non-Calvinism. At least I don’t see people arguing Calvinism on its merits — pro or con.
Calvinism is just a smoke screen that covers up the real issue which is a perceived bias in the SBC that perpetuates the situation where only a small subset of all people in the SBC are leaders.
There seems to be at least one de-facto litmus test. If you come from a smaller church the likelihood that you will be in a leadership position in the SBC asymptotically approaches zero.
If the pastors of the “smaller” churches worked together to put up a candidate they would likely win the SBC presidential election by a landslide. They would then influence — via appointments to boards — the election of the trustees.
I believe at least part of the solution is that the rank and file membership from the smaller SBC churches must speak up. Or to put it another way, they need to set aside arcane theological differences and work together through the democratic process that is available to them to put up a leadership slate that that is more in sync with their own kind.
Why is it that mega pastors have all of these affinity groups?
Maybe smaller church leaders should start their own affinity group. I think change is mostly dependent upon a bottom up collation. I guess building that collation is what the “gang of 11” document is all about.
Roger, that is a main point of our document.
Dave and Todd,
I wish you the best in all these efforts….
During the not to distance past,…the IMB is a good example of how to build unity long term, and maybe that is what the efforts here will do. IMB set out to tell the truth, restructure and spend what is budgeted, and now not get involved in pet projects. That is how you begin to gain trust again for individuals giving to a larger cause.
– “International Mission Board overspent $210 million over last 6 years. The new budget changes that slide.”
– “Missionary candidates must affirm the doctrines found in the Baptist Faith and Message statement of beliefs, be baptized by immersion, be a member of a SBC church, and demonstrate an “intimate, growing relationship with Christ.”
– “Under the new rules, speaking in tongues does not disqualify missionary candidates. Too much emphasis on charismatic gifts, like speaking in tongues, could still lead to discipline.”
Faithful decisions begin to build trust. Trust is what drives involvement. Trust will begin to make the individual givers within the SBC churches begin to pay attention again with what God entrusts to them, and how they choose to participate in ministry at the local level and around the world. I’ve had difficulty explaining to our church members why the SBC deserves any funding based upon how they see funds get used and disbursed. The IMB gives us leaders a reason to speak about a better and different future.
I feel like Zaxby’s is just a liberal Chick Fil A.
-Rev. NoRespect
Please don’t judge me for this. 😉
Zaxby’s is one of the best eating establishments a hen or rooster ever sacrificed their wishbones for. Nobody makes a better Buffalo Blue Zalad than Zaxby’s.
You disqualify yourself as a chicken connoisseur when you put a glorious chicken in a salad.
Hah, but Dean Stewart,
My Southland brother, the wonder of Zaxby’s is that one can order all the chicken fingers he wants to go with that Zalad and still appear to be eating healthy ’cause there is lettuce and tomatoes on his plate.
CB, we eat salad in MS, we love it. Take a fresh mess of mustard greens, fry about three pounds of bacon and pour over the raw washed greens. Its called “wilted salad.” It will change your life. Healthy!
Dean Stewart,
I have eaten my good share of wilted salad. It is a delight with cracklin’ cornbread and sliced onions.
Polk salad is also good with bacon grease, as I am sure you know. Matter of fact, bacon grease helps ‘tater soup to have a proper “smackability” goodness also.
glory!
Boy, am I hungry now.
CB, I love the Nibblers at Zaxby’s. I just feel a little guilty every time I choose Zaxby’s over Chik Fil A.
😉
David
Vol,
I have to admit, I have never felt guilt about the killing of chickens, the cleaning of chickens, the cooking of chickens, the eating of chickens, nor have I ever felt guilt about the establishment wherein I ate chickens.
Chicken eatin’ been good to me.
Dean,
We do the same thing in NY, although we leave out the greens, and we just call it breakfast.
Bill M, if you could just eat Southen cooking one weekend at my house you would never go back to NY.
Happiness is a fried meat grease can next to your stove and people knowing what it is for.
I will give NY their props in that Nathan’s hotdogs are in a league of their own. Imo.
Dean: Agreed about the little jar of bacon fat on the stove. We do that too.
If you really want the best of northern food, try poutine with real cheese curd.
Bill M, I had never heard Poutine. I just looked up a recipe on YouTube. Fries, cheese and gravy!! I could see myself serving in the northeast after watching that video.
CB,
My family never ate chicken or turkey growing up. As a child, I guess I figured that just as Jews didn’t eat pork, Christians didn’t eat poultry. I went off to Baylor and the dorm cafeteria served chicken frequently. That shot down the religious reason to avoid chicken if a Baptist university served it. When I went home and asked my parents why we never had chicken at home, my dad told me he didn’t like it. Turns out his father, a Southern Baptist pastor in Southern Illinois, was paid in chickens throughout the depression. People tithed with chickens. His family therefore ate chicken morning, noon, and night because it was mostly all they had to eat (unless someone tithed with corn, tomatoes, etc.). My dad decided that once he was an adult, he would never eat another chicken, if he had another option. I never met my grandfather; he died long before I was born. But I’ve wondered what he would think about all these chicken restaurants we have today.
Mary Ann,
I can understand your father signing off chicken. That would be kinda rough three times a day, I reckon.
However, there is a silver lining in your father’s history. His daddy could have been the pastor of a church full of squirrel hunters.
That’s funny!
Many of the responses toward “A New Baptist Future” have completely surprised me. We speak of diversifying leadership to include more churches, more minorities, and pastors of smaller churches. We declare the BF&M is our confession and we can stand in unity with those whose belief system falls with its parameters. In our fantasy future there is harmony among SBC.
I have read this is a Calvinistic document. I was invited into the process and shared my opinion a couple times. My recommendations were accepted and for the most part implemented. I honestly cannot remember soteriology being discussed at all in our conversations, unless someone cracked a joke on me or vice versa. I am not a Calvinist in anyway, so much so I call men named John in my church Bubba. However, the drafters of this document included me. If the drafting party being a majority Calvinist makes this a Calvinist document then it also is a golfing document because some of us play golf too.
Some have spoken as though we see ourselves as the savior of the SBC and view this document as an answer for a declining convention. This is incomprehensible to me. There is no guarantee a convention that is in harmony will experience growth. There is a guarantee that a convention whose members treat each other shameful will have difficulties in the future. It’s not a new revelation but the Body of Christ is to live in harmony.
My final thought is the responses to a document that calls for an end of pettiness evolved into a discussion about whose side has said what about the other side, “Your side was the most mean, know your side was.”
Dean: This isn’t meant to chastise anyone but when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I’m afraid the casual utterances of “semper reformada” and “all Baptists are calvinistic” were the beginning of the end of this particular conversation. Maybe it can be salvaged, I don’t know.
Watching the funeral of Justice Scalia and listening to the commentary, I have this thought.
If Justice Scalia, his family, and Justice Ginsburg and her family could celebrate holidays together, surely the adherents to the various, orthodox soteriological persuasions within the SBC can work together to fulfill the Great Commission.
cb, yes… most certainly. I love to see the scripture read and the gospel put forth. I can see why the current President would not want to identify with this group, at this particular ceremony. He is a man of priorities…political action first, gospel action second.
The presentation of Scalia’s service, at a minimum, points us to the value of the great gospel of God, and how all other beliefs become easily political. Jesus, our God, and Savior… is one of an uncreated kind.
I just had a conversation with one of my Church members about how the SBC is big enough to have Churches that don’t agree over every point of doctrine and theology. In fact, I told him that the SBC has always had Calvinists and Non Calvinists Churches in it, and we can be joined together, today, even if we do disagree over the finer points of theology.
David
I am convinced all of us can be unified around three clear points:
1. The New York Yankees are the scourge of baseball,
2. The St. Louis Cardinals are the National League equivalent to the Yankees,
3. The designator hitter is for sissies and waters down baseball.
Dean, that will preach!
Amen, glory and as I heard a kid say one time….
How wa woo woo
How wa woo woo? lol wow.
I have read the document and agree with the sentiments expressed. As a nearly 40 veteran of serving Southern Baptist churches in the Northwest I am watching the unraveling of denominational ties. Some of the causes we have no one to blame but ourselves. Other causes are cultural and social causes that we failed to recognize quickly enough.
But, given the failures I wholeheartedly support the direction you gentleman have charted. Please add me to any list you develop. Someday when I have time (hmmm….will someday ever come?) I will finish a piece I am working on that resonates with what you are saying. I look forward to a better future – having survived some pretty brutal days!
Well, yeah, I can, with the exception of Reverend. I don’t think any one used the word Reverend.
However, users of the other words would be: Peter, Paul, John, God the Son, and God the Father. Several of the OT guys used various terms that meant the same.
Now, A. Amos Love, if you don’t mind, let me ask a question?
If your name is A. Amos “Love,” why is your avatar “God is Love”?
Is that a Freudian slip or something? Because for a guy asking the kind of questions that you do in your comment, it would seem you would not want to use such a suggestive avatar. Ya think?
cb
Thanks for the response.
Seems someone did NOT?appreciate the questions.
The whole comment is now gone. 🙁
I guess when this article says…
In the 6th paragraph under #3…
“We do not judge or disdain those who disagree.”
These authors did NOT really mean that.
————-
When you say, “Well, yeah, I can…”
Is that in response to this question asked?
“In the Bible…
Can anyone name one of His Disciples?
Who called them self pastor?
Or shepherd? Or leader? Or reverend?”
If it was? “Well, yeah, I can…”? Will you name…
One of His Disciples…
Who called them self pastor/leader?
One of His Disciples…
Who had the “Title/Postion” pastor/leader?
One of His Disciples…
Who was Hired/Fired as a pastor/leader?
When I search the scriptures I can NOT find…
One of His Disciples…
Who took the “Title/Position” pastor/leader.
Thanks
A. Amos Love,
Paul, John, and Peter used the terms you mentioned, with the exception of the term Reverend, as did others.
Now, how about the question I asked of you?
cd
Sorry if I’m NOT explaining myself properly. The questions asked were NOT about *Who* “used the terms.” But, from the Bible, with scripture reference…
*Who* actually called them self pastor/leader?
*Who* actually had a “Title/Postion” pastor/leader?
*Who* actually was Hired/Fired as a pastor/leader?
A. Amos Love,
Check out 2 John and 3 John. See: 1 Timothy 3, and Titus 1.
A. Amos Love, the NT is full of references to pastors and leaders. Are you suggesting that the NT does not render credibility to men using the term pastor or leader?
Do you think that pastors do not get fired from churches?
What is you point in asking these questions?
cb
If you’ll notice…
The focus is on His Disciples…
In the Bible…
If “The Great Commission” is a focus of the SBC.
How can the SBC, “Go…Make disciples?”
That do NOT look like His Disciples in the Bible?
That do NOT look like what Jesus taught His Disciples?
A. Amos Love,
I guess I am kinda missing your point here about the making of disciples. Maybe I can catch on to what you are asking if you shine just a little more light.
I finally had a chance to read the document.
You said,
“Arguments on strict tithing, moderate alcohol use, the culture wars, worship styles – these will not be solved no matter how much or how long we argue them. If we insist that our unity rests on uniformity on these issues, then we might as well call a lawyer now and seek legal separation and an equitable distribution of property! Divorce is inevitable.”
With that statement you seem to say those issues are now invalid; I suppose because you say they are invalid and / or divisive.
One way Baptists have resolved issues is by voting on them.
It seems up until now most Baptists believe in tithing and oppose drinking and other drug use, and oppose gambling.
I certainly understand not all Southern Baptists agree,
but the majority have for many years.
For example, many SBC resolutions (associational, state, and national) have long been made speaking to these matters.
I see no reason to throw that out just because some say we should.
It is not necessarily the ones with these long held beliefs that are divisive. They simply believe what Baptists have believed for well over 100 years.
Perhaps it is the new view that these issues are wrong and invalid that is divisive.
David R. Brumbelow
I’m not an author of the document – and I am a little hesitant of it because I just don’t see the need of yet another document –
But I think it’s fair to say that you have potentially misrepresented what they are saying with regard the part you quoted – they are not saying that these issues are insignificant – they do not seem to be saying these issues are irrelevant – what they seem to me to be saying is that these are not issues to divide over – instead it seems they issue a call to embrace one another’s conscience freedom while at the same time holding fast to ones own personal convictions.
In other words I think they’re saying that freedom and lack of freedom ( One might say differences of opinion’s) on these issues do not have to be dividing lines.
Of course if I too am mischaracterizing the intents of the authors I’m sure they will correct me.
I see 2 different threads of thought here. On the one hand, there is a seeming dismissal of discussions about alcohol, tithing, cultural issues, etc…on the basis of them causing division.
On the other hand, there is the statement: “But if you disagree with the BF&M in a significant way you are not Southern Baptist.” This simply isn’t true. Our discussion a few years back on open/closed communion showed us that many churches and individuals disagree on the BFM. And if that issue is not seen as “significant”…what about those churches (Harvest Bible Chapel & Sovereign Grace, for example), who are now SBC, but don’t agree with or practice our democratic/congregational polity? Of course, this this exists because we have NEVER required churches to agree with the BFM to cooperate with us.
The point is, who decides what is significant? As it stands, churches can disagree with a lot of points within the BFM, and as long as they don’t endorse homosexuality or ordain a female pastor, they will likely remain with us.
So, of course SBers will disagree on things like alcohol. The question is whether those who hold opposing views will address them in divisive ways, or in ways that discuss differences in unifying and edifying ways.
“As it stands, churches can disagree with a lot of points within the BFM, and as long as they don’t endorse homosexuality or ordain a female pastor, they will likely remain with us.”
Andy Williams,
In all seriousness, I do hope that our cooperation with one another as local, Baptist churches is based on theological truths beyond just the two issues you have listed above.
As would I, but I don’t get to decide such things. I believe I have accurately described out current situation, especially now that we have non-congregational churches among us. When it comes to the National SBC, Those seem to be the 2 things that matter. (of course, more local associations can be more discriminating if they wish).
If we wish to use the BFM as our standard for who is or isn’t SBC, then it either needs to be revised and simplified, or we will have to accept the loss of a significant number of churches who do not conform/agree on a few points of it…I don’t know how to determine what Dave meant by “significant.”
Andy Williams,
What do you mean by “non-congregational churches among us”?
Andy Williams,
As to the BF&M. I do believe it is a reasonable guide for corporation as a convention. It is not a creed, although some may try to force it to be one.
However, it is my opinion that the BF&M is an adequate theological standard for use by the SBC to vet entity trustees, employees, and administrators. I believe that a prospective trustee, employee, or administrator should be able to, with good conscience, ascribe to the BF&M without caveat to serve the SBC.
When I use the word employee, I am speaking of any and all whose work is of a spiritual nature. I am not in reference to maintenance personnel for buildings, etc.
CB, to answer your questions:
1. “Non-congregational refers to churches like Harvest Bible Chapel and SGM churches that have recently joined with the SBC, and yet do not practice what we would recognize as historically baptist polity, Ie, they are elder-ruled, not congregational ruled.
2. I agree and understand that the BFM DOES currently function well as a standard for denominational employees. What it does NOT seem to be doing, is having any bearing on what kind of churches we allow to become cooperating, messenger-sending SBC churches.
Andy Williams,
Thanks for your answer. I see that you had church governance in mind and not the absence of a local congregation.
That variance of governance models is part of our autonomy as Baptists. In my opinion, the governance model is to be in accord with the will of the body local and should not be part of the criteria for acceptance to be in cooperation with the SBC.
Personally, I prefer the congregational governance model and I know I can defend it as a NT model. Yet, I know that other forms of church governance can also be defended as NT models.
As to the BF&M, I believe it to be a good and adequate guide for cooperation, but it is in no way infallible. I state it is not infallible for back in ’06-’07 there were guys who actually argued that it is infallible in Baptist blog threads.
The true standard for cooperation should always be the Scripture. I still trust that the majority of Southern Baptists have the capability to determine what is of biblical truth and what is not.
Therefore, if a local body who is in obvious doctrinal opposition to the clear teaching of Scripture makes application to join a local association, state convention, or the SBC, any or all of those entities should have the fortitude to deny that local body good standing as a Southern Baptist church.
The Bible, due to its Author is infallible. The BF&M due to its authors is not now, nor shall it ever be infallible.
But, CB, don’t you believe that the BFM2K states what we, SB’s, believe the Scriptures teach? And, that they’re important enough doctrines to determine if we want to be in fellowship with a Church, or not?
I know that we’ve got some “Baptist” churches, which let people join, who’ve just been sprinkled on top of the head, instead of being baptized. I think Matt Chandler’s church is one of those. In fact, we’ve got a Church in our area, that tried to join our Association, who allows sprinkled people to join their Church, without being baptized. We would not let them join, based on this doctrinal error. But, their Mother church is a SB Church in Jackson, TN!
Baptism is a deal breaker for me.
David
Also, I could go along with an “Elder Ruled” Church being a part of the SBC, if they allowed the congregation to vote on the yearly budget, and if they were allowed to vote on who the Elders are. But, if the Church is so Elder ruled that the congregation doesn’t get to vote on these basic things, which set the course for the Church, then I would argue that they are more Presbyterian, or Church of Christ, than they are Baptist.
I love everyone. I’m not trying to be mean and ugly to anyone. I wish I could buy everyone a bacon, double cheeseburger, and visit with you over lunch.
David
PS. I add that disclaimer, because some people have thought this kind of talk was hateful and mean, in the past. Of course, in their disagreement with me, they weren’t being mean and ugly. But, if anyone didn’t go along with their point of view, then you were being mean, ugly, and nasty. 😉
Vol,
“Also, I could go along with an “Elder Ruled” Church being a part of the SBC, if they allowed the congregation to vote on the yearly budget, and if they were allowed to vote on who the Elders are. But, if the Church is so Elder ruled that the congregation doesn’t get to vote on these basic things, which set the course for the Church, then I would argue that they are more Presbyterian, or Church of Christ, than they are Baptist. ”
I agree with you. A church like that is not congregational in their polity. (Look, even two “meanies” like us can agree sometimes.) 😉
( I would add that the church should also vote on all matters of church discipline and the calling of pastoral staff.)
Vol,
When you address me, you don’t have to worry about me thinking you are “mean or nasty” or anything similar. I know you are none of that. I know you to be a theologically astute Southern Baptist who seriously serves the church to which God has assigned you and you are very talented and gifted, yet you don’t make a big deal about it.
Your questions are very valid, at least to me anyway.
I do believe the BF&M to reflect what we as the SBC believe. I believe it to be a good and adequate guide for fellowship and cooperation. However, I do not believe it to be infallible. I do not believe it to be a/the creed for Southern Baptists. I believe the Scripture to be the only true creed for believers. I believe that to be our historical position as to the absolute authority of any document in human existence. God gave us a perfect document; The Bible. Any other document, no matter how close to the Scripture it may be, is not a perfect document due to its genesis. That genesis being human authors. We are fallible and any document we generate, no matter our intent or desire for perfection, shall be flawed. The BF&M is not an exception. Only the Bible is inerrant and infallible. That is due to the fact that it has God for its Author and Preserver. That which God authors cannot be less than perfect.
However, and with the above being stated, let me again state that any and all trustees, and administrators, and employees with spiritual task assignments should be willing to adhere to the BF&M without caveat.
For local churches seeking to be in cooperation with local associations, state conventions, and the SBC should be vetted by the use of the Scripture by individuals who know the Scripture. Those seeking entry should, if not within the parameters of what the Scripture plainly states for existing as a local NT church, not be granted fellowship.
Our problem in the SBC seems not to be with our documents, but with those who are to be the guardians of the faith and the polity and practice as Southern Baptists.
“An associate professor at Wheaton College who who asserted Christians and Muslims worship the same God will leave her post at the Christian school, according to a joint statement released Saturday.
In a statement posted on Wheaton’s website, the school and Dr. Larycia Hawkins said they “have reached a confidential agreement under which they will part ways.” The statement didn’t go into details.”
What better way than a signed adherence to BF&M to ward off the Wheaton follies? Surely Wheaton and the good Dr. Hawkins had such an agreement?
The local church is a much different concern for leadership and congregation as it relates to BF&M belief and practice. How many churches require an in depth study on the part of their membership?
“What Baptists Believe” then is very much indicative of how much they know, and more so of what they do not know and internalize, doctrinally speaking.
Will the average Baptist “sign-off” on the BF&M without knowing what they are signing? Often times, yes. Then they walk about life with the book in hand, “What Baptists Told Me I Believe.” or “What Baptists Told Me I Must Believe”. Or better yet, “What I As a Baptist Used to Believe.”
And the best seller for the disciple who is no student of their own,
“What My Preacher Believes–Me Too”.
I have never heard a single person call Vol mean. Now, “ugly” is a different story.
Dean Stewart,
He may be ugly, but he must be a pretty smooth talker, ’cause he did marry a ‘purty’ girl who gave him some mighty purty young’uns.
CB,
I wasn’t talking about you, Brother, when I gave that disclaimer. I was thinking about some others. You are a true friend. And, true friends can discuss things without worrying about such things. Also, I did marry a purty girl, and I do have some wonderful, darling grandchildren. Thank you for saying that. All of my girls have my heart, Brother…from my wife to my mother to my daughter to my daughter in laws to my 3 pretty, precious, little granddaughters. Wow, grandchildren are great!
Dean, you old rascal. I just want you to know that I’ve been called about every name in the book, and some not in the book. lol. I’ve had people to accuse of me of….well, you fill in the blank. lol.
I never will forget that day, back in 1985, or 1986…either in Dallas or Atlanta….I just can’t remember which one, right now…I didn’t vote for Winfred Moore to be Vice President. I voted for the Conservative opponent. And, I can’t remember who that was, at this moment. But anyway, I really do remember that day! lol. But, boy, this liberal/moderate came charging over to me…I was young and a spiritually young Christian, at that time….and, he lit into me. He was red faced mad. And, he was giving me what for. I mean, he was chewing me out, up one side, and down the other. He called me all kinds of things….uncooperative, divisive, mean, and several other things. Well, my Pastor, Dr. Jerry Glisson, looked over and saw what was going on. And, he came over…in his wise and gentle way…and he calmed that man down. He told that man that we could all vote however we felt led by God to vote. He told that man to calm down, and lay off of me. And, that man cooled off, and walked away.
So, Dean, I’ve been called all kinds of things, for a long, long time, Brother. lol
David
I met Vol and Dave’s brides at dinner at the SBC. I figure they both bound to have money.
Dean,
🙂
David
PS. Dave Miller is loaded. That’s how he got such a young, pretty wife. My wife married me, because she felt sorry for me. She saw that I needed a good woman to take care of me, or else I wouldn’t make it. I’m so glad that she took pity on me!!
Vol and Tarheel,
I have come to began to make a definitive difference between the terms: “Elder Rule” and “Elder Led” when considering the nuances of church governance.
Short definitions:
Elder Ruled = Those churches governed by a selected group. This group informs the congregation of decisions, but the congregation is not involved in decision making in open meetings of the body.
Elder Led = Those churches led by a plurality of elders selected by the congregations. Elders present issues to the congregation for discussion and finality of decisions in open meetings of the body.
Personally, I am more inclined to accept Elder Led churches than Elder Ruled churches. Although, by open dialogue it may be found that one or the other may be acceptable depending upon the churches definition of the terms discussed above.
Tarheel and Vol,
Gentlemen, I am sorry. I have no idea what the phrase “I have come to began” means or why I used it. Too many shots to the head, maybe?
I meant:
“I have come to make a definitive difference . . . “
CB,
I too would make that distinction.
A church where nothing of significance rests solely in the hands of the church body is not congregational but ruled by a small group. (I would add that there should also a mechanism for the congregation ‘overruling’ the elders)
I have no issue whatsoever with a congregational church that is elder led – in fact I would argue that a plurality of elders guiding and overseeing an involved congregation can be easily defended in the NT.
Tarheel,
I think we are close to the same opinion here as to what can and cannot constitute congregational governance and be in accord with baptistic principles of cooperation.
Glenn Harrell,
I think you have hit upon an issue of importance in your comment. The group with the responsibility of guardianship of an entity must do their jobs.
In a local Baptist association there is usually a Credentials Committee with the accountability to examine prospective churches seeking to become cooperative members. The members of such a committee should question the prospective church leadership in a proper manner to determine if or if not the church is a suitable candidate for membership.
Sadly, that does not always happen. Sometimes there is just a handshake and “Glad you are now one of us” ceremony and a church that is anything but a local Baptist body is brought into the fold.
This is definitely the sad case of many trustee boards in SBC life. To few take the hard stands necessary to maintain the integrity of the entity as a Baptist entity. The end result at times is the reaping of the whirlwind when news breaks as to what has taken place in our entities. Of course, and sadly also, the game of cover-up is played and nothing is really resolved.
If we insist that our unity rests on uniformity on these issues,
Do you insist that our unity rests on uniformity on the issues you mentioned? Is it impossible to be unified with those who believe differently? Should a church that teaches the tithe is not a command for believers be put out of fellowship in the same way a church that denies the virgin birth?
It isn’t that those issues don’t matter. It’s that if they are non-negotiables for unity, then we’re done.
Baptists have had how many votes on moderate use of alcohol?
Did that settle the issue?
Are you willing to make conformity to your viewpoint a point of fellowship in the SBC?
The point here is that each person should have his view and be able to teach it, preach it, and even advocate it. But, if someone holds another viewpoint on an issue that is not a major point of the BF&M 2000, then there is freedom.
I do not drink – never have. But I’m not willing to make that a point of fellowship. Those who believe that a glass of wine now and again is not a violation of their conscience should be fully convinced in their own minds. They answer to Jesus not to me.
Are you wanting to remove fellowship from any pastor or church that does not adhere to your teetotalitarian view?
Look, like Tarheel, I’m skeptical of the efficacy of this document and endeavor although I admire the intent. But if we don’t break the grip of celebrity that holds the SBC, then unity is impossible. Each side has their own celebrities. Let’s face it, without Al Mohler, SGM and Driscoll would have never reached the level of acceptance they have in the SBC. I stay out of CR arguments. Before my time. But I’ve read enough to know that the heroes of the CR were sometimes underhanded and un-Christian in their methods. We elect celebrity mega-church pastors as president over, and over, and over again. The problems with sexual abuse are in many ways celebrity related. Each new entity head is a celebrity. If that doesn’t change, we’ve got big problems.
Bill Mac, To your point… for the small church Pastors to endeavor into SBC politics, there must be a desire of that small church Pastor to start earlier with their campaign. To the men or women that want to be included in the predominately “white” dominated boards, etc. it will take a willing minority pioneer longer, and more effort to be involved in the politic. The key is exposure, time, and effort. For the SBC to change its representation, then those with an overwhelming desire, have the opportunity. It just takes time, effort, treasure, and persistence with no guarantees.
I’ve yet to see any such campaigns emerge. But, it can happen with enough exposure, leadership, and good ideas.
I’ve always like the little feedback that John got from Jesus “John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, because no one who does a miracle in my name will be able soon afterward to say anything bad about me. For whoever is not against us is for us. For I tell you the truth, whoever gives you a cup of water because you bear Christ’s name will never lose his reward.”
That’s the reason I like seeing these type of proposals, because someone(s) has enough gumption to give it a go. Even though I think trying to collect affirmations is not necessarily the most powerful way to accomplish the task, and is likely to go the way of the others. I like the intent of the effort….because there will be no small church Pastor in leadership without he being fully devoted to the task, and it will require much greater effort.
Southern Baptists have had many votes on alcohol since the 1880s,
and they have all been against drinking.
That is significant.
Opposing the use of beverage alcohol has obviously been the majority view of the SBC.
2006 SBC Resolution on Alcohol Use in America
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2011/04/2006-sbc-resolution-on-alcohol-use-in.html
David R. Brumbelow
So, David…
If the SBC were to pass a resolution at convention reversing that stance and instead affirms non intoxicating moderation as a conscience freedom issue would you then argue that since the “convention has spoken” and the matter is settled?
Tarheel,
That would kinda be like the ban on Disney World, don’t you think? Those who wanted to go did and those who did want to go did. The vote of the SBC did not carry much weight in the matter.
That should be: “Those who wanted to go did and those who did not want to go did not.”
Please don’t banned Disney World too!…Star Wars land is coming.
My dear Tyler,
This is one you can take to the bank and cash: This old man fought that ban tooth and nail. — one of the silliest events in the history of the SBC — and absolute rebellion to the mandate of the Great Commission.
Yep, resolutions like the ones D Brumblelow contends “settles matters” in fact never do because….wait for it…..
No one really cares what convention resolutions say. it seems pretty clear that they are not worth the paper they are written on. The votes are most often perfunctory and as Dean pointed out – the ones forbidding alcohol consumption have been far from unanimous. For example, I was in Greensboro in (2006?) long discussion and disagreement took place and the vote was relatively close. It was like 55% to 45%.
Our church has done resolutions a time or two but they always are done as bylaw amendments and an official statement of the church – otherwise they are pointless and nothing more than the mere opines of the majority of people in a room at that particular time.
Contrary to the claim of some (55%),
the 2006 SBC Resolution against Alcohol was passed by a vote of over 80%.
“When the back-and-forth on alcohol finally ended, the messengers passed with more than a four-fifths majority a resolution not only opposing the manufacture and consumption of alcohol but urging the exclusion of Southern Baptists who drink from election to the convention’s boards, committees and entities. Like other resolutions, it is not binding on SBC churches and entities.”
http://www.bpnews.net/23481
David R. Brumbelow
1. Notice the money statement at the end of your quote. The last sentence. See these resolutions are pointless.
2. I wonder if that “reporter” was actually in the room- cause I was – It was most certainly not 80%.
Tarheel,
I too was present at the 2006 vote on the Alcohol Resolution.
I watched very closely when the vote was taken.
I agree with the report of Baptist Press that the vote passed by more than 80%.
Perhaps you were sitting with your Calvinist friends and saw them vote 55% to 45%?
David R. Brumbelow
Actually, I was sitting with 4 other pastors from various churches none of them were Cals (but not rabid anti Cals who blame everything they don’t like on Cals- like you and others) and they all voted against the resolution, too btw.
In fact one of them said to me “that was a lot closer than I expected. Seemed about 55-45% or maybe 60-40.” We all agreed.
So the observation I made was also observed by others.
Were you sitting up top of on the floor? We were up top and could see whole arena.
Tarheel,
If the SBC passed a resolution in support of moderate drinking (moderate use of recreational drugs), I would be very disappointed.
But it would not have the weight of the current SBC position against alcohol until that moderate drinking view was reaffirmed over the next 130 years.
That would be the year AD 2146.
If the Lord delays His coming, I pray Southern Baptists in 2146 will still oppose recreational drug use as unbiblical, dangerous, and unwise.
For at least 130 years the SBC has consistently opposed drinking.
Another of many resolutions:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2013/08/sbc-resolution-on-alcohol-1988.html
David R. Brumbelow
David, you and I are in agreement on alcohol consumption. I have been present for a few of the votes on alcohol resolutions and SB messengers voted against them. The resolutions were not unanimous. It would be in error to maintain any who oppose a resolution are divisive.
Your conclusion that the signers of this statement do not think alcohol consumption, worship wars, cultural wars and tithing are unimportant is incorrect. Our church mandates cetain leaders tithe and be abstainers. I do not believe we should break fellowship with people who interpret the NT giving requirement be whatever a man determines in his heart. We can believe differently on these matters and still be in agreement.
I’d not suggest nor support a statement “encouraging” moderate consumption – that’d be just as pointless as the endless prohibtionist statements.
I’d favor statements affirming the biblical balance between conscience liberty and weaker brothers regarding these types of issues. Romans 14.
Dean Stewart,
First, I greatly appreciate your stand against alcohol.
The statement I quoted above seemed to indicate to me that the alcohol issue should just be taken off the table because it is divisive. You and others may not read it that way, but that is one way it can be taken.
I am not saying being against alcohol is a fundamental doctrine of the faith.
I’m not worried about the alcohol issue being included in the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.
I’m not for disfellowshipping a church that does not have my exact view on alcohol.
Even among those who oppose alcohol, they would disagree at certain points.
But for those who say this is not an issue of importance or that a resolution does not solve or settle anything –
If for 130 years the SBC has passed over 40 resolutions, all opposing beverage alcohol, that is very, very strong evidence of where the majority of Southern Baptists have stood.
So, I believe it is incorrect for some to imply alcohol is simply an open issue or non issue in the SBC.
This may one day change (I hope and pray it does not), but it is an issue that has been settled (by the majority) for 130 years.
David R. Brumbelow
David, I can’t honestly remember us ever coming down on two sides of any issue. I enjoy reading the Gulf Coast Pastor! We are in agreement on alcohol being an important matter that the SBC has been clearly consistent on. For this stance I am grateful.
However, on this one issue we see it differently. The intent of a document is not determined by the reader but by the author. Read closely this sentence,
“If we insist that our unity rests on uniformity on these issues, then we might as well call a lawyer now and seek legal separation and an equitable distribution of property! Divorce is inevitable.”
I am willing to debate Biblical tithing and alcohol consumption all day long. However, if the SBC has to have uniformity on these issues we must split for our convention is not unified on them. This document does not call for an end of debate but says debates on these matters will continue without a conclusion. It does call for an understanding that no one point on these matters is the one all SBCers must adhere to.
Blessings on you.
Thanks for your gracious words. We do almost completely agree.
I think any disagreement between us on this is slight, and more nuance than substantial.
But if we work at it, we can probably find something we can fight about!
David R. Brumbelow
“If for 130 years the SBC has passed over 40 resolutions, all opposing beverage alcohol, that is very, very strong evidence of where the majority of Southern Baptists have stood.”
From my experience, I would think so and tend to agree. I would offer another possibility, though, that it is evidence of where the vast majority of Southern Baptist messengers have stood. I say this because of another issue. The SBC messengers over the years have passed many resolutions against gambling. When the lottery was presented to Texas voters many years ago, I expected that Baptists had enough influence in Texas and enough votes that this would never pass. But it did. Nowadays I think I see more Baptists buying lottery tickets than anyone else (Baptists of all stripes, not just SBC, but all of whose churches officially oppose gambling). Of course, some of these are nominal Baptists, but many of them are active church members.
“I would offer another possibility, though, that it is evidence of where the vast majority of Southern Baptist messengers have stood.”
Agreed. I’d argue That’s the case with all resolutions.
Yes. I guess in a sense it is too obvious to mention that the resolutions represent the opinion/beliefs of those voting on them. But I guess the main point I’m making is whether the opinion/beliefs of the majority of messengers represent the opinions and beliefs of the men and women in the pews. Theoretically I suppose they should. Practically, I don’t always think so.
In my case, we bought one ticket to the Texas lottery. It was insurance. Remember that insurance is supposed to protect you against something you could not recover from. Well, we made the error of getting a set of numbers that was “ours.” Once we did that, we “had” to buy the insurance to protect against those numbers coming up.
How sad…what a crying shame….988 missionaries are being called home, and 149 stateside personnel are being “let go”…I guess you could say….how sad…
http://baptistandreflector.org/imb-announces-missionary-voluntary-retirement-totals/
I’m sure it’s hard to watch this happen. Every SB I know has a deep desire to see the nations come to saving knowledge of Jesus. Surely, though, God has plans no one even knows of. I did note this from the article:
“Platt stressed that no IMB missionary “has been required to leave the field during this time. IMB missionaries have been encouraged to make a transition off of the field only if they sense the Lord leading them to do so.”
They must feel this is the Lord’s will for them.
So, Les, 988 missionaries just all of a sudden felt led to come home? That doesn’t sound right. And, 149 stateside personnel just decided that it was a good thing to quit? felt led to give it up? I don’t know, Les. I’m not so sure about that.
Les, have you read this article. Read this, and tell me what you think about it.
http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/former-imb-vp-says-fired-communicators-grossly-undervalued-and-maligned/50366.htm
David, I don’t know how people like you, me, and others who are interested in the IMB can evaluate internal decisions like this one. Either we have administrators and leaders whom we trust to make such decisions, or we don’t. I believe that we do.
We are so deep into the comments here (takes too long to load them all) that it’s tough to have a discussion. You are welcome to link anything and discuss on the new topic on the subject.
Vol, I am just going by what Platt is quoted as saying. I have no reason to think Platt is trying to deceive anyone. As for the other article, I’m sure that this fellow as well as the people let go would obviously have a different perspective on their work.
Wow, CB, lots of comments happened…allow me to chime in again:
If you are saying that historically baptist churches have had a variety of polity models, including those in which the congregation did not decide on it’s own leaders or other major decisions, I was not aware of that. If that is the case, then it would seem that Believer’s baptism & Local Church Autonomy are the 2 distinguishing marks of Baptists, but that congregational/Democratic governance is NOT. I’m willing to accept that. As such, a church can disagree with that part of the BFM with no trouble…just like they may practice an “open” communion, or even perhaps accept infant baptism, as long as they do not practice it themselves?
I chose my words purposely, as (to the best of my knowledge) both Harvest and SGM churches are Elder ruled, such that the congregation does not decide much, if anything. Someone may correct me.
Andy Williams,
My point was that all local churches are constituted by congregations in Baptist life. Read the several comments I and others made regarding congregational governance of a local church and positions on the BF&M. I think that will help unravel what I am addressing with you.
Congregations have used several forms of governance, but all churches have congregants.
I just can’t understand why new missionaries were being appointed, year after year, when this was true. I agree with you. We should’ve put a hiring freeze on, until the problem was worked out. But instead, we just kept appointing new missionaries.
I’m a signer of the Traditional Statement, have no idea why it was even brought up in this discussion, and see nothing wrong with the vision put forth by these bloggers. There are my way over-valued $0.02.
Brethren and Sistren,
I got involved in SBC life in 1969 as a US Marine just back fro Vietnam. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area (San Jose my hometown) and had no affinity whatsoever for the South or the Deep South and had never been inside a Baptist Church much less a Southern Baptist Church.
After Nam I was stationed at El Toro Marine Base. One of the officers I met invited me to his church (I was a new Christian at the time) but I resisted.
Finally I relented and visited “Newhope Southern Baptist Church” 17 miles from the Marine base front gate. I got a hold of God and He got a hold of me.
I felt that the pastors and evangelists that came through the church were “eccentric” to me and I did not understand the ‘southern culture.’ They were friendly people and the Potluck’s were great in spite of the artery-clogging fried foods. I soon figured out that Baptists love to do two things on a human level, eat and fight.
God called me to preach in that church, I resisted, but surrendered. SO,
I’ve been in SBC work and have loved Southern Baptists ever since.
One of the bloggers on this site mentioned that SBC has been in decline for at least 60 years. So the decline can’t be blamed on the “Angry young Calvinists” as Time Magazine described nor can be blamed on the church pastor or planter with a tinted buzzcut and goatee wearing jeans with holes at the knee as they preach.
Sixty years goes back to the “A Million More in ’54” era.
I have a couple of theorems on WHY the SBC has declined. I read a lot about claims that “10,000 churches baptized no one in a year or have so many churches close down each month, or how so many pastors quit every month.
The Southern Baptist Convention has, it is interesting, so many strategists, catalysts, consultants, experts, slogans and entities, but the SBC is heart-breakingly declining.
My theorem: What if God has just chosen to take His hand off the SBC and is no longer blessing it as it had 60 ore more years ago? My theorem as to the reason God took His hand off SBC is related to an event, unknown or forgotten by most SBC power-brokers and the same guys that are inter-weaved and re-cycled through all the Boards. It happened when BOLD MISSION THRUST was starting to get a tiny bit of thrust right after “8.5 in 85.”
(Bold Mission Thrust was the goal of fulfilling the Great Commission by AD 2000. Instead, the SBC splintered, stopped baptizing and in recent months has seen a down-sizing by nearly 1/4th of IMB).
The event I’m talking about was during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The then President of the Southern Baptist Convention, a pastor from a big city Texas “First Baptist” church bowed down to Allah in Teheran.
I saw it on Ted Koppel when his late-night news show was called “America Held Hostage, Day (what days they were held hostage).
What happened was the religious leaders from America were flown to Iran on a so-called “Good-Will Mission.” Somehow they got snookered into a political rally in Teheran. It was supposed to be a rally of religious unity but what came down was that there was a moment to give homage to every religion. The American religious leaders were to bow down to each religion. The SBC President bowed down to Allah, publically. When I saw that my first reaction was “SBC is done, it’s going down.”
We may think that his act was insignificant to us, to our pluralized politically correct religious landscape . . . but what about it in the eyes of the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? DID GOD PULL THE PLUG? I hope not.
Another unfortunate event some years later. It was the booing of Herschel Hobbs at the SBC. I think a little bit of the soul of the SBC died that moment. After all, isn’t he Mr. Baptist Faith and Confession?
One of the things I’m sensing with the “new normal” of SBC life is this: When I started preaching and pastoring most of us were not only Jesus-men but also “denominational” men. It was important to us, even to “play ball” and get along and GO the the Association, State and National Meetings and Convention. We were loyal to our denomination, paid our dues and our Co-operative Program.
Today’s younger pastor is NOT a denomination man BUT A kigndom man. After years of serving in California I ended up pastoring the First Southern Baptist Church of Las Vegas, Nevada. While pastoring there I did make it back to a state convention and was shocked at the low, low attendance and by the fact the most of the messengers were older. Sitting somewhat in the back, almost all in rows in front of me were gray-haired or with bald spots in the back. Where were the young pastors? Even Johnnie Hunt when he was SBC President said something needs to happen to get the younger pastors back in the conventions.
I love SBC enough to say something and to stay with it.
God bless you all of you read and endured this long soliloquy.
Baptist Faith and Message, I meant.