I am writing in response to Brad Whitt’s article “Young, Southern Baptist and irrelevant?” which was recently published in The Baptist Banner (vol. 24, no.6, pp. 5-8). He laments over what seems to be a self-perceived irrelevance brought on by a minority that he describes as “outsiders from within” (p. 8; code, I think, for Calvinists). This minority of men in the SBC has appropriated the Convention microphone and is taking its cues from not a few prominent non-traditional, non-SBC pastors. The bottom line is that these me are hurting the Convention, and if he, and others like him, could just get that microphone back, then the SBC would once again “grow and thrive” (p. 8).
Now, to retrieve this microphone, and to substantiate his relevance in the SBC, Whitt lays the down the gauntlet in his opening statements. He writes that he is “just a pastor’s son who grew up with a love for [his] denomination – a Southern Baptist boy by birth and by conviction” (p. 5). Furthermore, he has earned three degrees from three separate schools, two of which are supported directly by the Cooperative Program (p. 5). He concludes that he has never wanted to be anything other than a Southern Baptist; over against those whom he somehow knows are secret Presbyterians at heart (p. 5).
Whitt continues to support his right to command an audience. Over against the intruding minority, he still wears a “coat and tie,” includes choir specials in his church’s worship, and maintains the public invitation. Moreover, one church for which he served baptized more than 100 people “just last year.” He grew up with Adrian Rogers and Jerry Vines, has served on a number of local, state, and national committees, and has participated in church planting work in a number of states. And, if I am reading Whitt correctly, he has been the pastor of a 100 years old church for the past nine years (I am confused; if he has been at this church for nine years, then why mention the baptisms of another church as part of his list of credentials?).
Now, if a listing of accomplishments is what gives credence to one’s voice in the SBC, then I must be honest and say that I may be unqualified to even respond to Whitt. I am not the son of an SBC pastor and did not grow up with a love for the denomination, and much less for Christ. When, I came to the Lord in my early twenties, I joined a Southern Baptist church, though admittedly more out of Baptist convictions than SBC convictions. On second thought, this fact just might grant me a small voice in the SBC. That is, although the Southern Baptists where considered anathema among the Independent Baptists of my childhood, I still threw in my lot with them and endured a bit of scorn for doing so. “Blessed are those persecuted for the sake of the SBC!”
As for my education, I received my B.A. from Florida Baptist Theological College, and my M.Div. and PhD from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Perhaps my voice is more relevant than I first supposed, since I hold degrees from schools that are most definitely supported by the Cooperative Program, and since two of my degrees are from the flagship seminary of the SBC.
When I preach, I wear a coat and tie, and I stand behind a pulpit (except for the time when I hurt my back and had to sit on a stool). We have a choir, and I too give invitations (in the sermon and at the end of the sermon).
To my disadvantage, perhaps, is the fact that I have never served on any associational committees. Furthermore, I have only been two years a pastor. I have no experience in church planting, nor have I led in any significant building programs. However, I should digress lest I become one, who is so “bold to class and compare [myself] with some of those who commend themselves.” It seems that when we measure ourselves with ourselves and compare ourselves with ourselves, we “are without understanding” (2 Cor 10:12). I might find myself taking “pride in appearance and not in heart” (2 Cor 5:12).
When I read Whitt’s article, a number of concerns arose in my mind. He says that he “grew up with a love for [his] denomination” (p. 5). How about a love for Jesus? We can only assume that he agrees with this. He says that he is a Southern Baptist “by birth and by conviction.” How about a Christian by new birth and by conviction? Again, we can only assume his agreement. He claims to be in the majority among the SBC (p. 6). I would ask, “In the majority of what?” Of those truly serious about Jesus? Of those who are truly taking the gospel into the world? Of what majority does he speak? We don’t know; he doesn’t say. All we know is that he is in the majority (which necessarily means that he is right) and that he desperately wants to see the minority diminished.
Whitt also decries that he is considered a “dinosaur” in our current denominational world (p. 6). That is, he is not one of the “hip and up-and-coming” among the Convention (one would be hard pressed to agree with this after reading his personal bio on the web). But, I would assert that is the so-called outsiders within the SBC, who are the real dinosaurs. They are the ones trying to return to the pre-historic days of their first love, by laying again the stone of stumbling and the rock of offense that the gospel presents. They are the ones trying to return to the outmoded days when men offered little comfort to those who name the name of Christ, but whose behaviors lack a continuance in the Lord’s word (John 8:31-32). More than building statistics, they are the ones concerned that those under their charge will not come to the end of the age, saying ‘Lord, open up to us!’ only to hear Jesus’ words “Depart from me all you evildoers” (Luke 13:23-28). These outsiders are the ones trying to return to the by-gone days where the following words “If the Southern Baptist Convention is to grow and thrive . . . It will take a greater emphasis from me, and others like me, on cooperation for the sake of the gospel if we are to succeed” will no longer enter the minds of those in the Convention (p. 8; emphasis mine). Rather, the increase of Christ will be kwy answer to the growing and thriving of the SBC.
Whitt goes on to divide the camps (p. 6). He is of Paul (i.e., Rogers and Vines), while the minority are of John Piper, C. J. Mahaney, and R. C. Sproul (funny he did not mention Al Mohler). Is he not carnal? Is Christ divided? I wonder if Whitt would ostracize J. P. Boyce or John Broadus if they were living today.
Whitt, however, may not be carnal, providing he is warning God’s flock against modern day false prophets, ravenous wolves, who are peddling a false gospel. If this is the case, is he prepared to call these men accursed (Gal 1:8-9) and biblically demonstrate his reasoning for such a charge? If he is not, then perhaps he is revealing the sins of his own heart? I have to be honest, after I read this article the first thought that came to my mind, the first one, was that this man sounds more like the Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians than he does the apostle. This is a dangerous place to be.
Whitt, it seems, has also set himself up as the gold standard for all Southern Baptist thought and practice. That is, if he and the context in which he serves have nothing in common with these outsiders (p. 7), then logically the outsiders must be wrong. It has never dawned on me that one’s ministerial context determines the relevance or orthodoxy of any biblical doctrine. I have always been convinced of the “SBC doctrine” of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. It seems apparent that Whitt is frustrated that these outsiders, who are clearly not walking according to the old standard, are still gaining relevant traction within the SBC. I wonder if perhaps, just perhaps, that his context is out of sync with the Scriptures, and therefore with the men he opposes. We can’t really know because he offers no Scriptural basis of any kind to support the integrity of the majority opinion.
As he closes, Whitt, almost in a pouting rant, makes a startling statement. He writes, “I’m not irrelevant. The opposite it true” (p. 8). Yet, Whitt is, indeed, most irrelevant (as is Piper and Rogers, and myself). Who among us has first given to God anything that it might paid back to him again (Rom 11:35)? Who among us can exclude himself from that number that God himself regards “as less than nothing and meaningless” (Isa 40:17)? It is God, who has chosen (if we allow him; I thought I would take some of the edge off of the word “chosen”) the weak and ignoble to confound the strong and the wise, i.e., the relevant (1 Cor 1:26-29). I believe that if the apostle Paul had read Whitt’s article, he would respond as he did to the Corinthians. “You are already filled, you have already become rich (you have served the SBC well), you have become kings without us (i.e., you have the microphone). . . . For I think that God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death. . . . We are fools for Christ sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor . . . we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things” (1 Cor 4:8-13).
As I read Whitt’s article, I cannot help but think that his words drip with arrogance, self-pity, self-promotion, and jealousy. He wants to be relevant; and he declares as much. Personally, I would let someone else say this about me. He charges, without argumentation, that the outsiders resent who Southern Baptist’s are and how they do things (p. 8). Yet, it is he, who shows a deep seated resentment and disrespect. Although, I do not know for certain the motives of his heart, I cannot help but think that Whitt’s problem is not theological, but rather stems from the fact that old SBC network of yester year is no longer working in his favor. It seems to me that he thinks the SBC has been shanghaied by intruders for their own spurious purposes, leaving him sitting irrelevant and pouting on the side of the Southern Baptist road. If I am wrong on any account, then I have to say that he has a funny way of conveying the opposite notions. If I were Whitt, who is young, Southern Baptist, and self-important, I would beware, lest he finds himself kicking against the goads. Oh, and one more thing. If his article is the shot heard across the Southern Baptist Convention, I am left to think that it might be a dud.
Alan,
I don’t think it furthers the conversation to read into Brad Whitt’s words all the negative characteristics (arrogance, self-pity, jealousy, self-promotion) you expressed in this article.
Bottom line – we can have a conversation about what it means to be Southern Baptist without resorting to this kind of judgmentalism of one’s motives.
Trevin . . .
you understand what ‘grace’ is
Trevin –
I would disagree that Alan is reading “into Brad Whitt’s words” but that he making an analysis by satirical comparison. I would say it is more likely that since you are not engaging Alan on any of his serious paragraphs, that you are reading negative characteristics into Alan’s blog.
I think it would do well for everyone to read “A Modest Proposal” by Johnathan Swift so as to better recognize satire and irony.
Greg,
Perhaps Alan’s intent was to use satire and irony to make his point. If that’s so, then I still don’t think that satirical comparison is the best way to further the discussion.
Brad Whitt’s initial article was fundamentally flawed in that he sought to ground Southern baptist identity in an unspoken, unwritten “confession within a confession” – something far beyond the BF&M as what determines “the real Southern Baptist.” Dealing with those substantive flaws is the way to go, not reading (even satirically) into Brad’s motives and casting him personally in the worst possible light.
Dead on.
Point taken. 🙂
I personally like satire as a way of illustrating the absurd or silly with absurdity and silliness; but it doesn’t always work. Sometimes I think that everyone takes themselves and their positions TOO seriously.
That in an of itself makes any substantive or serious discussion of the issues almost impossible.
Trevin,
You used a strong word “judgmentalism” to describe Alan’s article (implying he is being judgemental) but Brad Witt’s article is merely “fundamentally flawed.” Read Witt’s article again and tell me if you haven’t made a slight oversight in your judgement.
Trevin, I agree with you. I think that Brad Whitt argued his point well, even if it is one that I tend to disagree with on several points.
Dave, I really just want to say lol because the “well” argued points are essentially subjectively argued from conjecture.
Look, Brad articulated a point and defended it. Just because I disagreed with some (lots) of it does not negate the fact that he stated it clearly and defended it well.
Contra Trevin above, I can’t help but wonder if Alan is answering Whitt on his own grounds. I.e. The quest for relevance based on the conditions that everyone else submit to the person desiring to be relevant while blaming others for the lack thereof. Of course, this does not mean answering in a less gracious manner, but I’m not convinced Whitt’s article furthers the SBC conversation.
Thanks for the food for thought, Alan.
Brother Dave,
Let me see, you call “almost in a pouting rant” dealing with the issues? This is absolutely preposterous. Let me ask if you followed Matthew 18:15 principle? Yes you called Dr. Whitt and informed him that there was going to be a condenscending post added today, but you would not send him anything about the post. Neither would you allow him a time to respond. Not only that, but you did not adhere to the very principles you established some weeks ago. If you are following the Matthew 18 principle then why did you not insist that Alan, the author of this post, contact Dr. Whitt? Oh, I see, Matthew 18 applies to everyone but you.
So this is how it works. You can hide behind your hypocritical garment while you make certain everyone else follows your rules. This is a joke. Alan is upset because Dr. Whitt has placed the focus of the SBC on the True Gospel and that is that Jesus’ death on the cross was for the “whole” world and not just a select few individuals that read and adhere to the Dortian botany formula.
This post is a joke. When Alan wants to deal with the issues Dr. Whitt raised in his article, instead of ranting to such an extent you have to make him tone down his article just so you can publish it here, then I will interact with his disagreements. Until then, this is no more than the old SBC Outpost article fashioned only to use someone else to get hits for you site.
Blessings,
Tim
I take it you addressed the tone, rhetoric, and thinly veiled pot-shots in Whitt’s article. Right?
Jason, I was thinking the same thing.
Brother’s Jason and Mark,
No!!! I take it you disagree with Dr. Whitt. Ok, disagree with him. But, look, even that people that usually disagree with me have come out agreeing, maybe not with my individual points, but with my assessment of Alan’s article. This article is nothing more than vitriol venom veiled as a critique. Dave Miller had to send the article back to Alan twice to get it toned down enough to run it. Then when Dr. Whitt asks for a copy so he can reply, Dave does not respond. The article does nothing but take shots at Dr. Whitt. Tell me, oh blog agents that can read into the words and tell what someone is thinking, who/whom did Dr. Whitt call “pouting”, “arrogant”, “carnal”, or “self-pitying?”
Also, it was Brother Dave that raised the Matthew 18 issue and set the standards, that he has violated, for posting blog material against someone. This is not about ideas it is a post about personalities.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, the article was not sent back to me by Dave Miller for a rewrite. I rewrote it myself so that a first time reader would understand my points better. I do admit that in the weakness of my flesh, my tone was stronger in my first writing. That is why, by God’s grace, I edited my own work. Dave Miller posted the first thing I sent to him without one change. By the way, I wonder why, in light of Matt 18 you did not speak to Dave in private. Also, I wonder if Piper, Mahaney, and Sproul were contacted by Whitt before publishing his article.
Dr. Alan Pearce
Tim,
I agree with you that this article was not great. IMO, his tone is bad. Even if I agree with his assessment, the tone is poor, and the personal shots were unnecessary. I believe that was Trevin’s point as well. I think you will find agreement in that.
I ALSO believe that his tone was drawn from the tone of Whitt’s article. Whitt’s article, was poor in tone as well. He took personal shots as well, but at nameless/faceless bogeyman. Still in bad taste, IMO.
I have the ability to agree with someone and also disagree with HOW they said it. You seem to justify the tone of Whitt’s article solely because you agree with him.
I think both are bad.
This is not my post, Tim. Not every post represents my views. That is the whole SBC Voices purpose.
By the way, I did try to contact Brad Whitt in advance to let him know that this would run.
I just realized that Brad did in fact respond to my email. When i emailed him, I used an email account I don’t use often. So, he responded with a question. I did not see his email until after this published. My bad.
Brad’s response to me was gracious, as I would expect.
Can we please stop putting the Dr. in front of peoples names who have d.min degrees. I do not call the lawers I know or other people with professional docotrates “Dr.” Why is this so in ministry. It is pretty silly.
If someone has a doctorate from an accredited school, whether it is a D.Min or Ph.D or Th.D, it is their prerogative and that of the people who address them whether they wish to use the title.
Tim-
Dr. Whitt places the focus on “what used to be” not the true Gospel. The true Gospel is Jesus crucified and resurrected, nit coats and ties and Calvinists.
Further, you calling Dave a hypocrite is laughable. On your current blog, you have a post from a man who equates the dress of priests in the OT with coats and ties today. The same article equates the dress of a man with “dishonoring God.” (Here’s the link: http://rebekah1.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/the-perfect-storm-part-2/) You allow that garbage to be on your own blog with no protest. Deal with the plank in your own eye before dealing with the possibility of a speck in Dave’s.
I think the OP is great and on target. The tone fits the initial tone in Dr. Whitt’s article. I think there is far too much concern among a certain group of SBs about “the way things used to be” and they have a pattern of painting anyone who disagrees with them as unspiritual, carnal, or agenda driven. They also have a bad habit of being able to dish it out but not able to take it. This article is just one more example of the continuing need for the changes we are seeing occur in the SBC.
Viva la Revolution!
Brother Dave,
See, even Brother Trevin Wax agrees with me. This article is sad. It is even sadder that you had him re-write it to tone down enough for you to publish it. Now Brother Trevin has seen the final product and agrees this adds nothing to the conversation but only alienates the sides further.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, I don’t know if I can make you understand the vision of SBC Voices. You may not like it, but your pleasure or displeasure notwithstanding, we are sticking by the vision.
The one instruction I was given by Tony when he made me editor nearly a year ago is that this should not become a single-viewpoint blog. Our purpose is to be a place where people can disagree.
I published this article even though I disagreed with much that was in it. I publish articles from Howell that I sometimes disagree with. Our authors (and guest authors) are not required to either please me or agree with me.
So, that is how we do it here. we publish articles from a wide range of perspectives. I disagree with some of what I publish. (Goodness, sometimes I even disagree with me.)
That is the SBC Voices philosophy. We are not “The Voice of Dave Miller” but “voices of the SBC” – ie, “SBC Voices.” That’s the plan. I published Alan’s article, but that does not mean that I support everything written in it.
Tim, you log on often to criticize and belittle my editorial choices. Fine. But I choose not to use the blogs to do that. If you wish to continue logging criticisms of my editorial skills, I have an email for that purpose, which you are free to use as much as you would like.
davemillerisajerk@hotmail.com
But posting multiple viewpoints doesn’t mean posting anything, and I’m sure some control goes into what gets posted and what gets requested. I tend to agree with Tim and Trevin here, while I share Pearce’s disagreement with Whitt, I don’t share Pearce’s response. It’s not enough to complain about Whitt’s comments, Pearce is really just stirring the waters without offering much substance in response.
No one would doubt that I’m all for vigorous debate. But this post does not contribute to debate, and certainly does nothing for unity. It just lobs mud balls at the other side while saying, “I don’t like what you said!”
I’m glad for the multiple viewpoint approach of SBC Voices, but post those views which have something to say. 🙂
Not picking on you, Chris, but my experience is that people often confuse “he has something to say,” with “he agrees with me..”
Except as already noted, I generally share Pearce’s disagreement with Whitt. But I disagree with the content of this particular post because no actual case is made, nothing of substance is raised.
Tim, I agree with Dave. The blog title “SBC Voices” does indicate a blog in which all of the major viewpoints of the SBC are regularly represented in posts.
Tim, what will get your heart right would be for you to look at all of the posts solicited on this site by people who agree with you and Brad Whitt. This is a balanced blog! Yes, there’s a post by Dr. Alan Pearce, but look at all of the previous posts solicited from Dr. Malcolm Yarnell.
Well…wait…no, that won’t do it.
OK, then, there are all of those posts solicited from Dr. Thomas White…er, I mean…Dr. Steve Lemke…uh, Brad Whitt?…
Well, just take it from me: SBC Voices is a BALANCED blog. Every significant voice is represented here. The six seminaries are equally represented. The geographical layout of the convention is represented in a balanced manner. Soteriology, ecclesiology, methodology—all on absolute equal ground over here. 😉
Then again, Dave, maybe your better defense against Tim would be to say: “It’s my blog and I’ll do what I want with it. If you don’t like it, Tim, go post a counter-point on your own blog.” With THAT argument, you’d be on solid ground and I would support you.
I’m pretty used to getting run down here, Bart, by you and others. But the fact is, without naming names, I have asked some of the people you have mentioned above (and others) to post here.
I’ve made public calls for non-Calvinists to post.
And for the record, Howell Scott is a regular commenter and poster here, and Howell would be much more in the Brad Whitt camp than others.
And, Bart, there are several regular commenters who give the counterpoint to the points we make. They are given free access.
Despite your insinuations, we make a good-faith effort to include a wide range of voices here – not just my viewpoint.
We can’t all be Bart Barber, but I do the best I can here.
Didn’t William just have a post or two on here?
William does a lot of double-posting (many of our posts are doubles here). He posts as the superhero SBC Plodder, then he gives us his stuff.
William is always pretty fun. The Calvinists at SBC Voices all love William!
I regret the comment. I got too impressed with my own cleverness. I do not believe that this blog represents all viewpoints, but that does not mean that I do not believe that this is a good blog. It is one of the few that I read.
I think that the response to Tim was not accurate. But in drawing that out further, I not only inflamed things but also committed the cardinal sin of blogging—I distracted us all from the point of the original post. I apologize.
Dave,
You named names! What’s next, being banned from Hop Sing’s? 🙂 You are quite right that I would be closer to Brad Whitt in some of the positions he has staked out. I certainly have posted my fair share of articles highly critical of the GCR, particularly the new NAMB. My Patriotic Worship posts were also a hit with our more Calvinist brethren. 🙂 We don’t all speak or write with the same voice.
SBCVoices is akin to Fox News. Fair and Balanced, but there is a certain flavor that comes through. What helps make that flavor is the variety of voices — including mine — who are given freedom to write what we want. As Dave is the editor and I am a contributor, he always has the authority to edit my posts or tell me that I shouldn’t write on a certain topic or in a certain way. To date — apart from editiing my own grammatical errors — Dave has never edited my posts or told me I couldn’t write on a topic. He has suggested topics and I have usually tried to accommodate his suggestions.
To say that there is not a range of voices at SBCVoices is not accurate. Perhaps the range isn’t what some would like, but then again, Dave and Tony (ultimately) are the ones who decide how wide the range is. If someone doesn’t like it, they are free to write about it on their own blog. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
I would agree with Howell’s characterization of the blog as one where there is variety but a point of view comes through. But Howell, you might want to avoid comparisons to Fox News, since it is apparently the only news organization for which it is permissible for SBC leadership to vilify it from the stage. Go with a network to which we still have to act nicely. 😉
Yeah, that was my point. He said you don’t have opposing views…but William has many opposing views, and he has posted articles here.
That kind of shot is just nonsense. You’re doing a good job, Dave.
Holy Schnikes! I hope we’re better than Fox News.
By the way, I agree with everything Trevin has said here.
are there some comments missing? I’m having trouble following the discussion.
That makes this a fairly normal comment stream.
Hard to make an argument against self importance when Seminary graduates start adding the phrase flagship seminary to their list of credentials. I must ask when did they add “the” to SBTS’s title as if they are trying to distinguish that particular seminary from it’s 5 “sister” seminaries? Just Askin.
Are you serious? He is clearly employing hyperbole to make a point. He is not seriously touting his bona fides as did Whitt.
If you are going to make a genuine contribution, you should not confuse writing styles, pull it out of context, and make such a simple straw man.
Well then where is the condemnation for Mohler who repeatedly touts SBTS as the flagship seminary and refers to it as The SBTS? If we are going to call foul on some potshots (as mentioned above) and self-importance shouldn’t we call foul on all? No problem with Calvinists or libertarian freewillies just tired of finger pointing on both sides.
I think by flagship he means first established. I could be wrong though.
Well SBTS was not even established by the SBC. The first seminary established by SBC was New Orleans Bible College which became NOBTS.
Jonathan, you do realize the name of the school is “The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary”, right? It isn’t wrong to use the word “the”, in fact it is accurate.
You need to do a little study into the founding of the schools.
Is it an afront that the president of a seminary show pride in that ship that he helms?
No, it is not an affront, but you don’t hear Drs. Kelley, Iorg, Akin or even Patterson making such moves to promote the schools they lead over the others. While they each promote their school’s distinctives never do they insinuate the other schools are inferior or following that school’s lead. I think Dr. Mohair is brilliant and a fantastic voice for the SBC but I think he is important enough that he need not make his seminary seem more important than the others.
2 questions:
1. How has Mohler insinuated or stated superiority of SBTS?
and, completely unrelated to question #1, but interesting nonetheless, and could make for interesting discussion…
2. Are there seminaries that are superior and inferior to one another?
Alan,
Brother, I think we younger pastors would do well to imitate Dave Miller who, though not agreeing with Brad on everything (correct me if I am wrong Dave), brought up his name in the past with gentleness and respect.
Even if you were right in every one of your arguments, I think you were over the top.
Grace to you,
Benji (I know what it is like to lapse into pride in seeking to rip someone’s argument to shreds) Ramsaur
Guess I missed the seminary class on knowing another’s state-of-mind. PhD seminar perhaps. Sarcasm is a wonderful thing so long as it doesn’t get too personal.
…but if we’re in that neighborhood, I think there is a whiff of envy amongst us over the attention that Brad Whitt has recieved.
I know very little of the attention Whitt received. I just read the article in our State paper, and responded. No envy here. Disturbed yes, envy no. As the post says below, months to late to be relevant. Alan
My general feeling about the article is that it is somewhat hard to follow, MONTHS too late to be a relevant response to the original article, and responds to one of the original article’s weaknesses in like manner, namely attributing motives to others rather than dealing with their positions.
I understand the intent, just a little late to the game.
William,
I think the tone with which we write does say something about our state of mind.
Is there anybody who would accuse David Rogers, for example, of being arrogant in the blogosphere (even if they disagreed with him)? I don’t think so.
He writes with substantive content and with a tone of humility.
God Bless,
Benji
I agree
Blessings,
Tim
And I agree with Tim agreeing with Benji.
I don’t think either of the articles were very strong. They came off as immature and whiny. Both of them.
Neither article dealt with real issues and neither article treated the “other side” with fairness. Whitt’s was especially unfair IMO because there are no references whatsoever to support all these supposed bogeyman. At least this article has Whitt’s words as a reference point.
Whitt’s article was simply a “preach to the choir”/stir the pot type of article with little substance. This response answered in the same immature, whiny tone (not sure of that was intentional or not)…but it also didn’t deal with the people or the issues in a completely fair way. I also recognize that this is a “response” and so the agenda is set for him by the initial article. I think Josh is right that the timing of this article is a little off as well.
The proper response to Whitt’s article was “no response”. You can’t respond to articles like that. It’s a waste of time, IMO.
Brother Jason,
Here is the problem with your assessment. You waited until someone else responded before you analyzed how Dr. Whitt’s article came across. Now that Alan has placed his article against Dr. Whitt’s you want to analyze Dr. Whitt’s article in light of Alan’s. That is not going to work. Dr. Whitt’s article stands on its own. If it was whiny it was so before Alan’s article was published.
Thus, Dr. Whitt’s article stands on its own merrit. Alan’s article on the other hand has to have something to stand on because it has no legs of its own. Thus, Alan’s article is whiny and immature.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
You have a funny way of judging whether an article has merit or not. Many times throughout church history responses to particular teachings, for example, were not published until said teachings became public, etc.
Mr. Whitt is another one who does not publish all of the critical comments on his site. He has the freedom to do so, but it does tend to shut down conversation for those who tried to reply when he originally put up the article. I’m just sayin….
Now I’m off to explore more with the family up here in the TN mountains.
Tim,
I did not assess Whitt’s argument in light of Pearce’s. It was whiny, even if Pearce never write a response. It was whiny and immature. I am not sure how t make that more clear. I had never read his article until I saw this article. I went and read it, came back and read Pearce’s response.
I did not like either article. I think I made that clear as well. I said BOTH are whiny. Not sure how you didn’t catch that.
Your point makes no sense, though.
My statements of critique regarding Whitt’s article are solely about his article. He creates bogeyman, he whines, and he places his qualifications as superior to others who he deems “less SBC”. I could analyze it point for point, if you would like, but I’m not sure what benefit it would serve. His thesis is flawed, his support is weak, and it tone is whiny. Is that a bold enough statement? His argument falls flat…and it fell flat (and was whiny) before Alan’s critique was ever written.
Clear enough?
Brother Jason,
Ok, your point is taken. Now please show me where you interacted with Dr. Whitt’s article before Allan posted his article.
Blessings,
Tim
I didn’t…because I didn’t know it existed.
But what does that matter?
I pulled up this page, read the title of this article and the first sentence. Then before reading the rest of the article I went and found Whitt’s article, read it, and came back to Pearce’s response. I needed the context of Whitt’s article to understand this one.
I though Whitt’s article was bad. I thought Pearce’s response was mean-spirited. In short, I didn’t like either article, though I enjoy discussing the issues brought up in the articles. The tone of both rubbed me the wrong way.
But that’s neither here nor there. I responded to specific aspects of Whitt’s article. Pearce’s article is irrelevant to my points about Whitt’s article.
I’m not sure where you are going with your questions…but somehow I feel you are going to respond with some sort of odd logical fallacy?
I would love to see you respond to my actual points (made in several places in this comment stream). That would be fruitful.
Pardon me for just a simple observation. Reread your own words gentlemen. You all sound of the “whiny” tone in your responses to each other. It is amazing that no one has really spoken of the real issues raised in either article. Stop criticizing style and speak with some substance….please! Pardon me for whining! 🙂
I have used a good deal (probably too much) hyperbole and irony (again probably too much) in my posts. If this post was supposed to use both hyperbole and irony in such a way as to persuasively argue a point and move the debate forward, then, IMO, it has failed miserably. But, then again, maybe that wasn’t the point. I don’t know because I can’t read hearts or minds.
Alan wrote:
“When I read Whitt’s article, a number of concerns arose in my mind. He says that he “grew up with a love for [his] denomination” (p. 5). How about a love for Jesus? We can only assume that he agrees with this. He says that he is a Southern Baptist “by birth and by conviction.” How about a Christian by new birth and by conviction? Again, we can only assume his agreement.”
When are we going to stop using this tired, weak argument? Just because I disagree with someone (and there have been many here), I write with the conviction that they are Christians and “lovers of Jesus,” even though they don’t state it explicitly in their arguments. I don’t assume. I just take it as a given unless there is clear evidence to indicate otherwise. There are folks here who I vehemently disagree with about methodolgy and some aspects of theology. We maybe “opponents” in the sense that we are on opposite sides of an issue, but I hope that Dave or someone else would admonish me if I ever likened someone I disagreed with to Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell, if everyone disagreed as well as you do, we’d be in a lot better place.
I find this all sad and unfortunate, in the instance of both articles. In Dr. Whitt’s I find I am on the same page with him in many ways (although I am attempting to exorcise the tie from my wardrobe) and thus it saddens me to see such developments in our convention. In Pearce’s article I see where he drew some of his conclusions but am saddened by the perceived tone of it.
Back in my atheist days (not that long ago – reborn in Christ on 3-31-02 and called to the ministry in 2006) this is the exact kind of behavior that turned me off to many Christians. From the outside looking in, the friction and factions made me scratch my head and wonder why anybody would want to be part of that.
I remember going to VBS at a methodist church one time where we learned this as our memory verse:
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. (1 John 4:7-8)
For some reason, even during my years far from God that verse stuck with me. Maybe it was because the pastor’s wife put it in a tune and played it on her guitar. Or maybe God was teaching me something way back then.
I tend to have a critical nature. I still have a healthy dose of skepticism and cynicism from my atheist days. Some of us are more critical than others. However, we must moderate how we tear each other apart here in cyberspace. I fear facebook, twitter and blogs may be the downfall of our convetion. Even worse, they may be the downfall of our society. As we stare at a computer screen instead of into the eyes of the people we are criticizing, it gives us a boldnes we often don’t have in the flesh. We are cauterizing our consciences to the feelings of others and transforming from a face to face culture to a facebook to facebook culture.
I pray we can disagree with love. What bothers me most about atheists today is the inherent anger and vitriol in their dogma. It grieves me deeply to see it amongst my fellow Southern Baptists and Christians.
~ Randy
To write a critical analysis, you respond to the material presented, not the perceived emotion usually attributed to the author.
It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with the person, you address the material, not the man.
“As I read Whitt’s article, I cannot help but think that his words drip with arrogance, self-pity, self-promotion, and jealousy. ” is a useless sentence which cannot be proven nor disproven because it is completely subjective.
“Although, I do not know for certain the motives of his heart, I cannot help but think that Whitt’s problem is not theological, but rather stems from the fact that old SBC network of yester year is no longer working in his favor.” So you give us your opinion of his motives after saying that you cannot know his motives? Again, this is nothing but your opinion rather than a response to his points. Can you cite specific examples of your conjecture?
Again, respond to Dr. Whitt’s points and address his points. You do no good advancing any argument when you address Dr. Whitt himself.
And for the record, I found myself agreeing more with you than with Whitt on the whole until I read your last paragraph which addresses the man rather than his message. I think you could have seriously left out the final paragraph and strengthened your point.
Bill, My whole article is the specific examples that ground my conjecture.
Sincerely, Alan
I ask this with the hopes of gaining some wisdom from you, and not as a challenge or a disagreement. From comments of yours that I have read in the past I am able to discern that you have far more wisdom in this area than me…so please allow a question.
You seem pretty adamant about addressing the message and not the man himself. As you say, “You do no good advancing any argument when you address Dr. Whitt himself.” I agree in the most part, but I also believe that the message is often inextricably linked with the messenger. And it seems to me that Paul taught the same thing.
I also agree that we should not assume to know some persons motives. I guess my question is, what do you do in situations where “the man” is the problem more so than “the message”? (That’s not implying anything about Brad Whitt or Alan Pearce).
oops I meant to say that this as addressed to bill.
Mike, to be honest, it’s a learned skill which I’m having to deliberately work at because if you go by my history of comments, I would simply attack the person rather than the message.
It’s hard in blogging because the standard by which a blog posting can be released and an article being published are very, very different. There is far more opinion being passed as fact here than would absolutely be allowed in the academic settings that I’ve become accustomed too. In fact, many of the professors that I’m studying under automatically fail you if you put “I” anywhere in your article review. Since this is a review and rebuttal, I would have looked for more citations (there were enough but I was hoping for more) and more evidence of the original author’s work being more based in opinion rather than fact.
I can’t tell you how much it aggravates me when people claim to know the majority of ALL Southern Baptists rather than the will of ALL Southern Baptist Messengers voting at the convention. One does not necessarily prove the other.
But brush strokes can be far broader in blog posts than in research articles which I’m have to wade through while in school. I have to stick with what the author is writing rather than what I think or feel he’s writing. If I want to refute the writer, then I have to present evidence to the contrary as presented by other authors or go do my own primary research and cite each and every piece of evidence.
So, I’ve taken it upon myself to hold myself to a standard of commenting where I am going to try and respond to the material being presented rather than the person presenting the material. I may not always being successful, but that is what I’m going to try and do for myself.
I am finished with just flippantly throwing around insults and derogatory comments like a monkey on a keyboard.
And while discussing these matters, I’m also approaching these threads with the fact that I might be wrong in my conclusions or that I may actually not know enough to truly have an informed opinion.
Case in point: I don’t know enough about Calvinism to truly dive in there with everyone else. I have not researched it enough nor have I had the inclination to research it right now. I could sit down and learn more about Calvinism but I’d rather watch Team UmiZoomi with my twin daughters in my little free time since I work evenings and some weekends while they’re in preschool in the mornings. My time is precious and so are my daughters. I’ll leave the Calvinist debate to those who love it in the trenches. My only observation is that if Calvinists are truly worthy of expulsion, then why weren’t they also shown the door over the past thirty plus years? I have my opinions but they are that, just opinions.
So, I hope this helps but I don’t expect everyone to do as I’m doing.
Also, Bill the message was the man. Whitt interjected his credentials all over the place to buttress his case. This was the whole first half of his article and his conclusion. His message was that “I am relevant.” Therefore, I answered him according to his own standards to illustrate the uselessness of such argumentation.
Kindly, Alan
Whew! A whole lot of biting at words and devouring one’s character in this blog. Fangs and venom aplenty. “If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.” (Galatians 5:15)
We’ve spent most of the time here discussing whinyness and who has a bad attitude. I’d like to see if we can discuss the points in general.
Alan makes this point: “Whitt, it seems, has also set himself up as the gold standard for all Southern Baptist thought and practice.”
That would be my chief complaint with the traditionalist, “majority Baptist” (a name they have given themselves that I question as to accuracy) argument. They seem to define their preferences as the gold standard of Baptist life and claim that those who have different styles or preferences are somehow marginal SBs.
Trevin Wax nails it (surprise) above when he talks of the unwritten “confession within the confession” that some are advocating when they define what a Southern Baptist really is.
I’ve noticed that when pressed on naming the “unwritten ‘confession within the confession'”, there is rarely a straightforward response from those who supported Whitt’s original article.
Dave,
I think that is the key issue. Is there an unwritten and unstated standard that trumps the BFM as the measure of a true SBC’er?
The interesting thing is that some will answer “yes”, but they then have trouble defining what that standard is.
They may not know what the standard is, but they know what it isn’t and will clearly speak of those who are outside of it.
That is where the charge of “whiny” comes in. The resulting attitude is to distance one’s self from all of “them” out there who are infringing on this unstated and blurry standard. Infringements are viewed as attacks or as purposed agendas to undo the standard itself, though that standard still remains unstated.
Yes, whiny is a tone…but it is also a mindset. It’s a mindset that sees “outsiders” and “insiders” rather than differences of opinion within one group of believers. It’s almost a “martyr” mentality. The insiders are staving off the advances and attacks of the outsiders….and thus should be venerated as holding firm to the unstated blurry standard that was handed down to them.
Looking at Whitt’s original article:
I reject the premise that we must have this supposed standard.
I am confused by how someone who claims to hold the majority position can say he is growing irrelevant.
I reject the idea that the qualities he gave make him more (or less) “SBC”.
I reject the idea that those qualities reflect anything more than cultural bias and personal preferences.
I reject the status that those preferences are given.
I also reject that people that hold to different preferences or a different understanding of certain aspects of theology (like the one he clearly wants to distance himself from in the opening statement) are out to get him, run people out of the SBC, take over the SBC (as Bill Harrell charges), or would reject any of the things he says he is committed to inside the life of the SBC.
So, here are my issues:
(1) the formation of this supposed group of people who disagree with him on all the points he listed.
– I don’t believe those people exist. Name someone out there that is trying to undo the SBC. Tweak? Sure. But he said he is in favor of tweaks.
– Creating bogeyman like this is divisive and a poor form of argumentation.
– His statements of being marginalized and made irrelevant ring hollow, especially when the one marginalizing him is a fictional creation.
– If this was a statement on one particular point that he feels the leadership is wrong, or if the accusations were not simply vague statements, then it would be easier to discern if his support statements prove his point.
(2) this was an article meant to rile up the constituency, not prove any point
– Thus the vague attacks and the tone.
(3) this article does not prove that his position is the majority position, or worse, it does not prove that he wants anything different than anyone else in the SBC wants
– This is where we come back to preferences. He likes it one way, not another way.
– But he fails to show that others really like it another way – only vague comments and innuendos.
– He fails to show that they are destroying the SBC through their preferences, though it is implied
– He fails to show that any set of preferences is superior to another
– He fails to show that different preferences cannot work together for the expansion of the Gospel (huge issue)
(4) this article does not prove a point that we need a “confession within a confession” or a new standard of any kind
I hope that makes sense. If not, I am willing to explain things further. Those are just my initial thoughts as I look at Whitt’s article.
Here’s a response I wrote to a comment by Whitt a few months ago: http://jaredmoore.exaltchrist.com/2011/04/06/calvinism-the-straw-man-for-southern-baptist-trouble-makers-a-response-to-brad-whitt/
Here’s a brief excerpt: “It’s thus hypocritical for you to speak against 5-point Calvinism in one breath when the SBC has NOT, and then to argue in favor of the cooperative program in the next breath. The gospel should be central concerning our cooperation, NOT how many points of the T.U.L.I.P. you or I affirm beyond the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.”
Totally agree.
It is a little ironic that the charge is often made against calvinists that they make their views the standard for cooperation, when it is clear that the ones who are actually doing so are those who are opposed to calvinists in the SBC.
Bill Harrell’s articles suggest that calvinists have a strategic plan to take over the SBC. I never received that memo, nor am I aware one exists. Or maybe it’s (yet again) another creation of a bogeyman so we can scare people away from the dangers of calvinism.
The only people I see wanting to exclude others from the SBC, who rightly affirm the SBC’s BFM2K, are those within this “real SBC” movement.
amen.
I don’t see how this kind of rhetoric on either side is helpful in this.
Are we ever allowed to point out hypocrisy without being labeled “unhelpful”? I think I was stern; but also cooperative. I’m willing to seek the nations with Whitt; but, I don’t believe he’s willing to seek the nations with me.
A non-Calvinist SBC pastor is preaching a revival at my church Aug. 26-28. Non-Calvinism is not an issue for me, though I disagree with my brothers and sisters. The gospel is the central issue. So long as the gospel is clear, I’m ready to seek the nations with the rest of the sbc.
Calling Brad Whitt a Trouble Maker was not helpful. Answering his ideas was one thing. But name-calling is something I don’t consider helpful whether I agree with your viewpoint or not.
My goal in the SBC Calvinism debate is not to see one side defeat the other, but to help both sides find the sense that we can dwell together in spite of our differences. I disagreed with Brad Whitt. I did not think labelling him a troublemaker was helpful either.
Dave, I just wanted Whitt to know that he’s not helping the SBC in the least by narrowing the definition of what it means to be sbc. I do think he’s stirring up trouble. Instead of unity, he’s encouraging division. He’s directly and willfully going against the vote of the convention concerning the BF&M 2000. By making Calvinism a “crossroad issue” when the convention has not, I believe Whitt is trying to stir up trouble; trying to argue that he’s in the majority when he has no vote from the convention to prove his desire for division.
Jason,
Let me give that Memo … this is from the Father of the Founders Movement in SBC
___________
REFORMING A LOCAL CHURCH
STRENGTHEN THE THINGS THAT REMAIN
by Ernest C. Reisinger
Rev. 3:2
“Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die…”
Rev. 3:4
“Yet you have a few people…who have not soiled their clothing.”
Chapter II
THE KIND OF MEN GOD USES IN REFORMATION
Consider the kind of men God has used in reformation. What kind of men were they? What weapons did they employ? What were their methods? We can be sure that if there is no reformation in the pulpit there will be no reformation in the pews.
By a careful look at reformations in the history of God’s people we can learn the kind of men God uses, the weapons they employed and the methods of approach. We ask, on the human side, whence comes their success? There are always men involved. There will be no life in a church where there is no life in the pulpit.
First there is always a dead seriousness about God’s Word and God’s Work. There must be a felt responsibility as stewards of the mysteries of God.
When we examine churches that have come alive there has always been some men who lived, labored and preached like men who were in earnest about eternity, and eternity bound souls. Men who were grave, that is, serious. Men who had their eyes lifted to heaven. Everything they did and said was marked by earnestness. Not just religious excitement. They were genuine and earnest men who knew that necessity was laid upon them. They felt the urgency and weight of the cause of the gospel that was entrusted to them. They threw their whole soul into the conflict. There was earnestness, not indifference. Not religious politicians seeking to climb the denominational ladder.
The second thing, that always precedes, or accompanies, true reformation is, there are always some men who are bent on success. When a man enters Christ’s Army, or the ministry, he must be bent on success. If men are not bent on success they are traitors to Christ and to His cause. I said, success, not statistics, there is a difference. There may be spiritual success with or without great statistics. if we would see our churches come alive, and stay alive, we must be warriors who have set our hearts on victory and fight with believing anticipation of victory under the guidance of our great Captain. As shepherds we cannot sit on the mountain side in the ease of the breeze, heedless to the straying, perishing, bleating flock; but rather, there must be a watching, guiding, guarding and feeding of the sheep committed to our care.
If we would see reformation in the church there must be some men of faith. There must be plowing and sowing of the right kind of seed (the gospel of the grace of God), plowing and sowing in hope. The word of truth must be on their lips.
There must be some going forth weeping, bearing precious seed, knowing that in due season there will be reaping if we faint not, knowing that our labour in the Lord is not in vain, knowing that we will return, bringing our sheaves with us. There must be some pleading with God for men and some pleading with men for God. Fix your eves on God’s promises and plead with the psalmist; “Remember thy word unto thy servant, whereunto thou hast caused me to hope” (Psalm 119:49).
They must have confidence in the Saviour whose commission they bear. They must have confidence in the Holy Spirit’s mighty power. They must have faith in His power to take the wax of this world from the ears of poor, deaf sinners–faith in His power to open the eyes that are blinded by the dust of this world–faith in the power of the Word of God, that is, in the message, the gospel, knowing it will not return void (Isa. 55:11). The gospel is “…the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). If we would see a church come alive we must be going forth with faith in the power of the gospel.
There must be men who labour. The ministry is infested with preachers who encumber the ground. There must be some bearing of the burden and the heat of the day. There must be some unwearied toil of body and soul (time, strength, substance). This is what the New Testament and church history reveals. There must be some of what the great apostle speaks, “in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger, and thirst, in fasting often, in cold, and nakedness.” No time for levity, sloth, or pleasure. There must be a laboring for eternity. There are a lot of fruitless preachers who do not labor for eternity. These men must have their backs to the world and their eyes on the goal. They must not entangle themselves with the affairs of this world, that they may please Him who has called them to be laborers in His vineyard.
There must be much patience in the work of reforming a church. There must be a willingness to labor long without seeing all the fruit that you desire. Sow–sow–sow–day after day. Teach-teach-teach-week after week. We cannot be soon weary in well doing. We must keep that passage in mind that says, “Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain. You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand” James 5:7-8 (NKJ). Many a good plan has been aborted by impatience. Many a good day of toil has been thrown away by impatience. Men cannot force reformation, or force a church to life. Yes, there must be intense longing for success, but much patience must be joined to that intense longing.
William Carey laboured seven years before he baptized his first convert. Adoniram Judson toiled in Burma seven years before he harvested one soul. Morrison sowed seven years in China before he baptized one Chinese. Moffet declared he waited seven years to see the first evident moving of the Spirit in Africa. Henry Richards spent seven long years in the Congo before he saw his first convert. What were they all doing for seven years? They were laying foundations, sowing heavenly seeds thinking of future generations. They were patiently laying a foundation. We live in a church age where the foundations have been re- moved. God is interested in foundations and future generations.
God began by laying a foundation. The psalmist said, “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth” (Psa. 102:25). God said, through the evangelical prophet, “My hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth…” (Isa. 48:13).
When Solomon built the temple–where did he begin? The Bible answers that question. Solomon began where every true builder begins–laying a foundation. I Kings 5:17–“And the King commanded and they brought great stones and hewed stones TO LAY THE FOUNDATION…” How long did it take? I Kings 6:37–“In the fourth year was the foundation of the house of the Lord laid…” Four years! It takes patience to lay foundations!
It was also a costly foundation. “And the foundation was of costly stones even great stones…” (I Kings 7:10). Notice, it says costly, and even a cursory glance at any reformation you will see that it costs to lay a foundation. Most churches do not have enough doctrinal foundation for sound biblical evangelism. We live and labour in what I call pre-evangelistic days. True worship and true witness will be a certain and sure result of reformation. But laying a foundation is very, very costly.
And concerning the rebuilding of the temple after the Babylonian captivity, Ezra shows it was costly in that it was through much tribulation and suffering that the foundation was laid and temple built to the glory of the Lord. Yet they were enabled to sing and praise God for it! “And they sang together by course in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord; because he is good, for his mercy endureth forever toward Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the Lord, because the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid. But many of the priests and Levites and chief of the fathers who were ancient men, that had seen the first house, when the foundation was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice; and many shouted aloud for joy” (Ezra 3:11-12).
We live in a day of cheap, quick, slick and frothy foundations, and our churches are reaping the sad, pitiful, painful, pathetic results. Carnal men do not want to be in the foundation business. They are not concerned for future generations. The only men who are interested in a true foundation are those who have their eyes fixed on eternity. It is costly. It is painful. It is laborious. It is not showy. Who wants to see concrete poured in a footing? Hard, dirty work. I know, I was in construction for over twenty-five years.
The great apostle was a Master-Builder of churches. Where did he begin? “…as a wise Master-Builder I have laid the foundation…” A foundation on truth. And if you want to know how he did it–read the Book of Acts. It has the answer: Prayer– preaching-teaching-tears . Missing in our generation are prayer and tears.
Let us look at just one example as to how the great apostle did it. Acts 20:19,31. “Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the
lying in wait of the Jews: Therefore, watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.” If there were more tears there would be less splits and more souls won.
Paul wrote with tears. II Cor.2:4: “For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you.”
Hear him writing to the church at Philippi. Phi1.3:18: “For many walk, of whom I have told you often and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ.”
We have so many facilities. We have comfort, equipment, literature, and church machinery; communications for promoting the gospel is at an all time high. The church has never been better, as far as machinery and mechanics. But where are the Bible tears shed in laying foundations. Where are the Christ-like tears? Where are the tears of St. Paul? Where are men who are laying foundations with tears?
Oh, may God deliver us from being like the church at Laodicea that said of herself: “I am rich and have gotten riches and have need of nothing.” But Jesus said of her, that she was wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked. No substance. No foundation, just frothy, carnal superstructure.
Joel, the Old Testament prophet, who prophesied of the Holy Spirit’s out-pouring at Pentecost (Joel 2), in the same chapter said, “Even now,” declares the Lord, “return to me with all your heart, with fasting and weeping and mourning…Rend your heart and not your garments, Return to the Lord your God, for He is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and He relents from sending calamity.”
Let us try tears. What am I talking about? Something that is produced in the soul rather than from physical pain. Tears that indicate distress of spirit, agony of a broken heart. I am talking about a disposition of heart, not necessarily drops of water rolling down your cheeks.
The first time the word tears is found in the English Bible is II Kings 20:5. It is the occasion of God telling Hezekiah that he would die very soon. This drove him to prayer and tears. The king became so desperate that the attention of God was turned not only to his prayers but to his tears. II Kings 20:5-‘I have seen thy tears.”
If the law of first mention means anything here it may indicate that God does not come to our rescue until He sees our tears. That distress of spirit–that agony of a broken heart.
Paul’s teaching was watered with tears.
Jeremiah knew something about tears. Jer. 3:21,22–“A voice was heard on the desolate heights, weeping and supplications of the children of Israel; for they have perverted their way, and they have forgotten the Lord their God. Return, you backsliding children, and I will hear your backslidings” (NKJ). Jer. 9:1,18– “Oh, that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people! Let them make haste and take up a wailing for us, that our eyes may run with tears, and our eyelids gush with water” (NKJ). Jer. 1 3:18—“–“But if you will not hear it, my soul will weep in secret for your pride; my eyes will weep bitterly and run down with tears, because the Lord’s flock has been taken captive” (NKJ).
Jesus wept over a lost city. He knew something of what I am saying. In Luke 19:41,42 we see the Redeemer’s tears. “And when He was come near, He beheld the city, and wept over it. Saying. If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes.” What do we see in this passage? We see the Redeemer’s deep interest in the state of man. We see the Saviour’s compassion to the chief of sinners.
To reform a church you must be willing to lay some foundations, and do some demolition work. And you do that by prayer and preaching–teaching and tears. Put these four things together and you will soon see some reformation. You will also see some dust from the exodus. It is painful to see people leave the church, but some will leave. In genuine reformation of a church three things will always happen; some will leave, some will want to get rid of the preacher, and thank God, some will get right with
God. There will be results–not always saving results. In John 6 Jesus preached the crowd away–there were results!
Study Paul’s epistles and you will find he laid a doctrinal foundation. I believe we are in a reformation period of history where many will be called upon by God to lay some foundations. In many cases the foundations have been removed. Churches–large churches with no doctrinal foundation.
If a church is to be reformed and come alive there must be a doctrinal foundation. This principle is easily discerned in Paul’s letters to the Romans, the Galatians and the Ephesians.
We are all rejoicing that the conservative cause is looking up, but that in itself will not do the job. It is fundamental, but it has not dealt with the doctrinal foundation–Bible doctrine-Baptist doctrine–the doctrines of our Southern Baptist fathers. These doctrines were true in the days of J. P. Boyce, John A. Broadus, Basil Manly, W. B. Johnson (the first president of the Convention), R. B. C. Howell (second president), Richard Fuller (third president), John L. Dagg (the first Southern Baptist writing theologian), B. H. Carroll. These men stood on a doctrinal foundation. The Bible has not changed. The God of the Bible has not changed. Therefore if their doctrine was true in their day it is still true today because neither God nor the Bible has changed. Again, we rejoice in the conservative victories but I want to assure you that even if conservatives had a complete takeover–if we do not get on the biblical, doctrinal foundation of our Fathers, in 30 years we will be right back where we are today. Question! ! What good is an infallible Bible if its doctrinal content is ignored, or disregarded? Yes, and often perverted. It is not just a book with a black cover–what does it say? What does it mean and how does it apply to life and death? It is the content of the Bible–what does it say about God? About His law? His Son? About man and his condition? What does it say about God’s infallible, immutable plan of redemption? Read Dr. Nettles’ book By His Grace and For His Glory, for an honest history of Baptist life and Baptist doctrine. (Someone asked me what I thought about it. I said, well I bought 2000 copies–that should answer your question.)
The superficial man will think only of the big show. He is not too concerned how it comes about. He is only concerned with the super-structure. His concern is: Does it work? Not, Is it true? And back of that, is usually not so much the concern for results as concern for the result of results, that is, the results that accrue to the man.
God is concerned about Foundations and Future Generations. To underscore the importance of future generations let me direct your attention to Psa. 78:4-6–“We will not hide them from their children, shewing to the generation to come the praises of the Lord, and his strength, and his wonderful works that he hath done. For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children: That the generations to come might know them, even, the children which would be born; who should arise and declare them to their children.”
Psa. 145:” “One generation shall praise thy works to another, and shall declare thy mighty acts.”
This will be a test for many men right now. It will cost! It cost the apostles and early Christians. It cost the Reformers and Puritans. It cost some who had to separate from apostasy. It is costing some of you right now!
Another essential in reforming a church is: there must be men with some boldness and determination. Timidity shuts many a door of usefulness and loses many precious opportunities. It wins no friends, while it strengthens every enemy.
Perhaps there never was an age where wickedness assumed a bolder front and attitude. Therefore, Christian boldness and courage is more required in reforming a church. Men must be “strong and of good courage” Acts 4:13,29,31. Whitefield, when the Vicar closed the church door preached in the church yard.
Joshua l:9–“Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.”
They must be “steadfast and unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord” (I Cor. 15:58). This has been one of the greatest secrets of ministerial success.
Another essential I would point out in reforming a church is prayer. Many labour much–study much–but they do not
pray.
We often hear requests to “Pray for the work.” Oh, my friend, I am convinced PRAYER IS THE WORK!
We all agree what we need is the work of the Spirit. Well, how does that come about? Luke 1 1:13-‘If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?”
Luke 11 has the answer. The best prayers are pleading for the promises of God. Well, Luke 11:13 is a promise.
Where churches have been reformed there have always been some men with solemn deportment, no levity, but deep spirituality of soul. The man God uses must fight against laziness, looseness, levity and lethargy. No frivolity, no flippancy, no gaiety. None of this must mar the work we are seeking to accomplish.
How is a church reformed–revived? How do churches come alive? Always with human instruments who are dead serious about the work of God and the Word of God. Men who are bent on success. Men who plow and sow in faith, hope and love. Men who labour and bear the burden and the heat of the day. Men who have much patience-who wait for the precious fruit of the earth and have long patience. Men who lay solid foundations for future generations with an eye fixed on eternity. Men with some Holy Ghost boldness and determination. Men of prayer. Prayer is work–fervent prayer. Men of solemn deportment-no frivolity, no gaiety, sober minded men.
Do you want to know what it looks like in the making? You will see a faithful minister of Christ, surrounded by a small band of praying ones, leading in the battle against the power of darkness. You will see not a lot of pomp, no display, no carnal attractions. You will see not a platform artist, a master gimmick maker, or a manipulator of crowds. These things sure make a show but they will not bring a church alive.
Oh, for some men with a deep yearning for God and for souls. John Knox, in his old age, was helped into the pulpit by friends, but when he arose to preach, the Spirit of God’s love burned in his heart in such a fashion that an attendant said, “So mighty was he in his yearning that I thought he would break the pulpit in bits.”
One of the purposes of this pamphlet is to encourage the reformation of churches. Encourage preachers to lay biblical foundations. To encourage them to count the cost. It is the duty of all true men to labor and pray for reformation, and the privilege to hope for and expect reformation. It has already begun. It is going on right now.
THE COST OF TRUE REFORMATION
If men in every reformation were abused, misunderstood, misrepresented, reviled, persecuted, ostracized, and excommunicated from organized religion, suffered mental and physical agony, and many times death, how can we expect to see reformation without cost (Luke, chapters 9 and 14)?
What will it cost young Pastors?
1. Denominational popularity and public approval. The work of reformation is not the way to climb the denominational ladder.
2. They will, at times, be in that awful task of tearing down some false super-structure that has been built without a doctrinal foundation. This super-structure was built by cheap, shallow,
man-centered evangelism.
3. They may have to suffer at the hands of a large, unregenerate church membership, and especially, from unregenerate and religiously ignorant deacons and leaders.
4. They may also have to suffer the pain of being misunderstood by the church leaders, fellow ministers, and more painful still, sometimes by their own loved ones (wives who do not
understand their husband’s position).
5. Sacrifice financially, especially in some cases where carnal and ignorant church leaders will use money as a threat to drive preachers from the pulpit.
But along with these and other costs there comes the joy of a conscience void of offence before God and man. What is that worth?
Ron, Calvinists in the SBC for the most part (with a few exceptions) have realized and toned down the rhetoric. I think that Calvinists in the last couple of years have made a good faith effort to work together with non-Calvinists in the SBC.
Ron, can you quote a living Southern Baptist Calvinist that argues for similar ideas?
Dr. Whitt’s article was alienating and slightly offensive to those of us who have a more inclusive vision for the SBC. Alan’s article gave a voice-and in my judgement the right voice-for those of us who believe Whitt was advocating an SBC “blueblood” inclusion only,that many of us simply don’t qualify to belong to.
Thank you Alan for capturing and rightly responding to the fallacies and weaknesses of Whitt’s article.Your article embraces all in the SBC who embrace the BF&M 2000. Whitt only embraces those of a certain ilk. Whitt’s mentality explains why the SBC is in serious decline.Time will tell which of these competing visions will win the order of the day in our convention.
I agree.
Bro.Tim, only you my friend have injected race into this discussion. My “blueblood” reference had to do with the type of SBC pastor that Dr. Whitt references in his article that he now feels is being alienated from the convention. I never said or believed that Whitt’s article was addressing race.
This is the second time you have falsely and inaccurately accused me of raising the “racism” flag.Perhaps, after I give you Webster’s Dictionary’s definition of “blueblood” you will apologize this time:”blue blood 1 descent from nobility 2 a person of such descent;aristocrat.” This is the type of SBC pastor in my judgement Whitt was identifying with in his article.
However, knowing you,and loving you as I do dear brother, I will not hold my breath waiting on an apology.
Brother Dwight,
I too give you a definition of “blueblood” Of course this gives you the origin of the word.
Blue Blood is a translation of the Spanish ‘sangre azul’, attributed to some of the oldest and proudest families of Castile, who claimed never to have intermarried with Moors, Jews, or other races. The expression probably originated in the blue appearance of the veins of people of fair complexion as compared with those of dark skin.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_aristocrats_called_blue_blood#ixzz1UvQXHWn3
Thus the word you used derived from the French who used it to claim purity of race. Oh, by the way, this word has been used since 1834.
Now, who/whom owes who/whom an apology?
Blessings,
Tim
Sorry, that should read it derived from the Spanish.
Tim
Tim: You are reaching here. Desperately reaching. Dr. McKissic gave you the definition, and if you read literature blueblood has always meant the rich, the privileged. Royalty for example would be considered bluebloods. It is usually so by birth. I think you know this.
It doesn’t mean it’s true, it means in their own minds they believe this.
In my opinion, when Dr. McKissic interjected race in a discussion, it should have been interjected. It was about race. He is very intelligent and a honorable man. In this case I heard him speaking of those who believe they are the only doctrine that should be Southern Baptist. This is about doctrine not race. And it was to this I read him referring to.
Dwight,
Is Tim Rogers a “blueblood”? Am I? I wonder if you might elaborate on how it is that either of us qualifies under the definition that you have given above?
Unlike Tim, I do not think that “blueblood” is a racial slur. It’s just a slur.
Bart and Tim,
I’ve written a lengthy response to your questions in entries #83 and#87. My typing skills are very limited.
Therefore, I will have my assistant to type my answers to your questions and post them Monday,either here or at my blog.
I appreciate the questions and the answers will be thoughtful, thorough,and congenial.
Brother Dwight,
Dr. Whitt’s article had nothing at all to do with racism. Your “blueblood” comment draws something into the debate that is not correct.
Blessings,
Tim
Bro. Tim,
While some may view Alan’s article as “harsh” or “over-the-top” voice (one of many Voices here), I would respectfully disagree with Bro. Dwight that this was the “right voice” to use in advocating for a position of more inclusiveness. I don’t mind folks using strong language (and I’ve been guilty of that on more than one occasion), but the response to a five month old article (admittedly just read by Alan and several others) to Brad Whitt might come across in a way that was not intended (or maybe it was). I won’t say that this is not a relevant discussion to have, because it most definitely is. Now that I’m through defending female pastors, 🙂 I’m ready to get back into the discussion of what Dr. McKissic rightly calls “competing visions” for the future of the SBC.
As one who sees things perhaps slightly differently than Dr. McKissic, I would say that I did not intrepret his “bluebloods” comment as racial in the least. When I hear the term “bluebloods” used, I usually think of those whose wealth and status have been passed down from generation to generation (typically NE establishment). Unless you are born into a “blueblood” family, then you will never be good enough to be part of that established class of folk. I don’t believe that Dr. Whitt was advocating for a “blueblood” Convention in his original article anymore than I think that Dr. McKissic was using “blueblood” as some racial term in his comment (although Bro. Dwight can certainly clarify what he meant if my understanding of how I believe he used the term is different from the common definition). Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
Thanks for understanding the”blueblood” remark. Your interpretation is correct. If Bro.Tim was not aware of my race he never would have given a racial misinterpretation to the “blueblood” reference.
Since we both like to address SBC issues, perhaps we need to consider writing a few point/counterpoint posts/articles addressing the competing visions for the SBC.
Much love and respect for you brother.
Bro. Dwight,
I would enjoy the point/counterpoint. I’ll discuss further with Dave and see if we can come up with some initial topics and format that Voices might be willing to “host.” Thanks for the kinds words. Love and respect you as well, even though we have never had the opportunity to meet face to face. God bless,
Howell
I think a point-counterpoint would be an excellent idea.
However, since the idea was broached here, I insist that it take place at SBC Voices, or I will contact my crack legal staff (Howell and Louis)!
Seriously, such an interchange would be instructive both as to content and I am sure process.
Let’s do it.
Brother Dwight,
Your race had nothing to do with my reaction to your use of “bluebloods”. It is your past arguments that had to do with my inference of that use. If you were not referencing the white good ole boy network that you think was prevalent in the SBC then by all means I ask your forgiveness. However, if by “blueblood” you were referencing the white good ole boy system that you have decried and called attention to the lack of color then how did I mis-read your reference?
Blessings,
Tim
Dr. Rogers:
Blueblood = race? You’re kidding, right? Please tell me that you were kidding. Or at the very least mistaken.
Job,
I am not a Dr.
What would you think Dwight means when he uses the term “blueblood”?
Blessings,
Tim
I am sorry for calling you “Dr.” Also, in retrospect, after you provided the “dictionary definition”, I was also wrong to suggest that you were mistaken, when the truth is that you were correct in a technical sense.
To answer your question, when Mr. McKissick (with whom I often – indeed usually – disagree I might add) used the term “blueblood”, I assumed a common, general meaning of the word that I perceive – whether rightly or wrongly – to be the prevailing one in our contemporary culture. That would be one who is an “insider”, “privileged”, “elite”, “traditional.” Someone, perhaps you, stated “good ole boy network” in one of the comments, that is probably suitable both in terms of what I believe to be the common contemporary meaning and application of the word, and also in the context of this (very unfortunate!) conversation. I concede that “good ole boy network” often has racial connotations, but not any that fit in the context of this discussion, not least because both the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists in the SBC are overwhelmingly white, and furthermore the blacks that are in the SBC are far more likely to be General Baptist like Whitt than the Particular Baptists that Whitt targeted in “Young, Southern Baptist and Irrelevant.”
Job:
I agree I do not make the gigantic leap to race that was made by TR.
You are absolutely right that the root of all this is competing visions of what the SBC is and what it should be. Amen!
Brother Tim,
You asked for forgiveness on one hand,then you provided a rationale and a defense for asserting that my “blueblood” reference had something to do with race.
Which is it? Are you asking for forgiveness or are you providing a defense, rationale, or justification for your having injected race into this discussion?
Kingdom blessings
Brother Dwight,
This seems to be an ongoing problem for Mr. Rogers. He has a tendency to inject hidden motives into the comments of people that he perceives as rivals.
TBH,
You can talk to me, not about me. Brother Dwight is a big man and has my phone numbers if he is offended by my comments and I have his. Thus, before you begin trying to explain me to Brother Dwight you need think again. He knows me.
Tim
Brother Dwight,
Please you tell me. When you used the word, “bluebloods” were you referencing the good ole boy system that you have constantly cast dispersion on for not involving people of color?
Blessings,
Tim
Bro. Tim,
No. I was referring to the description Whitt gave of himself in his article. In my judgement he described a classic SBC blueblood. I was exclusively using the word bluebood as a descriptive or summary statement to label the kind of SBC pastor that Whitt says is now being excluded.To read anything else into this statement would be misrepresenting or misinterpreting what I said.
Bro.Tim, blueblood means what the dictionary says it means;and it doesn’t mean race.
In a general sense, now I can see why you interpreted the “blueblood” comment the way that you did. It now no longer seems to be nearly as, well, unjustifiable and strange, as it did before. However, even in light of the context of Mr. McKissic’s previous comments, the fact remains that there is no racial angle in the “Calvinist/non-Calvinist” debate that Dr. Whitt’s piece is a part of. If there were, then blacks would logically side with Dr. Whitt, as there are very few black Calvinists within or without the SBC.
Now if you were to expand the debate beyond Calvinism, then your rejoinder to Dr. McKissic becomes more plausible, if – for instance – it can be said that Dr. Whitt represents a traditionalist mindset in the SBC that was loathe to include blacks, or that blacks were uncomfortable with joining. But that would require discerning Dr. McKissic’s intent (the contents of his mind and heart on this matter) and none of us are qualified to do that but Dr. McKissic himself.
Jason,
This is the part … that I really meant to send earlier. It became part of the book: The Quiet Revolution.
___________
REFORMING A LOCAL CHURCH
STRENGTHEN THE THINGS THAT REMAIN
by Ernest C. Reisinger
Rev. 3:2
“Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die…”
Rev. 3:4
“Yet you have a few people…who have not soiled their clothing.”
Chapter III
SOME PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS FOR THE CONTEMPORARY SCENE
Some who read this pamphlet are in, or will be in a reforming situation. And each situation has some different obstacles to deal with. The size of the church and the staff will make some difference in the approach as will the kind of membership, the spiritual caliber of the leadership. I wish we had some little pamphlet with ten rules to success, but it is not that simple. There are not ten rules to guarantee success. There are some principles, however, that will always be helpful and will save some shipwrecks .
1. Don’t try any reformation until you have earned some spiritual credibility with the church.
2. The first suggestion is study the biblical principle of accommodation. There is a little pamphlet on this subject (The Principle of Biblical Accomodation as Applied to the Invitation System), and an excellent message on tape by Thomas K. Ascol. This is available through The Christian Gospel Foundation, 521 Wildwood Parkway, Cape Coral, FL 33904, or Pastor Thomas K. Ascol, Grace Baptist Church, 204 SW 11th Place, Cape Coral, FL 33991.
3. Three questions should be asked, and carefully answered:
a) What is the right, biblical thing to do?
b) How should these changes be implemented?
c) When should they be implemented? Don’t try to do too much too soon. Many mistakes have been made by doing the right thing in the wrong way or at the wrong time.
4, The principle of priorities must be applied. You can’t
change everything at once–first things first.
5. The principle of two churches must be before us at all times.
a) The church as it should be, conceived from the scriptures, in idealism–never abandon this. b) The church as it is–the one you look at 11:00 on Sunday morning. One must realize that the two shall never meet on earth, but you will find joy and satisfaction in narrowing the difference between them, that is, when you see the one you look at on Sunday morning make some steps toward the ideal one.
6. The principle of church membership. Don’t make church membership any narrower than the New Testament.
7. The principle of restraint. Don’t tackle the whole church at one time. Choose a few men who are sincere, teachable and spiritually minded and spend time with them in study and prayer. They will help you to reform. This principle is found in Titus 1:5: “For this cause left I thee behind in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.” Acts 14:23: “And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” Acts 1 1:30: “Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.” Acts 20:17,28: “And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Don’t get bogged down with what you call these men until they are trained–they are called overseers–elders,
8. Don’t get hung up on secondary matters.
9. Don’t use theological language that is not in the Bible, in the pulpit, such as, Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about.
10. Use sound literature, not indiscriminately, but wisely. Little things at first, that is, pamphlets and books with some doctrinal and experimental substance.
11. Don’t use the pulpit to scold people. You cannot scold people into reformation.
12. Exercise common sense.
13. Depend on the only weapons we have: prayer, preaching and teaching.
14. Be sure that you understand the foundational doctrines and how they are related to each other and to your situation.
15. I would suggest that you check the history of your church in respect to early constitutions or declarations of faith. Often you will find, particularly, in older churches, a statement expressing the doctrines which you desire to establish. A gracious appeal to this document will help to give you credibility, at least they will know that you are not coming from Mars. Hide behind these articles of faith. Hide behind our Baptist fathers, such as Bunyan, Spurgeon, Fuller, Boyce, Dagg, Broadus, Manly, W. B. Johnson, R. B. C. Howell and B. H. Carroll.
Most of these suggestions come from experience, and, she is a queer old teacher. She first gives you the test and then the lesson. Unlike other teaching.
THE PROPER MOTIVES
The proper motives for reformation are love to God and concern for His Glory; love for man and concern for his good; love for God’s Holy Law as the only perfect, objective standard of righteousness; love for Christ and His Church; love and compassion for sinners.
FINAL APPEAL
Since nothing in this mortal life is more important than true religion in the soul, and in the church, reformation should be diligently sought after, and carefully looked into. It is not enough to pout and complain about what is wrong in the visible church, but we must be occupied in forming and restoring what is right and biblical. A censorious spirit will not reform the church.
So….the “memo” that is guiding all calvinists to take over the SBC is an article none of us has read??
At the risk of sounding whiny, the dictionary defines “flagship” as “the most important or prestigious among a group of similar and related things.” That Southern Seminary views herself in such a manner is perhaps a larger part of the problem than we realize.
Like Whitt, I have felt totally out of place at Southern Baptist Convention meetings since the one in Louisville, Kentucky. I literally walked out of the convention hall to get some air because it seemed like I was now attending someone else’s denominational gathering. It just didn’t “feel” Southern Baptist anymore.
In contrast to days gone by, some of today’s Southern Baptists are seriously contemplating (advocating?) the use of beverage alcohol, eliminating altar calls, questioning the practice of tithing, encouraging direct (societal) missions giving more heavily than our historic cooperative (CP) missions approach, viewing homosexuality as more of an innate condition, and considering the ministries of our state conventions as if they were less “Great Commission worthy” than those of the International Mission Board.
Sorry, but for me, it’s not the ties or the songs. It’s the ministry philosophy and the Southern Baptist identity. Granted, we should be more inclusive, as Brother McKissic reminds us. Certainly this inclusivity involves a greater acceptance of ethnic diversity than in previous years. I look forward to casting my vote in favor of Fred Luter next June.
If I hear Whitt’s voice correctly, and perhaps I do since he could very well speak for me, he does not so much want to “rid” the convention of everyone except the old Southern Baptist “bluebloods.” Quite the opposite: he simply wants those traditional Southern Baptists to continue to have relevance themselves and a place at the table as the new SBC Agenda is being developed. He does not want the so-called bluebloods themselves to be marginalized.
Criswell and Rogers are in heaven. Patterson and Vines are quiet. Merritt is hawking multi-level marketing plans and I have no idea what Young is doing. I understand Brad Whitt’s point of view. Like him, I grieve that I feel like a stranger in my own denomination. I could live with a little less Piper and Driscoll (and Mohler and Akin, for that matter) and a little more of the many talented leaders whose voices seem to have been quieted by the new regime.
Like Luke Skywalker, Brad Whitt simply wants to bring a little balance to the force. Okay, empire. I feel better. Strike back!
I don’t agree with your premise, my friend, but kudos for working in the Star Wars reference at the end.
That has to be respected.
No it doesn’t. References to zen Buddhism need not be respected, especially on a Christian blog.
Rick,
How has anyone’s voice been quieted by anyone else?
Well, for starters, the OP pretty much threw Brad under the bus, right? It seems we are no longer hearing the viewpoints we heard just a few years ago. How did they disappear all at once?
First, Brad Whitt is my friend . We are on opposites sides of reformed theology(concerning the doctrine of salvation). I’m A reformed Southern Baptist and Brad is not. We have had many phone disagreements and in person but he has always been very gracious to me and he just discussed with me about preaching at his church.
He talks often about Jesus with me and loves to tell me about the Christian growth of his members and we both share a love for the SBC because God used the churches of the SBC to proclaim the Gospel to both of us and helped in our sanctification. Just wanted to share this about my experiences with Brad Whitt…an excellent minister of the gospel ….so he is wrong on Reformed theology….Sorry Brad but you are (just had to have fun with my friend)but I could work side by side with you anytime. If you read this Brad…please know I truly believe you love Christ,the church, and your local church.
Brad is not my friend, but I would love for that someday to be the case. Interacting with him about this has demonstrated the truth of what you say. He is an honorable and good man whether one agrees with him or not.
Rick, I have a few responses/questions:
One, whiny is about tone and the way one responds to others. I did not feel your post was whiny at all. You stated your thoughts and raised interesting points. That is much different than writing an article where all you are doing is complaining that people don’t like your views or that things aren’t how you wish they were…that comes off as whiny.
Two, where exactly has Mohler or SBTS promoted this supposed elitism? Quotes? Links?
Three, what exactly is the “feel” of the SBC? That is rather vague.
Four, your paragraph starting “in days gone by” is chock full of great discussion points. All of those issues are important, but I am sure you are aware none of them are as simple as “for or against”. There is a lot of nuance required on those controversial issues. We can’t oversimplify them or assume that the SBC lines up with the same people on the same sides of every issues.
Fifth, do you see the irony of denying that Whitt and others are identifying a SBC blue bloods, but then you run off a list of the people you see as blue bloods? Then you also exclude Mohler and Akin from that list, which is also odd considering what you are supposedly arguing against.
Sixth, maybe this is too much to ask, but the issue seems to be about what defines a true SBC’er….so what makes a true SBC’er? What is the standard of who is real and who is fake? Why are Vines and Patterson “in”, and Mohler and Akin “out”?
2) I don’t have the quotes, but following the comment stream led me to believe that Mohler is referring to SBTS that way.
3) I admit that the ethos or culture of an organization is hard to define. I just think ours has changed in just the past 3-4 years.
4) Granted, there are a variety of views on these matters. My primary point is that we did not require quite so much “nuance” on these matters, say, ten years ago. They were settled.
5) Mohler should be on that list. Akin’s rise came a bit later, so it’s a stretch, but I suppose he deserves to be mentioned alongside Rogers, Criswell and Vines. My point is not so much to remove their voices as it is to add the alternative perspectives presented by Whitt. It’s hard for me to believe there is not a more prominent and well known (no offense, Brad, same team) Southern Baptist who will speak out and give voice to this view.
6) Yes, it’s about defining the SBC. In my view, Mohler and Akin are both in–good and godly men who deserve to be heard–and they are active. Patterson and Vines SHOULD be in, but they have faded to the background. There just does not seem to be anyone representing the traditional SBC viewpoint besides Brad.
Thanks for your response.
(2) I have never heard Mohler refer to SBTS that way. I would understand the label “flagship” considering it is the oldest and biggest and is the most well-known outside of the SBC. But I have never seen a link to Mohler making that claim. Even if such a link exists, I doubt one could show that he made such a claim in a way to demean the other seminaries. (Those are 2 different things, IMO.) I would be careful to repeat things that are unverified.
(3) I can understand that. It just makes it hard to assess “why” or have a real discussion on the nature of that change when it is such a vague “feel”, you know?
(4) Ten years ago they were probably not as settled as you think they were. That, or there was a completely different set of issues that a previous generation was holding to as “settled” and that next generation came in and “nuanced”. Does your church have “training union”? WMU? RAs and GAs? Acteens? Puppet shows? Small groups? Guitars? Drums? Wear suits and ties? I think you can see where I am going. I know SBC churches that will kill someone over drums, but don’t care about the percentage you give to the CP, as long as you give. Is that “majority SBC”?
I have a hard time labeling anything in the SBC as “majority”. I also have a hard time holding with a closed fist anything the SBC has done that isn’t biblically prescribed but just traditionally practiced. I may prefer or like it, but there are multiple ways to look at things…and I think the CP is best, but it is not infallible nor divinely inspired. True?
(5) Fair enough. I think there are many opposing voices that have had their say. Heck, there was a whole John 3:16 conference just a few years ago. I mean, these guys get attacked left and right online…I guess it’s easier that way.
(6) That’s the point…what is “traditional”? Traditionally, the SBC is not as homogenous as you (and Whitt) are making it out to be.
More than that, the SBC has a doctrinal statement that defines those that choose to cooperate together. THAT defines the SBC. The wish of some to narrow that is actually “non-traditional”.
Allan,
I can’t seem to find what church you are connected. Can you help me with the state convention you are connected? Your last name is an unusual spelling so it should be easy to find. However the only prominent “Pierce” I can find within Baptist life is John D. Pierce. Of course he is solidly CBF something I do not believe you are involved in.
Where are you serving?
Blessings,
Tim
Have you tried spelling his name (first and last) right in your search?
I am not prominent. Blessings.
Dr. Pearce,
Ok, I mispelled your name, sorry about that. Spelling was never a strong component of mine. So, what convention is the church you pastor supporting through the CP?
Blessings,
Tim
Dr. Pearce,
My deepest regret. I misspelled your name not once, twice, or even three times. Rather a triple dozen! My deepest apologies to you.
And, thanks to Dave for courteously pointing it out.
With that, I am…
Peter
Thanks for the apologies. As to your response, Mine was a reproof not an analysis. He asserted all of his credetials, tie wearing and all, in order to set himself up as the standard against which all so called Southern Baptists are to be measured. If one does not measure up, then he is an outsider. He said they resent the ways of the SBC and laments his growing irrelevance. My words remain.
Blessings, Alan
Dr. Pearce,
While your “words remain” so do mine:
With that, I am…
Peter
Oh, the irony of you writing: “I suggest you read more carefully the pieces of those whom you “analyze”. Perhaps if you do, you’ll be less likely to make absurd conclusions, and end in attacking the person rather than the principles expressed.”
I am seriously in shock that you would post that. Wow.
Speaking about those who think their seminary is better than the others…
I’ve known and worked with many Godly men through the years representing four of our seminaries. Every one of them felt their seminary was the best and I had to sit through many lunch hours listening to why New Orleans was better than Southwestern was better than Southern.
After much consideration, I’m glad that the pastors that I knew felt their seminary was the best. To me, it means that they treasure both the education AND experience that their home seminaries provided them through their years of attendance.
I honestly doubt that having pride in your seminary either through graduation or work is a bad thing. I want people proud of their institutions.
Besides, we also refer to several of our megachurches (I remember specifically here on SBC Voices alone being FBC Dallas, Bellevue, Second Houston and FBC Jacksonville) as flagship churches too…
Clothes are irrelevant to the Gospel.
Standing or sitting on a stool is irrelevant to the Gospel.
Music is irrelevant to the Gospel.
Altar calls are irrelevant to the Gospel.
Alcohol is irrelevant to the Gospel.
Churches on different sides of all of these issues are preaching the Gospel. There are still lots of single pastor led, deacon run, suit and tie, 3 hymns, 3 point messages with a long altar call type churches in the SBC. If that is your cup of tea, then go join one, or start one. Is some people want something different, shouldn’t they have a place to go too?
Hopefully someone will answer his challenge. I doubt anyone will though.
You seem to be correct.
If the vast majority of churches are traditional SBC churches as Dr. Whitt describes them, then what on earth is the problem? There are literally thousands of places SBC traditionalists can go and feel comfortable. Or they can start their own traditional SBC church. Is the tiny minority responsible for the decline in baptisms or the approximately 1/3 of our members who exist only in theory, or the declining CP giving? If some of the tiny minority have been given a voice (and shouldn’t they have one?) who gave them that voice?
In short, shirt and tie conservatives have run the SBC for decades. They are still (as we have been told repeatedly) the vast majority. What more do you want?
Good point.
If they are the “majority” in the SBC….and the majority of churches are plateaued or declining…then doesn’t it follow that the minority isn’t to blame, and perhaps it’s time for the majority to admit their way isn’t the only way, and probably isn’t the best way?
Just a thought.
And still no dissenting view. Too bad. I say that SBC Voices should allow a “what more do you want?” sort of post (named, well, “What More Do You Want Traditionalists/Non-Calvinists”) to force debate on this issue. Anyone up for writing and submitting it?
Alan Pearce,
What church do you belong to? What state convention is it in?
David
Why are you guys so concerned with finding that out?
I don’t think it really matters where Alan pastors unless he is not pastoring in an SBC church. From what he wrote in his post, it seems clear to me that he is pastoring in a Southern Baptist Church. I did a google search and found an “Alan Pearce” who is pastoring a church in a beautiful area of the country. I pastored not too far from there — about an 1 1/2 drive (if I was making good time) — for 5 1/2 years. My church was also affiliated with the same State Convention that this “Alan Pearce’s” church is affiliated with and were members of the local Association that borders this “Alan’s.” I’m not sure if it is the same Alan Pearce who wrote this post, but since I “outed” Justin Nelson, husband of Pastor Bailey Edwards Nelson of Flat Rock BC, earlier in the week, I’m not inclined to “out” another person in the same week! 🙂 Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Brother Howell,
You are correct, it does not matter where he pastors as long as he pastors a Southern Baptist Church. I seriously am not trying to “out” someone. However, if we find that Alan is not the pastor of a Southern Baptist Church then this article is absolutely out of bounds. Would you not agree?
Blessings,
Tim
Bro. Tim,
Didn’t mean to imply you were trying to “out” someone. That was a comment directed back at me for my “outing” Justin Nelson earlier in the week. As for where Alan pastors, if it is in the BGAV, there are still a good many conservative Southern Baptist churches that are still affiliated with the BGAV (particularly in SW Virginia). During the 5 1/2 years I pastored in SW Virginia, I was not inclined to lead my church to leave the BGAV because 1) We were able to be an SBC supporting church within the Convention and, 2) I did not care for the much more conservative (read “fundamentalist”) bent of the SBCV. Virginia, like Texas, is an interesting state when it comes to Baptist/Southern Baptist “politics” and cooperation. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Tim,
So, only pastors are allowed to critique other pastors? What if Alan is a layperson in a SBC church, is that acceptable?
Man, all the unwritten rules that some wish to put in place.
Dr. Pearce,
I believe I have found that you are certainly pastor of a church that would be considered Southern Baptist. Sorry for my question as in your article you seemed a little shy to say you were pastor of a Southern Baptist church. That was the reasoning for my question. I do pray that you are able to lead the church out of the BGAV into the SBCV. Certainly, two years is not enough time to lead in such a move. I pray you are laying the ground work that will be fruitful in the future.
Blessings,
Tim
The inquisitors have begun their inquiry. Must find something to weaken his argument…let’s see…what state convention is his church in? Aha! Is he clean shaven? Does he tuck in his shirt? Must find something….can’t argue with his substance.
Yes is it a hard work. There are true sheep that need a shepherd to feed them. Pray for this work; pray for God’s power. I am beginning to realize with clearer eyes the tremendous import of our work. Eternity is on the line (Ezek 34).
Blessings, Alan Pearce
TBH:
The inquiry for some never ends. It is never inquiry for inquiry sake. There is always a purpose behind their “innocent” questions.
It really is personal for some.
It is pathetic that you guys just had to find out what church he served.
Unreal.
Jason:
For some in makes all the difference in their world. I kind of view it as a form of subtle intimidation.
Well, the only reason I would want to know where someone served is if they served for a CBF or CBF freindly church. That way I’d know nothing they said mattered.
Brother Jason,
Get a life. We have a Pastor critiquing another pastor because of his stance on issues concerning the SBC. At no time did it insinuate or even imply that it was wrong for only a pastor to critique a pastor. Because SBC Voices has a history of people speaking about how things in the SBC should be but they themselves were not part of the SBC I merely asked the question and began the search. If Dr. Pearce were not serving in an SBC church this post would have been proof of Dr. Whitt’s concerns.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim R:
You say to Brother Jason:
Get a life and then you close with Blessings, Tim
Funny the language you use.
You call him Brother, then tell him to get a life and then you close with blessings.
Which of any of that are other than mere words and which parts do you sincerely mean?
This coming from someone who spews venom towards anyone and anything conservative (in other words, anything Christian). Am I saying that someone isn’t a Christian if they’re not a conservative? Well, if the shoe fits…. 🙂
Tom Parker,
I am, against my better judgement, going to respond to you this one time.
According to Romans 16:17 I am not speaking to you.
Blessing on your life and I pray for you.
Tim
Tim
I wonder if that’s one of the verses that the moderates claim isn’t scripture. 🙂 LOL
Wow.
Tim said: “Get a life.”
Amazing. Classy. Mature.
Let’s be real. You were looking for a way to discredit his views. I’m not sure why you would assume he was not SBC. But it is funny that some of you are entirely incapable of addressing the actual points and article without making attacks on the person writing it. If his points are true, then it really is irrelevant. Honestly, how many people on this site are non-SBC? Come on.
As for him being a pastor, your statement was: “if we find that Alan is not the pastor of a Southern Baptist Church then this article is absolutely out of bounds.” Thus I asked why the emphasis on him being a pastor. Is it ok for him to write the article if he is “just” a member of a SBC church? So, my question seemed very fair considering your comment.
But if you want to respond like a child, then you can do so. I expect more out of SBC pastors.
Jason,
Ok, I will not respond like a child again.
Get a real life and learn how to read. Any one reads; if we find that Alan is not the pastor of a Southern Baptist Church then this article is absolutely out of bounds. and interprets that I am saying only those who are pastors have a right to respond, is either lacking in reading comprehension, or purposefully taking what I wrote out of context in order to inflame the debate. So you tell me which one you are doing.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I asked if that is what you meant. I didn’t interpret anything. I asked a question…several times. You just refused to answer the question.
So…it appears the one needing some lessons in reading comprehension would be you, brother.
What was I doing? Asking a question.
What were you doing? Failing to read and acting like a child….and demonstrating irony, evidently.
My son played the piano in a church for a few years after he left school. He felt the music there was sometimes not quite up to his standards of taste. A wise minister of music heard his complaints and suggested that the variety of music he chose for services would leave everyone uncomfortable some of the time. The sacrifice of being uncomfortable sometimes was just the price of being able to worship together as a church family.
If we choose to divide over what makes us comfortable or play hardball with those who don’t see things the same way we do, it will be easy to be in a church of people just like us. It will be a lot smaller of course and we won’t be able to afford a lot of things that we take for granted. While we won’t feel out of place, everyone who is not part of our group will.
Organizations focused on their external mission and their ultimate leadership don’t waste time and engergy trying to specifiy and limit identity.
“If we choose to divide over what makes us comfortable or play hardball with those who don’t see things the same way we do, it will be easy to be in a church of people just like us. It will be a lot smaller of course …”
Or it could be a very large church offering up a generic brand of inoffensive “Christianity” that doesn’t stand for anything.
I find this to be very unfortunate.
1. While I very much disagree with Brad Whitt’s basic premise as expressed in Young, Southern Baptist and Irrelevant, in my correspondence with him I found him to be very gracious and extremely accommodating and open-minded. The truth is that Dr. Whitt is not opposed to Particular Baptists in the SBC. Also, some of the issues that Dr. Whitt has raised are legitimate, and have also been raised by others who adhere to Reformed theology, like John MacArthur.
2. A huge – and very ironic – tragedy with this is that if one has been following Dr. Whitt’s blog, as I have been kinda-sorta (scanning it biweekly or so) you would realize just how counterproductive this entry is. Based on my reading of his blog, Dr. Whitt appears to have attended the most recent SBC annual meeting in Arizona “expecting the worst.” Instead, the opposite appears to have happened. Dr. Whitt seems to have had a good time, and some of the issues that he was having with the state and direction of the SBC were positively addressed. (If any of you want specifics, please give him the courtesy of going to read his blog to find them out!) Because of this, Dr. Whitt has not made any more provocative posts concerning the SBC. I greatly fear that this entry will provoke Dr. Whitt to begin his activism anew, and if it does, I cannot say that I blame him!
3. This back and forth between Particular Baptists and General Baptists is so discouraging precisely because it is designed to ignore the real issue, which is the declining growth/baptisms in the SBC. Members of both factions are blaming each other for this decline by making broad, polemical charges without providing a bit of actual research or analysis to back it up. The real tragedy is how it is the opposite of the Great Awakening revivals and also the foreign missions movement, when Calvinists and non-Calvinists worked side by side to win converts to Jesus Christ (the best example of this being Charles Whitefield and John Wesley).
Recently, Leslie Puryear contributed a post “inviting” all Particular Baptists to leave the SBC. He thought better of it and removed it. I respectfully ask that the same be done in this case. The reasons are primarily #2 and #3 above. This entry does not reflect the apparent change in outlook (not a complete 180 degree change, but a more positive one nonetheless) that Dr. Whitt seems to have experienced since the annual meeting in Arizona. And it does nothing but hinder addressing the real issue, the decline in SBC baptisms. Both General Baptists and Particular Baptists have the responsibility of addressing this issue. But it is VERY HARD to do so, and further one could dedicate much time, blood, sweat and tears to it while not yielding the results that WE want or that WE believe that WE should get as an acceptable return on the investment. So, it is a lot easier to take the EASY WAY, which is throwing flaming arrows at each other, and (directly or indirectly) blaming each other for the real problem. The issue with that is that either side could get what they want (or are alleged to want by the other side) and it still wouldn’t fix anything. Particular Baptists could be purged from the SBC by the General Baptists, or Particular Baptists can “reform” the SBC, and the actual problem – declining baptisms – will remain. So, who will be the next target – or should I say scapegoat – when that happens?
The discussion is moved forward if you realize that although I gave you my bonifides, they were, in one sense, really irrelevent to the core of the discussion at hand. The discussion has moved forward if you saw that the irony in my article exposed the weaknesses of Whitt’s. The discussion was moved forward if we can move from protecting the SBC feel of our lives and move to a more biblical feel (we really do not believe that the SBC has attained to it yet, do we?). The discussion moved forward if this will make us all test our own hearts (mine included) a bit and see if their be some unclean thing in them. The discussion is moved forward if Christ is our Creed and not our schools and the CP and invitations (give them if you like) and ties. The discussion has moved forward if it only makes me a humbler and more devoted man to the Lord Jesus Christ. And the discussion has moved forward if you don’t consider these words vile but sincere.
Heb 13:20-21
Sincerely, Alan Pearce
P. S. I don’t recall saying that I was a Calvinist. I may be, but I don’t think I said I was.
Esteemed Alan Pearce:
I hope that you saw my comment above. It appears, based on my occasional perusing of his blog, that Dr. Whitt had indeed begun to move forward. This entry fails to acknowledge that, and as such represents a digression in the debate.
Thank you.
A regression in the debate, not a digression. Thank you.
Shall I take your reference to me as “Esteemed” as sincere or disingenuous?
Sincere. I disagree with you on this matter, but in general I respect you as a Christian and further as my elder brother in the faith, and hence one in a position of authority over me.
Thank you.
Dwight:
The dictionary definition of blue blood is:
“1. Noble or aristocratic descent.
2. A member of the aristocracy.”
Where is race in that definition?
Jason:
You said to Tim:
“So, only pastors are allowed to critique other pastors? What if Alan is a layperson in a SBC church, is that acceptable?
Man, all the unwritten rules that some wish to put in place.”
Excellent point!
“But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.” – Jesus (Matthew 12:36, NASB)
Mr. Blackmon:
You can never know how hard I try to refrain from responding to your comments but it is very refreshing for me when I do. May I suggest the same for you to consider this strategy in regards to me–it just hijacks the blog topic and Dave Miller, I have 0 desire to be apart of that.
I wanted to know what church he pastored for the same reason that Tim Rogers wanted to know. Was it an SBC Church? Plain and simple. If it wasnt, then I…like Tim….would look upon this post in a whole different light.
Some of you, people, in here really take the cake. Good Grief, Charlie Brown.
David
Why can’t you just weigh the merits of his article?
I am someone who didn’t like the article, but I can still evaluate that based off of the article itself, not his credentials.
But I am not shocked by the ones asking for his bio. Given how you guys normally address issues, it makes sense.
Jason:
Some are looking for any little detail to dismiss him as a liberal since they are CONSERVATIVE.
You said:”But I am not shocked by the ones asking for his bio. Given how you guys normally address issues, it makes sense.”
Touche
Tom,
If he was a liberal, of course I would dismiss it as more liberal nonsense. But, if he was a conservative Presbyterian, then I’d not like it that they were dogging SB’s.
David
Jason,
And, just what’s that supposed to mean?
David
David, I thought it was pretty clear. It is near impossible to have discussions here because some people here make it personal and avoid the real issues under discussion.
Did you respond to any aspect of his article? No. You just wanted to justify your desire to write him off if his bio didn’t meet your expectations for those allowed to discuss this issue.
I would hold that anyone in the SBC can discuss this issue. Pastors and laypeople. Not sure why you would wnat to limit it to pastors only. Moreover, just because someone is not SBC does not mean their points are irrelevant. They may have a more clear perspective as an outsider. So, your demand that for his point to have value he must be a “SBC pastor” is wrong on both accounts.
Interestingly enough, it actually is a microcosmic demonstration of the principle that several people have brought up: the seeking to identify a group inside the group that are “real SBCers”. Only some people are legit…but they have to meet some unwritten qualifications first.
Arguments must be weighed on the validity of the argument, not the credentials of the one making it.
I’m talking about your comment here…”But I am not shocked by the ones asking for his bio. Given how you guys normally address issues, it makes sense.” What do you mean by this? Or, were you just trying to be a smart aleck?
Also, I told you why it was important. It was not a personal matter…I dont even know Alan Pearce. It was about whether he was a non SBC guy running down the SBC, or trying to tell us how to do the SBC, when he wasnt even one of us. As Tim has said, we’ve seen this before….
David
007:
Why was that little fact so important?
Tom,
Did you read what Tim Rogers wrote earlier? It just takes a little bit away from the whole post when a non SB is running down a SB…or saying very negative things about the SBC, etc.
But, he is a SBC Pastor….sooooo, even though I absolutely did not like his post, and thought it was very inflammatory, insulting, and in very bad taste….it wasnt coming from a non SB.
David
To be clear…I didn’t like it either. I agree with his points, over and above Whitt’s, but I think the tone was condescending.
That said, it did sort of match the tone of Whitt’s article…which I also did not like.
Yes! Done to make a point.
@Jason:
“Why can’t you just weigh the merits of his article?”
Because sometimes the merits of the ideas are determined in part by the credibility and status of the person disseminating them. I would not advise accepting advice on how to care for a rather severe cardiovascular condition from an economist or a lawyer, no matter how distinguished. Instead, such information should be accepted from a medical doctor, and one that is a specialist in cardiology in particular.
So, if one chooses to take comments concerning being an SBC pastor (especially if it contains such rejoinders as “self-important”) from one who is not an SBC pastor with a grain of salt, then that is a legitimate stance. Also, there are some – I am not saying that Tim Rogers is one of them, but there are some – who claim that there is a move afoot to change the SBC into one that is more like another denomination or convention i.e. the PCA or the Primitive Baptists. So, if you have one who self-identifies as representing and fighting to preserve the traditional SBC (Whitt) being opposed by someone from outside the SBC that wishes the SBC to become more like HIS denomination … then yes it is VERY relevant. If the author of this piece were affiliated with John Piper, R.C. Sproul, C.J. Mahaney, Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll etc. and not the SBC, then you had better believe that it is relevant. How could it possibly not be?
Ok…but is this of such a matter that one must have an advanced degree in the field of study to understand it?
I don’t believe so.
I believe the article itself can be addressed regardless of Alan’s credentials.
I believe there are many laypeople who could speak on this subject. I also think that it is something that could be spoken of by someone outside of the SBC.
Your last point would be valid, if there really was such a “move afoot”. But that is FAR from being proven.
Of course his denominational alignment is not 100% irrelevant, but it is far from the MOST relevant issue. The most relevant question being: are his points right?
I just find it odd that the those who disagree with his position immediately ask for his credentials. It’s just an interesting tactic.
Job: What are you talking about? From what I can gather from the many, many words you use, that is not happening. There is no evidence of that happening. Tim is intimidating in my opinion and it’s an old tactic.
It’s always about power more than doctrine in the long run. And doctrinal purity is a word that has no meaning. Outside of heaven there is no doctrinal purity.
This year it’s Calvinists, in the past it has been other conservatives that they disagreed with. The fighting will continue until Tim and his pals have it as just them and those who believe as they do. And with that I am planning on sitting back in the next few years and just watching. It’s certainly not relevant. Paranoia is abounding again. As usual. They are planning something or they wouldn’t be coming back after a year’s hiatus. That I would bet all on if I were a betting person.
Job,
Why would you presume that this was a larger church with a brand of christainity that means nothing rather than a small chruch striving to be a family together? You were both presumptive and rude.
Dismissive does not pass for discussion.
I apologize for being dismissive and rude.
Dave Miller:
You said to Bart:”And, Bart, there are several regular commenters who give the counterpoint to the points we make. They are given free access.
Despite your insinuations, we make a good-faith effort to include a wide range of voices here – not just my viewpoint.
We can’t all be Bart Barber, but I do the best I can here.”
It probably will not count for much my saying it but ,I do believe you allow the commentators great leeway and allow a lot of give and take in the comments.
Tim Rogers:
But you’re needing to know who he is is to discredit him if you can.
Boom goes the dynamite. Maybe we should be like Peter, get our own blog, critique people’s critiques of other peoples critiques, include our name in the title of each post (even though others sparingly write for the blog), and always end in the traditional way.
I understand from one perspective where Tim is coming from in asking what church Dr. Pearce pastors. It may be helpful to know this to get a better picture of Pearce’s view point. However, I would not have sought out that information as an attempt to discredit the article.
Even if Pearce were not a Southern Baptist this would not invalidate whether or not what he wrote was true. Maybe it would have been “out of bounds” though I’m not sure what that means exactly, but Pearce’s points either have merit or they don’t regardless.
For example, Dr. Lemke recently received a book on Calvinism written for Presbyterians. The book’s author did not complain that Lemke’s review and criticisms were out of bounds because he is a Baptist and the book was meant for Presbyterians.
Brother Mark,
I would agree with your analysis if there were no Calvinist in the SBC. However, Dr. Lemke is a theologian, thus critiquing theology is within the realm of his study. Dr. Pearce is a Southern Baptist pastor critiquing another Southern Baptist pastor (Dr. Whitt) on issues pertaining uniquely to the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Pearce is not critiquing Dr. Whitt on the history of ecclessiology. If that were the case then it would not matter whether Dr .Pearce were a Southern Baptist or not.
If you recall Dr. Whitt’s article was about the state of the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Pearce, as a Southern Baptist, has every right to critique his analysis. However, one that is not a Southern Baptist pastor has a right to freedom of speech, but no right to expect anyone outside of the SBC to give his words any weight.
Blessings,
Tim
Hi Tim,
I don’t plan to go back and forth with you on this. I wasn’t giving the example of Lemke as a perfect parallel, but as an example. There could be numerous roads to go down on this level if we were to drag the discussion out noting the various categories, etc.
I will just state that sometimes an outsider may see more clearly than an insider because their bias does not get in the way as much. Of course, this doesn’t apply in this situation. Anyway..
I would state two perspectives.
1) If Alan Pearce were not SBC, why would he care about any of this? Most SBs don’t even care, but we are simply not that interesting to others outside the SBC realm who regard our internecine battles as somewhat ridiculous. Of course Alan is a Southern Baptist.
2) Had he not been a Southern Baptist pastor (or layman) I would not have published the piece. There might be an exception to that rule that I am not foreseeing at this moment.
This is “SBC Voices” and I try to get a lot of different perspectives. But I do, for the most part, limit the posts to those who are SBC.
Basically, what I am saying is that Tim’s concerns were understandable but unnecessary.
I guess what rubbed me the wrong way was the assumption that he was not SBC, for whatever reason….and then the desire to know his specific church. That seemed odd to me.
Also, to continually say he must be a SBC pastor to respond seems off as well. I asked why he must be a pastor. But then got told to “get a life”. Right, because my question was the crazy one in the whole discussion. LOL
I understand if you want to know if he is SBC, but why assume he is not, and why ask his church and not just ask him if he’s a member of a SBC church?
That’s kind of what I thought. “Are you SBC?”
I did not speak about the Convention. I spoke of Whitt’s assessment of himself in the Convention. His article was not about the Convention except in an incidental way. His article was about himself. Most on the larger post have missed this point, arguing over my SBC affiliation instead. I am a SBC pastor (a conservative pastor among mostly conservative sheep that happen to historically be attached the BGAV). I did not go to this church bc of the affliation, but because there are, believe it or not, true people of God who need to be fed the word of God. Now, I have been called to conform the church to Mr. Rogers standard. Perhaps that is the way to go; but he is not the gold standard who determines what our church does or should do at this time. This is my whole beef with the Whitt article. I just don’t seem to match up to these men in thought and in my affiliation (both of which was not the point of the article I wrote). Maybe we could discuss the article, not my affiliations. I’ll write another article about that and then we can debate this article.
In the Lord, Alan Pearce
P.S. I do not wish Whitt ill will. I wish him the best, and I hope (sincerely) that God will use him greatly. However, I am just responding publically (and with a tone) to what I considered was a self-interested document and calling him to repent. His was public, and so I wrote public.
Perhaps it wasn’t meant this way, but the whole “where do you serve” thing was a little creepy, especially the announcement that he had been “found”, with just enough detail to prove it.
And yes, I’m SBC, if anyone cares.
Yes, creepy is a good word.
From reading Alan’s OP, I gathered that he was Southern Baptist. I won’t speak for Tim or David or any of the other folks who questioned Alan’s background. But, as one who did a Google search to “find” out a bit more about Alan, I can tell you that my motivation was not meant to be “creepy.” Does the fact that Alan pastors an SBC church affect the arguments that he made in his OP? No. Does a person’s background — in this case Alan’s — affect how people might view his arguments and his credibility in making those arguments? Absolutely.
If one is not willing on their own — for whatever reason — to provide background that some might find helpful in analyzing a particular post, then I see nothing wrong (or creepy) with finding out that information. For instance, if someone were to write a post defending mega-churches, I would find it helpful to know if the person writing was a member of a mega-church and which one. Others may not really care about such information, but it helps me to know where someone is coming from and whether or not he or she might have a bias. I would venture to guess that this was the motivation for Tim’s and David W.’s questions about where Alan served. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
“I would venture to guess that this was the motivation for Tim’s and David W.’s questions about where Alan served.”
Yes, especially when Mr. Rogers pointed out the church’s state convention affiliation, “encouraging” Dr. Pearce publicly to lead them out that convention.
Well, considering his church is a member of the moderate state convention that is CBF friendly, what else would you expect a Christian to encourage him to do?
Joe Blackmon:
How are you going to deal with these CBF folks when you get to heaven and you are there with them?
When they’re apologizing all over themselves for rejecting inerrancy and embracing egalitarianism*, I’ll tell them it’s ok, that no person is perfect except for Christ.
*I’d say “…embracing egalitarianism and inclusivism…” but anyone who believes in inclusivism (that muslims, for instance, are saved by Christ without their knowledge) is not a Christian.
The name and location of his church are not important. Sorry. If you want to say that him being in the SBC is crucial, fine. But the specifics about his local church are irrelevant for this issue. You may like to know them, but knowing his church name and location do not make his points more or less valid.
Jason,
First, you are free to be “sorry” all that you like, but you do not get to decide what others think is important or not important regarding the background of someone who is writing a public opinion piece to be read and commented on at a public website. It didn’t really matter to me where Alan pastored, but since you and others are making such a huge deal of NOT revealing where he pastors, it only raises more questions, not less.
Secondly, perhaps I was not as clear in my above comment as I could have been. Sometimes that happens and I will take the blame this go around. What I said was that where Alan pastored did not affect the arguments he made in his OP. However, his background (or any writer’s background for that matter) goes to his credibility and bias, not relevance. There is a difference. Please do not take it that I believe Alan is biased or lacks credibility, although he certainly has written from a particular point of view. Hope that helps clarify what I meant. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
Just because something is important to one person does not mean it is objectively important.
So, just because you find it important, does not mean that it really is. You would LIKE to know his background, I get that; but his argument needs to be assessed on its merits. Sure, his background provides insight…but how much background info do you need? His first paragraph provided a great deal. You do not need to know the name of his church to assess his argument. We don’t hold other posters to that standard, do we?
Now, I want to correct a statement you made about my intentions. I did not make a “huge deal about revealing where he pastors”….I questioned the need to ask. If he wants to share that info, that is on him. If he feels that he doesn’t want to share that, that is fine too. It is the inquisition into his church with which I took issue. No “huge deal”, I don’t have a dog in the fight…but I find it funny that the same guys who defend Whitt and others of that mindset are the ones asking him those questions. That sent up a red flag. They were probably not looking for real info…they wanted a way to discredit his views if he wasn’t SBC enough for them. But that’s just a guess…but I think a reasonable one.
I agree with your final paragraph. 🙂
PS – Knowing the name of the church he serves does not provide any background info except that you now know the name of his church. It tells you nothing about the church, nor does it make him more or less credible.
But we have wasted too much time on this issue. Let’s get back to the merits of his argument.
I purposely left out my church and that of Brad Whitt’s.
Debbie:
In my many, many words, I hoped to express the idea that though I disagreed with Tim Rogers’ general thrust, I do very much acknowledge the relevance of the question “Are you an SBC pastor?” Again, I basically/generally disagreed with Tim Rogers in this matter, but I acknowledged that Tim Rogers raised a valid, relevant point (smaller context), even if he did so in the course of doing something that I disagreed with (larger context). You presumed that merely because I backed Tim Rogers in the smaller context, I did so in the larger context also. Allow me to assure you that such is not the case. Allow me to say that were it Katharine Jefferts Schori, Rowan Williams, John Hick, Bart Ehrman, John Shelby Spong, Barry Lynn etc. calling Brad Whitt (one of our pastors, and by all accounts a good and Bible-based one) “self-important” (among the many other things in this post) my response would be something along the lines of “get stuffed.”
But allow me to say (using still more words) that I disagreed with Brad Whitt’s original piece (although he did make some good points), Alan Pearce’s response to Brad Whitt (which also contained some good points), and Tim Rogers’ response to Alan Pearce (ditto). Thank you.