The Pillar and Ground of the Truth

I would like to know what a local church that is not ‘relevant’ to any particular culture would look like.

Does anyone know of such a local church?

Scott,

Really good article! I like the emphasis on the Lord’s Supper,….which has been underemphasized in many church families these days. Our local body of Christ observes the Lord’s Supper at least once a month….and it is a wonderful time of participation with our Lord. Thank you for reminding us all, that we should never lose sight of communing with our Lord at His table.

The ‘only’ thing I might change about your article is the picture. When I think of what a church is as described in scripture….I tend to think more about people that make up a body or a group of people under their Savior. (no big deal though)

Blessings,
Chris

I like the architecture as well! good stuff…

As a refugee from the UMC I have yet to find a SBC clergy, deacon or member that even comes close to being as theologicaly unsound as seemingly most UMC clergy. On the whole, UMC laity is more theologicaly conservative than is the clergy/heirachy ie:bishops/superintendants etc. After fighting a seemingly losing battle for theological conservatism in the UMC for well over 20 years, I think I could recognize a liberal when I hear one……could someone please point out an SBC liberal?

Scott,

I find it interesting that the BFM2K portion you quoted said, “Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.”

I know this is true in most small churches where the congregation votes on most issues, however, I wonder if this is true in the larger churches?

When I was a member of Prestonwood Baptist Church (20,000 members), in Dallas, TX, I cannot recall a single time that the church as a whole met to exercise a democratic process on any issue. Obviously, this does not mean they did not, only they did not do so the three years I was there.

Can there be true democracy in larger churches (over 1000 in average attendance)?

Also, on what types of issues should the church use democtratic processes and which issues should they not?

Thanks.

Les

Irreverend Fox nailed it in comment #6. When are we going to talk about real issues? I don’t think that many people are interested. There seems to be a desire to write posts and books setting up straw man arguments so that we can tear them down in front of our friends and look like we know what we’re talking about. Yet, we won’t address the real issues that plague the SBC.

Scott, you said,

“As a buzz-word, ‘relevant’ has taken on the meaning of cultural immersion to the point of being indistinguishable from it.”

That definition perfectly describes 90% of all Baptist churches I have ever encountered in the South over the past 30 years – and longer, according to my understanding. The reason that we had no power to change Southern culture is because we had become completely identified with it. The reason that in 30 years the South will be a religious wasteland if we don’t wake up, is precisely because we have accomodated ourselves to the culture in a desire to be relevant. The only problem is that we are still trying to be relevant to a culture that no longer exists, except in our Baptist sub-culture. But, let’s not talk about that. Let’s pretend like everything that we’ve done in the past is biblical and only address the shortcomings of current churches without looking at our own cultural accomodation (see the issue of Race, for example).

Les,

“On what types of issues should the church use democratic processes and which issues should they not?”

You obviously have something in mind? What is it?

Scott, in reference to comment # 12 above, I think (though he can speak for himself) that Alan would be very open to critiquing new church movements. I certainly am, and in fact have done it. What he is saying (with which I strongly agree) is that our history as Baptists is full of faux paus, and it is not just the present that needs examining.

1. When 400-pound men who are addicted to KFC scream at social drinkers, there is a problem in the SBC.
2. When pastors of churches with 800 in membership but only 200 in regular attendance chastise younger pastors for a more open view of communion because it doesn’t relfect “good church discipline” there is a problem in the SBC.

These are just two examples. I could go on, but suffice it to say for now, I really think the SBC (me included, since I’m a part of it) needs to go back and apply Matthew 7:1-5 to its own “orthopraxy” as you so aptly put it, and the article by Caner you cite above is “Exhibit A” of this need.

btw…that last statement is for us ALL, myself foremost.

“That they constitute a consensus of opinion of some Baptist body, large or small, for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and others concerning those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us.

That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so.

Christ’s people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner.

(Baptism) Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.”

By its own construction the BFM has no authority to demand anything, and it becomes presumptuous for any individual or entity in the SBC to criticize or condemn the practices of any individuals, or congregations within the SBC, or outside of it.

“Our living faith is established upon eternal truths.”

The self-contained contradictions in the BFM make this statement a joke.

For Caner to condemn open communion is laughable in view of the BFM. Whether a congregation has membership requirements, or even baptismal requirements at all, are not in the purview of the BFM to mandate. The BFM is a mere consesus of opinion. Although they are a consensus, the all negating freedom of rejecting it and crafting one’s own confession makes the UMC look quite conservative next to undefinable doctrine. The so called timeless truth are a matter of democratic majority, restatable with every new generation as if truth ever changes. The UMC at least states its belief that there are no real beliefs, unequivocably.

Until the BFM can be purged of it inherent contradictions, why, oh why, should the world take the SBC seriously?

Scott,

-If you really think I was “judging,” even though I included myself in the illustration
-If you think the “400 lb man” or the “800:200 pastor” were remarks aimed at you personally.
-If you took anything I said personally, for that matter. . .

then we are obviously talking past each other . . .another real issue in the SBC. You guys go ahead and fight. I’m done.

It’s interesting my friend that the topic is really branched apart from the central tenet of your fine post. I appreciate your desire to steer away from ad hominem attacks and settle down into the heart of your piece: the lack of an identifiable biblical ecclesiology. The red herrings that some present are a diversion from the task at hand. Labels such as establishment and the such receive much play but do little to further discussion. I still want to see an answer to this question that addresses how far contextualization will go -

How would you have Southern Baptist churches define our ecclesiology. Is ecclesiology determined by timeless, biblical truth or cultural norms?

BFM says-”Our living faith is established upon eternal truths.”

Joe Stewart said- “Is ecclesiology determined by timeless, biblical truth or cultural norms?”

A most valid question, and my allusion by the quotes above. Can the SBC define a church any way it wants, and more, can it define its association any way it wants? Or, is it bound by its own confession: “The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

Dever said that the SBC is not a church, but how can that be if this is true. Is the ecclesiology that is defined at the Convention level in the BFM, not a governing principle for the church gathered under the name SBC?

Is there a timeless ecclesiology, or just one made up, which by the BFM’s own concessions does not matter anyway?

I am curious. Because, it appears that the SBC has no “timeless” concepts, at all. How does it define what constitutes a local congregation, when it cannot define the church itself. Beyond that, I would challenge the concept of autonomous local churches as being at all Scriptural. So me where they are. There is no doubt that local congregations existed, but no where do you find them operating without oversight of some form from without. If you can point it out, I would like to know.

Scott,

I’m not here to fight either, but to in turn point out the absurdity of the point of your post . . .that open communion as practiced by some Baptists opens the floodgates for what is currently happening in the UMC.

To make such an outlandish claim (as Caner seems to do) when there are much more glaring issues in SBC life is the real absurdity as I see it.

joel,

just who was that little dig you made directed towards when you said…”1. When 400-pound men who are addicted to KFC scream at social drinkers, there is a problem in the SBC?”

it’s always funny to me when people judgementally get onto others for being judgemental…in thier opinion.

also, i’m a former glutton…actually, i’m big boned.

also, i’m a former drunkard….actually, i was a partier.

so, as a former drunkard and glutton, may i scream about the evils of both???

david

to everyone,

i’d really like to see someone answer what scott said above…that no one seems to want to answer…he said…”Sixth, for you or Alan. How did the early church grow since they did not prescribe to Roman culture? ”

i’d like to see some of the seeker friendly, emergent, emerging crowd answer this one?

in fact, i believe i remember something being said in the book of acts about those early christians that went kind of like…”they’re turning the world upside down.”

david

Thomas,

I think you just might be more comfortable in the PCA.

Sola Gratia!

OK Alan,

You have had your shots and critiqued weaknesses and called for humility.

In all humility I am begging someone, maybe you, Alan, to consider an answer to the main question I have posed on this topic…How did the early church thrive and spread while refusing to prescribe to Roman culture?

Or yet another…How does the underground church in a place like China grow since it cannot prescribe to its indigenous culture without outright compromise? Something like, “Deny Christ and you will live.”

I would argue that the church faces challenges of compromise and isolationism in every culture. Only the unchanging truths of a biblical ecclesiology have kept it strong over the centuries irrespective of culture setting.

By Grace Alone.

Alan…great points….

Scott…why are you ignoring my answer to your question? The answer is found in 1 Corinthians 9.

Let’s get back to the infallible and inerrant Bible.

Brother IF,

Been away and wanted to just stop in to see how Brother Scott is doing on his virgin voyage here at SBC Today. He certainly has raised some interesting points. I will admit that in his youthful zeal, he may have over–spoke in some areas, but his point is still valid. If we ascribe to the culture and begin changing doctrinal beliefs because culture has defined them differently that what the Bible calls it, then we are heading down a wrong path.

Let us look at the passages that you have called to out attention. I presume your main reference is 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. While we all understand that the Bible does not contradict itself, help me understand how the way you are using this reference remains in the context of scripture with 2 Corinthians 5:17. Paul is speaking to the same group, but he told one to become part of the culture (your seeminly analysis of 1 Corinthians 9) and he spoke on another occasion for this same group to separate themselves from culture. Also, in Revelation 18:4, John the Revelator, told his audience that they were to come out of Babylon. In the Revelation, most scholars will agree that Babylon is a reference to the world’s culture.

I am not saying that we need to be an isolated sect that has nothing to do with culture. But if I take your use of 1 Corinthians 9 to its logical conclusion you seem to be saying that Paul; when he says he became as Jew, he became circumcised in order to reveal to the Jews he was one of them (I believe you will find a strong rebuke by him in Galatians concerning this practice); when he says he became without law, Paul became a pagan in his practice and associations in order to win pagans ( I believe you will find a strong argument against pagan religions in Romans, and I also believe you will find in Acts that Paul referenced a god they did not know, only to point them to the God they can know but he never agreed with their religion); when he says he became weak, Paul gave over to his fleshly desires and entered into the Temple of Diana and began worship that consisted of their ungodly sexual orgies, (I believe you will find Paul strongly rebuking that practice in all of his writings).

I point to all of this, not saying that you are advocating this, but only to remind you that when you use a context like that you have to live with the logical conclusion. I understand that the culture is something that we as Christians need to make ourselves aware of, but Scott is correct. God calls us to change culture, not become part of it.

Blessings,
Tim

hello brother Tim!

who in the SBC is suggesting that we allow culture to change out doctrine! I’m with you…OUT WITH THEM!

why did Paul circumcise Timothy? Consider the context and what proclamation the council of the Apostles had just made a chapter or two before…and the context in which that council meet to begin with.

brother Tim…the great Apostle clarified in that passage that he was under “Christ’s law”…so again…with that in mind…let’s take that passage to it’s logical conclusion.

and brother Tim…I (and the Apostle Paul) agree with your last reminder. We are called to change the culture (with the most ancient gospel found in Scripture) indeed. I’m not aware of one single Southern Baptist who disagrees or does not understand that, do you?

if my hunch is correct…and SBC’ers are not kicking against that understanding…then why are we discussing it at “SBC Today”?

alan,

when you said, “I am saying that we HAVE aligned ourselves with the predominate Southern culture throughout our existence. It was not right. It is not right now. We did so in direct violation of Scripture. ”

what are you talking about?

also, we dont have separate water fountains in the south anymore….that was 40 years ago. we dont have segregated schools anymore….that was 40 years ago. we dont make black people sit in the back of the bus anymore…that was 40 years ago.

so, what are you talking about?

also, in a lot of situations that i know of…black people prefer to be in black churches. it’s not that they cant come to white churches..they prefer not to. black folks come to my church all the time. they are welcomed. there are some churches out there…that i personally know of…that are not too welcoming of black folks. i’d imagine that there are some black churches out there that wouldnt be too welcoming of white folks. i’ve seen them. i’ve heard them talk. in the south, there are churches that have black and white people in them…but, for the most part, black people prefer to go to black churches and the style of worship they have. and, white people prefer to go to white churches.

so, again, what part of southern culture…today… are you talking about?

are you talking about eating jambalaya, or crawfish etouffe, or white beans and cornbread?

just wondering.

david

and lest I be thought too sympathetic of the emergent cause…check out my latest post for a good laugh. I’ve designed a couple banners to help inspire the emergents who lurk on my blog…hopefully these banners will help them better articulate their message.

Gentlemen (and I use that term loosely ),

While I appreciate the line of discussion, we are deviating far afield from the intent of the post.

Our primary consideration involves our view of ecclesiology.

These ancillary discussions do help to prove one thought I have…that our ecclesiology impacts the practice of our faith on many, if not all, levels.

By Grace Alone.

David,

a couple things. first…the “emergent” movement is nothing more than re-packaged modern liberalism. SBC’ers are not emergent (even if through honest ignorance they toss that word around). Dimming the lights, burning candles during worship, sipping on Starbucks while preaching and sitting on a bar stool instead of standing behind a pulpit does not make you Emergent nor theologically liberal.

I had a great quote the other day about the Emergent movement “they have all the wrong answers to all the right questions” and that sums up my opinion of it.

on your last point…you are making mine and I’m not sure you realize it. there is a “black” culture…thus…”black” churches. we don’t have “black” churches or “white” churches because the SCRIPTURE says we should have them. our CULTURE makes those distinctions (right or wrong…they are not NT ontological distinctions certainly). SO…the point is that the reality of “black” churches or “white” churches in Baptist circles PROVES that the culture has dictated certain parts of Baptist identity and ecclesiology.

I’m not even necessarily arguing against it (or for it)…I’m simply stating that to say “suddenly” these new “emerging” churches are being led by the culture instead of the Bible in way that somehow contrasts with how Baptists “historically” have interacted with culture is not true…or is hypocrisy. The CULTURE did not mix whites and blacks THEREFORE the local churches did not mix white with blacks…that is cultural relevance…and it might not be bad (if in proper context…certainly no racist will enter heavens gates because no true Christian is full of hate).

Alan,

WELL SAID.

Ok, so apparently some words were left out above the line was – “I can get that kind of flack from my (insert object of disdain here)”.

alan,

i dont think that scott, nor dr. emir caner, nor tim rogers, nor anyone else that you might view as the “establishment” crowd would have any problem with a church singing praise songs instead of hymns. i dont think that they…nor certainly not me…would have any problems with a church meeting in…say…a store front, instead of a traditional brick and mortar building. i dont think that any of those fellas would have a problem with a cowboy church full of guys and gals wearing boots and cowboy hats and singing off of a guitar and a fiddle….i know i wouldnt.

but, when someone(like the methodist church) starts saying that a church has communion open to the gays…unrepentant gays, mind you, and the pro-choice crowd, etc. then that’s bad. that’s a culture we dont need to fit into. i believe that’s what scott and others are trying to say. that sound doctrine and baptist distinctives are very important. and, if we dont see them as important, then we’ll go the way of the methodists.

i used to be methodist back a long time ago. the leaders did leave doctrine. they did become more ecumunical. they did start caring less about things that should have been important to them. and, the methodists turned liberal. the last two pastors that my family and i had before we left the methodist church were heretics. we finally left the methodists after we saw the sunday school literature go bad.

and, guess what? many, many other methodists have left the methodist church. in fact, the methodist church has lost a ton of folks in the last 20 years. and, a lot of them are now southern baptist.

so, if you’re talking about playing guitars and trumpets, instead of an organ in the worship service, or if you’re talking about a preacher wearing a suit and tie, or not wearing a suit and tie….then i cant see scott or the others argueing about that. unless i’m way off. and, i’m not trying to speak for them. i think i can answer for them to an certain extent in this discussion.

but, if you’re talking about the sbc becoming more ecumunical, or not caring about baptism being done right, or about the sbc becoming more charismatic/pentecostal, or about cowing down to the feminist crowd about women pastors, etc.; then i believe that is a slippery slope to the bad. i am concerned. these fellas are concerned. do you see that we’re talking out of concern for the sbc? that we’re sincerely concerned?

we are not legalists who just want our way. we are not spooky fundies who are just into rules and regulations. we’re not uneducated idiots who just cant seem to “get it” like wade and ben and debbie. we’re not harsh meanies who just want to control the sbc. no, we are people who are committed to the Lord and who believe His Book, and we believe that it’s very important that we beleive and practice His Word in the sbc. and, these things called baptist distinctives are very important…to us…to staying true to the Word of God. and, we’re concerned when we see people who dont seem to care about the things that we believe are important….things that have made us distinctively baptist….things that we believe that the bible not only teaches, but make us closer to the bible’s way of doing christianity.

i cant speak for all of the “establishment” crowd, but i can say that i dont hate any of the “reform” crowd. i dont like what they’re trying to do in the sbc…for the most part… and i will stand against the direction that they seem to want us to go, but i dont hate them.

well, enough of my rant of the day.

david

ps. nor am i a landmarkist.

David,

Thank you for sharing your heart. I completely agree with everything you said as far as the direction that you do not want to see the SBC go. I stand with you against such a slide. I do not believe that being relevant to the culture means that we give into the culture. It just means that we are able to communicate truth to them in a way that they are able to hear it, without having to become just like us. Paul fought for this in the Gentile churches when he said that you didn’t have to become Jewish to experience salvation in Christ. I don’t think that you should have to pass through our culture, as good as some of it might be, to become a follower of Jesus. That is all that being relevant means. Of course, there are some things that are beyond culture – baptism, communion, the infallible, inerrant Word of God, obedience to Christ in all things, etc. that should never be sacrificed. But, we should help people understand all of those things.

My whole point is that we HAVE given in to culture in the past in some pretty sinful ways. The humility that recognizing our past sin should produce will help us as we seek to rescue others from error in the future. We, more than we might realize, have the ability to say to those who are flirting with cultural accomodation that it does not benefit you in the least – it only destroys your witness and wounds your soul. If we would realize our own errors, then we would be able to speak to others with greater moral power.

You make great points, David. I agree with you and support you in your concern. I guess that I just think that the firewall shouldn’t necessarily be Baptist Distinctives (as important as those are and as much as I believe that they are biblical). Instead, the firewall should be our high view of Scripture, our love for God, our love for others, and our willingness to boldly preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth. Our Baptist theology should be derived from Scripture alone and should support our obeying the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.

Alan –

Thank you very much for your post. I appreciate your heart on this. Being that I would not be considered a “veteran” of the Baptist blogosphere, I guess my only point was as a caution to everyone that since it is text only we cannot see or hear emotion and inflection and we probably just want to be careful that someone unfamiliar doesn’t misread the emotions (as I did), because one could easily do so within this chain.

As far as the “wasting time”, that was really simply directed to the multiple posts speaking of why this is a less than fruitful discussion. I do realize that there is definite benefit, as I felt it was a beneficial discussion as well. (And I realize I didn’t spell that out real well the first time).

I failed to mention in my list of preferences:

-expositional preaching/teaching (I won’t throw rocks at the topical guys…I do think topical preaching is inferior to expositional, but not necessarily sinful…)

-the Lords Supper each week

TC,

Welcome to this street here in SBC Blogtown! Way to jump right on in!

Be careful encouraging Alan…don’t want it to go to his head

(Sorry Alan. Couldn’t help myself.)

I-Foxy,

To answer the last of your questions (v. rants)…Yes, they did worship like we do. Our songs, talents…our lives are living sacrifices to our Lord.

I’ll still respectfully disagree. There are indeed those within the SBC who would willingly usurp sound biblical belief and practice with personal experience or cultural norms. I’ve met them and watched their ministries in the area from which I just moved.

SOLA GRATIA!

IF,

I think the cliche’ is… ‘lighten up.’

What I meant by we worship as they do is that we worship together, we sing praises to our great God and Savior who has always been and always shall be the focus of our worship. If we cannot take cues on how to worship from our past, then why would we read the Psalms? Why would we consider Paul’s instructions to the churches to which he wrote to be apropos for today?

Over the top? OK. Your opinion. You’re entitled.

Thanks for stopping by.

By Grace Alone!

Sorry I missed this little “set-to” here. It seems like the kind of scrape I love to get into.

Wade resigned the IMB yesterday.

Let me say the as a trustee of the IMB he was most definitely relevant. He was also very truthful.

I did not agree with Wade on many things theologically and he missed some things about the CR, but he was dead on at 1000 yards about the foolishness of of the IMB.

There really was a plan conceived outside the IMB to remove Jerry Rankin. There really were guys within the trustee board carrying other folks’ water to the board meetings. He was right as rain there. The thing started all the way back in 1993 when Rankin was elected. Wade was not lying.

Wade was not and is not right in all his positions relating to the SBC or theology, but the guy was most certainly right about the IMB BOT and the BOOT-STRAPPING, BOLONEY EATERS therein and someday historians will say so if the Lord tarries.

There were many liberals in the SBC before the CR (the 1971 SBC in St. Louis is evidence enough for that argument). There are many poor trustees within the SBC today. The Wade Burleson story proves that. (there are other stories to prove it also, but those happened before Blogtown was populated)

Maybe due to the internet stories like those of Burleson’s and Klouda’s will become a thing of our dark past and we can go forward. I pray so.

cb

Scott,

I think one of the reasons I sometimes feel like “Baptists have no ecclesiology” stems from comments like the one in #26 where it is said that if someone teaches contrary to the BFM they should consider relocating to another denomination or non-denomination. That seems to me to be an ecclesiological view that is devoid of any proper or constructive way of dealing with differences in any effort to maintain the unity of the church. What’s worse is that one would be encouraged toward a “non-denomination” which has even less of an ecclesiology. Surely ecclesiology extends beyond merely the local church. You have implied as much in this post, but you seem to plausibly deny it in that comment.

For what it’s worth, to teach contrary to the BFM is in an odd way to teach in accordance with it since it stipulates that it is not infallible or complete and that churches are free to establish their own doctrinal statements. That being true it seems to me that you just put yourself into a position of teaching contrary to the BFM. I’m wondering which denomination/non-denomination you will be seeking out.

brother Paul,

I would suggest that teaching “contrary” to something is not the exact opposite of not totally agreeing with it.

In other words…for example…I’m not 100% sure the local church must operate under “democratic process” as the BFM states. However…I would not contradict that statement…I could minister and cooperate with that statement “as is” even if I have reservations or even if I don’t agree with it at all. No one would suggest absolute uniformity of thought regarding the BFM…but railing against it or openly contradicting it in a divisive way is not what most of us want or expect from cooperating churches. If you can’t live with the consensus of the convention then don’t…”grab your jacket” (so to speak).

Brother Paul,

Before I say another word, I must say that I believe you are a conservative person with whom I can cooperate. I am not placing you in any category or trying to throw out ‘stink bomb’ bombastic remarks. Now, you know something is coming. :^)

Please re-read your comments. I am not sure I understand them so I need you to help me. Are you advocating that if someone who is teaching in one of our six seminaries, does not agree with something in the BF&M, they are free to teach against it?

I do not know about the other seminaries, but at SEBTS, I have heard the statement when the Prof’s sign the Abstract, and BF&M, that they will; teach in accordance with and not contrary to. Teaching in accordance with and not contrary to was defined by the late Dr. Russ Bush at a faculty meeting back in 1991. In that faculty meeting the moderate Profs became irate and very demonstrative in their arguments against the Administration. One went so far as to say, I signed that paper, but that is not what those words meant to me when I signed. Teaching in accordance with and not contrary to as defined by Dr. Bush, was merely an instruction that you may have a conviction that this is proper, but you will not teach that something else is the better way. I felt then, as I do now, that is the proper way to teach when the people in the pew authorized the doctrinal statement under which you are operating. Also, as a supporter of the Garner Motion, how can you advocate that policies cannot be adopted outside of it unless the convention approves, but others employed by the convention have freedom to deviate from it?

Brother IF,

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that Profs should be able to advocate another doctrine as being better than what is found in the BF&M? IOW, we have a Prof that believes an elder rule is better than a Congregational rule. Are you saying that the Prof is free to advocate and promote in class the elder rule as being better than the congregational rule?

Blessings,
Tim

Brother Tim,

that REALLY depends on what exactly that prof is suggesting is “elder rule”. I am not 100% sure about the Roman Catholic tradition at this time, but I do know in the Eastern Orthodox tradition the congregation still “votes” in a sense on the installation of a Bishop (and perhaps a parish priest but I’m not positive). that is actually a very ancient practice (even if it is or is not Biblical). they basically decide upon a man they will submit to.

is that congregationalism? is that a democratic process? I would say that would fall under a concept of “democratic process”…but not what is commonly understood as congregationalism.

if an SBC church decided to be governed in that way that should be up to them. I know…at some point the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, will be asked.

I guess it really depends on the precise definition of “elder rule” and “democratic process”. I don’t believe in quarterly business meetings and I don’t believe the congregation should be leading the church. I believe the elders should be entrusted to lead the church in a very direct way. I don’t believe the sheep should be dictating, manipulating or threatening the shepard’s. Such is (part of) the reason why the average SBC church runs less than 100 I would suggest.

I think congregationalism needs an overhaul…but the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater. I can see the wisdom in allowing the privilege of an annual meeting to discuss and vote upon a budget for the elders to exercise. I see the wisdom in the congregation voting upon a change in their constitution or voting upon the buying or selling of property. And I believe the congregation should vote upon a new senior pastor (or as the ancient church referred to him, the bishop). Other than that…the elders (senior pastor, associate pastors and deacons) should direct the church in everything and delegate as they see fit under the Lordship of Christ.

I think that prof should give a fair shake at all sides and if he is not willing to do that he should be dealt with…not giving a fair hearing all of sides, with a serious consideration of traditional congregationalism (since the SBC is so heavily influenced by it) would be acting “contrary” in my mind to the consensus of the SBC and is not ok. I don’t think most “elder rule” concepts are necessarily incompatible with “democratic processes” as mentioned in the BFM.

And of course if the man is suggesting that the congregation have no say in anything…ever…that would be very odd because it would be out of step with 20 centuries of Christian history.

brother David,

you said, “that’s just the way it is. and, yes, it is cultural…but, it’s not unscriptural. it’s not sinful. it’s just different.”

and I know I agree 100000000000000%!

the point is that there are some vocal brothers in the SBC who in a pejorative way describe some other SBC brothers as leading churches which are “led” by the culture and not just Scripture. so…what I am suggesting is, just as you just said, “that’s just the way it is. and, yes, it is cultural…but, it’s not unscriptural. it’s not sinful. it’s just different.”

Of course the vast (VAST) majority SBC brothers would agree the culture leading our theology (or even influencing it) is sinful, heretical and IS apostasy.

brother David,

yes sir…and we are on the same page! I wish all our SBC brothers were as well! and I wish the Browns would go 19-0 next year…and I wish the Cavs would trade Damon Jones for Steve Nash…

Tim,

My understanding is that this post’s primary concern is with ecclesiology and the church’s relationship to culture. Biblical ecclesiology knows nothing of denominational entities including seminaries, so when I made the statements I did I made them in the context of the local church, which seemed to me to be the point of the post, not in the context of professors in seminaries.

Thus, my question was not can a professor teach contrary to the BFM and maintain his employment, but can a church teach contrary to the BFM and still be a cooperating Southern Baptist church? That is what the BFM itself addresses in all that it says. The BFM does not, itself, address the meaning of the statement for SBC entities. At least not explicitly. I suppose there are those who say the “document of accountability” phrase applies to agencies and institutions and to be honest that phrase is so vague that I have no idea what it is in reference to. But can a church teach contrary to the BFM and still be Southern Baptist? The BFM seems to affirm that it can. It has no finality to it. It cannot be coerced upon others. Or so it says so itself. Others are free to come up with their own statements and one would assume that there may, in fact, be some contradictions if they were to do so. Yet the BFM never declares those people to be something other than Baptists. Good Baptists. Good Southern Baptists.

Scott,

Whether or not the BFM is maximal or minimal matters not to the local church. The discussion about maximal and minimal is in relation to our denominational entities, not to our local churches. The BFM has one prescriptive statement as far as I can tell – and that is that it does not exist as a prescriptive statement for Southern Baptists. The whole issue about how it relates to the denominational structure is, in my view, a completely different question than the one you have asked in this post.

paul,

again, i have to wonder if you even read my comment on #55. it seems that you havent, or else i’m not being very clear…although fox and scott seem to think i have been.

it would be wonderful if all the churches were filled with black and white, red and yellow, old and young, rich and poor, etc. but, alas, they’re not. in heaven, we will be together forever. halelujah! yet, we live down here, dont we, paul? we have to live in an imperfect world. where preferences do play a part.

read #55 again.

david

David,

I have read #55 several times now and I am not disagreeing with what you say there. But when it comes to ethnic divisions I do not believe that the Bible allows us to simply say “that’s the way it is for now. It will be better once we get to heaven.” What’s to keep your Methodist friends from saying that homosexuality is not God’s will, but that’s the way it is down here so we should just go along to get along knowing that God will fix it all in heaven? If the preferences that play a part in this world down here are unbiblical then don’t we have an obligation to say so and to work to remedy that rather than just accept it as the way it is?

If we were talking about musical styles or suits and ties (as you mention in #55) that would be one thing, but racial divisions are a completely different thing. We’re not talking about notes on a page or the color of the choir robes. We’re talking about reconciliation with other human beings, brothers and sisters in Christ whom we largely remain estranged from based on what? Preferences? Well, then those are preferences that the Bible speaks to and against and so should we.

I believe that whites and blacks and Hispanics and Asians all have work to do in this area. It isn’t just a matter of the white southern church, though it is very pronounced in the white southern church.

Surely you do see that racial segregation – even if it is voluntary – is one a completely different plane than matters of dress and style. God initiated reconciliation with us. He could have just left us alone to see how things played out, but he didn’t. He initiated reconciliation at the very expense of his own humiliation in the coming of Christ and his ignoble death on a Roman cross. Do we not also have a positive obligation to initiate reconciliation with our brothers and sisters in Christ who we’ve lived largely estranged from for the majority of our country’s history? I believe we do.

paul,

i said that i wished that blacks and whites would go to the same church…down here….right now. but, they dont. some of it is probably racists thinking. other parts of the reason is probably cultural. if its racists thinking, then it is wrong…sinful. if its just cultural…then it’s not sinful. it’s just the different way we do things, and what we prefer. i really dont see that as being wrong, but i wish that we could see beyond minor cultural differences and stay together. this could also be applied to the young and old thing as well.

but paul, homosexuality is just plain sinful. so, the methodists and any one else can say that it’s just the way it is, and they’d be wrong…dead wrong. it’s not cultural…its sinful.

the color of ones skin is another matter altogether, of course.

but, this post is not about the color of ones skin. it’s about the sbc sliding down the slippery slope of liberalism like the methodists did. and, anyone can slide down that slope whether they’re lily white or black as midnite. and, i was responding to the ones who were getting after scott and dr. caner for something that they didnt say. again, i refer to comment #55.

david

i know that this has nothing to do with this post. but, i was watching wheel of fortune tonight. and, i declare that wes favors pat sajak. they even have many mannerisms the same as well. it was as if i was watching wes kenney on tv tonite.

i wish that some of you at sbctoday would put a picture of pat sajak beside a picture of wes kenney, and let every one decide if wes could pass as pat sajak.

david

Fox,

Of course there will be diversity in the new earth, but I haven’t said anything about diversity. What I’m trying to be clear about (and perhaps I’m failing) is segregation, not diversity. There’s nothing wrong with differences and I suppose that in some cases (where there is a language barrier) segregation may be necessary. However, the American south does not suffer from a language barrier between blacks and whites.

Second, if the primary, secondary or tertiary question that we ask ourselves about worship is, “Do I like it?” or “Is it to my taste or preference?” then we are simply asking the wrong questions about worship. Sometimes I wonder if, during our worship according to our cultural preferences, God isn’t somewhere saying, “I thought they came to worship me.”

I’ve had people in our church tell me that they didn’t like a particular song or kind of music and my response is usually to tell them, “We’re not singing to you.” If it honors God and my only real issue is that it isn’t my “style” then there is a problem and it is with me.

I think we are so absorbed by our consumer culture that we don’t realize how deeply it affects this very issue.