A Resolution on Doctrine
Posted byThe series of three posts on Baptists distinctives that John Mann contributed were the product of research he did in the preparation of a resolution on doctrine, which he has submitted to the Resolutions Committee for their consideration in Indianapolis. Here is the text of his resolution:
WHEREAS the Great Commission instructs Christians to make disciples by teaching the commands of Christ; and
WHEREAS Scripture teaches that as the saints are equipped, they will, “no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine,” (Ephesians 4:12, 14); and
WHEREAS Scripture commands us to, “instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,” (1st Timothy 1:3); and
WHEREAS Baptist are historically a people that have been unified around common doctrinal distinctives and convictions; and
WHEREAS the Introduction of the Baptist Faith and Message states, “Baptist are a people of deep beliefs and cherished doctrines,” and
WHEREAS being a witness demands a clear understanding of Whom we witness about, and who we witness to; and
WHEREAS we have observed a compromise of doctrinal distinctives in recent days in various other denominations by sacrificing clear, scriptural principles upon the altar of cultural acceptance for the purpose of a unified ecumenism, which has neither been unifying nor healthy; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that we, the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana on June 10-11, 2008 affirm that our mission of reaching the world for Christ must be defined and determined by our doctrine of Christ; and be it further
RESOLVED, that our understanding of Christ must inform our witness to Christ; and be it further
RESOLVED, that we repudiate any attempt to teach about God that which is contradictory to clear Scriptural revelation; and be it further
RESOLVED, that, although there are various doctrines open to differing interpretations, there are certain doctrines that cannot be compromised for the purpose of establishing a New Testament church and a unified Convention; and be it finally
RESOLVED, that we encourage all pastors, church members, and churches, to pursue proper doctrinal understanding through teaching and preaching for the purpose of continuing to educate believers in an attempt to edify and equip Southern Baptists to engage the world in conversation about Christ in an evangelistic effort.
102 Comments
May 18th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
So, out of curiosity, who gets to decide on which “certain doctrines that cannot be compromised for the purpose of establishing a New Testament church and a unified Convention” are the ones that matter and the ones that don’t?
While the resolution sounds well-meaning, what will it really accomplish? To me, it just sound like another resolution for the sake of a resolution.
(No offense at all intended; I’m just making an observation, not an attack, REALLY!)
May 18th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Rick,
The reason the resolution is being offered is to remind ourselves that we are primarily a doctrinal people. That is not to say that there is no room for disagreement, but it is an encouragement for what I believe is a needed revival of thinking doctrinally instead of pragmatically.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Historically the SBC is primarily a missions people.
Your resolution is not needed since we have a Baptist Faith and Message.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Brother John,
I do like your emphasis on doctrine. That truly is the best method…”teaching right doctrine” ..for the best health of the believers that make up the church.
Blessings,
Chris
May 18th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Rick
Please clarify what you mean by Baptists primarily being a missions people. The reason I ask is that people first gathered under the name Baptist in the early 1600’s, but the were not known as a people of missions until Carey and Fuller formed the first misssionary association nearly 200 years later. Baptists have been a people primarily of beliefs that moved them to witness an later take missions accross the world. Doctrine came first, then the doctrine moved Baptists to engage in missions.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Rick
One other thing. Even though I was not around during the CR, I have heard that the liberals used your same argumentation back in the CR days. Mind you, I am not saying you are one, only that your argument is and that it has no historical basis for its validity.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Robin,
I said the SBC not Baptists.
History bears witness to the mission emphasis of the Tri-annual convention. Does the name Luther Rice ring a bell?
And by your revisionist comments about the CR does indeed demonstrate that you were not around. To clarify, the moderates said “if there is not a tolerance for varying opinions the CP would suffer.”
One last thing, I was taught that the purpose the SBC was formed and exist is to cooperate with other churches in global missions and evangelism. Well, at least that’s how the late Dr. T.A. Patterson understood it.
Again, the resolution should not see the light of day since we have the BF&M.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Rick
I will concede, the SBC was formed to do missions, but two things I must point out. First, we are Baptists (the middle initial of SBC), hence my comment above. Second, the drive to do missions came from the doctrinal understanding that we as a people of Baptist heritage are to reach the world for Christ.
Finally, whether my comments on the CR are a revision, I will let others argue. But John’s post points to the fact that anything we do must begin with biblical doctrines or else we will fall off the trail on which we are to be.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Robin,
We already began with doctrine in the BF&M so John’s point is mute unless one considers the BF&M as non-biblical.
Again, the resolution is pointless.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Rick
I would honestly agree with you except for the fact that we appoint trustees who can not fully affirm the BF&M in its entirety without caveats. Therefore the resolution is needed.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Rick
Thanks for the interaction. I will catch up with you tomorrow.
Good Night.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Robin,
A few caveats maketh no need for a resolution.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Robin,
Does the resolution say that you can’t have caveats to the BFM? I really don’t know what this resolution accomplishes. It seems to be getting at something but it does not come out and say it. We are a doctrinal people. Fine. Who would disagree with that? If they do, how does this say anything to cause them to change? John’s posts were getting at something, but this resolution seems to dance all around it and only the Baptist Identity people will really know what he intends. You guys said that is what happened with the Garner Motion last year and now you put forward a vague resolution that can be interpreted any number of ways based on your presuppositions. Again, I am not really disagreeing with the substance, but you would only really know what John was getting at if you read his previous 3 posts and we won’t be voting on those at the SBC just like it was said that we didn’t vote on Morris Chapman’s speech. It seems that you are trying to slip something in here. I would call you to have the courage to say what you really intend and let the SBC vote on THAT.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:13 am
This is a worthy restatement of what every Bible-believing Christian in the world would say (changing denomination labels).
As such it is meaningless as a resolution at our Convention. It would be quite something in more mixed denominations but in our context it is like a resolution at a Republican Convention stating ‘we repudiate the Democrats’.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:08 am
this one will surely put the boogie man to flight and make many feel satisfied that something was really accomplished by the passing of it.
this resolution amounts to nothing, it has no teeth, is not specific…with a few tweaks a Jehovah’s Witness would agree with it.
so therefore…what’s the point in even presenting it? who will stand against it? what is there to stand against?
sorry…but I just don’t get the point (other than it’s a direct shot at the boogie man who is out there).
May 19th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Brothers Rick, Alan, Alex, and IF,
You are entitled to your assessment, and you are also entitled to be wrong!
Whether the resolution says anything or not we can argue until the cows come home. The resolution is one that is being presented, based on the three articles he has presented here already. Thus, let the resolutions committee sort out. It may be that this resolution is the item needed to strengthen a resolution that is weak on doctrinal accountability.
The issue for me is the well researched presentation that Brother John has presented to us in the three part series. The resolution is a product of that research.
Blessings,
Tim
May 19th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Based on this resolution you have just eliminated Rob Bell, Paula White, Joel Osteen, and many other TBN preachers from ever preaching at the SBC pastors Conference!
Hope you are happy.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:45 am
I believe the purpose of the resolution is found by looking at the last “whereas” in the resolution, just before the first “resolved.” Resolutions tend to lead up to the last “whereas.” The last whereas in this resolution is:
“Whereas, we have observed a compromise of doctrinal distinctives in recent days in various other denominations by sacrificing clear, scriptural principles upon the altar of cultural acceptance for the purpose of a unified ecumenism, which has neither been unifying nor healthy.”
The question is what is being talked about, since what we generally think of as the ecumenical movement hasn’t been doing much in recent decades. The reference is probably to so called “evangelical ecumenism.”
But hey, what came before this sounded good.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Rick, Alan, Alex, and IF,
Resolutions are sometimes reactionary and sometimes preventitive. This particular resolutions is largely preventitive. That is it is addressing what I [and others] believe is a growing trend. Some would say that it does not matter what you believe, just cooperate and give and we will accept you. The action that this resolution calls for is for churches and pastors to make an intentional effort to teach doctrine to their people. It is one thing to have the BFM available, it is another to teach its contents. I am simply asking churches and pastors to teach what our Baptist doctrine is.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:03 am
What on earth will this resolution accomplish?
The problem is that it promotes sound doctrine as a generic, non-specific concept. But, what doctrines does it reference?
Are we talking about the Trinity?
Or is it about Baptism as it is defined by some today?
Are we referencing inerrancy? Or Baptist identity?
This vague resolution will accomplish absolutely nothing of any value.
Therefore, it will almost certainly pass.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Rick
A few guidelines maketh no need for a motion.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:09 am
John, please name one person in the current SBC who says, “It doesn’t matter what you believe, just cooperate and give and we will accept you.”
If you don’t want to name this fictitious person publicly, I will give you my email and keep the name confidential. If you can provide me the name of any SBC pastor who has said “It doesn’t matter what you believe,” I will cheer for the Boston Red Sox the rest of this season.
Some have said, “Private Prayer Language” doesn’t matter (me). Others have argued against over-narrowing of doctrinal parameters beyond what is essential to Baptist fellowship.
Please, to whom do you refer?
May 19th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Hmmm. My anti-spam word was “gentleness”. I peached on “meekness” last night. I have, therefore, tempered my response.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wake me for the vote.
How about a followup resolution to urge all in the SBC to stop arguing over who preaches Christ better and get off the bench and actually SHARE Christ with someone. I agree with the doctrinal affirmation but we will be spending time and energy arguing about something rather than doing something like, I don’t know, fulfilling Acts 1:8.
I’m going to work now.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Chuck, write it up and I will vote for it.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Brother Chuck,
I understand your frustration but as several have pointed out, lots of people share Christ, but they share the wrong Christ, they share a Christ that will please men into hell rather than the Christ who propitiated the wrath of God on their behalf.
This is the purpose of this resolution, I believe. The problem lies in what many have stated that there is no doctrine in this resolution. Perhaps this should be pitched as an extension of the Garner Resolution which makes the BFM (while not very specific at all) sort of a doctrinal statement that churchs MUST affirm in order to associate with the association? (note this was framed as a question)
If there are no teeth present in this resolution, I must agree with many above who have stated that it is truly a useless resolution.
Grace and Peace to y’all…
ABClay
May 19th, 2008 at 9:04 am
brother John,
you said: “Some would say that it does not matter what you believe, just cooperate and give and we will accept you.”
who?
when?
where?
in all respect (sincerely) THIS is what I feel like I keep repeating myself about. I have NEVER heard ANY Southern Baptist say anything like that at all…ever…ever…ever.
we need to do as the Apostle told us to do…to “mark” out heretics…name names…be bold…but I am tired of being asked to make war with the boogie man who is out there some where. I’m as theologically (and politically for the record) conservative as it can get so I’m with any well meaning conservative who will stand guard, let’s take on the true heretics and compromisers who would pervert the glorious gospel…crying wolf over and over is so counter productive and that is why I am so frustrated. One of these days the people in our care will no longer take our urgent warnings seriously I fear.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Though my comment is hardly original, this resolution seems to be addressing an issue without really addressing the issue. I think we should have learned something from the Garner motion: let’s make the resolution clear so there can be no doubt as to what it means.
The resolution actually raises more questions that it resolves. What does “there are certain doctrines that cannot be compromised for the purpose of establishing a New Testament church and a unified Convention” really mean? What are those doctrines? Who gets to define them? Every religious person on the planet would agree in principle to that statement, so then, does the statement really say anything?
May 19th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Brother John Mann,
I believe if anyone reads your resolutions ….you have actually led us to resolve things that are obvious but have been absent from our collective SBC for sometime now.
You say that our doctrine should be “informed by Christ”. I agree….The SBC has not focused near enough on doctrine to reveal Christ as our utmost and our highest. For the most part the churches have been involved in playing pragmatic games. Many churches are more concerned with what percentage was sent to the CP.
You say “our understanding of Christ must inform our witness to Christ. I agree…the lack of understanding of who Christ is by His word has left churches only seeking the law and rarely preaching the gospel, therefore the congregation is starving for the gospel and the sweetness of Christ.
You say we should stand against those that teach false doctrine, or another Christ. I agree….there are many SBC churches and churches throughout the world that have comprised Christ and have compromised God’s clear doctrines in scripture. Some pastors could care less about doctrine as long as their checks still arrive each week.
You say “certain doctrines cannot be compromised for the establishment of the New Testament church”. I agree….there are Baptists that have little or no clue what constitutes the church. They need to understand Ephesians 2 and how God has called a people to Himself. I can guarantee that there a very, very few in the congregation that could answer the question “What is a church?”. We must be clear and teach these things.
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.
You say “we should encourage” each other in these things. I agree…..there is a tremendous “lack” of cooperation with sister churches within the same cities and towns. They resolute dislike each other. Playing games,…of our church is better than your church. We should be able to encourage each other by God’s word, His doctrine…and unity with begin to be seen and cooperation will return. As for now…the churches are proving their depth of doctrinal understanding by the lack of cooperation.
Thank you for your words of encouragement. To some it seems vague and broad and not worth thinking about…..but you have actually said a lot. We are living in an SBC culture that does not want or like doctrine. May God change our hearts and may God get the attention of Pastors that don’t care.
Blessings,
Chris
May 19th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Robin,
lol
rick
May 19th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Rick
Thanks for taking my comment in the spirit it was intended. I hope to meet you in Indy.
Robin
May 19th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Chuck Bryce (ref. #23),
I will grant you that the blogging format is imperfect. But consider that there is something like 5 people running for SBC president this year. The SBC rank and file has been informed and empowered to have a voice in the SBC’s direction and future like never before, and consider this change in the status quo to be mostly due to blogging. The votes in Indy will be quite interesting this year.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am
BTW, the “Rick” posting and “Rick Boyne” (comment #1) is not the same person.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Rick B.
I believe the other Rick is Rick Garner. Hence my quip of what I hoped would be humorous about motions.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am
are not…is not…be not…not be….
You get the idea.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Ricks,
From dictionary.com
2. a stack of cordwood or logs cut to even lengths.
3. a frame of horizontal bars and vertical supports, as used to hold barrels in a distillery, boxes in a warehouse, etc.
One of you can be a stack of wood and the other one can hold the whiskey! That way we should be able to tell you apart very easily!
May 19th, 2008 at 11:06 am
IMHO, All resolutions are meaningless since they cannot be enforced. It is a waste of the convention time.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Jeff T,
I have seen people refer back to the resolutions made at SBC’s in order to get motions passed, and I’ve seen people refer back to resolutions to back up their requests, or to initiate policy in a SBC entity. Also, the power of influence shouldnt be overlooked. Resolutions get out into Baptist media and even into secular media, and then it makes people at least think about those issues. And, one day, in the distant future, some historians…like Bart Barber…will bring up those resolutions that we make in Indy in 2008 to show what was important to those SB’s back then. And, it could make them consider some things for their day and age…our resolutions could even influence the future.
Dont you think?
Or, in the least, making a resolution gives many people the opportunity to get on the jumbo screen in the convention hall so that we can all see their pretty face!
David
May 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I don’t think resolutions are pointless. I think the creators of this one have a very specific purpose in mind and that they are gaining quite a following as they have had for many years now. Two things to point out here:
One, the first ‘whereas’ is incorrect. We are to make disciples by teaching them to OBEY all Christ commands. This little four letter word has been omitted for many many years to the spiritual death of too many. By leaving out the word ‘obey’ you get a religion of knowledge. There used to be a group that believed that it was all down to what you knew- and they knew more than you did! The gnostics have never died out and we must yet watch out for them. They eat continually from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and they bring the law and death. If we know our Lord we will obey him and then the emphasis moves from knowledge about Jesus to doing what he said. This leads us to mission which is what we used to be about. Many- Robin, I think has said it all too clearly- want us to base our relationships on knowledge but we must focus on obedience, which means mission instead. It was no coincidence that the CR which restored our understanding of biblical inerrency was followed by an unprecedented number of ministers failing morally. We know, but we do not do. We must emphasis the mission again.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
brother Volfan,
I agree with you…that’s why this type of resolution is to some degree bothersome…what are we saying to future SB’s about our day with such a resolution (and others in the past 5-10 years)?
seems like they might look back at the resolutions being passed, recognizing this as the time of simultaneously dwindling cultural influence of the SBC…and not be altogether confused as to “what happened”.
keeping ourselves occupied by (almost at times paranoid) huffing and puffing against the boogie men instead of suffering the pains of dealing with actual missions and cultural context issues is what seems to be going on in our day to a very great extent.
Nobody gets hurt (in the short term) when all we conservatives battle armies of lurking boogie men…such battles can bring great comfort to us conservatives because they bring camaraderie and a sense of accomplishment in the short run. In the long run nothing much is accomplished and the world keeps right on marching past us with little missional engagement (other than occasional “confrontations” with secularism).
So again…who and where are these pervasive liberals in our midst who will accept any belief so long as we “cooperate” and all give money? Where are they? I’ll take aim immediately…where are they so I can shoot! I’m serious…God as my witness…I’ll tear right after them and not stop crusading till each one either repents or is run out of the SBC. Liberalism is NOT Christianity and I will not cooperate with ANY theological liberal…
Where are they?
May 19th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
In 1971 a resolution supporting abortion as an individual’s right was passed at the SBC in St Louis.
In 1973 abortion became legal in the United States.
Some say the 1971 resolution had no effect. I believe it did.
Of course, some say Baptists had nothing to do with the election of Ronald Reagan.
Resolutions have no effect? “Naw” None whatsoever.
cb
May 19th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
CB,
David
PS. What a shame for us to look back on that resolution in 1971. Does someone want to talk about the need to repent on this one?
May 19th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I see no answer to #26. I had the same question. The statement John Mann gave ” Some would say that it does not matter what you believe, just cooperate” is certainly not my personal belief. In fact it’s far from it. I just had the same questions that ifox had and was wondering the answer.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
CB: That is my other problem with the direction we have been going. I do believe we should as Christians be involved in politics and also believe that the SBC was wrong to pass this in 1979, but it seems secular politics is something we are just too deep into. We are leaving our first love. The gospel is what will change hearts. Man can change on the outside and still be going to hell. That should be our first priority.
Have abortions numbers gone down over the past 20 years? I don’t have the figures but would be curious to know if the yelling and fighting with abortionists(while I do believe we should make our stand known, just not in a war like mode)working?
May 19th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I’m sorry for the typo, that should be 1971, not 1979.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I shouldn’t press the submit button so fast, I keep thinking of questions. I would also have the same question Ricky Boyne posed, and I hope that I am reading his question correctly in that what specific doctrines are we talking about. If it is inerrancy, the virgin birth, the same doctrines as were a problem in the CR, I don’t see anyone in the SBC who would deny those doctrines. I embrace them fully and they are written on my heart, so I would think there are specific doctrines in mind. In the interest of disclosure could some be addressed?
I just learned in my years as a secretary for a lawyer to never sign anything or vote for anything I don’t totally know what I am voting or signing on.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Debbie,
Only my mom and my grandma are allowed to call me “Ricky”
I haven’t seen anyone answer the question I posed in comment #1.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Debbie,
All I know is that some children, I personally, know are here today between 3mos. to 29 years old because someone preached, yelled, screamed, wrote, begged, pleaded, sweated, cried tears and blew snot fighting abortion.
You believe whatever you want to believe, but resolutions have effect and fighting abortion within the parameters of Christian conduct is the right thing to do.
We are to be faithful. The consequences of our faithfulness is in the hands of God. Therefore the only numbers I am concerned with at the moment are the ones who represent living people I know whose mother decided to not abort their babies.
BTW, before you ask me about violence toward abortionists let me say; The man who set off a nail bomb at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, 1.29.1998 should have been executed for murder.
cb
May 19th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
brother Rick…
the answer to question #1 is:
“Top Men…”
May 19th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
David,
Now THAT’s funny!
(and timely! )
May 19th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Rick Boyne: Sorry, do you want the truth? I was listening to “I Love Lucy” at the time I posted this.
Honest. I hope those who have authored this resolution know that we are both honestly asking a question, honestly desiring an answer.
CB: But how does the Bible(which is to be our final authority right?) tell us to stand for these things. Is it to be a top priority over the gospel? God works from the inside out, we think it should be the opposite. I am against abortion. I have talked women out of getting an abortion or for mothers who wish their daughters to get them. One on one. I have voted for those who are anti-abortion. The Convention has however gotten into bed with those that we otherwise would not, who some would be fighting against(that would include me) in any other Southern Baptist Arena. We yell and scream at those that we should be giving the gospel to. I have a problem with taking a warrior stance against culture. Stand against it, yes, but we are fighting each other at the moment, and I think we had better settle this internal war before thinking God will sanction a war against culture. I say this having looked for answers in scripture the past month or so.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
david: I typed my comment before yours was posted. That is funny.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Debbie and Irev Fox [#26]
Your questions miss the whole point of the resolution. It is not calling for the establishment of theological paramters, it is only encouraging churches to teach theology. I am not sure how much clearer it can be communicated.
In regards to the repeated requests to name names, I will continue to decline. First, I do not consider the problem to be “apostate” which is the real reason Paul pointed fingers and named names. Rather, it is that some are misled. I will not publish their names for at least one reason, I am more interested in maintaining my integrity than I am in satisfying someone elses bloodlust.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
brother Mann,
I quoted your own words sir and asked you to defend them…I suppose you can not.
So in your opinion one who “…would say that it does not matter what you believe, just cooperate and give and we will accept you.” is not an Apostate?
ok…well we disagree there…that would sum up a good definition what an Apostate is according to my best understanding.
I really am not trying to win a debate…I believe my heart is sincere in asking you to defend your own words and give examples because, like you, I will never tire in ridding the SBC of such (in my opinion, Apostate) influences
May 19th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
John Mann: The reason I ask is that I agree with you in the context that systematic theology should be taught. The Bible in all it’s fullness should be the focal point of our churches. It is also a fact that there are many in the Southern Baptist churches Biblically deficient, I would disagree with you if by theology you were meaning, not just those listed in the BFM but those which would also disagree with the whole of Baptist Identity theology.
I ask for names or even particular situations because I am having a hard time believing that such things are now taking place. I also wonder if it is not a mischaracterization of what I believe, to use a specific person. If those examples were not in the resolution, you would not have to endure my questions. But you have, and I as a voting messenger, am asking for clarification before I vote for or against the resolution. I do not believe this to be out of line.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
That should be, but they are and I as a voting messenger, am asking for clarification before I vote for or against the resolution. I do not believe this to be out of line.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Irreverend Fox,
Thank you for your commitment to rid the SBC of Apostates. I will stand beside you in that endeavor. May God give us grace to fight the good fight.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Debbie,
Do these things have to actually be taking place for us to address them? Reference my comment #19. Whether you believe it is happening or not [I do] are these things not worthy to be addressed? And for the record, I feel no obligation to “endure your questions,” though I have patiently done so. In the final tally, should the Resolution Committee see fit to bring the resolution forward, you may cast your ‘No’ vote should you desire and it will be counted.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
wow
May 19th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
John,
“Do these things have to actually be taking place for us to address them?”
Now there’s paranoia.
To quote the other Rick: “WOW”!
May 19th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Rick, If you will notice, I said I believe these things are taking place.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Rick, Rick, Irreverend Fox, and Debbie,
The thrust of the resolution is,
“RESOLVED, that we encourage all pastors, church members, and churches, to pursue proper doctrinal understanding through teaching and preaching for the purpose of continuing to educate believers in an attempt to edify and equip Southern Baptists to engage the world in conversation about Christ in an evangelistic effort.”
Please, with all due respect, there is no need to try to find ill-motives behind a very clear resolutions.
1). If you are opposed to churches teaching doctrine, you are more than welcome to cast your vote as such.
2). If you are unable to understand what some of the words mean, I will patiently help you.
3). If you are trying to involve me in a “tit for tat” to create confusion, I am not interested, and will therefore ignore you.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Brother John,
I am trying to follow this comment stream, but duties called me to leave and I cannot for the life of me figure out the names that you are being asked to name. Are you being asked to name names of those who choose the interpretation of the doctrines, or those who are saying that ‘all we need to do is missions and doctrine does not matter’?
Blessings,
Tim
May 19th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
John,
I am not your adversary. I do not appreciate the tone of your comment addressed to me.
I am simply reasserting the question from the very first post of which I will cut and past below:
“who gets to decide on which “certain doctrines that cannot be compromised for the purpose of establishing a New Testament church and a unified Convention” are the ones that matter and the ones that don’t?”
I was the first one to comment. Mine was a serious and real question. I made it clear from my comment on the resolution that it wasn’t an attack but an observation. I am NOT playing politics here. I simply made a comment and asked a question.
My comment “wow” above wasn’t about names or paranoia or anything of the sort. It was directed at the tone of your answer to Debbie Kaufman. To me, it sounded harsh and reactionary, as if you had been offended personally.
If you feel their questions are out of line and don’t want to answer them, that is fine by me. But don’t lump me into an “antagonist category”. All my motivations are as clear as the nose on my face. (and it is a rather large nose with an unsightly red sore right on the end of it today)
Just call me Rick “Rudolph” Boyne
May 19th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Tim,
Both. The thing that is so disconcerting to me is that one prominent blogger, whom most of these detractors supported, wrote many blogs on how we should deal with ideas and not personalities. I have written these posts that have been focused on ideaologies, and these same ones continue to try to get me to name names. I am not sure why they have sought to change the rules, but I am quite content with what I have written. Perhaps they have broken company with that particular blogger and no longer support him?
May 19th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
My goal is not to involve a tit for tat, but for clarification purposes only. I would think that you would graciously endure my questions as my vote might mean something to you. I would hope anyway.
I will not vote for a resolution that has as it’s underlying meaning, same doctrine in all areas for all. That is not what makes up Southern Baptists, regardless of what history one would choose to pull up. Our history is as immeshed as American history with it’s immigrants while still maintaining Biblical integrity. I would not have been suspicious of the resolution at all had the examples you gave and admit are happening were not in the resolution. They are. I believe the examples to be a distortion, and I am not saying that this is not how you or others perceive it to be, but speaking as one who believes differently from the Baptist identity group in areas not pertaining to the “fundmanentals of the faith”, I am concerned and wonder why the BFM is not enough.
I am attempting to be fair and honest in my questions and would hope that if this resolution is all that you say, you will willingly and graciously answer. I also am wondering about the insertion of no caveats with the BFM. If you want to say this is tit for tat, then you are free not to answer, but by not answering my suspicion grows and I do not want that to be the case. I would love to agree with you and vote for something from the Baptist Identity group, so far I have not been able to.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Rick Boyne,
I apologize if my tone was harsh. But you must direct your question to someone else because I am not sure who has said anything related to your question.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
John Mann: I have told my purpose in you naming names or even in relaying specific scenarios with proofs. I am puzzled as to why this has not been complied with. It’s one thing to say things such as you have relayed in your resolution are occurring, it’s another to prove it.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Bro. Mann,
Please speak slowly and use small wordss so this Redneck can understand.
If I am understanding you correctly your second “Resolved” focuses specifically on our understanding of Christ. Your third “Resolved” says we should repudiate any attempt to teach about God that which is contradictory to Scripture. The context would seem to indicate the suggestion that there are those specifically teaching things about Christ that are contrary to Scripture. The fourth “Resolved” refers to certain Doctrines which “cannot be compromised…”
I wandered over to SBC.net and copied this from the BFM 2000, Article II B.
Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. Jesus perfectly revealed and did the will of God, taking upon Himself human nature with its demands and necessities and identifying Himself completely with mankind yet without sin. He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin. He was raised from the dead with a glorified body and appeared to His disciples as the person who was with them before His crucifixion. He ascended into heaven and is now exalted at the right hand of God where He is the One Mediator, fully God, fully man, in whose Person is effected the reconciliation between God and man. He will return in power and glory to judge the world and to consummate His redemptive mission. He now dwells in all believers as the living and ever present Lord.
My question: Is there anything not spoken of in the BFM 2000 that you would consider contradictory to clear Scriptural revelation and/or something that cannot be compromised? I am asking abot specific false teachings. What are they? (Not who dunnit!)
If I am going to raise my card fer’ or again’ the resolution in Indy I need to know a little more.
I have not seen anything above that details this but if I am asking something that has already been well covered in the above posts please accept my apology.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
John,
You did:
61. John Mann Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Rick, Rick, Irreverend Fox, and Debbie,
Can I not assume that I am at least ONE of these “Rick”s?
So, what about my original question?
May 19th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Debbie,
I am not sure what you mean by your comment about caveats in the BFM, as I do not remember saying such a thing. I do accept the BFM as a minimal document, and again, that has nothing to do with my resolution.
It is clear for all to rationally see that I am encouraging pastors and churches to teach doctrine. I am not sure why you are opposed to the teaching of doctrine.
If you will go back and read my bio that begun the 3 posts, you will see that theological and exegetical preaching is my heart. I am only advocating the teaching of doctrine over pragmatism. One can “accept” the BFM and other doctrinal statements and never teach them, just like a church can hang the 10 commandments on the wall and never teach them.
As for your continued quest to get me to name names -with all of the respect, compassion, and gentleness within me- No.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Rick Boyne,
Please forgive my ignorance, but I do not understand #69?
May 19th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Number 69 refers to your comment number 61.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
bloginafog,
I agree wholeheartedly with the BFM 2000. (Did I say something to call to that into question? If so, it was totally unintentional). If I could sum up the resolution in one sentence it would be, “I encourage the pastors and teachers to teach lay people doctrine so they are able to withstand the false doctrines that are prevalent within our world.” I am not sure why that is such a controversial idea.
The basis of my concerns are in post #3 where I have listed 5 concerns including therapeutic preaching instead of redemptive preaching, etc.
I would encourage you to read all 3 posts if you have not yet done so. There have been some commenters that have confused the issue, and due to my own inadequecies, I have been unable to explain it clearly. I think the posts will stand on their own.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Look, John,
I wasn’t wanting this to be a big deal. I simply asked a question in comment number one.
Let everything else go. Are you able to answer my question? If not, that is fine. I’ll let it go, too.
It wasn’t supposed to be controversial or difficult; I’m rarely that kind of guy. I had a real question that I think you, as the author of the resolution, would be in a good position to answer my question.
Thanks,
Rick Boyne
May 19th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
John Mann,
You created a rather specific context with your previous three posts. This resolution is a direct result of those posts. When you are asked for clarification as to your purpose here, you act innocent and say that you are only writing a resolution to encourage the teaching of doctrine. You have been challenged throughout your posts as to who the focus of your ire has been and you refuse to name names or give examples. It seems to those who are able to pay attention that you have set your sights on those of the so-called “Reform” movement, yet you provide no examples and you continue to paint with a broad brush. You are just telling us that there is danger out there. At every turn, you refuse to clarify your intentions or your goals, yet all of the authors of this blog cheer you on. What gives? If you have something to say, then say it and be prepared to defend your assertions.
If you are just trying to promote the teaching of theology with the Bible and BFM as a basis, then we will all agree with you. But, it seems that you are saying more than that considering your previous three posts. It seems that you have the Baptist Identity doctrine in mind, which is still rather undefined. Either you really don’t understand the context you created and the venue in which you are writing (and you are just encouraging doctrinal teaching) or you know exactly what you are doing and you are being disingenous. Which is it?
All of those who are questioning you are Baptists with strong convictions. We just don’t drink from the BI well and it seems that you are trying to lead us there through this resolution if you take into account your previous three posts. Consider the context you created and you will understand better the questions.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Rick Boyne,
I apologize, but I still do not follow, yet I will take a stab. I cannot answer your original question in comment #1 because I am not advocating, “[someone] who gets to decide on which “certain doctrines that cannot be compromised for the purpose of establishing a New Testament church and a unified Convention”
As far as what this resolution will accomplish, I hope it will be an encouragement to fellow pastors to be intentionally doctrinal in their preaching and teaching. If that does not help, I will try again.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Alan,
If all SBC pastors would be theological and doctrinal in their preaching and teaching, the creeping ecumenism of which I have referenced would be largely held at bay. If you [or your pastor] is, good for him. But, given app. 40,000 (?) churches, would we venture a guess as to how many of those purposefully pursue proper doctrine? Directly from my post, (and paraphrased in my last resolved) I believe pastors ought to be the theologians to their churches.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
John,
With that last statement, I can absolutely agree.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
John,
Thanks.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Brother John,
First, It seems that no one has ever advocated any ONE person to define what Southern Baptist believe, thus I do not understand the purpose of the question.
Second, it seems that we see all of the time a mindset of ‘I do not care what you believe as long as we cooperate to do missions’. Anyone who reads the Evangelical Manifesto can see that red herring floating.
Blessings,
Tim
May 19th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
So what, exactly, is “creeping ecumenism?” I need an actual definition.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Tim,
I read the Evangelical Manifesto, and did not see that red herring floating.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Brother David,
Re-read the resolution, then read the Evangelical Manifesto, then I believe you will see the red herring of ‘I do not care what you believe, let’s just get along’.
Blessings,
Tim
May 19th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
John,
I am curious to hear your thoughts on the following scenerio:
Last year, Tom Ascol’s resolution on regenerate church membership and honest reporting of membership numbers was rejected by the Committee on Resolutions, in part, because the Committee felt it was ‘telling’ the churches what to do. Their response was “Churches are autonomous and the SBC has no authority to tell the churches what to do.” How do you feel your resolution will stand up to the same scrutiny, for your resolution does precisely the same thing Ascol’s resolution was accused of doing?
May 19th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Geoff,
I believe I have defined it as well as I am able in the posts. Ecumenism is an attempt to find the lowest common doctrinal denominator for the sake of unity. I think ‘creeping’ is self-explanatory.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
James,
I am not aware of all of the particulars surrounding Dr. Ascol’s resolution, and therefore I must decline to comment in regards to it. I have endorsed the one being submitted by Drs. Yarnell and Barber since it was originally submitted to my own state convention, of which I was a member of the resolutions committee last year. I, however, believe mine is one of encouragement as opposed to being instructive.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Brother Mann,
You asked in #77: If all SBC pastors would be theological and doctrinal in their preaching and teaching, the creeping ecumenism of which I have referenced would be largely held at bay.
I think the problem is that you need to define what theological and doctrinal standards are acceptable in a “New Testament” church.
An example: I know several pastors who will proclaim all day long that they are theologically sound and doctrinally pure, but week after week without failure what we see from the pulpit is topical preaching on what ever works to fill the pews and make people feel good about their sin. What SBC pastor will ever admit that he is not “theological” or “doctrinal”?
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
May 20th, 2008 at 12:45 am
ABC,
I believe your last paragraph and sentence make John’s point quite well…thus the need for this resolution.
Sola Gratia (& Sola Fide…& Solus Christus..& Sola Scriptura…& Soli Deo Gloria)!
May 20th, 2008 at 6:38 am
“In the year 2525 if man is still alive, if woman can survive, they may find…….”
Blogustian, the famous blog historian has just published his new book entitled: BAPTIST BLOGTOWN: 2005-2019. Here is a line from page 372.
“John Mann, who would later become president of POLAR CAP BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,
posted a resolution on SBC TODAY May 19, 2008. It was hotly debated back and forth until Scott Gordon, who would later teach Latin at PCBTS, made comment number 88 in the comment thread wherein he said; “ABC, I believe your last paragraph and sentence make John’s point quite well…thus the need for this resolution.”
At that point all of Blogtown became silent realizing the profound truth of that comment. Later only the most radical from Nut&Flake Land would venture forth a barb against the obvious need for Mann’s resolution to be presented and pass at the 2008 SBC meeting in the now ancient city of Indianapolis. The resolution did pass by a great majority vote. That vote revived the CR which went forth and is now known in history as the single greatest period in SBC life.(1979-2000)
Strangely, Indianapolis fell in 2019 when the SABANATION went north defeating all football nations, winning what would come to be known as the world’s most perfect reign as National Champions after destroying all the SEC and ACC. (The destruction was terrible, especially against Tennessee and North Carolina and Notre Dame. All the Texas nation surrendered without a game being played due to all Texans being sissies anyway) In doing so the SABANATION became the capitol of football nations and Baptists for three centuries.
And the rest is history.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Brother cb,
The “SabaN’s” might want to focus on the IRON Bowl before they head north.
Blessings,
Chris
May 20th, 2008 at 8:45 am
CJ,
Don’t be so hard on poor ol’ CB. He appears to be in Dreamland under the influence of that ‘Bama BBQ…when it comes to his vision for the future of collegiate football. I did notice that outside of those Texans, CB had no words depicting the overthrow of the Big XII.
His Sabanite bent would be the only flaw in the vision he articulated here!
CB,
Cogito ergo sum…Vini! Vidi! Vici!
SG!
May 20th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Brother Scott,
Here’s my meager attempt …..
is (cb) dehibeo tractus salvus mox…..
Blessings,
Chris
May 20th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Chris,
You certainly have misjudged me.
I would not own one of them Italian Salvus Mox “Tractus.”
My “Tractus” is a John Deere.
cb
May 20th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
John,
I am sorry that you are unaware of the particulars of Ascol’s plight for the last two years to get his resolution out of committee. Maybe you are aware of Steve Lemke’s recent (and ill-worded) email to his faculty at NOBTS decrying that the reason Ascol’s resolution never saw the light of day was because of it’s wording. Despite those who claim the contrary, Ascol’s resolution neither instructs nor commands churches to do anything. There is language such as ‘urge’ and ‘encourage’, but there is no language that impugns the autonomy of local churches. Your resolution uses very similar wording as Ascol’s.
My question then, is, what hope do you have that your resolution will make it out of committee if it strikes of the same language as Ascol’s?
May 21st, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Brother Strider said in comment # 38:
the first ‘whereas’ is incorrect. We are to make disciples by teaching them to OBEY all Christ commands. This little four letter word has been omitted for many many years to the spiritual death of too many. By leaving out the word ‘obey’ you get a religion of knowledge.
I say, “AMEN!”
His peace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:48 am
From the Middle East, you noticed me! I figured my comment was either ignored because it was not understood or because noone wanted to understand it. Thanks for letting me know I am not invisible.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Very interesting discussion. What is the greater danger to the SBC just now, creeping ecuminicism or creeping legalism? Is it that we have too little concern about doctrine or too much concern about conformity on specific, disputable doctrinal positions? I would suggest that recent happenings in the SBC provide more evidence for the reality of the latter danger in each case than the former.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:47 am
[...] I assume that any Southern Baptists reading this post who are able will be attending the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting on June 10-11 in Indianapolis as messengers from your various congregations and will vote in favor of Tom Ascol’s Resolution on Integrity in Church Membership as well as John Mann’s Resolution on Doctrine. [...]
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:23 am
John,
I have served mostly troubled churches for the last 22 years (excluding my present place of service) so I have learned to appreciate a direct approach, over and against passive-aggressive approaches, etc. I do not suggest yours is that, but if your purpose is to encourage pastors to teach doctrine, this motion seems anything but direct. You write, “If I could sum up the resolution in one sentence it would be, ‘I encourage the pastors and teachers to teach lay people doctrine so they are able to withstand the false doctrines that are prevalent within our world’.” Seems to me it would eleminate a lot of the suspecion and uncertsintly if you worded your resolution as simply as your summary. What would be the problem with that?
John Fariss
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
I’m not sure how direct or unambiguous a resolution needs to be to have the desired effects, but I appreciate John’s work here because of that which is often encountered at the local church level, i.e. “What’s so important about doctrine?”, and in the SBC at large, where perhaps other concerns or agendas may tempt to trump doctrinal integrity. As has been said before, what’s so important about standing for the inerrancy of scripture if we can’t know what the scripture means?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
[...] The following resolution was written by John Mann and submitted to the Resolutions Committee, but only the title was given in Wednesday’s bulletin, followed by the word “declined,” so messengers never got to see or vote upon this resolution. [This is the text from SBC Today]: [...]
June 17th, 2009 at 8:12 am
[...] A Resolution on Doctrine by John Mann (May 18, 2008) [...]