Tim Rogers has given us some thoughts on bridge building in the post below. This seems to be the new buzz word for unity and it is being used by various people. This post is one he recently had on his site and has now allowed us to publish it here.
My late father would always offer me sage advice when I was growing up. Whenever I would come home telling him about a deal that was too good to be true he would respond; “If it is too good to be true, usually it is.” Or he would say, “In this world, the only thing worth having that you get for nothing is salvation.” On every occasion I would come home with various ideas and run them past him, he would always interject wisdom into my thought process. On one such occasion I was home after completing my military active duty requirement and had the availability of a GI loan through the VA. I was part of a group of five trying to figure out how to open a junk yard business. Each one, it was agreed would put up $10K and with the total $50K we would begin our own business. Neither of us knew anything about the car business or the junk business. We did not have a business plan and we certainly did not know anything about purchasing land and the restrictions that would be placed on us in the early 1980′s concerning the environment. Neither of the five of us did any research other than how we could come up with the money. I talked this over with my father and he gave some wise advice to me at that time. I can still hear his words ring through my ears as I write this article. He told me; “Tim, before you jump on a band wagon, you need to know where it is heading.” It is these words that I want to echo in this article.
In 2007 at the Union University Baptist Identity Conference, Dr. Tom Rainer delivered a paper on “Evangelism and Church Growth in the Southern Baptist Convention”. In the follow-up to this conference he wrote an article entitled On Building Bridges. His thesis was on how we as Southern Baptist needed to build bridges, I believe, to each other within the convention. I never saw where he advocated that we build bridges outside the convention. I did see two things in the article that did concern me a bit. Dr. Rainer stated there were defined groups at the conference and implied, by a personal story at the conference, that these groups did not desire to mingle or exchange ideas. I was at the conference and I went to a bloggers reception where I exchanged greetings and ideas with Brother CB Scott, Brother Ben Cole and Dr. Dwight McKissic. I left there and went to a reception in the SWBTS area and exchanged ideas with Dr. Malcolm Yarnell along with Dr. and Mrs. Paige Patterson. To be fair to Dr. Rainer, there were more than likely some that were afraid to be seen with others, but I did not get that feeling. I hung out with Brother Wes Kenney and Brother David Worley, gave a ride to the conference to Dr. Ed Stetzer, and had great dialog with Dr. Dwight McKissic. The other concern I had from the article was this statement; “But it seems as if we just can’t stop fighting even though the battle for the Bible is over and won.” I believe we would all agree that the battle for the Bible will forever be at our door. If we ever concede this battle is over, we certainly will have a bridge from Neo-Orthodoxy that leads back into the convention defined as something other than what it is.
In San Antonio we were greeted with a packet of material that contained the booklet, pictured on the left, that advocated Building Bridges. These bridges I cannot comment on as I confess I never have read the booklet. I only present this picture because it is something that some of our leaders are advancing and advanced hard at the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Rainer in his report, once again spoke about Building Bridges, but this time he referenced the foundation on which the bridge should be built. That foundation is something that we all can agree on. But, did he really need to advance the thought that we needed to build this bridge on the Bedrock of Christ? If, as he advanced in his previous articles, the battle for the Bible is over should we not presume any bridge built has as its foundation Jesus Christ? I am not questioning Dr. Rainer’s passion or his purpose. I want to be on that bridge that he desires to build. But, I believe there needs to be some reassessment from him as to his assertion that we throw caution to the wind because everyone in the SBC is a Bible Believing inerrantist. Dr. Rainer is a Godly man and each time I hear him in a presentation I am challenged and moved to seek more of God. He makes excellent presentations and does his research well. I would not be anywhere close to being able to carry his water. However, on this point of Building Bridges I believe he needs to reassess his position.
Enter the next Building Bridges stage. In November 2007 we had a Building Bridges Conference at Ridgecrest where Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and The Founders Ministry converged to make presentations concerning Calvinism within the SBC. This was a wonderful time and I enjoyed getting to meet new people and also interact with others I knew. It was at this conference that I renewed my acquaintance and began a friendship with Brother Travis Hilton. Dr. Ed Stetzer had jokingly referred to this conference as “The Revenge of the Nerds“. We had scholar after scholar making presentation after presentation. Some you could follow and some I still go back and listen to the audio, but to no avail. It seems that this conference advocated Building Bridges to the Calvinist within our convention. It was at this conference that Dr. Danny Akin introduced his new baby, The Great Commission Resurgence. Thus, if I understand this bridge that he advocates we build, thi bridge is extended to the Calvinist and it will lead us to a Great Commission Resurgence. If this is what Dr. Akin means then I am 100% on board. It was refreshing to see Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, Dr. Bart Barber, and Dr. Tom Ascoll stand shoulder to shoulder to put some teeth in Resolution #6 at this past convention. I believe we cannot begin advancing the Kingdom of God until we stop fighting among ourselves. But if he means we build bridges outside the convention to join forces for planting churches because we want to plant more churches then I believe caution and clearly defined road signs need to accompany the traversing of this bridge.
Well, now we see another Bridge that a group of Baptist want to build. In the annual Cooperative Baptist Fellowship gathering, their platform is Building Bridges. What originality. Their bridge, I do not believe, will be built on the same bedrock as the other bridges I have directed us. According to this article a presenter at this conference has questioned the very Deity of Christ. I know that CBF has a statement that they do not promote ideas the individuals presenting promotes those ideas. CBF, for some strange reason, believes they share no responsibility when a presenter presents a heretical view. Smyth & Helwys has taken the BP reporter to task because he inadvertently presumed they were the publisher of the book. Why wouldn’t he presume such? Smyth & Helwys sponsored the workshop and promoted the book during the General Assembly. Smyth & Helwys also is hosting a book-signing for Killinger at its booth in the resource fair. All of this to ask; Where is this bridge going? Will this bridge intersect within the cloverleaf of bridges already being built?
It seems that everyone wants to build a bridge to somewhere, but no one is telling us where the bridge is heading. Neither is anyone telling us what we are trying to connect by building this bridge. Let me add that I do not believe these various bridges that I have presented will end up connecting. I do not want to believe that the bridge Drs. Ranier, Akin, Dockery, and George has pointed us to will be connected to the bridge the CBF is advocating. However, with all of this construction going into Building Bridges, we need to be very careful that the band wagon we are on doesn’t get mixed up in a cloverleaf of bridges and we get confused as to what road the bridge takes us down.
“Everybody’s got something to hide except me and my monkey.”
–John Lennon
Pingback: Everybody wants to Build a Bridge « Southern Baptist In NC
Brother Tim,
I believe you have written on what sinning man has placed at the center of his/her life. That being themselves and asking questions like… “Won’t you please just think like me”. The disciples had this same plague …yet it was Christ alone that was different and remains the stumbling stone. One thing is certain,…it doesn’t take a bridge to realize and obey what Christ has commanded……
John 13:31-35 Therefore when he had gone out, Jesus *said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him; (32) if God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself, and will glorify Him immediately. (33) “Little children, I am with you a little while longer. You will seek Me; and as I said to the Jews, now I also say to you, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come.’ (34) “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. (35) “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
Leviticus 19:18 ‘You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.
The only bridge worth building was built, but many,…. including a lot of preachers, continue to stumble over it without obeying the new commandment. For most, the new commandment seems to be “conditioned” based upon the “type of bridge” that man is willing to build. Christ made it clear; Christians are distinguished by their love, by their affections for one another….not by what they are doing, or building, or making, etc. This was a great distinction given to the disciples, and it was difficult for them to understand and no doubt makes religious men stumble today.
Bridge building is conditioned,….”loving one another” is not conditioned and is a command that depends on the Kingdom of God for its substance. Those that understand the difference, begin to understand the substance of God’s sanctification.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I can love someone and still not want to send my money to help them start a church in a foreign land, because they believe in baptising babies. Agreed?
I can love someone and still not want to support their ministry, because they teach that tongue speaking is an evidence of being saved, or of being filled with the Holy Spirit. Agreed?
I can love someone and still not want them to teach in seminary because they believe in evolution over creation. True?
David
Brother David,
What does your love consist of? Some people find the worth and motive of their love in money, support in ministry, etc.
So how would you or do you love those brothers? I’ll be the first to admit,…its easy to say. I have people that say they love me all the time. Its just their practice that seems to be missing.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I would love them by showing them kindness and respect. I would love them by personally helping them in times of need. In fact, my church has financially helped people from these types of churches before.
I really dont think that I have to support their ministries and help them start churches in order to show them Christian love.
Why would I?
David
David,
Who is advocating baptizing babies, tongue speaking as a sign of salvation or of being filled with the Holy Spirit, or evolution? I understand that we do not partner with everyone, but why would you use these examples. The bridge building that has been proposed is between groups within the SBC who all agree on the BFM2000. If that is too hard for some Baptists to take part in, then maybe the SBC is not the place for you because we have ALWAYS been a convention that agrees on fundamentals and then allows for some differences in tertiary doctrines. If not, the Landmarkists would have been thrown out years ago.
Brother David,
Would you also be willing to love them (not respect them) regardless of need?
In my 30 years of ministry I have never been asked to help start a church by folks from the AG, PCA, Methodist, CBF, etc.,….have you? For me at least, the people that maintain those organizations seem to move along without any of the money that God allows me use.
I believe Allen has probably hit on the biggest problem in the SBC….which is cooperating among like minded churches. What is the attitude like between SBC pastors in your same neighborhood or city? I think there are a great many pastors that pretend and give lip service to loving one another and may be confused about what the gospel really is….. Maybe the problem is not so much about cooperation as it is about lack of “knowledge”. The lack of “knowledge” has created poor cooperation, pride, arrogance, lack of love, and an attitude of separatism.
And that is nothing that a good dose of the real gospel won’t quench.
Ephesians 4:32-5:2…….”And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma. ”
Blessings,
Chris
oops..meant to type…. Alan
Alan,
I simply stated who I would not want to be building bridges with, and it doesnt mean that I dont love them…which is what Chris seemed to imply. I was simply stating to Chris that the list I gave would be some that I wouldnt want to “Build Bridges” with, if that means starting churches with them, or letting them teach in our seminaries; and it would not mean that I didnt love these people. Do you now see what I was trying to say?
I dont know how you went from these examples to the questions that you asked me, or how it led to you that it might be good for me to leave the SBC. But, there are more that I would not want to build bridges with. I would not want to build bridges with churches that ordained women as elders in the church, as well. Would you? Would you join with churches that ordain women as elders?
Chris,
Are Churches that believe ordaining women as elders, or ministers, truly likeminded with those who believe it goes against Scripture to ordain women as elders, or ministers, or pastors…whichever name you prefer? Are churches that believe that it’s ok to start churches with A of G, and PCA, and CMA, and Methodist, and CBF truly likeminded with those of us who believe that it would be a terrible thing to join with those who believe in baptising babies, or speaking in tongues as a sign of being filled with the Spirit, or who deny the inerrancy Scripture? Chris, I would be interested in hearing your reply.
David
Brother Chris,
I can love my child, but if she chooses to go against my teaching that she has been instructed in from birth, my not financing her lifestyle does not mean that I do not love her. Thus, saying that choosing not to finance a doctrinal guide that one does not believe in does not mean that one doesn’t love. If those who did not agree with the guidelines of the IMB chose to stop sending their money and said, I still love the SBC no one in their right mind would say they are not speaking truth. However, to say I love the SBC and then do everything one can advocating a sending of their money elsewhere or placing pressure on State conventions to stop sending money, certainly would speak volumes as to one’s love. If one truly loves, one does not take actions that destroys.
Brother Alan,
The bridge building that has been proposed is between groups within the SBC who all agree on the BFM2000. Is that so? This is not the only bridges I am understanding is being built. From what I am understanding we are talking about building bridges into the Evangelical community at large. If I am wrong please correct me.
Blessings,
Tim
“Embrace the World: Building Bridges”
Was there ever a more accurate title given to a meeting? Here are a few of the bridges built by the CBF this year… “Book of Mark a Gnostic gospel; Demeaning Falwell’s Memory; Rejection of Jewish Evangelism; the Social Gospel is the authentic Gospel; and “Opening our Eyes: Seeing Women as Pastors”.
I wonder how things would have gone for Nehemiah if he had build a bridge instead of wall?
Brother David,
Of course I am not implying that you are “not loving people”…..and Tim may have to withhold allowance to his child at times, the big meanie ?.
One point that I am making is pretty simple. Why is it that Baptist churches seem to pop up in the same city over church splits and never do cooperate with one another? These “breakups” certainly are not about speaking in tongues or loosing your salvation once a week. Why is it that there is so very little cooperation (building bridges if you will) among so-called friends. David, …If I came to your city tomorrow (and I might), would you be interested in helping me build the church in your city?
Furthermore, ….You have kind of made my point. It is not at all difficult know if there are like minded churches with whom to cooperate. If this conversation is about SBC affiliated churches for instance….would you have a problem planting a church with Wade Burleson’s church? I think that is a more realistic question in this context.
Blessings,
Chris
Tim,
Glad you are reading over at the Outpost. :)
In context, the conversation over at the Outpost may well fit here. One commenter did suggest finding a way to force cooperation around the BFM. I cannot imagine any State Exec. who will act on the impulse to go after the IMB BOT because a few churches decide their money would better be spent kept “in state.” Can you?
But, since you use the illustration I wonder if it has a place if it points to the passion some do have to really Build Bridges to those within the SBC who do disagree on some secondary matters. I know for some every matter is a first order issue, but we both know that is not reality.
And, while we are at it. Is there really “no” reason to Build Bridges with the wider Evangelical Community? Are we really at the place where Baptist Identity means isolationism and protectionism? Sounds like a good “foreign policy” debate about to break out? Looking for the “doves” and the “hawks” to collide over the threshold of the SBC and who get to be guests at our table?
You and I have had our disagreements but would our sparring over agreed upon minor issues keep us from holding hands? And if my sensibilities are not as rigid as your about some things and yours are not as rigid as mine on other things could we still offer more than the lip service that is caricatured by “brother?”
David,
I have come to the point where I no longer care to engage in this type of conversation by responding to every absurd scenario that you propose. Dr. Dockery and Dr. George in the Building Bridges booklet never asserted that we should join with groups like that. No one has. Why would you even bring that up? It makes no sense. No, we do not want to join with groups like that. No one has said we should. To use examples like that muddies the waters. I have seen absurd examples like that used as an excuse as to why we need to keep people who affirm the BFM2000 from ministry within SBC circles. It is an emotional argument that makes no sense to anyone paying attention.
My statement about you maybe needing to leave the SBC comes from over two years of being flabbergasted by the arguments that you and others from the Baptist Identity movement have come up with. I have come to realize that you do not represent the majority in the SBC and it is a waste of time to beg you to see my viewpoint. The majority is represented by those calling for a Great Commission Resurgence ala Drs. Akin, Dockery, Rainer, etc. EVERYONE calling for this affirms the BFM2000 and were/are committed to the Conservative Resurgence. I am in that camp. But, David, the thing is that if you cannot find a way to work together with others in the SBC because you are always finding something wrong with them, then maybe the SBC is not the place for you. Maybe you would be more satisfied in an independent Baptist church. That is not a slam. It is just an observation from all of the dialogue that we have had. Hear me correctly: I am happy for you to stay in the SBC and have no problem working with you. But, for your own peace of mind, you are going to have to realize that not everyone in the SBC agrees with you on every doctrine. You are going to have to work with others who disagree on some issues. The BFM2000 is a consensus point. If we divide over everything else, then we are nothing more than a group that appeals to power plays for control and the unity that Jesus commands in His inerrant Word is trampled upon. Stay if you like, but just know that the vision that you have for the SBC is not shared by the majority and if it ever is, the SBC will be a shell of what it is now because that means that the majority has left the building.
Tim,
I would suggest that you read Drs. Dockery and George’s booklet, lest you make the same mistake that Robin Foster made – especially since you refer to it. The primary consideration here is within the SBC. We must learn to get along on the basis of our allegiance to Jesus Christ and our fidelity to His Word. Of course, there should be bridges to other Christians! Anyone who says that we should have no bridges to other believers in other denominations is a schismatic and should be condemned as such. But, there is a place for denominations and the primary focus in view here is upon unity within the SBC. As far as it is possible, we should have unity with other believers because Jesus commanded us to. But, dividing on issues where we disagree that affect our identity in Christ is valid as long as we do not come to the point where we think that we are the only ones going to heaven.
Alan,
Reading your last two comments set me to thinking; dangerous I know.
The BFM 2000 contains consensus elements that are not necessarily first order issues. For example, our article on Peace and War. Evidently some prefer to approach the current war from a very different place than what is described there. So either we are comfortable nuancing that particular article and gladly fellowship or we must break fellowship over that article when it comes to just how we support this war in light of said article.
I do not intend to derail the post, Tim. But, it dawned on me that we talk of the BFM2000 as a consensus document we certainly must take great care not to conflate a position on war with the first dozen or so articles in the BFM2000.
For me, this article is more important than the IMB guidelines but we certainly could not get agreement on that one. Now how would you build a bridge with me in the SBC on the matter of peace and war? Surely we doves and hawks can get along.
Todd,
I would actually say that the article on Peace and War should be moved up quite a bit toward the first tier. It says,
It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.
The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love. Christian people throughout the world should pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 2:4; Matthew 5:9,38-48; 6:33; 26:52; Luke 22:36,38; Romans 12:18-19; 13:1-7; 14:19; Hebrews 12:14; James 4:1-2.
I think that all Baptists should do a great deal more to bring peace in the world and avoid war whenever possible. I think that we should make sure that we are in line with the BFM2000 on this issue and that we do more than pay lip service to it. If we don’t, then are we good Baptists? It’s kind of like Jesus’ teachings on forgiveness. We are commanded to forgive. But, how many people are unforgiving? If we refuse to forgive someone their faults, then can we truly say that we are walking with Christ? Should unforgiveness be tolerated? We are even told that if there is conflict between brothers, we should not even take communion. Jesus said that if we don’t forgive others their sins, then our Father would not forgive us. That is huge. Yet, we make whether or not a Christian forgives as a side issue.
No, I am comfortable with keeping the Peace and War article as a primary doctrine. All “Baptists” who do not support doing all that we can to promote peace between individuals, families, tribes, and nations really need to consider if they are Baptists. That is, if they adhere to the BFM2000, that is.
Alan
I don’t believe what I did or what happened was a mistake. I did not know the Akin paper was in existence, even after talking with several people about it. If I knew it was in existence and then ignored it, then that would have been a mistake. I don’t consider initially missing the paper a mistake. My post was not written with some sense of finality, but as a continual dialog on this subject. After hearing of the paper, I read it and I was pleasantly surprise to see that Dr. Akin and I are in near complete agreement.
Thanks for commenting.
Robin
You’re right, Robin. I actually defended you on that. My mistake.
I know you defended me and I am grateful for it. Thank you for your generosity and kindness.
Robin
Brother Alan,
You respond to Brother David (a little stronger than what I am used to from you) The BFM2000 is a consensus point. If this is the case, why allow caveats?
You respond to me But, dividing on issues where we disagree that affect our identity in Christ is valid as long as we do not come to the point where we think that we are the only ones going to heaven. This is certainly a straw man argument. No one has condemned any other denomination to hell because of a flawed doctrinal belief. According to your argument, we as SB cannot critique another denomination’s doctrine in fear that we will not be able to “build a bridge”. I relate my concerns to you about these Building Bridges. You respond that ‘I should read the booklet’ because the “primary” point is to build bridges inside the SBC. I have stated is this is the point of building bridges I am all for it. However, you further muddy the waters by saying; “Of course, there should be bridges to other Christians!” If the bedrock foundation of the bridge is Jesus Christ, then he is the bridge to other Christians. I thought the Bridge was to be built within our convention of churches in order to move the SBC forward into a Great Commission Resurgence. According to your statement, and even in Brother Todd’s response to me where he said; “Is there really “no” reason to Build Bridges with the wider Evangelical Community? Are we really at the place where Baptist Identity means isolationism and protectionism?, it gives the appearance that we are speaking about building bridges to plant churches with other denominations.
This is the concern. We are asking those that are promoting Building Bridges for a Great Commission Resurgence to clearly define where the bridges will be built and if this GCR is intended for the SBC or the Evangelical community of churches as a whole?
Blessings,
Tim
Joe W…
Homerun!
Or is that ‘run home’?…before the ecumenist reformers, who won’t necessarily agree with the CBF conclave ‘affirmations,’ will come out decrying what you will wish to limit next and how you can be so bold or brazen as to assert that your review (or that of Baptist Press even) is in accord with the teaching of Christ in Scripture (I guess the ‘brood of viper’ commentaries of Christ & his removal of ungodliness from the temple don’t count).
When someone starts talking about building bridges to embrace the world rather than reach the world with the confrontation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ I am reminded of the old Coca-Cola commercials… “I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony…” In the immortal words of OSU head football coach, Mike Gundy, “You make me want to puke.”
SOLA GRATIA!
If we will keep the ‘main thing the main thing’ then the peace of ‘bridge building’ will come. If, however, we concentrate on ‘bridge building’ we will make compromises to ‘get there’.
So where is “there”?
The wilderness if we don’t do it God’s way!!!!!!!!
Alan,
My Brother, there are some people in SBC land who want to take the bridge building farther than Dr.’s Dockery and Akin, etc. Or, at least, I hope that Dr.’s Dockery and Akin and Rainer, etc dont want to go that far. You know, and I know, some SB’s who believe that it’s ok to ordain women as elders of the church. That’s much farther of a bridge than what I’d want to build. I know of some SB’s who believe that joining with churches that do not believe in Believers Baptism by immersion should be ok. Just go to my blog and read the comment stream of some of my posts, and you’ll see this. That would definitely be a longer bridge than I’d want the SBC to build. You? So, Brother, there are some people out there in SBC land who have made statements to the effect of my “strawman” arguements. They are out there whether you want to admit it, or not. They are out there. In fact, I know some SB’s who live near me who had a woman from the A of G come to lead thier music for a couple of monthes in order to teach thier people how to “really worship.” I know some SB’s right now, personally, who would have no problem whatsoever joining with A of G’s, or Methodists, or whoever, to start Churches, or to let them teach in our seminaries, or whatever. I know them, personally, Alan. And, no, I’m not gonna get into names. I’m just not gonna name names. I dont want to get that personal on this blog. But, it’s not strawmen when I bring these people up. I dont even know Strawman.
Alan, I can worship and serve with many Churches and people who dont completely agree with me on every point of truly tertiary doctrines. Are you mid-trib.? or post-trib? or pre-trib? Well, I’m pre-trib, and I could certainly support a missionary who was mid-trib, or post-trib. On the soteriology scale, I could certainly work with those who run the scale of calvinism to semi-arminianism. As long as they believe in salvation by grace thru faith, and beleive that salvation is eternal. Hey, I may not agree with them, but I can still worship and serve the Lord with them, and I would be for the SBC umbrella to be that wide. Now, I dont appreciate the aggressive, extreme five point Calvinists out there who feels it’s their job to convert the SBC to Dortian Calvinism. I wish that they would not be that way. But, I still love them in the Lord.
And, Alan, there are many, many other truly tertiary doctrines out there that should not separate us in the SBC. But, there are secondary doctrines that I feel are very important for us to agree on in order to be SB’s. I’m not Independent Baptist. Far from it. I’m not a Landmark Baptist. Far from it. It makes me chuckle inside to hear people call me Independent Baptist, or Landmark Baptist, because some of these folks have called me liberal in the past, or they’ve accused me of not having good ecclessiology. So, I hope that you can hear my chuckles as I type.
Alan, I thought the whole jest of this conversation in blogland that’s been going on for over two years now is SB’s trying to settle in our hearts and minds just how narrow or wide the parameters should be. You and I dont agree. Fine. You and some from SBC Outpost dont agree with the ones who write SBC Today. Fine. And, the SBC will decide. I can live with the decision they make. But, why do you feel that I should have no say-so in SBC matters. I mean, if this is how I think, believe, and feel in my heart is the best path for the SBC, then why would you suggest that I hit the road? I can take you disagreeing with me, but apparently you can take that I disagree with you.
God bless you,
David
As a follow up let’s be Southern Baptists, unashamedly admit that, base our beliefs and uniqueness on Biblical principles and quit trying to be Evangelicals…and import all kinds of “diversity” into the SBC.
No problem with doing some “joint efforts” with Evangelicals(if we get to define the word) but we must retain the uniqueness of who Southern Baptists are….we need to stiffarm those that are trying to undermine long held Biblical and S. Baptist beliefs.
Tim, you said, “From what I am understanding we are talking about building bridges into the Evangelical community at large.” I answered, “Of course, there should be bridges to other Christians!” I agree that Jesus is the bridge. We have unity in Christ and we should strive to keep it. I am not talking about planting churches together, although there are some types of ministry and fellowship that we can engage in. I am primarily talking about building bridges within the SBC, as the Building Bridges booklet shares. I only switched topics because I thought you were asking two different questions. Primarily, this conversation is about the SBC. If people want to take the conversation to other denominations, then we need to reset the rules of engagement.
For the sake of clarity, I understand the “building bridges” and GCR talk to be among Southern Baptists who are in agreement with the BFM2000, but have some minor differences in belief in other areas. If there is any other application to this, we need to look at things a bit differently.
David,
I have no problem disagreeing with you. I do so regularly and am fine with you remaining in the SBC. My point is that it seems that you are not happy being in an SBC that is more diverse than you would like. Perhaps you would be happier in a different denomination. I will never push you out and I will fight for your right to stay if that is what you want. But, you just seem to have problems with a lot of BFM2000 adhering Southern Baptists. It just seems that you’d be happier if you were with people who believed as you did on all of the issues that were of importance to you.
Alan,
I’m very happy being in the SBC. I wouldnt want to be anywhere else. In fact, my church gives 20% to the CP, and I’m personally thrilled that they do. I love the SBC that much. The church that I pastor will average around 170 on Sunday mornings. We gave $53,000 to Lottie and $32,000 to Annie. I’m personally thrilled that we’re supporting our missionaries like this. I wish that we’d give more. That’s how much I love the SBC, and how much I believe in the SBC being a great convention of Churches who have great missionaries.
I just want the SBC to remain true to God’s Word. I just want the SBC to adhere to the clear teachings of Scripture. I’ve lived in the land of liberal theology back when I belonged to the Methodist denomination, and I lived in the day of the CR after I became a SB. I’ve been there and done that. And, I just want the Church and the denomination that I belong to to be as close to the Bible as we can be.
BTW, Churches, or people, who believe that it’s ok to ordain women as elders of a church would not fit into the BFM 2K….would they?
David
David, at the end of the day, Baptist churches are autonomous. For convention purposes, we have the BFM2000 to guide us. A lot of relatively diverse baptists fit under that umbrella. I suggest that you learn to live with others who are a bit different than you and recognize that the real SBC that you claim to love is made up of people and churches that disagree with you on some side doctrines. That is my point and I’ll leave you with that.
Brother David,
I know you didn’t ask me specifically….but
I believe you are right to say and that the bible is overtly clear that women are not commanded to be elders of Christ’s church. I believe that a church that would teach that women are commanded to be elders within what Christ has established for His church is doctrinally unstable and would be unfriendly to the BFM2000 and those that agree with the statement.
Blessings,
Chris
Now where did women elders come into the discussion?
Alan,
I’ve noticed that you’ve dodged my question about a church that would ordain women as elders as being welcomed into our SBC bridge building. I have to wonder why you wont answer, especially after your statement to me that went…”But, you just seem to have problems with a lot of BFM2000 adhering Southern Baptists.” I stated to you that a church that ordained women as elders would be outside of the BFM 2K, and did you think that they should also fit into the SBC bridge? I notice that you do not answer that. Could you answer that question, please?
David
Debbie,
We’re talking about building bridges in the SBC. The women elder part of it is just to find out where we’re building bridges to.
David
BTW, everyone, I guess the strawman is real…just look at this article about some in the SBC….
http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2008/06_26_2008/ne26062008full.shtml
David
David,
Do you ask these kinds of questions of everyone that you meet? Who do you build bridges with? What are examples of tertiary doctrinal issues to you?
David,
Those are not Southern Baptists.
Tim,
Does your concern over building bridges extend to conversations here at Today? I would enjoy an opportunity to discuss my questions in #14. My questions were not intended to be received as rhetorical. I really did intend to entertain a charitable conversation here. I am hopeful my words were not offensive.
Any thoughts on #14. I like you and am busy and realize it could well be your schedule that limits your interaction. I just noticed you jumped in to some give and take with Alan and wondered if I was on the wrong bridge.
Brother David,
Alan is correct to point out that the site you have linked has little, if anything to do with SBCers. Additionally, the notion that women be ordained as elders in Christ’s church as somehow the way Christ has instructed his people to disciple His church is also very easily exposed as error.
My pastor of many years back was Daniel Vestal. At that time, almost 30 years ago, he was convinced that scripture did not command women to be ordained as elders. Since that time, he has changed his mind. I emailed him a couple of years ago to find out why he changed. He was honest to say that he was convinced by another pastor in Waco, TX to see the bible differently. He said his hermeneutic had changed; therefore several of his long established doctrinal convictions had changed. I am still a friend to Daniel, yet it is clear that he has been taught that “pragmatic changes” in hermeneutics are ok which IMHO falls into the “winds of doctrine” category. I continued to challenge him on his findings, but you can witness how persuasive I have been with him (ha). Daniel and I would be found at odds when establishing leadership in a church, since he would be teaching that God commands that women lead His church…..so,… although I think it is safe to say we still love each other, I would not see Daniel as biblically qualified to teach in the church, since it is overtly clear in scripture that God has not commanded women to lead, and he would disagree without any biblical evidence. That is probably the reason Daniel feels comfortable in the CBF, where a pragmatic hermeneutic has surfaced as tolerable.
Nonetheless David, I can’t help but return to my question earlier….. If you were of the mind to plant a church in your city, would you wholeheartedly, without reservation, stand arm in arm and plant that church with the likes of Wade Burleson, Alan Cross, and Chris Johnson? Is giving money to the SBC any different than the question above?
Sometimes, it appears that giving money to the cooperative program, in some peoples minds may somehow build a “false sense” of separation when it comes to loving our brothers and sisters in Christ within the SBC.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Alen,
I don’t mean to jump into the middle of you and Brother David, but please allow me a thought or two.
First, you mention in post #37 that “those are not Southern Baptists.” I assume you are refering to the article David linked talking about the Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship. While it is true that they are not Southern Baptist, I would imagine that many – if not even most Southern Baptist Churches would gladly receive members from their churches by “letter” simply because they have the magic name “baptist.” This could also be said for SB churches receiving members from Free Will Baptist and others without investigating what that person really believes. Once they are members, then they have the ability to subvert the doctrinal foundations of that SB congregation and eventually the Convention itself. I have seen this happen to several churches over the years – some of whom are still considered in friendly cooperation with the SBC – but holding to the very teachings David is refering to (women pastors, “tongues” alien immersion and so forth). They even give lip service to the BFM2000.
A second thought, it was just announced this week that one of the groups to be allowed exhibit space at this year’s BGCT meeting is the group “Christians for Biblical Equality.” It is a group that promotes women pastors (who, btw, have a professor from Golden Gate as an endorser on their website!). There are many churches in the BGCT who consider themselves faithful SB – but allow for women pastors, alien immersion and at least one still in friendly cooperation with the BGCT, who accepts homosexuals into full membership and leadership of the congregation. Now I realize that some of these issues are addressed in the BFM2000, but these churches remain in the SBC. On the outside they still have the name “Baptist” and even identify themselves as Southern Baptist.
Without defined parameters – who are you going to build bridges to? I can work with my Methodist brothers and sisters on some things (and often do), but there has to be a line in there somewhere. The same is true even within the SBC. Not every church which calls itself SB is as pure as some in this discussion seem to think. I have had to deal with this before as a pastor – not everyone who wants to join the church here gets a free pass just because they call themselves Southern Baptist or come from a “sister” congregation. Been there, done that – got burned.
Grace,
Wes
Brother Wes,
You bring up some valid points….. and the reason I am trying to pull out more specifically why people would cooperate within the SBC….and not just throw money together and forward it to a state or national convention and pretend they are doing the work of the church.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Chris,
I have the same heart as to “doing the work of the church” as you do – I think. 8-> Personally, it is a both/ and proposition for me. I believe that cooperation is taught in scripture, but that doesn’t invalidate the responsibility of the local congregation to carry out the great commission.
So far as “why people would cooperate with the SBC …”, I think it is because there was a time when identification with the SBC meant something. There was a clear distinction between our doctrinal positions and those of other denominations. There wasn’t necessairly any belligerency between us – just differences. Those doctrinal parameters have grown increasingly cloudy over the years – even with the CR. I hate to think of where we would be if it hadn’t been for the CR.
Plus, there was the effectiveness factor. Working together we could do more than working alone – hummm, are we now back to the issue of building bridges???? 8->
Grace,
Wes
Brother Chris,
On another thought you had … you asked David in post #13 “… Why is it that Baptist churches seem to pop up in the same city over church splits and never do cooperate with one another?” Ohhhhh, – now your just messing with some folk’s idea of church planting.
No, seriously, this is another of those issues that I have had to deal with personally. I can’t see anything good coming from a “church split” – except perhaps if it involves doctrinal issues. I have had the privilege (?) of serving 3 such congregations – and I can tell you that even fifty and sixty years down the road they have problems. Unless they are willing to humble themselves – go back to the other congregation to repent and ask forgiveness – they will never see the full blessings of God. They will have periods of growth – but eventually discord and division will get ‘em again.
Grace,
Wes
Alan,
You’re still dodging the question, Brother.
Everyone,
The article, or the blog in which I read about this group seemed to say that they were a SB group. That’s the impression I got. If they’re not, then sorry about that. But, look at thier clear cut mission that this group has, and I quote…
“”It was founded to bridge the gap between the Baptists and Pentecostals,” said Doris Stokes, a member of Morton’s church, Changing a Generation Full Gospel Baptist Church in Decatur, Ga.”
David
Well, according to Wes and David the Conservative Resurgence was a failure because we don’t have defined parameters of cooperation and the BFM2000, the “theological capstone of the Conservative Resurgence” is effectively worthless. All those that died on that hill will be sorry to hear that they wasted their time because the SBC is run amok with female pastors, Pentecostals, evolutionists, and baby baptizers. Who knew?
Guys, we better get back to work and refight the CR all over again. This time let’s do it right!
David,
I’m not dodging the question. I just don’t feel like playing 20 questions with you about every facet of “doctrine” that comes to your mind, like golf shirts or suits, or hymns or choruses, or tobacco or alcohol, or eating at restaurants that serve alcohol. Yes, I read your latest blog post. Wow.
David, I affirm the BFM2000 on this issue. What do you think it says? Is it a completely worthless document?
Ahhhh,…brother Wes,
Surely you don’t think I would be trying to challenge someone on their view of the great commission, even if it is only a mile down the road (smile).
A couple of years ago I had one Baptist pastor about 15 miles from Nashville tell me one time that he wouldn’t think of starting another church unless it was at least 50 miles from where he was. He figured he had the only message worth hearing…I call it the “true north complex” (as if no one else was able to preach),…and that people who were committed enough to the true north message would make the sacrifice and drive (they might even get more reward in heaven). Some folks really don’t know how to cooperate.
Then today, I met a Pastor at lunch that journeyed from Canada to Nashville a couple of years back to start a church in the “low income housing projects” downtown. I was glad to see the Canadian foreign missions in action! Nashville is very much in need of church planting, just like the city with 5,000 in population!
Bottom line,…. is that pastors that do not have a yearning for church planting or right doctrine are simply lazy, and need to find something else to pretend to do…..
Blessings,
Chris
So, Alan, you would not be for building bridges with Churches that believe in ordaining women pastors, if I understand you right. Thanks for answering. And, I think that the BFM 2K is a great document stating SB’s basic beliefs. And, maybe you need to read my post again. It looks like you might have misunderstood it. I was addressing truly tertiary doctrines, and calling for unity concerning the things I mentioned. I was trying to be a bridge builder.
Alen,
My anti-spam word is “peace” so I will attempt to keep that in mind – “brother.”
I would strongly suggest that you not attempt to put words in my mouth (or on my post). I fully realize that I am not the brightest bulb in this here box, but neither did I just fall off of the turnip (or should I say – tulip) truck. I never said that the CR was a failure – I never even implied it. Nor did I in any way diminish those who fought so hard to turn the SB ship away from the falls of liberal theology. For that matter, neither has David. Your slur, sir, is simply an attempt on your part to cast distain upon those who disagree with you. In debate, Alan, that is a sign of a weak argument. I had thought you could do better, but I suppose not.
Grace,
Wes
Wes,
No slur intended. I was actually drawing what you were saying to its logical conclusions. If the examples that you and David are using are normative and they are things that would cause us to define our parameters yet again, then the CR failed. I made the argument because I DO NOT think that you and David believe that. I was using that argument to show you the implications of what you and David were saying.
For the record, I do not believe that the CR failed either, and I am glad that it did not.
David,
Correct analysis. I do not believe in women elders. Bravo!
Alan,
You state: “No slur intended. I was actually drawing what you were saying to its logical conclusions.”
It is hard for me to see how my illustrations and relevant facts would lead anyone to conclude that the CR has failed – unless of course you are arguing from a weak position and your only hope is to throw enough straw into the air to cloud the issues.
The point of my post, Alan, is that just because somebody has the name baptist doesn’t mean that we as SB would want to link arm in arm with them to plant churches, support missions or offer theological training.
Grace,
Wes
Wes,
All that I am arguing is that those baptists who affirm the BFM2000 should be cooperated with, lest that document be found worthless in creating any type of workable theological consensus. Since it was considered the “theological capstone” of the CR, then it must mean that the CR failed in its quest. One last time, Wes, I don’t believe that, but that is the implication of what you are saying if you say that churches that adhere to the BFM2000 are still deficient when it comes to cooperation. How am I throwing straw in the air with a statement that clear? If you think that the BFM2000 is insufficient to mark out a theological consensus for us, then that must mean that its drafters did not go far enough in establishing a useful document. I believe that they did. This is the crux of all of our disagreements over the past 2+ years.
The theme “Building Bridges” at the CBF assembly referred to overcoming barriers (racial, social, geographical, cultural) in order to reach people with the message of hope found in Jesus Christ. We were challenged to minister to “the least of these” with love and compassion. Memphis is known for its bridges over the MS river and the symbolism was not lost.
Also unreported on by BP was keynote speaker Lauran Bethell who proclaimed that “Jesus is the bridge to eternal life.”
Alan,
“All that I am arguing is that those baptists who affirm the BFM2000 should be cooperated with, lest that document be found worthless in creating any type of workable theological consensus.”
Yes, this point has been argued for a while now. The problem is that you (and others) view the BFM2k as a maximum statement whereas myself (and others) understand the baptist princple that confessions or statements of faith are in actuality minimial statements. This is why they are re-written (in the case of SB, about every 40 years or so).
Alan, did you know that it is the policy of the IMB (and NAMB I think), not to appoint people who have been divorced to a mission field? That has been their policy for more than 40 years that I know of (unless it has recently changed). Is divorce addressed in the BFM2k?
The BFM2k is NOT the all in all of Southern Baptist life – as great a document as it is. Nor do I believe that those who drafted it and voted for it intended it to be such. It is not saying that the BFM is a worthless statement when an elected BoT seeks to address other issues they believe to be biblical that are not addressed in the BFM2k. They are using it as it has always been used – as a guildline, a skeleton if you will – which is further fleshed out in the beliefs and practices of our churches.
BTW, I’ve noticed that you haven’t even addressed any of the issues I raised in my first post. Interesting.
Grace,
Wes
Wes: Has the CR accomplished it’s purpose, which was infalliblity and inerrancy or isn’t it. We are once again back at square one. One thing I did notice by the speakers and voters at the Convention, you are in the minority. It is one reason I changed gears in my blogging. It’s not worth the fight anymore. People are wising up.
Now will they continue on that road? Time will tell. Meanwhile, I am going to build bridges, I am going to remain Southern Baptist. I am going to keep up on Convention issues. I am then going to build more bridges. Evidently the leaders feel this way too. I am satisfied that in the end your, Tim Rogers, David Woolery’s views will not win out. It’s just too extreme, beyond what both the Bible teaches, and the BFM. Case closed.
that should be or hasn’t it.
Wes,
Minimal, maximal, this debate has been going on forever. The problem is, Wes, SBC churches agree to the BFM2000 and then find themselves outside of the realm of cooperation because a fringe group happens to take control of a trustee board and they push their pet doctrinal issues. Whatever our polity may be, it is incredibly frustrating.
What is interesting about me not responding to you? Are you talking about comment #40? The problem with some of you guys is that you think that if anyone disagrees with you on a few issues, that they must be closet liberals plotting to take over the SBC and turn all of your children into Democrats or something.
I didn’t respond to you because I was not interested in engaging in that topic. I have no desire to get into discussions about female pastors/elders. It bores me to tears. Is this not a settled issue? I do not feel the need to roll out my conservative credentials constantly.
Ms. Kaufman,
I must confess that I have mixed emotions about writing this post. On the one hand I see it as rather pointless, on the other – I do believe in hope.
What makes you think that I am not willing to build bridges? I mean, good grief – I work to build bridges constantly. For example(s) – I believe in maintaining baptist identity (SB in particular), but I also believe it is possible to work with others in the evangelical world in spreding the gospel to the lost. I am a strong 5 pointer – who works side by side with others who are barely holding on to one point.
I could go on, but I make the point – I too believe in building bridges, and I agree with the heart of the GCR as presented by Dr. Atkins. It is building on the foundation layed down by the CR which has (to answer your question) to a degree accomplished its purpose (we must alway maintain diligence). However, I never considered inerrancy and infallibility as the end in themselves of the CR. So you have an inerrant and infallible Bible – now what? Unless your life reflects the teachings of that inerrant and infallible Bible you are simply paying lip-service to an idea. That Bible, which is the inerrant and infallible Word of God, sets parameters for people in life, faith and practice – parameters that I am not willing to cross just to be buddy-buddy with those who accept alien immersion, charismatic tongues or women pastors.
I fully realize that there are those in our SB family who, though they may not practice these themselves, are willing to allow others to practice them. I’m not – and honestly Debbie, I don’t believe I am in the minority. We heard this same logic (“inclusion, openess,” etc.) thirty years ago. It didn’t float then and I don’t see it floating now. We are Southern Baptist – we have a histroy and we have a future. Case closed.
Grace,
Wes
Alan,
“Finally, my brethren …” (as I have better things to do) …
“Minimal, maximal, this debate has been going on forever.” Actually, Alan, no, this debate about the nature of a baptist confession of faith has not been going on for years. Historically baptists have understood the confession of faith as a mimimal statement of their beliefs that can and will change, be amended etc. The idea that the BFM2k is a maximal document is a new one, generally held by those who have a particular agenda.
“The problem with some of you guys is that you think that if anyone disagrees with you on a few issues, that they must be closet liberals plotting to take over the SBC and turn all of your children into Democrats or something.” Again, Alan, you really need to stop trying to put words into people posts. This statement is absurd.
“I have no desire to get into discussions about female pastors/elders.” This was not the only issue I raised. I believe I also mentioned “tongues” and alien immersion. But, as you have said, you have no interest in engaging. You already have all the facts.
The IMB BoT hasn’t done anything it hasn’t always been doing Alan. Its just that this time they disagreed with you.
As Debbie said – Case closed.
Grace,
Wes
The reason for the questions on women elders is because this is in the BFM2K, and we do have some SBC Churches and Pastors who seem to believe that it’s ok to ordain women as elders, or pastors. Thus, the issue does reach beyond a simple, “Everyone in the SBC believes the BFM2K, and I’m in the camp of the majority that believe the BFM2K, and if you dont like the SBC as it is, then go join the Independent Baptists.” There are some well known Pastors in the SBC who apparently do not agree with the BFM2K, and they make no bones about it. They’re very open about it. They have big caveats that they’d like to add to it. And, they want to be included in the bridge building. They apparently want the bridge to be built to them.
I’m all for building bridges with whoever out there feels like they’re being left out of the SBC love umbrella, as long as it doesnt mean that we have to give up secondary doctrines that we hold dear as SB’s…things that are very important in us holding to the clear teachings of the Word of God as a SBC. But, in terms of getting along with others, I always try to play well with others. I love people.
Well, I guess that’s all that I need to say for right now, cuz I’d hate to bring up anymore strawmen. Strawmem seem to make some people get very angry.
David
Pingback: What Is Ed Stetzer at Oklahombres
Pingback: I Am a Bridge Builder! | sbc IMPACT!
Pingback: The Back Story to the Great Commission Resurgence « Provocations & Pantings