SBC Today is honored to have Dr. Thomas White’s clarification concerning his sermon at Southwestern on October 7th. Below is his response.
Since I had the privilege of preaching in the chapel at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on October 7, 2008 I have received many emails and phone calls from students, faculty, and others outside the seminary offering both appreciation and concern over what I said during my exposition of Psalm 127. The response has allowed me the opportunity to elaborate on my views and sharpen my position by hearing those who disagree. In fact today I spoke with a reporter from the Associated Press on the subject. You can view the AP article here.
For the sake of clarifying further both what I said and what I believe, I have provided the following few paragraphs. Also, you may view the sermon in its entirety here.
During the exposition of Psalm 127 approximately a 6 minute segment discussed some of my personal decisions regarding birth control and my support of life as a gift from God. I could not address every issue and left many questions intentionally unanswered including the appropriate size of each person’s family.
To clarify, I do not believe all birth control is murder. I do believe that human life begins at the moment of conception. I am opposed to abortifacients which prevent the progression or continuation of life. The third function of most birth control pills prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall and this function is what I referred to as murder. I am opposed to abortion, the morning after pill, and the third function of most birth control pills. This is part of what I attempted to communicate in my sermon.
We live in a society which largely feels that children are a burden but the Bible tells us that children are a blessing. We live in a society which largely feels that children will make a rich man poor, but the Bible tells us that children will make a poor man rich.
I don’t speak for Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on this matter but my view is consistent with the confessional statement of the institution. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 article 15 titled “The Christian and the Social Order” states, “We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death.”
Here are some websites that you may refer to for more information on the birth control pill. I do not endorse everything on these websites, but they will help you begin researching the issue for yourself.
- http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/Birth_Control_Pill_Abortifacient_and_Contraceptive.shtml
- http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html
- http://www.gateway.org/content/pdf/Combo%20and%20Mini%20BC%20Pills.PDF
http://www.orthoevra.com/orthoevra/about_how.html#how
Personally, I thought it was very clear from the sermon that Dr. White was not arguing that all forms of birth control is murder. What the rub is for most Baptists (and the rest of the world for that matter) is that we can’t seem to fathom that “birth control” can still be wrong without it being murder. The power behind White’s point is not centered in the “pill” as such; rather it revolves around a biblical understanding of the “blessedness” of children. While the “third function” of the pill is a staggering truth to swallow for most family planners, the truth of the matter is that there is a much greater question being posed here on the purpose and the heart behind “contra-cepting” in the first place…
Brother Robin,
I guess the most devastating result of this sermon is the message that is getting the most airplay. That is always the risk a preacher takes when, during an exegesis of the scripture, he chooses to interject his personal opinion, instead of remaining committed to the text and exposing the meaning.
It is unfortunate that Psalm 127 is deafened by the intent of men and birth control. Is it really important what the Lord is doing?,….as the Psalmist is explaining. ….. Or is it more important for men to clarify their position on conception and birth control.
Men of God would do well to remain committed to the Lord and what He is doing as they preach the Word. Defend God’s Word, not some view of man, whether right or wrong.
We all are enticed to put our opinions in,…but as preachers mature, we all should learn to remain true to the text and interject less of us, and more of Christ.
Blessings,
Chris
Well……. I guess Thomas White has cleared all this little set-to up. That is, of course, if those who have questioned him so greatly do not have ulterior motives for their pressing concerns relating to his sermon in the first place. Guess we will see, right?
And I am so glad to hear how so many have rushed in at various blogs to speak to family and children issues. I am sure that all of those folks are going to go out and sign up as foster and adoptive parents as did Thomas and Joy did not so long ago to help some of these ‘throw away” children by bringing them into their homes and rearing them in the admonition of the Lord.
cb
Hank: I think that’s the real sticking point for some of us with the sermon. Not that the pill is murder, or sometimes murder, or never murder, but whether deliberately taking steps to prevent pregnancy is a sin. It is one thing for someone to say that their personal conviction is to not use birth control. Once you cross the line and state that your conviction should be everyone’s conviction, then that requires some pretty compelling biblical support. Personally I don’t think Psalm 127 does it.
It’s good to hear this info straight from the horses mouth. Now, I’m again scratching my head as to why some people made much ado about nothing. Did they not listen to the message very well? Were they too ignorant to understand it? Did they purposely mischaracterize what was said? Why? Why did they take off into every bad direction and accusation after hearing this message?
I think we all know.
David
If one believes that life begins at conception how can they take any other stance on birth control.
I think most people are in shock because they don’t want to think they might be doing something that is wrong – especially murder – not so much because Dr. White actually called it murder. When our sins are exposed it hurts and many of us instinctively become defensive.
It is also sad (but not surprising) that the media would pick this small portion of the sermon to publicize.
Robin,
My curiosity now is, since Dr. White has made it clear about his pronounced distinction on those BC methods that are moral and those BC methods that are not, will our blogging friends who have publicly and wrongly condemned him for preaching that all BC is sin man-up?
Nor does it bleed the pressure out to simple say “Well, he should have been clearer.”
To the contrary, before we condemn a man to the ash heap of “moral legalism” not to mention exploit him and his view–a view completely botched by these ‘watchdog’ bloggers–making him a human pinup for “what’s wrong in the SBC today”, we should make double-darn sure we know what the heck we’re talking about.
With that, I am…
Peter
Brother Robin,
Being born in Texas and going to school at UT, I can understand the fued between Texas and Oklahoma….so there seems to be a lot of mudslinging, and maybe for the wrong reasons. For me personally, thats not the issue with Dr. White’s sermon. I think he is a fine man, and having heard him preach several times…..this seems to be his style.
He made a lot of sense during his sermon, but my question is….Why open the sermon up to this kind of abuse for no reason? Contraception has been around since the beginning of time in many various forms, but Psalm 127 is completely silent on contraception. It seems to me that if the Psalmist thought contraception was important, he would have included it in the Psalm.
Oh well,….there probably is a good reason he included what he said, but it is not because of biblical exegesis. Its always more difficult to try and defend what is not in the text…..even if the subject is morally sound.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Robin,
Thank you for posting this clarification from Dr. White. I knew what he was speaking of when I listened to the sermon because I did the research when my wife and I got married. She was going to a physician at Duke University, as that was where she was employed. We sat down and spoke at length with the physician and only after my insistence that we believed that life began at conception did she tell us there was a pill available that did not allow the egg to be fertilized. Her statement was, it is not as an effective method as the other pills. I told her that we were committed to life irregardless of whether we meant to conceive. life or not.
If one believes the statement in Article 15 of the BF&M, which says; sanctity of all human life from conception, then how can one argue that a conceived egg passing through the uterus because the person has taken a pill to prevent such to be anything less than murder? I know that people may plead ignorance to such because of a lack of understanding or any other rational reason they may present. However, just because one doesn’t know, is no reason to keep one’s head in the sand. It also is illogical to argue that that Dr. White advocated such nonsense as; He preached this message as if it was a mandate from God or a position in Scripture, that to take birth control pills is absolutely wrong for all Baptist believers. Dr. White is owed a public apology because he has said no such thing.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
I think most of us understand the issues related to contraception and the moral deficiency of our culture in finding ways to perpetuate sexual intercourse as the latest sport for adolescents and adults alike by inventing horrible chemicals that kill or cause life not to exist. And we can get mighty upset about it.
We don’t seem to be as troubled that the Psalmist is not preaching views on contraception, but in stark contrast is illuminating the Gospel of God and the benefits of such. As I listened to Dr. White, it was difficult to hear the gospel. Sure, I heard that we must put our trust in Christ,…but more clearly I heard that we are to work hard if we are to expect the blessing….that being why God blesses…..we are to do our part, etc. In other words,…he seems to pose the question,… How do you get the Lord’s Blessing? And he seems to imply…. that this passage (Psalm 127) teaches that blessings flow when we do our part….or at least that is the significant element of why blessings flow…due to our responsibility.
That is absolutely stunning to me… Psalm 127 says quite the opposite, and certainly does not blaze a path down the trail of Law. The Gospel of God is loud and clear throughout the entire passage,….how can you get anything else from it! Where is Christ in this passage? He is ever present in the building of the house, the chief cornerstone,…the maker of those (children) that defend the glorious church that is His body. He is sovereign in all respects. The gates of Hell will not prevail against the church. Why abort the message of the Psalmist with Law? What good is that?
Maybe we are getting too upset at Dr. White’s privilege to teach the Psalm or give his well informed views on contraception. Maybe the Psalmist is pointing us to Christ and not to the medical profession or politics, or the Law.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris
I believe every sermon should be Christ centered. That is one of the reasons I am in the DMin program at SWBTS. It is at the heart of their concentration in expository preaching.
The one thing I will disagree with you on is whether Dr. White left a proper application of the passage. I don’t believe so. Our society does live as if children are a burden for the reasons explained by Dr White. One of the dangerous affects of birth control is the one illustrated in his sermon. While I don’t believe all forms of birth control are bad, I do have to admit that the one described by Dr White is abortion. Our view that children are a burden rather than a reward has led us to practice a form of birth control that is in effect abortion.
The preacher stands between the Word and the world. It is the preacher’s job to help bring biblical principles and modern day issues together so that we would know what God requires of us. For example, where does the biblical text speak of anorexia? Yet many young teenage girls deal with this issue. I would use passages that deal with how a young woman’s inner beauty over outer beauty is what counts. But is anorexia what the author had in mind? Would you not preach on this subject and still point to Christ? I would hope you would use that biblical principle and help a teenage girl look to Christ instead of in the mirror.
Dr. White pointed to God as our answer instead of our destructive man made solution.
I hope this makes sense as I am typing on my phone and limited to corrections.
Big Goof!!!!!!
That should read I do believe Dr White did have a proper application. Sorry about the confusion.
Tim,
“Irregardless” is not a word. Do not ever use it again in this lifetime.
Chris,
Psalm 127 is not the specifically presenting the “gospel of God.” For you to say it does makes you guilty of exactly what you state Thomas has done.
Robin,
According to the pictures I have seen of you lately, you are not as big a “goof” as you were formerly.
Continue on now gentlemen and I shall be watching all three of you so I can say mean things to you as the opportunity arrises.(the rest of this week, anyway)
My anti-spam word is kindness.
cb
Brother CB,
You said; “Irregardless” is not a word. Do not ever use it again in this lifetime. My anti-spam word was gentleness in all due respect to my anti-spam word allow me to respond with gentleness irregardless of what others may think of this response. First, take up your argument with these people These people wrote the book on word usage and according to them, I have not violated any rule. They suggest it would be better to use regardless, however, I am a Baptist and will use the words I deem most appropriate. Irregardless is a cross between irrespective and regardless and I believe that portrays my thoughts much better. Second, since you have been vacationing from blog town and are back for just a short time, allow me to issue to you the proper response that you may be looking for–GO BLOW IT OUT YOUR EAR!!! :)
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I always knew you were a closet-liberal.
They also invent words and use correct ones wrongly as have you now done so twice.
You need to get with Wes and the two of you work on the proper use of the English language.
If you would like I will be glad to tutor the both of you at a discount price.
cb
Now cb,
I do see your point….but, leaning toward Christ as the Psalmist has done is certainly revealing the substance of the gospel, where contraception is a bit further away (if at all) and leaning the other direction.
I’m just amazed at what we are stunned by these days…..I like Dr. White…. He is passionate and straightforward. The text just seemed to be eclipsed by the latest cultural spectacle of sin.
Speaking of being stunned….I was stunned just a few hours ago while doing a “heart stress test” at the hospital. I was informed that I have a substantial blockage in my heart by the cardiologist and will be having a Left Heart Cath on Monday morning to put in a stint or go directly into heart surgery. It’s been an interesting afternoon. Please keep me in your prayers.
Blessings,
Chris
CB,
Go Vols!
Rocky Top, you’ll always be home sweet home to me…good ole Rocky Top…wheewww…Rocky Top, Tennessee…
CB, you really need to watch this video…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3Ku97TZeOg
Just copy and paste and enjoy!
David
Brother Robin,
First of all, you are an amazing man to be able to type that on your phone…. Wow! Vol would really be upset if I attempted to type on the phone ?
I do see your point as well concerning the sermon. And I do understand the nature of the lecture series…where provocation is given some license. But Dr. White said he was expositing the Psalm. I would say he fell short of that task, and moved to defending his views on certain topics. I would not have had any problem with the his teaching whatsoever if he had said he was simply speaking about cultural problems and using some tangential texts to weave a bit of support for his views.
Preaching or expositing scripture is not a platform for provocation of cultural norms. The Gospel of God provokes quite well on its own….and is the directive of Christ and the Apostles.
Again, I’m glad SWBTS has some energetic young men eager to preach,…and Dr. White is one of the brightest IMHO. But passions on cultural norms are not replacements for preaching and teaching the scripture.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
First things first. I know you have sought to stay in pretty good health and am surprised with this news and will certainly commit this to prayer for you, your family and ministries. On that you have my word and I will ask others to life you up this coming Lord’s day.
Now, to the sermon by Thomas White.
I know Thomas. I have great respect for him and that is possibly the basic reason I have entered into this comment thread other than to rag on you, Tim, Robin and Wes and others a little during my mini-vacation from ceasing to blog.
Therefore, It is my opinion that Thomas used verses three and following of Psalm 127 to speak to a contemporary audience about an age old sin; murder. Murder is not “the latest cultural spectacle of sin.” Abortion is murder. It always has been without regard to the method used.
Contemporary society often falls trap to believing that if government says something is OK then there could possibly be no sin involved in doing what government allows.
Sadly, this is true even among many Christ-followers due to biblical and theological ignorance. Blog posts and comment threads are evidence of that fact (relating to abortion) enough without further illustration here as I am sure you would agree.
Thomas has a great passion against murder, especially abortion, based on biblical and theological truth and for no other reason. He is no clone of anyone. Nor is he a composite of several. He is an independent thinking Christ-follower who understands that abortion in any form is murder and his desire is to warn others of that reality.
He was simply fulfilling his calling as a shepherd and watchman in making the statements he made relating to the sin of murder (abortion) as should we all.
Those who used his statements to advance their pseudo-theo-intellectual, political, personal agendas should: 1. Repent before God for saying things that could lead their ignorant followers to commit murder by abortion. 2. Issue Thomas an apology for using his sermon to advance their own causes. 3. Confess to their followers that they are wrong in what they have done by leading them to believe a lie.
Chris, please take note that this is my opinion alone for I have not spoken personally with Thomas White in some time now. My opinion is based on having worked with him several years, reading his writing, and observing his life before others.
I believe him to be faithful to the whole counsel of God’s Word with a passion to glorify God in his own life and a calling and desire to see others do the same.
cb
Vol,
Thank you for the heads-up on the youtube. I truly enjoyed it and think I saw some of my cousins in it.
Again, thank you and please know I will enjoy invading Knoxville tomorrow with the SABANATION and bringing much pain and misery to your homeland. Please don\’t take it personal. Its only business.
:-)
cb
Brother cb,
I don’t doubt anything you have said…..and you are right. If someone is using this for political manuevers it would not surprise me in the least.
Thanks for the insight….
Blessings,
Chris
Chris
Our prayers will be with you.
Robin
I appreciate the tone of this thread. I’m glad Dr. White came out and provided enough clarity to clear this up some. As I have thought about it for a few days, I still think it’s a tough and complicated issue to preach with precision and clarity. To be honest, I have never used that application and am not sure I would from that text.
I don’t know Dr. White, but am glad to see younger men at SWBTS. The sad part here is that SWBTS has more drama. The perception of SWBTS seems be going back in time. I’m ready for SWBTS to get back to being known as a cutting edge seminary for the 21st Century, not a seminary known for styles of the 50s.
I’m an alum a few times over so I can say that.
To Dr. White, thanks for not being silent. I respect your willingness to be clear and compassionate, regardless of who agrees with your application or not.
“The third function of most birth control pills prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall and this function is what I referred to as murder.” – Thomas White
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion we have:
“Most miscarriages occur very early in pregnancy. Between 10% and 50% of pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.[2] In most cases, they occur so early in the pregnancy that the woman is not even aware that she was pregnant.”
The natural process of conception often results in the destruction of the fertilized egg. Since this is totally preventable (for example by not having sex), why isn’t trying to get pregnant in the usual way also murder by the standard of Dr. White (since the abortion of a fertilized egg occurs through a voluntary action)? Perhaps one could claim such is justifiable murder since the human race would become extinct if no one conceived in the usual way, but it nevertheless seems to qualify as murder by the above standard.
However, one must question whether God would create a process for propagating the human species that necessarily resulted in murder. So it could be that the above analysis is wrong. It could be that while biological life is coincident with conception, spiritual life is coincident with brain activity (something which begins about one month after conception and after which most spontaneous abortions occur). Most people don’t have a problem with cutting off life support to an accident victim who is “brain dead.” For while body processes (biological life) may continue, nothing again will ever go on in the brain.
The Bible does specifically say when spiritual life begins (defined by when an eternal soul comes into existence). The Bible does not say “when” in his mother’s womb John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit. In fact, no one truly knows when the human soul becomes “attached” to a body. While I believe there is a “natural law” reason for preventing the destruction of any fertilized egg, it is not, in my opinion, “clearly” murder until brain activity has begun.
One may wish to err on the side of “safety” and not use certain birth control devices, but it seems to me we should admit (for the sake of honesty) that we don’t actually “know for sure” when the human spirit begins to “inhabit” the human body.
Brothers cb and Robin,
After thinking more about our little conversation here and that some people as you are suggesting are using this for political gain,….. I on the other hand was more concerned with what was being exposed from the Psalm,… my mind continued to return to the remark that Dr. White made at the beginning of the lecture. He said his lecture was an exposition of Psalm 127. I want to give some evidence of why I thought he was unsuccessful, …..substantiated beyond the reason that we are even having a post on a “topic”,… evidenced from our conversation not primarily focused on the Psalm, but about a topic that was raised (conception/contraception) using the Psalm to support the position.
To me this particular message is a classic study on what is “Biblical Exposition” and what I term as… “Topical Supportition”. Both methods can be used to edify the body, but there are clear differences, and a qualified teacher must be willing to tell his students the difference. Biblical Exposition takes the texts and points to Christ by way of His Word. Topical Supportition sets forth a topic and seeks to use God’s Word to support a particular conviction. There is a huge difference. Both can be done very well. What Dr. White gave in the lecture series was not Biblical Exposition, yet what he had to say was done from conviction and his argument was well constructed. His students in the audience, I hope, are discerning enough to understand that his message was not biblical exposition, but it was convictional topical supportition.
After listening to the message again last night….I came away with the following evidence:
It is obvious that Dr. White had a burden about the sin of abortion and that Psalm 127 seems to be the best way to approach the topic. He mentioned other scripture only twice in the sermon (Acts12:6-7, Ecclesiastes 1:2). The first mention came at the 14 minute mark and the second midway through the 15th minute. The rest of time was to bring definition to the topic by reference to the Psalm and two other passages of scriptural support that were not in expositional position to Psalm 127. The vast majority of the support came from stories and experiences, not derived from scripture.
I simply sat, listened and listed the topics,…here’s a short running list: God is God and we are not, Kingdom’s will fall, Trust God but keep your powder dry, Futile Labor, Building a great church, Faithfulness is the prerequisite for blessing, We must do our part, Republicans and Democrats, Don’t think politics is where you get your blessings, Our politics is preaching the Word of God, Faith is to do a work on this campus, Being a workaholic, Peter sleeping (Acts 12:6-7), Staying connected to the Lord, Fruitful legacy as the Lord gives us children, Birth Control and his mistake, Definitions have changed, A full quiver, The making of the children (arrows), Our training is wrong because we don’t want kids, Push kids to public schools and daycares, Children are for different uses, Aim an arrow where it needs to be aimed, Unwed teenage pregnancy (video pans to two girls in the crowd), Talking in the gate, Birth Control, Adoption, God is in control of all life, 9 day adoption of Rachael, The Lord Builds…….
On the other hand, a clear exposition of Psalm 127 would include at minimum from the OT writings: the first verses of Psalm 120,121,122,123,124,125,126; 2 Samuel 12:25; 1 Kings 3:5; Proverbs 5:10, 10:22, 22:22, 24:7 and Psalm 23. It is obvious that the Psalmist is exposing Christ and how the Gospel or His power unto salvation (Romans) is the effecting substance of the “Unless the Lord Builds the House”. The Psalm clearly points to the reality of what is revealed in Christ throughout the NT passages.
So, to conclude that Dr. White exposited Psalm 127 is not to understand exposition. Not to say that topics are not instructive, but it is extremely important for the young men and women in his audience to understand the difference and the significance of these two distinct approaches and from what view each is instructing. The Apostles addressed many problems in the churches, but they only preached Christ crucified and divided the scriptures accurately concerning Christ alone.
1 Corinthians 1:21-24 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. (22) For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; (23) but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, (24) but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
On the other hand,….Murder can be discussed more appropriately from other passages. The Psalm 127 passage is speaking to the order of life not death. To take the Psalmist into another arena (that of death) is just one of the things that quickly creates the absence of biblical exposition. Not to lessen the evil of abortion, yet we should also consider that there have been many more than 50 million murders (compared to Dr. White’s abortion statistics) in the church alone if you really believe what Christ was teaching concerning murder.
Matthew 5:20-24 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (21) “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ (22) “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. (23) “Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, (24) leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.
Blessings,
Chris
I see the Pharisees are again around the Patriarch table and patting themselves on the back for being so much more pious and holy than others with their extra biblical laws.
I wonder how many of you have more than 6 kids. Is your ‘quiver’ full? Or why your leaders (Patterson and Mohler) have so few children if what you write is true. Did they MURDER by BC?
Wanda,
It is truly sad for you to read these comments (if, indeed, you did actually read them) and sum up with the words you did in comment 26.
Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom…
But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. James 3
Historically speaking, do we know what Baptists believed about birth control? And/or Southern Baptists in particular? Or would it even matter to us? I know in the history of the Church as a whole, all the way up through the Reformation and on into the turn of the 19th century, not one prominent theologian spoke in support of any kind of “family planning”. In fact, there was a consistent and united voice against it from all corners of Protestantism following the Reformation. At the end of the day, the debate must start and end with Scripture, but it seems that we are all too quick (and too often, unapologetic) in bringing our contraceptive mentality to Scripture and then wondering why we end up where we do. An historically informed, culturally sensitive, biblically authoritative reading of the text of Scripture is what we need here — not some ethical ideal of “if it’s possible, it’s permissible” that seems to permeate far too much of today’s ethical reflection. If we say that we are not “legalists”, then let us prove it by not coming to the Bible as if it is solely a “rule book”, devoid of narrative, value, or propositional truth. The Bible has rules, no doubt, but it’s ethical commentary does not end there. What did Christ value? What does Scripture value? These are only a few of the questions that we should be asking, and then putting them into practice…
I am new to blogging about SBC matters, but the attitude of some in this comment stream, including those of Mr. Scott and Mr. Foster remind me of a test I was given at Vanderbilt in 1967. It was a fascinating peak into the psyche of men (or women) who manipulate words or circumstances to obtain a desired outcome. Today, just like 41 years ago, I find all this quite fascinating.
Darrel
Darrel,
We’re so glad that you’re fascinated. Really. BTW, do you still live in the Nashville area? And, if so, what Church do you attend?
Wanda,
Your comment in #26 is just so…so…over the top and wrong and arrogant that it’s fascinating…as Darrel would say.
Wanda, it seems like you just have so much hate for what you think are “BI guys” that it’s blinding you. You have such venom for anyone who doesnt believe like you do, or who would dare to disagree with you, that it’s just a little bit scary.
And, you call the BI guys “Pharisees!” Wow!
David
The first Together for Adoption conference was Saturday, Nov 1, in Greenville, SC. Check out the blog togetherforadoption.org to learn more about this great initiative!
I just recently became aware of Thomas White’s statement on birth control. It is the sort of statement that prompted me to leave the Southern Baptist denomination after a lifetime of membership. In fact, my father was the organist at a Southern Baptist church for 40 years. So, I have considerable experience with the denomination.
I will ignore the issue of when life begins, as no one knows the answer to that question. But, I am sure that such pronouncements as that of White does nothing to further the physical and spiritual well-being of anyone. All it does is promote devisiveness between people. I am continually distressed at the SBC and others of their ilk, as they take extreme positions on issues both trivial and important. I am appalled that the denomination promotes sexism by condemning the ordination of women and treating women as second class citizens in their own families. The S. Baptist people I grew up with were compassionate, and caring people. I fear that those types people are becoming an endangered species.
Rod Cate
The pitiful confession of Rodney Cate:
“I just recently became aware of Thomas White’s statement on birth control. It is the sort of statement that prompted me to leave the Southern Baptist denomination after a lifetime of membership.”
Rodney,
If the preaching of Thomas White is a sample of the kind of preaching that made you leave the SBC then it is evident you left because you love darkness better than light.
“So, I have considerable experience with the denomination.”
Rodney,
The SBC is not actually a denomination. It would seem that within 40 years someone would have told you that.
“I will ignore the issue of when life begins, as no one knows the answer to that question.”
Rodney,
Sticking your head in the sand does not relieve you of your accountability before God for the blood of the helpless.
“But, I am sure that such pronouncements as that of White does nothing to further the physical and spiritual well-being of anyone.”
Rodney,
Murder is always negative toward a person’s “physical”well-being. I praise God that He has provided for the “spiritual” well-being of the aborted. Otherwise, our homeland’s damnable, national sin would be of even a greater magnitude.
“All it does is promote devisiveness between people.”
Rodney,
If obedience to God in the seeking to protect human beings from murder divides us, then by all means, let us be divided.
“I am continually distressed at the SBC and others of their ilk, as they take extreme positions on issues both trivial and important.”
Rodney,
How can you say abortion is a “trivial” matter. Shame on you. May you find place of repentance before you meet judgment.
” The S. Baptist people I grew up with were compassionate, and caring people. I fear that those types people are becoming an endangered species.”
Rodney,
If the “S. Baptist people” you grew up with did not express compassion for murdered babies, yet attended a Southern Baptist church, then some ministers greatly failed in their ministry to proclaim the Word and worship God in Spirit and truth and miserably neglected their accountability before God and His flock for at least forty years.
I am glad they are “becoming an endangered species” among Southern Baptists.
Rodney,
Just what kind of doctor do you claim to be? It is sad to waste an education. It is sin to have bloody hands.
cb
Rodney,
With views like you’ve just expressed, then we’re glad you left. We didnt need people who believe like you in the SBC. That was the whole reason of the Conservative Resurgence.
Now, if you’d like to repent of those unbiblical views and get on board, then welcome. We’d be glad to worship and serve alongside of you. But, if you’re unwilling to repent, then it’s better for you to be gone.
David
Brother Rodney:
I pray that you meet the compassionate and caring Christians who remain within the SBC.
I also pray that you have found a church in which to worship, fellowship and serve since leaving the SBC.
As there is no condemnation in Christ you will be welcomed in his house no matter what the sign says outside.
Blessings,
-jack-
Jack,
Does truth matter to you? Does staying true to the clear teachings of Scripture matter to you? Should people who go against the clear teachings of Scripture be welcome in SBC Churches, in the sense of preaching and teaching, and being in leadership positions?
Just wondering.
David
Vol,
I would like to give an answer to your question based upon what I have read of Jack writing and that alone since I have nothing else to base an answer.
Based upon the evidence given by Jack (?) in his writing on blogs thus far the answers to your questions are:
1. NO
2. NO
3. Yes
cb
Brother Rodney Asked:
“Jack,
Does truth matter to you?”
Yes. The truth has set me free.
“Does staying true to the clear teachings of Scripture matter to you?”
Yes. I strive to walk in the manner into which I have been called with all humility and true sensitivity with perseverance, tolerating one another by means of love.
“Should people who go against the clear teachings of Scripture be welcome in SBC Churches, in the sense of preaching and teaching, and being in leadership positions?”
Yes. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
If you are speaking of the unrepentant or the unregenerate, the answers to your questions (as you well know) can be found in the Pauline letters to the early church.
Alas, (as you also well know) fellow brothers and sisters in Christ can disagree over what constitute the “clear teachings of Scripture.”
Instead of fighting over the many things that can divide us we should cooperate on the basis of the fundamentals that can unite us.
The teachings of Christ and the earliest of Christian creeds point the way.
We may differ in culture, worship styles, and interpretations of scripture, but so long as we preach the fundamentals of the gospel there can be unity (and power) in our diversity.
Blessings (to you and Brother CB),
-jack-
PS: My post above should have opened
“Brother David asked:”
Regrets,
-jack-
Jack (?),
It is highly doutful you know the fundamentals and far more doutful you would preach them. Thus far you have made no statement to indicate otherwise.
cb
Jack (?),
Since we “differ in culture, worship styles, and interpretations of scripture” would you mind “interpreting” 2 Timothy 3:1-9 and let me know what you think about it?
I kinda think it describes guys like you. Of course I think that only from reading what you write. Maybe I am wrong, but maybe not.
cb
Brother CB asked:
“Since we “differ in culture, worship styles, and interpretations of scripture” would you mind “interpreting” 2 Timothy 3:1-9 and let me know what you think about it?
The passages to which you refer warn Timothy against apostates and false teachers.
“What do you think about it? I kinda think it describes guys like you.”
I confess to having loved myself, loved money, and been boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not a lover of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, a lover of pleasure rather than a lover of God.
I have fled the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. I still struggle against having anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because they produce quarrels.
As the Lord’s servant I must not quarrel; instead, I must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.
Those who oppose me in doing God’s work I must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
In short, I am a sinner saved by God’s grace struggling daily with my sinful nature even as I endeavor to proclaim his message.
I am your Brother in Christ,
-jack-
Jack,
Thank you.
cb
Jack (?)
Vol asked the following question of you:
“Should people who go against the clear teachings of Scripture be welcome in SBC Churches, in the sense of preaching and teaching, and being in leadership positions?”
You gave the following answer:
“Yes. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
I would like to ask you another question based on your answer to Vol’s question.
Jack (?) Based upon your answer would you believe it a proper thing to be a member of a church of which a Sodomite served as pastor believing that your answer to Vol’s question is sufficient to allow the stretching of the SBC “tent” to include said pastor?
cb
Brother CB asked:
Vol asked the following question of you:
“Should people who go against the clear teachings of Scripture be welcome in SBC Churches, in the sense of preaching and teaching, and being in leadership positions?”
You gave the following answer:
“Yes. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
(I also went on to say: “If you are speaking of the unrepentant or the unregenerate, the answers to your questions (as you well know) can be found in the Pauline letters to the early church.)”
Brother CR then asked:
Jack (?) Based upon your answer would you believe it a proper thing to be a member of a church of which a Sodomite served as pastor believing that your answer to Vol’s question is sufficient to allow the stretching of the SBC “tent” to include said pastor?
Paul’s letters state that an unrepentant sexual sinner should be (lovingly) confronted on the basis of testimony from multiple members.
If the sexual sin involves one in a leadership (pastoral) position repentance may restore the leader to membership within the assembly.
The leader may be disqualified from further ministry because the standards for leadership are higher than the standards for membership.
-jack-
Jack (?),
Thank you for your answer.
Let me continue if I may.
If a man was in a long term relationship with another man and the two were completely faithful to each other and one was a pastor of a church and you liked his leadership and believed him to preach the gospel, would you attend or be a member of that church?
Brother CB:
Your hypothetical is a non-starter.
I would not “like the leadership” of a person engaging in unrepentant sin.
Jack (?),
Thank you again.
Now maybe you see the inherent weakness of your answer to Vol’s question:
“Should people who go against the clear teachings of Scripture be welcome in SBC Churches, in the sense of preaching and teaching, and being in leadership positions?”
Your answer was:
“Yes. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
The ultimate conclusion of such a position as your answer represents is that a person could live like a devil (Sodomite) and simply respond to any who would hold him accountable by saying, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” They could say things like: “We all struggle with sin. This is mine, yet I am still a leader in my church.”
Jack (?), that just won’t make muster for church leadership.
You will probably now come back with some other “watered down like day old iced-tea” theological position claiming some form of pathetic tolerance of “tent stretching proportions” but that won’t work either.
Your answers to Vol’s questions betray a weak theological stance and you need to deal with it if you are teaching and preaching to one of the flocks of God, especially a “Baptist flock.”
You need to quit hanging around over at Wade’s Farm and get into the Word of God so you can preach the gospel of truth in these perilous times or you need to just leave the pulpit all together.
I have been you friend here. You can take it or leave it. It is a hard truth I realize, but you need to deal with it.
cb
CB,
Amen.
David
Jack,
The Bible teaches us to not only love Jesus, but to love the truth of God’s Word, and make sure that we stand on what it clearly teaches. To do otherwise is not follow our Lord. For someone to say that women should be pastors goes against the clear teachings of Scripture every bit as much as Thou shalt not commit adultery, or Thou shalt not murder, or the teachings of Jude concerning keeping false teachers out of the Church.
Therefore, when people like Rodney comment that they are so upset about the leaders of the SBC of today, and how they’re holding back women because we say that they should not be pastors of churches, or because we say that abortion is murder; then it makes me not want people like Rodney in the SBC…unless he’s willing to repent of such unBiblical attitudes and views. It’s nothing personal against Rodney…I dont even know Rodney. But, it’s about our passion for the truth of God’s Word, and our passion to remain true to our Lord.
Now, if you’re talking about different worship styles, or different interpretations about things like pre-trib, or mid-trib; or if you’re talking about the different interpretations like whether five point Calvinism, or four point Calvinism, etc. then we can disagree all day long and still server together. Or, if one Church believes that close communion is the way to go, and another believes in a form of open communion, then we can still serve in the same SBC. But, when people start talking about abortion being ok because we just cant know when life begins, or that women should be allowed to be Pastors of Churches, or if a Church allows homosexuals to be members in good standing; then that’s a whole nother ballgame. Do you agree?
David
Vol,
A-MEN.
cb
Brothers David & CB:
The question put forth was:
“Should people who go against the clear teachings of Scripture be welcome in SBC Churches, in the sense of preaching and teaching, and being in leadership positions?”
Which I answered as follows:
“Yes. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (AND, I went on to say): If you are speaking of the unrepentant or the unregenerate, the answers to your questions (as you well know) can be found in the Pauline letters to the early church.”
Brother CB admonishes me that my “answer to Vol’s question betray a weak theological stance and you need to deal with it if you are teaching and preaching to one of the flocks of God, especially a “Baptist flock.”
-So let’s break it down from a biblical perspective:
Unless the two of you live perfect lives I assume that – like all of us – you stumble but press on toward the goal, assured of our salvation through grace despite our sinful nature. That is why I began my answer by quoting Paul thusly:
“Yes. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
Brother CB says “the ultimate conclusion of such a position as your answer represents is that a person could live like a devil (Sodomite) and simply respond to any who would hold him accountable by saying, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” They could say things like: “We all struggle with sin. This is mine, yet I am still a leader in my church.”
Alas you have overlooked the rest of my answer: “If you are speaking of the unrepentant or the unregenerate, the answers to your questions (as you well know) can be found in the Pauline letters to the early church.”
Paul admonished the church at Corinth that unrepentant practitioners of sexual sins are not to be overlooked within the body of believers. That – combined with his description of qualifications of overseers and deacons –would not allow someone to “live like the devil” and lead a church.
Brother David addresses his and Brother CB’s remarks to Brother Rodney (which prompted my response beginning this comment stream;
“When people like Rodney comment that they are so upset about the leaders of the SBC of today, and how they’re holding back women because we say that they should not be pastors of churches, or because we say that abortion is murder; then it makes me not want people like Rodney in the SBC…unless he’s willing to repent of such unBiblical attitudes and views.”
It’s nothing personal against Rodney…I don’t even know Rodney. But, it’s about our passion for the truth of God’s Word, and our passion to remain true to our Lord.”
“When people start talking about abortion being ok because we just cant know when life begins, or that women should be allowed to be Pastors of Churches, or if a Church allows homosexuals to be members in good standing; then that’s a whole ‘nother ballgame. Do you agree?”
Let’s first look at Rodney’s comments:
“I just recently became aware of Thomas White’s statement on birth control. It is the sort of statement that prompted me to leave the Southern Baptist denomination after a lifetime of membership.
I will ignore the issue of when life begins, as no one knows the answer to that question. But, I am sure that such pronouncements as (White’s do) nothing to further the physical and spiritual wellbeing of anyone. All it does is promote (divisions) between people.”
Rodney (like me) said nothing about homosexuals.
Rodney’s statement that “no one knows … when life begins” is offered in rebuttal of Professor Thomas White’s SWBTS chapel sermon remarks that “The third function of most birth control pills prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall and this function is what I referred to as murder.”
I do not yet see that Rodney has anything to repent for, so let’s look at the rest of his statement:
“ I am appalled that the denomination promotes sexism by condemning the ordination of women and treating women as second class citizens in their own families.”
Shall we deny him a seat in our sanctuary because he believes that Ephesians 5:21 defines the relationship between husband and wives as mutual submission?
Shall we treat him as an unbeliever because he points to Acts 2:17-18, Galations 3:28, and the roles of Deborah, Huldah, Phoebe and Priscilla to refute prohibitions against women ministering, teaching or having authority over men?
I don’t know Brother Rodney either but as Brothers in Christ I do know we are instructed to be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave us.
-jack-
What does it say about a speaker who has to issue a statement to clarify his statements?
As my old theology professor once said, “If you have to explain your explanation you already lost,” Richard Land.
rick
Jack (?),
Rodney did address Thomas White’s sermon. That is true. If that had been the end of it we would not be having this debate. It was what he continued to say that brought about the debate.
Rodney said:
“I will ignore the issue of when life begins, as no one knows the answer to that question. But, I am sure that such pronouncements as (White’s do) nothing to further the physical and spiritual wellbeing of anyone. All it does is promote (divisions) between people.”
Jack(?), how can anyone of faith, in this culture when babies are being murdered by the millions, “ignore the issue of when life begins” so very easily?
Also, how could a sermon seeking to protect the very lives God created cause a person to desire to leave, a church in general or the SBC in particular unless that person had a position on the sanctity of human life that is in diametric opposition to the Word of God?
Vol challenged Rodney’s outrageous, barbarian, neo-pagan and utterly un-Christian statement in the only proper way for a man of God to do so. Then you come along and not only do you rebuke Vol, but you also go and paste the statement over at Wade’s Farm for nuts, flakes and Wild geese to cackle about.
Brother something is wrong here and it is not Vol’s rebuke of Rodney. it is your theology.
I will ask you straight out. Would you knowingly allow Sodomites to be active members of a church to which you served as pastor?
cb
cb
–
Brother CB:
I don’t understand why you keep turning the discussion toward homosexuals in the church, but once more I will answer your question;
A practicing homosexual is engaging in an ongoing sexual sin. A true (regenerate) follower of Christ would not continue living a sinful life. A practicing homosexual would either have to depart from his sinful former life to become a member of a body of believers or – if he entered into homosexual practices after a profession of faith and baptism into a local body – turn away from this way of life after being lovingly counseled by leaders of his local body – if he is to continue as an active member.
Having said that I hope that our sanctuary is packed with those who are separated from God – homosexuals included – each time we meet so that the message of salvation continues to reach those who need it most.
You also ask “how can anyone of faith, in this culture when babies are being murdered by the millions, “ignore the issue of when life begins” so very easily?”
The frontlines for protecting the unborn have moved from “viable fetus” to “fetus” to “embryo” to “implanted egg/zygote” to “non-implanted zygote” to “non-implanted fertilized egg.” Eventually we will arrive at a battle over whether preventing the fertilization of egg = murder = abortion. We still won’t know where along the timeline from birth back to the earliest stage of conception the soul enters the body but the battles and divisions among us will continue nonetheless.
Can Brothers in Christ not set aside their differences over what should be done to save the unborn in order to work together to fulfill our Great Commission charge to save those who have been born?
You say “Vol challenged Rodney’s outrageous, barbarian, neo-pagan and utterly un-Christian statement in the only proper way for a man of God to do so. Then you come along and not only do you rebuke Vol, but you also go and paste the statement over at Wade’s Farm for nuts, flakes and Wild geese to cackle about.”
Let me first address your statement that I have wronged you through my post on Wade’s site.
I am sorry and I ask your forgiveness.
I am trying to be gracious and polite in my conversations to you both, despite my differences with your response to Dr. Cate.
I encourage you to re-examine your statements to him. He is – after all -a fellow Brother in Christ.
Blessings to you both,
-jack-
Pingback: Selling the Quiverfull Approach to Family Planning » The Wartburg Watch
QUOTE We still won’t know where along the timeline from birth back to the earliest stage of conception the soul enters the body END QUTOE
Where in the Bible does it say anything about a “soul entering a body?’
What has pushed back the limits of human rights has not been “fundamentalist ravings,” but science and technology.
Perhaps we should push the limit back to where the Bible says our life begins: “In the mind of God.” That’s the only Biblically defensible position (Ps. 139:16).
QUOTE If obedience to God in the seeking to protect human beings from murder divides us, then by all means, let us be divided END QUOTE
Post #33: Amen! CB.