The title of this article is a question that should be asked of all Southern Baptists. Why did the CBF leave the Southern Baptist fold back in 1992? We all have been told, and I remember well, many a squabble over the sufficient and inerrant text of the Word of God. The CBF ended up with no legitimate following in their interpretation that the Bible contained errors and they left the convention to form their own denomination.
This brings me to my question. If we are not allowed to disagree over various issues in the Southern Baptist Convention then why not just join the CBF? You may say that they do not believe the Bible. I will give you that, but where are the areas you disagree with their analysis of the scripture? Could it be alcohol, homosexuality, women deacons, or combining the mission boards? Allow me to address these items and one will see there really is not that much difference in a group that says they do not believe the Bible contains errors in the text and a group that says the Bible does contain errors.
The alcohol debate has re-entered the mainstream life of the SBC with the 2006 Southern Baptist Convention in Greensboro, North Carolina. Today we are told that many, if not a vast majority of, younger SBC pastors advocate a moderate use of alcohol. We even have professors teaching in our seminaries that express the bible teaches alcohol consumption in moderation but because the student and professor signed a document they must abstain. Thus, we have professors in our seminaries today signing documents containing beliefs that Southern Baptist have expressed, but that the professors do not believe. The issue of professors signing documents contrary to their personal convictions was identified by the Peace Committee. While there was no document concerning alcohol use in Southern Baptist life during the Conservative Resurgence, Southern Baptists have always been known as a convention of churches that believed in abstaining from beverage alcohol. In Nancy Ammerman’s book Baptist Battles, it was identified that 63% of Southern Baptists believed that Christians ought to avoid drinking alcoholic beverages. From these statistics one can determine that moderates–the ones that would not affirm inerrancy–believed a social use of beverage alcohol was allowed by Scripture. However, this presents a huge problem as we move into today’s SBC. The younger pastors tells us they believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but when it comes to beverage alcohol they believe the same about the Scriptures that the moderates believe but will not confess the scripture is inerrant.
Homosexuality is another issue that seems to enjoy the same position among some, mainly younger Southern Baptist as it does among the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. For example, in a USA Today article, a young Southern Baptist stated: “we need to begin looking for ways to affirm, rather than undermine, our claims to love our gay neighbors.” Of course no one desires to say one thing and do something different. However, the article charges that Southern Baptists are speaking with forked tongues concerning the issue of homosexuality. The article suggests that Southern Baptists get behind legislation that would give homosexual couples the same legal rights as married couples. The author says; “We should support protecting our gay and lesbian neighbors from discrimination in the workplace and cleaning up the legal cobwebs that govern hospital visitation rights and inheritance for same-sex couples.” In all fairness to the author, he says just before this that there should be no redefinition of marriage, but the thoughts do not flow in logic.
What is the difference in position found in the USA Today article and that of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship concerning homosexuality? From the appearance the CBF has a stronger stand against homosexuals than the USA Today article advocates. So, what does the CBF say about homosexuality?
As Baptist Christians, we believe that the foundation of a Christian sexual ethic is faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman and celibacy in singleness. We also believe in the love and grace of God for all people, both for those who live by this understanding of the biblical standard and those who do not. We treasure the freedom of individual conscience and the autonomy of the local church, and we also believe that congregational leaders should be persons of moral integrity whose lives exemplify the highest standards of Christian conduct and character.
Because of this organizational value, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship does not allow for the expenditure of funds for organizations or causes that condone, advocate or affirm homosexual practice. Neither does this CBF organizational value allow for the purposeful hiring of a staff person or the sending of a missionary who is a practicing homosexual.
This statement, from its appearance, seems to be an adequate statement and one that I personally could condone. But, notice the nuance in the statement. “Neither does this CBF organizational value allow for the purposeful hiring of a staff person or the sending of a missionary who is a practicing homosexual.” While it does not allow for it, it does not say the CBF will question someone on their sexuality. Thus, it appears if the USA Today article is any indication of the future, there will be virtually no difference in positions.
Combined Mission Boards is another area where we may be the same as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. According to their website, the CBF has field personnel all over the world. “The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship supports more than 160 field personnel around the world. They are serving in remote villages, large cities, in the United States and in countries with little access to the gospel.” These field personnel are appointed through one missions sending board. Everything done that has the name missions is under this board. They have:
• Poverty/Transformation Ministries
• Disaster Response Ministry
• Internationals Ministries
• Church Starting/Faith Sharing
• Justice and Peacemaking Ministries
• Medical Ministries
• Economic Development Ministries
• Education Ministries
One thing that causes me caution here is that it appears from their website that all of these areas operate under one mission board. With all of these areas under one board that would create a turmoil for an organization much larger than the 160 missionaries of the CBF. For these areas of responsiblity to be included in one mission board for the SBC would be something that would cause focus to be lost. These various ministries would cry out for individual attention. For example NAMB is charged with Disaster Relief and is one of the bright spots of that entity. If that entity would be combined with the IMB then Disaster Relief would move from the United States to international. There is already some element of that now. I remember when the Tsunami hit India many were asked if they could go. I understand many Disaster Relief volunteers went and did an outstanding job. However, can one not see the loss of focus on Disaster Relief that would result if it was combined with an agency that now has 5000 missionaries and has a vision for 10,000 within the next 10 years? I am not saying this could not be done, we do serve a big God who is able to give us more than we can dream, but I am saying we need to move cautiously in such an endeavor.
Women deacons is another area there really is not much difference in the CBF and the SBC. Some may say that CBF churches do not believe the scripture as we do. The only real difference in a CBF church and a SBC church is the issue of women deacons. Yes there are some CBF churches that have women pastors in the Senior Pastor position. But, there are others, here, that question the Partners of CBF and their commitment to women in pastoral ministry. According to a report, here, even a partner of the CBF has presented statistics that reveal the lack of commitment to their “biblical belief” of women pastors. However, there are SBC churches that have the same thing, practically speaking. Some SBC churches have gone to a husband/wife Senior Pastor position. This husband and wife team operate with the husband out front but the wife is often brought in to expound the scripture with the understanding she is under the headship of her husband. In a CBF church the wife who is the Senior Pastor is still married and believes her husband has a biblical role to fulfill as well. So no real difference. What about deacons? Many CBF churches have women deacons. However, that issue is easily gotten around by some SBC churches in the use of elders. Some Southern Baptist allow for women deacons as long as a church is either elder governed or elder led. The elders are clearly identified through gender and deacons would not have a gender attached to the office. So we could get around that issue easily.
Conclusion
What does all this come to? If one’s goal is to relieve ourselves from a bloated bureaucracy and to streamline our convention then there is no need to spend $250,000.00 for the Great Commission Task Force’s budget. They could have a couple of meetings with Dr. Dan Vestal and reconcile whatever personal differences and we would be in business. We could probably do this for less than $100,000.0o. If efficiency is the real issue and we desire more of our money to get to the mission field, then reconciling with the CBF is the answer because you have to give it to them, they are streamlined. They have the same approach to alcohol and homosexuality as many of our younger pastors. They have one mission board that is set up to get funds straight to the mission field.
The reason this Southern Baptist will not join the CBF is very simple. I will always point to scriptural reasons that the bible does teach a Christian should abstain from the social use of beverage alcohol. I will always point to the scriptural reasons that a person cannot call oneself a Christian and live in a homosexual relationship. I will always point to the scriptural offices of the church according to scripture is Pastor/Elder and Deacon and according to scripture the church is congregationally governed. I will also point out that the bible teaches we need to get the gospel to the world, and beginning in our Jerusalem is just as important as getting the gospel to the uttermost. I desire to reach the world for Jesus Christ, but I do not have the authority to say that God has said we should stop reaching the United States in order to reach the uttermost. Because of that conviction, I will never sit quietly and watch the North American Mission Board be consolidated into the International Mission Board for the sake of putting together a new cool sounding “Global Mission Board”. That is fiefdom-building at its best. For this reason, I call on the trustees at the North American Mission Board to form a search committee to find God’s man to lead in reaching the North American continent. It speaks volumes to the trustees’ lack of clarity in calling to sit on their haunches for over 30 days with no search committee in place when the IMB and the Executive Committee Presidents have announced their retirement and their trustees have already announced their search committees. If the NAMB trustees are waiting for the GCRTF to recommend combining the mission boards, then for the sake of effeciency, we could join the CBF.
I always debate as to whether or not I should comment. I always hope that the illogic and ranting will be obvious, but today, comment I shall, and simply.
The overarching problem with this post is the conflation of a methodological debate (how to accomplish mission in North America & the World) with a theological debate. The CBF has nothing to do with the matter.
Point by point, then, the failure continues as the old hobby-horse of alcohol consumption is whipped out for another ride. I’m tired of hearing about the traditions of men, I want to know what the Bible says. I believe in moderate consumption of alcohol because the Bible teaches that good things like sex, food, and wine/strong drink were given to man by God for man’s joy, and the abuse of these leads not to joy but to slavery and hell. For the record, SBC statesman James P. Boyce imbibed but I don’t argue for this point because of what some men did or do, but what the Bible says. Tim, I have felt for a long time that the traditional SB approach to arguing against alcohol is in fact, a “moderate” approach – the ignoring and rejection of the clear meaning of Scripture. The evidence against teetotalism has been established strong by many scholars, including Don Carson and William Mounce, but enough of this point.
Further, the issue of women deacons is another exegetical issue to be addressed. Since 1 Tim. 2:12 forbids women in the church to teach or have authority over a man, they are indeed forbidden the office of elder, but the office of deacon is one of servant leader. The evidence is here is not even a tenth as strong as the biblical evidence for alcohol and I can understand if not everyone takes the same view as I do, but Tim, how can you possibly accuse me or my church of being liberal when we have reached our conclusions on these two issues not out of a rejection of the authority or Scripture on the topics, but out of a commitment to study the Word and do what it says? If I felt the Scripture taught against moderate alcohol use or women deacons I would submit to Scripture and turn from these things.
The boys over at Baptist21 have written a solid series, musing about the current strengths of SBC church planting while not shying away from point out opportunities for us to improve. And, they manage to do so without indirectly dragging their opponents names through the mud. Best yet, they make sound proposals about what might be viable from here.
Brother Paul,
Thank you for your comments. I do pray you enjoy reading SBC Today. While we will agree to disagree everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. You seem to disagree with my take on this issue and that is your right.
Allow me to respond to your seemingly disagreements in my article. First, I agree that the CBF is not the issue. That is not the point of my post. My point is that the CBF offers the exact same thing that we now have people in the SBC pushing for. Not slamming the CBF or the SBC just drawing the lines of agreement that we seem to be moving. Second, the alcohol debate is not some “whipping post” that I come back to. The alcohol debate is something that was brought back to mainstream SBC life in 2006 and the very ones I heard speak in public about the utter astonishment of a debate ensuing on the floor of the SBC with SB pastors defending the moderate use of beverage alcohol are the ones who have become silent on this issue. While you can point to scholarly authors who present a moderation view I can point to scholarly authors that present an abstinence view. Third, your position on women deacons is the same position taken by the moderates when arguing for scripture allowing for such.
My point is that the arguments being presented in the SBC today for these views we are not that far removed, theologically speaking, from those who left the SBC to start the CBF. And since our driving force for the GCRTF has been stated as a more efficient model, then one already exists and that would be the wisest move–efficiently speaking.
Blessings,
Tim
Bro. Tim,
I think the key distinction between the issues that led to the split with CBF and the issues you discuss (or at least some of them) is the way the people involved treat the Bible. The CBF split was inevitable once the CBF folks decided that the Bible contained errors. When that happened, there was no longer an agreed-upon foundation to join the SBC and CBF. A review of Bro. Paul’s response demonstrates why at least the issues of alcohol and women deacons are not like the CBF split — Bro. Paul assumes that the Bible is true, and argues from the Bible why his position on alcohol and women deacons is more Biblical. If a denomination can’t take some disagreement over Biblical interpretation, it’s got some problems. At the same time, no denomination should accept disagreement over whether the Bible is true (which is why the CBF split was inevitable).
Pingback: Tweets that mention Why Not Join the CBF? :: SBC Today -- Topsy.com
Brother/Sister Anon,
While I understand your perspective, I must say that you make my point exactly. While Brother Paul says he believes the Scripture, and I do not question his belief, he none the less uses the same argument that those in the CBF use in order to support his belief. Those who left the SBC to form the CBF did so screaming to the top of their lungs; “I believe in the authority of the Scripture”. They would not use the word inerrant because they saw the copyist errors as errors. Those of us who say the Scripture is inerrant say it is the original text–something we do not have–that is inerrant. Those within the CBF would affirm the original text as being inerrant–if we had the original text. Thus to say that we believe the scripture is inerrant then use the same argument to support the same conclusion reached–be it alcohol, homosexuality, or women deacons–is in essence saying the same thing.
As to the truth of God’s word. The CBF split was not whether the Bible was true or not. Truth was never the issue. The split came over whether the Scriptures were Truth–as penned by the writers–or whether they contained truth. Those leading in the CR stated clearly the Scripture is truth while those left stated the Scripture contained truth.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I’m beginning to come to the conclusion that the administrations and professors at at least two of our seminaries are so far removed from our churches that they are producing students that neither understand the work of our convention’s entities or the values of our rank and file churches. I am wondering if better stewardship might need to begin by examining our seminaries to see why they are not graduating students who are southern baptists.
Tim B
Tim,
Love ya, bro, but this is a strange post. I won’t engage each point as I don’t have the time, but let me just say that your argument against combining NAMB and IMB just because that is similar to CBF’s mission structure is no argument at all.
Also, BFM2K says nothing about women deacons, so why make it a SBC or CBF issue? Although I don’t support women deacons, it’s a non-essential among cooperating churches.
Les
Tim R.,
:)
David
PS. :)
Les,
Ordained women might be a non-essentail for cooperation to you, but don’t assume that holds true for all of us. If our church were looking for partners to help us plant a church, we absolutely would not join up with a church that ordains women. That’s not legalism, it’s just a matter faithfulness and honesty. Our church can’t rightly say we believe a part of the Bible, but we just don’t believe it’s important enough to matter.
It’s not just missions that hold us together. Our common beliefs make cooperation possible, and when we no longer hold those common beliefs and consider those beliefs important enough to stand firm on, then the convention will crumble. If we broaden the tent, the fabric will collapse for lack of support just like the other broad tent denominations.
My “anti spam word” was patience – so I must be careful with this comment. Matt brings out a great point in comment #9. Cooperation is much more than just missions. I am not sure where all of this leads but I am sure that in the discussions on cooperation we have not made much progress or wither we have clearly defined major differences that exists among all in the SBC.
Matt,
My comment indicating that women deacons are an “non-essential” is not based on my opinion; it’s based on what our own BFM2K deems as “essential” doctrine in the SBC. Nowhere in BFM2K are women deacons addressed, therefore, the SBC has deemed it a “non-essential” within the convention. How you and your church choose to deem it is entirely up to you. However, understand that your position, right or wrong, leaves you in a position of potential uncooperation with SBC churches who adhere to BFM2K. Just thought you’d want to know.
Les
Tim, great article and a timely one at that.
Look, there has always been differences of interpretation regarding certain biblical topics within the SBC. We examine, discuss and debate those everyday. For some, it has become a sport. Some of those issues may be secondary or even tertiary at best, but we still need to discuss them and teach those that follow us about the importance of the discussion/debate. Obviously, there comes a time to defend the truth that scripture contains and even break fellowship over those issues that are extraordinary in an effort to keep the “herd” on the straight path. The CR was one of those historical moments where “unity” must be given up over the truth to God’s word. That is where the SBC had to exercise its rare, but necessary option of allowing those to leave that do not walk in unison over essential core beliefs/doctrine. Those “broad tent” denominations, that Matt alluded to, gave up standing on biblical truth decades ago to be united over the social gospel and other societal issues rather than remain true to scriptural inerrancy. The high price they paid was to allow a vacuum to be filled with clergy/leaders more interested in liberal theological advancements than true Kingdom building through the G.C. and faithful bold preaching. They now are dying in membership because their leaders looked behind and see less and less are following them. Of course, we paid a high price prior to the Civil War over the issue of slavery. Even the effects of that horrendous episode is still felt today as some advocate replacing “Southern” in our name.
Bottom line – We must be ever vigilant in our efforts to move forward and reach the lost for Christ as our duty. There is not another option.
I would not be a part of the CBF or a church that belonged to the CBF for reasons that are much more fundamental than the issues that have been addressed in this post.
The main problem with the CBF is their promotion of cooperation among Christians and churches without any confessional standard. The folks in the CBF, for the most part, could not bring themselves to prohibit errant teaching in the seminaries on the Christian essentials, and that lead to a host of related problems. That is still the problem with the CBF. Their statement on homosexuality shows that this problem still exists.
But let’s leave off discussing the CBF. Let them move on to whatever the future holds for them.
I believe that it is critically important for Christians to hold to the faith once delivered to the saints and to be faithful in biblical exposition.
I do not believe that the Bible mandates abstention from alcohol consumption. Most of the proofs that I hear from that come down to cultural and practical application of biblical principles, and that is fine. But the product of that work often ends up being dogmatic, unlike the text of scripture.
Homosexuality is an easy one. There is no question here as to what the text says. Attempts to create a question are really lame.
Whether to have 2 mission boards or one? That’s completely methodological.
I look forward to future posts about how the SBC and its churches can be faithful to Christ. I hope that the CBF will not be part of that discussion.
Louis
Les,
Ahh, the old minimal versus maximal debate about the BFM…
Imagine if the NAMB were to publicize a new initiative of planting churches with women pastors. What do you think would happen to the next Annie Armstrong offering?
The tightness of an organization’s doctrinal standards has a direct correlation with the support that organization will receive.
Les,
By the way, we didn’t address homosexuality before 2000 in the BFM either. That didn’t mean Southern Baptists thought it was all right to cooperate with the “mainstream Baptists” to ordain homosexuals.
The issue of appointing women to the diaconate is different than ordaining them to the eldership, or at least it should be. All too often in SBC life deacons are responsible for governing the congregation, whereas Scripture delineates that position as one strictly of service. A conservative stalwart such as John MacArthur holds that women may be appointed as deacons, but they are restricted from serving as pastors/elders.
Dr. Galyon,
John Macarthur is indeed a conservative stalwart, but a good Biblical Baptist he ain’t. He also supports elder rule, but that doesn’t mean we as Baptists should throw out our cherished, and I might add biblical, doctrine of congregational polity.
I think the majority of Southern Baptists would disagree with Dr. Macarthur and agree that it is Biblical to restrict our servant leadership positions to those who can be the husband of one wife.
B. H. Carroll had female deacons at FBC Waco. He was a good biblical Baptist. One might also mention the second president of the SBC, R.B.C. Howell, who declared, “The word of God authorizes, and in some sense, certainly by implication, enjoins the appointment of deaconnesses in the churches of Christ.”
BTW, Matt, a plurality of elders does not necessarily negate congregational polity.
This was inevitable, no matter what the original intent of the post. “Good biblical Baptists” cannot support women in the diaconate or a moderationist position regarding alcohol or, it seems, a plurality of elders. I am one of a plurality of elders who lead our church. We have women deacons. We have also removed any reference to alcohol abstentionism from our covenant. Should we be expecting disciplinary action from the SBC?
Paul Butterworth, couldn’t agree with you more. Thanks for deciding to post your comments.
Tim:
Do you believe SBC congregations who have deaconesses are going against Southern Baptist identity/tradition?
Dr. Galyon,
I absolutely agree with you that a plurality of elders does not necessarily negate congregational polity. Since many Southern Baptist churches have multiple ordained men on staff who lead their churhes as bishop/pastor/elders, we indeed practice a plurality of elders, but their is a difference between being led by undershepherds and being ruled by them.
Our Baptist church will leave the rule by elders to the Pesbyterians and their kin.
Dr. Galyon,
Also, not to ignore your previous comment, I too agree that there is a place for deaconesses in our churches – as long as we are using that term to define servant hearted females rather than ordained office holding females.
Pingback: ‘Good Biblical Baptists’ and Deaconesses « 2 Worlds Collide
Matt:
I agree, there is a difference between elder-led and elder-governed. There are SBC congregations not only with multiple staff members, but a plurality of elders. Elders lead the congregation, but the congregation is also responsible for many of the decisions taking place. Yes, deaconesses should be servants, not pastors/elders. Just the same, deacons should be servants as well. Thanks for your feedback.
For what it is worth–I did my dissertation on the CBF and its missiology. Realizing that I run the danger of getting off point, two points may be worth noting here. First, my bibliography was 24 pages long (consisting mostly of primary sources) and not one time did a CBF author express fear over what happens to non-Christians when they die. In fact, CBF authors ridiculed those who did.
Second, the unifying theological theme of CBF is liberation. They embraced and embrace a moderate/postmodern/existential simple type of liberation theology–especially liberation for women to serve as pastors and liberation from inerrancy.
These convictions are gaining ground in some quarters of the evangelical world, too.
Dr. Gaylon and everyone else,
I have been derelict in my duties to my article in order to refrain from being derelict in my duties to my congregation. We are in revival this week and I probably should have waited to post this article at a more appropriate time as to be able to engage the arguments. For that I am sorry and will do my best to deal with as much as possible. At present I will begin with Dr. Gaylon.
Your question in comment #22 is a fair one and I will try to answer it very straightforward. As to women deacons you use the word appoint. However the Deacons, as taught by scripture, were set apart just as the elders were set apart–through ordination. Please, I do not desire to be cantankerous, could you express to me where you see in scripture an ordination occurring where a woman was the ordained individual?
Also, in your comment #16 you say; “deacons are responsible for governing the congregation”, which I believe is the difference in all of our understanding of church polity. Deacons are not responsible for governing the congregation but serving the congregation. The Deacons have no authority except the authority given to them by the congregation.
Brother Les,
My point about the combining of the mission boards is not based on the CBF having one. My point is the efficiency issue. I am saying if I desire one mission board and we already have the other issues in common for the sake of efficiency let’s just join the CBF.
Blessings,
Tim
Blessings,
Tim
Regarding homosexuality and “younger” pastors in the SBC…
I am a 2006 graduate of Southern Seminary, placing me solidly in the demographic that I think you are referring to. I and all of my friends in the SBC are very much against any form of homosexual behavior, and this is because we (unlike the CBF) affirm the inerrancy of Scripture.
For the record, I also don’t affirm the consumption of alcohol, although you are right that many of my peers do.
Tim:
Thanks for replying, brother. I used the word “appoint” to distinguish those congregations who appoint a woman to an office of service without “ordaining” her to do so (e.g., B. H. Carroll). Please note the context of my statement in comment #16. I said, “All too often in SBC life deacons are responsible for governing the congregation.” I agree with you – deacons are responsible for service, not governance. Nonetheless, what often happens in SBC life is that the deacons are in charge. That should never be the case.
David:
Interesting findings in your research. Though my participation with CBF folks is very limited, I’ve found what you’ve said about Liberation Theology to be quite true.
Brother Dan,
I do not mean to paint with such a broad brush. However, I understand that the author of the USA Today article I link to represents the majority of the younger pastor’s positions. Thank you for clarifying your position. I would encourage you and other younger pastors to begin the voices that represent your positions on these issues.
The CBF will not affirm the position of the Scripture’s inerrancy. However, they will affirm that the Bible’s is authoritatively the Word of God. As you know that is different than inerrancy. But, the positions reached by those that affirm inerrancy and those that do not are not different. Help me understand where the difference lies.
Dr. Gaylon,
Whether Dr. Carroll was correct in his view of appoint vs. ordain I will leave for another debate. However, it does seem to be a way around the biblical function of ordaining (?????????is the Greek word used and is used in the sense of setting aside for a task. Then in 6:6 the Scripture clearly reveals an ordination of this group) given in Acts 6:6 pertaining to the first Deacons. Thus, to merely appoint without ordaining is a way around a clear Biblical teaching.
Blessings,
Tim
You guys have painted a picture of the CBF, and then made it normative for those involved in the CBF. You state that the CBF was organized around the premise that, “the Bible contained errors,” that they are a “group that says the Bible does contain errors,” then you conclude that “they do not believe the Bible.”
Although not articulated, this seems to be based on a syllogism that (1) Southern Baptists believe that the Bible is inerrant; (2) the CBF is the opposite of the SBC; therefore, (3) the CBF believes that the Bible is “errant,” and further that those in the CBF are unable to differentiate between copiest’s errors and inerrancy of the autographs and the message of the text. Gentlemen, I realize that the thrust of your article is to oppose the combination of the IMB and NAMB, but I have to comment that your “incidential” picture of the CBF is more caricature than photograph.
For instance, I suggest that the CBF position (assuming they have one unified position) towards “inerrancy” is NOT its logical opposite, errancy (if there is such a word). As one who is still in the SBC even while supporting the CBF, I can say that is not my position, nor is it the position of any I know in the CBF. My perspective is that (1) the autographs of the Bible books were “inerrant” in matters of faith and practice; (2) no book of the Bible was ever intended as a “textbook” in mathematics or medicine or geography or any other scientific discipline, thus to assume it accurately addresses such issues exceeds the intent of its human writers and indeed its divine Author as well; (3) we possess no autograph copy of any book of the Bible, so to argue about what it may or may not have said becomes a “tempest in a teapot” which ultimately cannot be settled this side of the grave; (4) many, if not most, of those in the pew have not wrestled with the difference between the text we have and the autograph copies, so consequently use of the term “inerrant” errantly implies that their favorite translation is wholly free of any possible error in any subject at all, as then is their interpretation of the text. This is hardly what any scholarly understanding of the term means, and of how the Chicago Statement defines it, but it is what many take it to mean. Consequently, to me, use of the term “inerrant” creates more interpretative errors than it could possibly solve. Tim, in your comment #5, you say, “They (the CBF) would not use the word inerrant because they saw the copyist errors as errors. Those of us who say the Scripture is inerrant say it is the original text–something we do not have–that is inerrant. Those within the CBF would affirm the original text as being inerrant–if we had the original text.” And yet, having been in seminary while the CR was raging, I found no one on the CR side who was willing to discuss such issues. there was so much polarization–and by and large, still is–that one must adopt one position (inerrancy) or the other, with no possibility of dialogue between the two.
In ending this comment, let me refer back to what I see as your implication that there is one, unified “CBF” perspective or understanding. I suspect that is projected from something you envision for the SBC: one and only one way to interpret the Scriptures. You seem to assume that there is only one valid Biblical and Baptist position regarding beverage alcohol; one and only one valid understanding of the gender of deacons and/or ordination; one and only one valid understanding regarding homosexuality; and the list goes on. (BTW, re: homosexuality, I would certainly agree that its practice is uniformly condemned by Scripture, as the CBF statement you quote [and then draw arguments from silence about] says; but I would say that practice is one thing, while orientation, inclination, and justice are something altogether different.) Let me just ask you: is what I gather about your perspective correct? Do you believe there is only one valid Biblical and Baptist understanding of all doctrine? If not, where is there room in the SBC you envision for disagreement, or “disputable doctrine”?
John Fariss
Tim,
Thanks for your encouraging words. Just to be clear, though, what I was trying to get across is that I am not in the minority among young SBCers in my views on homosexuality. Merritt’s article is the closest I’ve ever heard any of my peers come to endorsing homosexuality, and even he stops short of doing so. Our generation may contain some liberal thinkers, but not any more than the previous generation. In many ways we are actually more conservative and more in line with historic Baptist beliefs. There is no need to be more suspicious of young pastors than old ones.
Matt Brady #17 – I think the majority of Southern Baptists would disagree with Dr. Macarthur and agree that it is Biblical to restrict our servant leadership positions to those who can be the husband of one wife.
Does that mean your church would not place a single (never-married) man in such a position? Would singles be excluded from such service in your church?
I am a practicing teetotaler. I require all the youth volunteers who work with the students I pastor to abstain from alcohol. I can give good detailed arguments for abstaining from alcohol in our culture.
Yet because I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, and cannot say that ALL consumption of alcohol is sin because the Bible clearly doesn’t (and by example, often suggests otherwise), your blog has declared me to be a liberal who no longer believes the Bible, affirms homosexual behavior, and does not care what the Bible teaches about gender roles.
O yea, and somehow that also relates to combining NAMB and IMB (which I also don’t necessarily agree with either).
If only you could have found a way to tie Calvinists (which I am not one of) to the CBF, you could have ridded the SBC of every group not exactly like yourself perhaps.
If you want to argue against combining NAMB and IMB, argue against it. If you want to be king of the non-sequitur, keep up the good work.
Tim:
Just FYI, the last name is GAL-YON. You certainly have the right to disagree with B. H. Carroll and R. B. C. Howell. W. A. Criswell said the text could be interpreted either way, and that a congregation could go either way in their determination on the issue. I’m just pointing out that those who are considered “good Biblical Baptists” have declared that deaconesses are viable in SBC life. This is not a “conservative vs. moderate” issue. This is an issue on which conservative Bible-believing Southern Baptists may disagree.
Brother John,
I went to Campbell University so I do believe I have fairly represented those who left and formed the CBF. If you disagree, so be it, but I have not painted them in a negative way at all.
Brother Dan,
You say; “Our generation may contain some liberal thinkers, but not any more than the previous generation. In many ways we are actually more conservative and more in line with historic Baptist beliefs. There is no need to be more suspicious of young pastors than old ones.” I will agree with your assessment. I do not desire to paint suspicion around an entire generation of younger pastors. However, those voices as described by the article in USA Today are the younger leader voices that some in our current SBC leadership call the next generation of pastors.
Brother Josh C,
You are trying hard to make this a Calvinist argument, which it isn’t. As I said before, help me understand how people who describe the Bible as a document that contains errors come to the same position that those who describe the same document as inerrant. Of course if you look at your statement you will find that you–one who believes the bible is inerrant–are advocating the same position as one those that believe the Bible contains errors. You base your analysis on culture. You say; “I can give good detailed arguments for abstaining from alcohol in our culture.” You do realize that you are placing culture above scripture. If you rely on culture to abstain and you believe the Bible teaches moderation, then you have placed culture above the Bible.
Blessings,
Tim
Dr. Galyon,
Sorry for the typo. While I agree with you that Biblical Baptist disagree on interpretation, I believe that many have not really tried to interpret the scripture but to accommodate culture. I highly respect all of those historic Baptist you have presented, but I believe you would agree they are not above positive criticism of their interpretations. If you remember, the last one you mentioned had a wife that taught the most influential SS class there was in the church. :)
Blessings,
Tim
OK, Tim, we can agree to disagree on “those who left and formed the CBF,” even though your arguments extend to those who are IN the CBF rather than just those who formed it. But how do you respond to my final questions–really the heart and soul of my comment–about what you envision for the SBC?
John
My question:
If the main crux of the article was to speak out against merging the North American Mission Board and the International Mission Board, then why even bother comparing ourselves to another group?
I like much of what John Fariss had to say, but still believe it misses the boat.
He is right in saying that there is not one perspective in the CBF. There are a multitude of perspectives, based on people whom I know in the CBF. But the CBF will never have a doctrinal confession so it allows people of all stripes, whatever their view of the Bible may be.
The views on this subject and the feeling of those in the CBF would never allow them to 1) adopt a doctrinal confession, or then 2) allow them to use the doctrinal confession as a standard for hiring or retaining professors or other denominational employees or for determining whether churches fall within the parameters of the doctrinal confession, whatever that might be.
At Southern Seminary, the professors had to sign the Abstract of Principles, the “Creed” of the Seminary, as Dr. Boyce and Dr. Broadus referred to it.
However, by the end of the 20th Century, the position at Southern was that so long as a professor did not stand up and announce, “I am teaching contrary to the Abstract of Principles” that whether the professor was teaching contrary to the Abstract of Principles was a determination for that professor alone to determine.
The Chicago statement on Inerrancy is a good statement and the term “inerrancy” is a good place for discussion with many theologians who believe something other than inerrancy. But let me suggest that debating “inerrancy”, “infallibility”, “authoritative” and such words is often a waste of time. It is because their desire is not to illuminate.
This lack of clarity in theological statements goes all the way back to E.Y. Mullins draft of the BFM of 1925. It was specifically drafted to give quarter to the academics at Southern and others who held similar views in their day. The document actually sounds quite conservative, but it actually grants great latitude. This was recognized by the Southern faculty when it came out, and it is still recognized today.
Mullins did not believe that the Bible had to be accurate in matters of history, science, personal recounting etc. The Bible and its writers could and did make lots of errors. The Bible was true “religiously” even though it contained lots of myth. The issue goes beyond hermeneutics.
I sympathize with what Mullins and others were struggling with at the turn of 19th Century. But there is really no end to the view they advocate. They did not foresee how their view of the Bible being wrong about history (e.g. details regarding the Exodus, for example) would affect even basic Christian doctrines.
It took another generation to move from “the Bible is wrong about the Exodus, but the religious views taught regarding the Exodus are true”, to “the Bible is wrong about the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, but those stories tell us true religious lessons.”
Again, it’s not that all people in the CBF believe one particular thing about the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, Creation, the Exodus, etc. They allow for each person and church to make up their own mind about that.
It’s that they will not do anything to prohibit the professors in the institutions they run or support or other denominational employees from believing or teaching almost any matter that is sincerely believed.
It is impossible for people who do believe in the inerrancy of scripture and orthodox Christianity to run seminaries and send missionaries with people who do not believe in confessions or that confessions should be normative in faith or practice. (On missions, for example, W.O. Carver, who taught at Southern from the early part of the 20th Century to mid 20th Century, did not believe that missionaries needed to be sent to heathen lands so that the individual persons in those lands might repent and be saved, but that so those nations could know the social benefits of Christianity and the Christian ethic. Can you imagine having Dr. Carver on the search committee with those who are looking for the new head of the IMB?).
That’s why I suggest that we leave off discussing the CBF. There is a totally different vision there, despite a common heritage and some other shared truths by various numbers of people in the CBF.
The CBF needs to chart its own course, and the SBC is not a part of if.
Louis
Elizabeth,
Sorry to take so long to respond to your question.
In regards to restricting our servant leadership positions (ordained deacons) to those who can be the husband of one wife, certainly some would exclude single men. That is really almost a moot point since most single men are younger and are less qualified in the “let them first be proved” (1 Timothy 3:10) category than older men. Nevertheless, there is a rare occasion where an older man who has never been married fits all of the other qualifications. I know of only one man in the churches where I have served who ever fit that category and he, himself refused to be considered for the office of deacon because he was single. That was his decision.
My point is that the ordained office of deacon is one of the two ordained offices of the church. There are pastors/bishops/elders (all different words for the same office) and deacons. These two ordained offices are restricted to men. If I were making the rules, I might have chosen otherwise, but it’s God’s church and He gets to make the rules.
I would agree, however, with Dr. Galyon that if you want to have some appointed position of service for women and call them deaconesses, there would be no problem as long as it is clear that the position called “deaconess,” or female servant, is not the same as the elected and ordained office of a deacon. In the days since those of Carroll and Howell I think most Baptists have seen the wisdom in clarifying our nomenclature. Our churches are full of true servants of God who are female and could technically be called deaconesses, but that can cause confusion and some might equate the position of deaconness with the ordained office of deacon. It is simply so much clearer to call those ladies by titles such as Sunday School teacher, or missions leader, or greeter, etc.
Tim: Do you really think that to be consistent, moderationists must drink alcohol personally? That is what your last comment to Josh seems to say. There are many SBCers who don’t drink personally who hold to a moderationist position biblically. Is it your assertion that they have put (culture, family, illness, taste, etc) above scripture? I’m pretty sure that most moderationists believe the bible teaches alcohol consumption as allowable, not mandatory.
Louis,
You are probably right in your observation that the CBF is not sufficiently coherent to have a doctrinal confession, as least as you are using the term. I would point out though that the SBC did not have one from 1845 to 1925, but rather coalesed around the assumed shared basis of being Baptist, plus its regional (i.e., Southern) and caucasion heritage, and comfort with the culture even in the higher education of that era. One of my criticisms of the CBF is that it attempts to recapture this “golden age” of the SBC, and even of the pre-SBC missions societies.
You also state this lack of coherence would prevent the CBF from having a “standard for hiring or retaining professors or other denominational employees or for determining whether churches fall within the parameters of the doctrinal confession.” The only flaw to this argument is that the CBF does not regard itself as a denomination, but rather as a para-church missions-sending agency. Again, this is not unlike the missions societies of the early 1800s, in which a wide variety of churches united by little more than the word “baptist” in their name shared resources to send missionaries. I know that it is popular in more conservative Baptist circles to consider the CBF a denomination, but they are not–in part perhaps for the very reasons you name.
John
Thanks, Bill.
Tim,
Though I disagree, I honestly appreciate the fact that you are willing to stand behind the implications of what you write. It can be pretty frustrating to see people argue points with obvious and pointed plications, and then when questioned, they back up with “Whoa, I didn’t say that?”, even though their intention was clear. So kudos for having a backbone there.
Anyways, I’m surprised you suggest I’m placing culture above the Bible because I practice abstinence from alcohol for personal reasons even though I don’t find Scripture teaching the practice as universally binding. If I do, drink, then I’m liberal and don’t view the Bible as my authority. If I don’t, then I also don’t believe in the authority of Scripture?
I find precedent for what I believe in Romans 14. I cannot violate my conscience regarding alcohol (which is beyond Scripture’s commands), but neither am I to despise those who are not so bound. And yes, the issue of wine is one category mentioned in that text.
The main problem is the “guilt by random association” argument of your post. Instead of arguing against combining the mission boards, you argued that those who think so have something in common with another denomination that is more liberal than the SBC.
It’s a basic logical flaw.
1. CBF is liberal and bad.
2. CBF has combined mission board. (or moderationist view of alcohol, etc.)
3. Those in the SBC who want a combined mission board are therefore liberal and bad.
The problem in the argument is that 1 and 2 don’t seem to have any logical connection. A combined mission board is neither dependent on liberal theology, nor is being theologically liberal a natural result of combining mission boards.
I would be interested in perhaps seeing the argument against combining boards laid out. I remain skeptical of some basic arguments I’ve heard from the Pro- side so far.
Tim:
I agree with you, no one is above criticism. Of course, you pointed out a problem at FBC Dallas which had to do with the eldership, not with with deaconesses. ;) I’m with you there.
Dear Brother,
This is one of the most lively blog I’ve read lately, but could I assert a few things for thought.
1. The CBF has not fully left the SBC on the assn/state convention levels.
2. Every believer has to decide about alcohol–somewhere between Jesus turning water into wine for a social gathering and “wine is a mocker.” Going back to the 1820s temperance movement that devised the “Two-wine theory.” Of course, wine is not wine without some alcohol. Thank goodness for coffee and tea as a modern alternate to drinking while eating. Amen?
3. SBC has always hedged on female leadership, allowing women to teach men, but not be a deacon. One is more consistent in the extremes on this point.
4. The SBC is definitely in need of a second reformation, although it could go from bad to worse. NAMB has lost its credibility to the average SBC tither due to politics and money-mismanagement. Likewise, the younger generation likes to see where the money goes rather than extoll the virtues of the 1920 CP formula.
5. Also, the issue of homosexuality ministry has drastically changed before even 2000. In 1995, we, the SBC, accepted a resolution that changed the traditional view that this lifestyle was once viewed for almost 2000 yrs as “God giving you up to a reprobate mind” i.e., going past redemption. We now consequently view it as an addictive sin that is no worse than adultery. Problem is: you have recovery groups for it, but not for fornication addicts.
6. Last, Baptists have forsaken the NT model of church life (copying the NT in faith and practice) in favor of new methods not mentioned in the Bible.
Just a few words to inject into the discussion.
GABaptist
John:
You are right, again. I appreciate your direct, insightful and respectful communications. I hope that we get to meet one day.
I believe that Baptists have suffered much because there could not be forthright communications between so many people. I put the academics at the top of the list of people who were intentionally obtuse about their beliefs. This breeds suspicion, and makes trust and cooperation impossible.
It just seems to me that in reality most Baptists are concerned with orthodoxy – enough for that to be a foundational organizing principle. Other Baptists believe that soul competency and freedom are primary values, even more primary than orthodoxy, so that to insist on theological orthodoxy, whatever the particulars may be, is wrong (in their view). Therein lies the tension that needed to be openly identified. To try and organize and work together with that difference seems to me to be a recipe for fighting and eventual disunity.
The history on the issue is interesting.
I just finished reading the history of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and am currently reading the biography of James P. Boyce, one of the founders of the seminary and one of four of its original faculty.
All of the founders saw the need for the seminary to have a creedal doctrinal confession. The northern Baptist seminaries and the other seminaries in the North even by 1850 were beginning to move toward neo-orthodoxy. Because of this, and the recognition of the problem with apostasy in the university setting, Boyce, Broadus and the others were very intent on orthodoxy being a primary principle, even though all of those men believed in the Priesthood of the Believer.
You are right about the CBF. It is not a denomination. But, true to its form, the CBF will have within its members (individuals or churches) those whose beliefs vary on what I would consider to be very important theological essentials. But they will agree on the question of freedom. Per the examples mentioned in the blog post, the CBF will have some churches or individuals that affirm homosexuality and homosexual unions and the CBF would never change in that regard because of its emphasis on freedom.
I would not be comfortable sending missionaries who do not believe in orthodox Christianity (including but not limited to the homosexuality issue), or whom I would not even be entitled to query on that subject as a qualification for appointment, or supporting theological schools that are not confessional theologically.
But, as you can see, that is the reason that the SBC and the CBF cannot mix. It is not a question of one specific issue of the Christian life, alcohol consumption or whether we have one mission board. I think that you have recognized that as well.
Take care.
Louis
Brother Bill,
You say; “Do you really think that to be consistent, moderationists must drink alcohol personally? That is what your last comment to Josh seems to say.” I honestly do not see how you could reach such in my statement to Brother Josh. I have not even implied that one who has a moderationist view also drinks. I have no problem saying that one with a moderationist view encourages drinking beverage alcohol.
Brother Josh,
Allow me to assess your last statement because I believe I can show you where I am coming from when I point out that you are allowing culture to define for you the Scriptures. I do not desire to get into an alcohol debate because we have debated that ad nausium.
First, you have defined the flawed logic, not I. I have never said the CBF is liberal and bad. What I said was they left the SBC because they did not believe the Scripture was inerrant. I said we now have people, be it younger pastors or old, that say they believe the scripture is inerrant but come to the same conclusion as those that believe the scripture contains error. A moderationist that personally abstains will tell me that we both come the the same conclusion we just get there from different roads. While that sounds good, there is a huge flaw in that defense.
Second, I have not connected the combined mission board of the CBF with issues of alcohol, homosexuality and women deacons/pastors. I have only stated that as a convention we have people advocating these issues. I have stated that our GCRTF has placed efficiency as the driving factor for their recommendations. My position is that if efficiency is the purpose of the recommendations that come from task force and we are trying to partner with Great Commission Christians to get the gospel to the world, then why not join the CBF? They already seem to be where some want us to be and they already have one mission board–another position that some are pushing us.
Now, as to your culture over Scripture. I have a 12 year old daughter. If I were to take your perspective of moderation in view concerning alcohol, what would keep me from allowing her to experiment with wine during her meal?
Blessings,
Tim
“I have no problem saying that one with a moderationist view encourages drinking beverage alcohol.”
I still have to take issue with this. I believe the bible teaches that eating meat sacrificed to idols is permissible. If and where such a practice is a possibility, I cannot proclaim it a sin because the bible does not. However that is a far cry from saying that I am encouraging the practice. To hold a doctrinal position on what the scriptures say is not the same thing as being an advocate. I think the bible is silent on tobacco use, therefore smoking is not, in and of itself, a sin. I suspect many, if not most SBCers agree with me. However to say that any of us encourage tobacco use is simply false. One doesn’t follow from another.
Paul said marriage was permissible. But he was hardly an advocate.
Tim,
Yes, allowing one’s 12 year-old daughter to drink could conceivably be a result of the moderationist position as you define it. (Moderationist equals you HAVE to drink.)
Unfortunately, that would be a moderationist position that has been developed outside of Scripture.
Fortunately, that is not what I am advocating. There is clear Biblical teaching regarding obedience to the State (Romans 13, 1 Peter) that would make such illegal activity on your part defined as sin. Children are also commanded to honor and obey their parents, and I’m assuming you wouldn’t advocate that this only applies to parents giving their children chapter-and-verse for every household rule. I mean, where’s bed time or teeth-brushing mentioned in Scripture? Because your conscience compels you to abstinence, you can require that of those under your roof.
Should my wife and I be blessed to have them, we won’t allow our children to drink simply because of those above issues while they live under our roof. I will also give them some fatherly extra-biblical guidance concerning the issue to encourage them against it. But after that point, if they can do so without conscience issue or falling into drunkenness, then that’s their choice.
I think in our practical outworkings, you and I would actually live very similar to each other on this issue. The difference would probably appear in our rhetoric and response to those Christians whose conscience comes down differently.
I’ll let your response be the last word between us on this issue though, if you so choose. I do hope you would write that argument against combining the boards. “safety in a multitude of counselors”-you know.
Brother Josh,
Like I said, I do not wish this to turn to a debate concerning beverage alcohol. However, my point is made by you for the culture over Scripture issue I pointed out. You say; “There is clear Biblical teaching regarding obedience to the State (Romans 13, 1 Peter)” There are countries that allow children to experiment with alcohol at ages under what you and I would deem appropriate. In Italy for example, they allow their children at an early age to partake of a watered down wine with their meals. It is a different culture. The problem with the “wisdom” argument is that it does not cross cultural lines. I would encourage you to read Peter Lumpkins book Alcohol Today: Abstinence in an Age of Indulgence. He gives scholarly insight as to the scriptures teaching of abstinence. He also gives a sound debate concerning the “wisdom” argument not really being that wise.
You see, if you allow the state to dictate the “gray” matters of scripture then you have allowed the state to dictate what the Scriptures teach.
You are correct when you say that we would live by the same values on a personal level. I believed that going into this debate with you. As I have said earlier, allow me to say differently, I do not believe the young pastors are a bunch of drunken sailors on shore leave. I believe that they are allowing themselves to be led down roads that will lead them to pain and misery. When the Bible says that wine bites like a viper it is true. You do not have to be one that partakes to get bit.
Also, your last suggestion concerning the boards being combined brings about safety in a multitude of counselors appears like a grand argument. I will take it in further consideration but on the surface I can tell you that we have a problem with focus–regardless of the number of counselors you have on the BoT.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Can you give me one example wherein the use of beverage alcohol helped a person to advance in the search for wisdom as one abides in Christ? The writer of Proverbs said to his son to eat honey for it was sweet to the palate. He went on to say that wisdom is the same. If you find it, you will have a future, and your hope will never fade. The use of beverage alcohol is unwise. Therefore, how can the use of beverage alcohol be of use in finding godly wisdom which promises a (good) future?
Yet, how many started out young seeking a good future, got entangled with beverage alcohol and were “cut off” from the hope of a good future?
Can any person prove a level of wise moderation in the use of beverage alcohol in their own lives or anyone else’s? The answer is: No. Therefore, how can the use of beverage alcohol in any quantity be wise? It can’t be wise. Jesus has called upon us to be wise in these latter times. To do that which can never be considered wise is to be foolish. Jesus warned us not to be foolish as we wait to stand before the Son of Man. (Luke 21:34-36)
cb
I do not believe that God prohibits using alcohol as a beverage. In fact, it is used to show God’s blessing. What was Jesus’ first miracle? Of course, anything can be abused. I would say we have a bigger problem with abusing food by over eating and obesity than with alcohol, as well as abusing our fellow Christians by gossiping and back biting. They will know we are Jesus’ disciples by our love for one another, not by the man imposed rules we keep.
A few thoughts on the alcohol discussion.
Does the moderate position promote drinking? Of course it does. Those in the alcohol industry are delighted with such arguments; they make these arguments themselves.
One says, “It’s wrong. It’s dangerous. It’s unwise and self destructive. It has ruined the lives of thousands. Don’t do it under any circumstances. Just say no.”
The second says, “It’s not wrong in moderation. I personally don’t do it, but there would be nothing wrong with it if I did. You are just going to have to decide for yourself, and whatever you decide you will be right. If it feels right, do it. You can control it.”
Guess which side will end up selling the most beer?
There is a solid biblical argument for total abstinence from beverage alcohol. The big majority of Southern Baptists have agreed with this argument for well over 100 years. You do not have to agree or abide by it, but if you are for drinking, you will at least be out of line with the big majority of the SBC on this issue.
There are many great arguments for total abstinence from preachers such as Adrian Rogers and Jerry Vines. Also books such as Alcohol Today by Peter Lumpkins, The Bible and Its Wines by Charles Wesley Ewing, BibleWines by William Patton, and many more.
Tim, C. B. and the SBC are right on this issue.
By the way, since smoking is obviously harmful to the body and a bad influence, its wrong too. Southern Baptists also recognize this.
David R. Brumbelow
It is a biblical truth that gluttony is sinful and unwise. (Although to say it is a bigger problem that the use of beverage alcohol is shallow thinking. Unless, of course you mean that people with gluttony problems are usually “bigger” than people with alcohol problems. Although, many gluttons are not very big in size and some drunks are very big. Therefore, I guess your reasoning is just simply shallow.)
It is a biblical truth that gossiping is sinful and unwise.
Now we agree. You can add many other things that are unwise and sinful to the list if you please.
One would be willful ignorance. it is a biblical truth to be willful ignorant. To be willfully ignorant is to be stupid.
Those of us who love each other will tell one another that it is stupid to use beverage alcohol.
Therefore, let us love one another and tell each other not to be gluttons, gossips, whoremongers, whores, baby rapers, man burners, abusers of the weak and innocent, white slavers, abortionists,heretics, Sodomites, liars, thieves, haters of our brothers and sisters, murderers, etc, etc. and let us tell each other not to use beverage alcohol and be stupid, foolish and unwise.
And “they shall know we are Christians by our love, by our love….” And “Kumbaya…Kumbaya…Kumbaya….”
cb
Hey Brother CB,
Very wise words, indeed! I agree 100%.
God bless,
Greg
“Those of us who love each other will tell one another that it is stupid to use
beverage alcohol.”
I appreciate you pointing out that I’m stupid and a shallow thinker. Love can be very tough! But I still disagree with you that drinking alcohol as a beverage is sin. I see too many instances of its use in the Bible as such to agree with you. I have never used the view of any majority to test whether or not my views were correct. If so, then I would surely not even be a Christian. I can find plenty of places where abuse of alcohol is wrong, just as abuse or overuse of anything can be sinful.
Thank you, Greg Salyer.
The truth is that I never get an answer to these questions:
1. Give me one example wherein the use of beverage alcohol helped us to advance in the search for wisdom as we abides in Christ?
2. How does the use of beverage alcohol help us to be holy as is our Father in heaven as we abide in Christ?
3. How does the use of beverage alcohol help us to glorify God as we abide in Christ?
4. How does the use of beverage alcohol help us to take up our cross and die to ourselves as we abide in Christ?
5. How can any person prove a level of wise moderation in the use of beverage alcohol in their own lives or anyone else’s as we abide in Christ?
cb
And lastly,
How, in this contemporary, post modern culture, does the use of beverage alcohol show that I love my brother or help me fulfill the Great commission in relationship to those who are not my brothers in Christ?
cb
CB, you do ask some very good questions. In fact, you could substitute lots of things that we do every day for the word ‘alcohol’ and they would still be good questions. Things like mowing my grass, washing the dishes, banding baby bulls, etc. It is hard, I think, to draw a straight line from most actions to fulfilling the Great Commission or to even further holy living. But I’ll give you examples that I have heard:
1. Give me one example wherein the use of beverage alcohol helped us to advance
in the search for wisdom as we abides in Christ? I admit having a glass of wine won’t make you any smarter, but it may lower your blood pressure and calm you down after reading some blogs.
2. How does the use of beverage alcohol help us to be holy as is our Father in
heaven as we abide in Christ? Again, having a glass of wine will not make you more holy. Neither will a lot of other things, like attending church services. Only God can make me holy, and that’s through the shed blood of Jesus, my Savior.
3. How does the use of beverage alcohol help us to glorify God as we abide in
Christ? How about this: enjoy the things of earth that God created for us, like fermented grape juice.
4. How does the use of beverage alcohol help us to take up our cross and die to
ourselves as we abide in Christ? It won’t, but owning a car or house won’t either. To deny ourselves means to look to Christ in all things and not live to just satisy myself. That doesn’t mean we are not to enjoy the life God gave us, just that His will is primary in our lives.
5. How can any person prove a level of wise moderation in the use of beverage
alcohol in their own lives or anyone else’s as we abide in Christ?
What is moderate? I can’t eat eggs or cheeseburgers because of my cholesterol, so there is no moderate for me with them. One size fits all rarely works in any area of life. I can never own a boat either, or I know I would be tempted to be at the lake every weekend instead of worshipping God with fellow believers. So I guess that would be something between the individual and God, unless it became obvious that it was abused. For a “closet drinker”, you may never know. I’m sure they could hide it pretty well. But I will say that overeating is harder to hide.
I can tell that you are pretty convinced that abstinance is the only way to go with alcohol. But there are many conservative bible believers that do not agree.
Actually, I have some experience with “cutting grass, washing the dishes, banding baby bulls”, castrating pigs, horses, goats and dogs, cleaning rabbits, deer, goats, and Water Buffalo and various other game and non-game animals along with cleaning fish and birds, sharpening edged weapons, zeroing rifle scopes and fixing broken ones, emptying bed pans, cleaning up puke and feces, etc., etc. and on and on.” that has aided directly in the fulfillment of the Great Commission. But, in reality these things are apples and oranges in comparison to the use of beverage alcohol.
The use of beverage alcohol does not aid, directly or indirectly to the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Not one bit. You know it and I know it.
And….your answers to the questions are simply an effort to avoid reality. I think you know that also.
BTW, a lot of “conservative bible believers” get caught in whorehouses too, but that don’t make it OK.
cb
Amen to that! Although I’m sure they wouldn’t tell you that it WAS ok, either before or after they were caught! And I believe that the Bible is very clear about sex outside of a covenant marriage. I still stand by my assertion that consuming alcohol by itself is not a sin. I happen to think that smoking is harmful to the body, and so I avoid that, but I know many Christians that do, including my old pastor and most of the deacons in the church I grew up in in the South.
Not really, but I will admit I tried to inject some humor into it. I do not make light of sin. It is VERY serious to me. I serve a Holy, Righteous God who HATES sin. He hates it so much that He could not turn His back on it, but required a sacrifice to make me right before Him. Jesus paid it all. So, no, I am not trying to avoid reality. I am just unconvinced. If you can convince me through the Word that I am wrong, then I can assure you I will repent of my error. By the way, I don’t drink. Not because I think it’s wrong, but as Paul writes, I don’t want to do anything that would ofend my brother, and it bothers enough people that’s good enough for me.
Southern, Western, Eastern, and Yankee preachers who smoke are doing that which is willfully unwise. Therefore it is sin.
To be willfully unwise is always sin. The use of beverage alcohol is unwise.
But, I must add; there is a stronger argument from Scripture that it is sin than there is that it is not.
BTW, I have worked with at least three pastor brothers who got caught in whorehouses who tried to justify their behavior early on. Later they admitted they had sinned.
In other words, we can justify anything, if we have enough dedication, love, lust or hunger for it.
You said that if I can convince you, you would see your error.
OK, I’ll make a deal with you.
You email Peter Lumpkins, tell him your name, address, and phone number. Tell him to read this comment. He will then mail you his book. I will pay Peter for the book. You read it with prayerful care. That is all I ask.
[Now for any other guys who would call Peter and tell him you are "this guy", may God have mercy on your sorry souls. This is a one time offer to this one guy who calls himself John in this dialogue with me right now.]
John, just read this one book. Think about it. Pray and ask the Spirit of God to give you an understanding. It will cost you nothing but your time and letting Peter know who you are. He will never tell me your name. I will never ask him your name. I give you my word. It is all I have to give in this situation.
cb
Tim,
The “multitude of counselors” allusion was actually referring to the need for SBC-ers to hear good arguments from several perspectives regarding the idea of combining the boards before something like that were to happen. Mostly, I’ve heard several arguments on the Pro-side so far and honestly wanted to hear some of the other side from people who are a little more knowledgeable about the Convention than I am before forming an opinion.
So I’ll keep my eye out for that article in the future.
So, John, are you saying that God want alcohol to control our thoughts and emotions when fermented wine calms us down? When you say that wine was for the joy of people? When you say that fermented wine should control our emotions like that?
However, the Bible says that we should be filled with the Holy Spirit, not with fermented wine. The Holy Spirit should control us, not liquor. Do you honestly believe that the Lord would want us to high on liquor, rather than filled with the Holy Spirit?
What you apparently find in fermented wine, I find thru prayer and being filled with the Spirit. I used to need to alcohol to feel “good” back when I was a lost man. But, now that I know the Lord, and I’m filled with the Spirit; I dont need liquor anymore. Why settle for the cheap substitute when you can have the real thing?
David
In case anyone is still reading here, and cares about the deaconess issue regardin Carroll and Howell, it would be worth studying what Carroll and Howell meant by the title “deaconess.” I believe one will find that the role of “deaconess” had absolutely nothing to do with the ordained office of a deacon. I know, I know. Deacons who hold that office are supposed to be servants, and they are, but so should every member of the church, but we don’t call everyone by the title of deacon or deaconess. Deacons in a local church are set apart to a specific office and that office would have been closed to women by a “good Biblical Baptist” like B. H. Carroll.
I understand that when Carroll was at FBC Waco, the only role of the deaconesses was to “teach the women and children.” They were not even allowed to vote in business meetings let alone attend or vote in a deacon’s meeting. So, if we want to use Carroll as an example of how to do it, we won’t be putting women on the deacon body, instead we will have to go back to women keeping silence in the church during business meeting.
Brother Tim,
I just got a chance to read through the blog… I agree with you, in that the NAMB should not continue to wait. Leadership is crucial to continuing the passion of the work.
Blessings,
Chris
p.s. I always enjoy listening to CB on the subject of alcohol and castration :)
Chris,
As that famous Southern Baptist theologian, Rowdy Yates said as he served as pastor to Rawhide; “DON’T TRY TO UNDERSTAND ‘UM. JUST ROPE, THROW AND BRAND ‘UM…..RAWHIDE”
:-)
CB
cb,
Being a West Texas native…. I think I understand most of those terms…. :)
Bro Tim,
Another point that you bring up is the importance of those that oversee and serve the church. Today it is more popular than ever that an office be recognized instead of the qualification and actions, even though the qualifications and actions are the context where the acceleration of the office is a distant memory. This obviously does not change the order,…meaning that the men are responsible before God to lead the congregation of God having no longer the limitation of the Levitical, the commission has been expanded exponentially. Certainly any teacher should reinforce the need for men to lead and primarily serve the congregation, where the women serve in no less a quality as evidenced by Paul’s strong affirmation of Pheobe and others.
Blessings,
Chris
Why leave the SBC and join the CBF when we’ve got all this kind of “entertainment” to keep us occupied?
The original post misses the point.
There are more and more of us SBC Pastors and Churches who believe the value of the SBC Convention and the State Conventions is diminishing. It has nothing to do with doctrine.
Keep the IMB and Disaster Relief and Can the Rest.
Brother Jim,
I must confess your first question/statement gave me a belly laugh. However, that laugh suddenly stopped and turned to concern with the harshness of your last statement. Do you really believe the IMB and Disaster Relief is all we as SB do well?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Not harshness but admission that all we do is not necessary nor efficient.
We know we will never abandon International Missions. Nor will we ever stop helping our neighbors who are devastated by nature or other calamities.
But shouldn’t Southern Baptists absolutely be open to discussing the merits of all other CP endeavors?
For example: Is the seminary model we are currently supporting one which will take us through the 21st Century or can it be replaced or supplanted by a more efficient model?
My point is this. Let’s talk about all these things. The CBF does not have the answers anymore than the SBC does. If we are truly moving deeper into post-denominational waters as some claim then preserving the status quo at all costs will prove to be utterly fruitless.
I have occupied a chair on two state convention executive boards and presided over one of those, so these are not conclusions I am coming to lightly.
Sincerely,
Jim Shaver
Matt Brady is 100% right. One of the most common errors that researchers make today is to confuse “female deacons” with “deaconesses” when consulting historical sources. Folks like B. H. Carroll explicitly did not consider their deaconesses to be female deacons. In other words, they did not meat with the deacons, could not serve in the ways that the deacons did, did not administer the Lord’s Supper, had no voice in the temporal affairs of the church, and were not even suffered to vote in church business meetings. Some obscure this reality because they did not know it and are just repeating the writings of other people. Some obscure this reality in spite of knowing it, leaving us to draw our own conclusions about their motives.
Yeah, that’s just like a newby trustee. He will pipe up about women deacons, but he won’t fight over whiskey anymore.
:-)
Brother Bart,
You are correct in #75. Scripture is clear concerning the order and responsibility of men and women in the church.
I consider Daniel Vestal a friend and brother in Christ,…but he, by his own admission to me a couple of years back… had to change his hermenuetic in order to change his view of women in the church. I find him honest in why he changed,…but even so, he is incorrect and inconsistent in his new findings. His new findings certainly have influenced many.
Blessings,
Chris
The function of a deaconess in the early Church and in Baptist congregations such as FBC Waco during B. H. Carroll’s tenure, was to minister to females in particular, though not exclusively (they often cared for the poor, sick, etc.). Does this change the fact that certain women were appointed to carry out such ministry (even though distinct from the male deacons)? Does this change the *servant* nature of either office (deacon/deaconess)?
Dr. James,
This certainly is a side topic… but,…..Some do place the term of “office” as the main context of thought when it comes to the actions and qualities of the terms associated with Overseer and Deacon. In other words, as long as I can make it into the office… I am qualified. That is anti-biblical type thinking. The Greek term and context surrounding the Timothy passages that address this matter help the Christ follower to understand the qualifications and actions of these men and women that are about the business of edifying the church. In our day, the “office” becomes the context, and not the “quality” required of the individual serving the church as Paul has clearly articulated.
It is unfortunate that the English translation “office of” preceding “overseer” has become the primary context in the contemporary American church culture, because unless the context (leading us to the qualities of an overseer) is understood while reading the translation, it becomes much easier to overlay the corporate understanding of an “office” into the meaning. So that “if I go to seminary and become voted into the Office of Pastor at an SBC Church”… leadership in the church has been accomplished. That type of thinking and definition is not known or taught by Paul throughout the early churches.
If the contemporary traditional SBC churches were to follow the “qualities and actions” required for maintaining God’s “overseer” within their body… the definition of “office” would no doubt become more accurate; maintaining and providing more men and women to lead and serve as commanded and ordered by Christ.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris:
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Biblical thinking brings one to understand one is qualified for office by having particular qualities and then recognized by the congregation as such (not vice versa). My experience within local SBC congregations leads me to believe there are many who have been appointed to office without being qualified. Many have been appointed, not because they meet the qualifications as found in Scripture, but because they had a pulse and attended services beyond Christmas, Easter, and Mother’s Day.
I do not normally have time for SBC Today. I usually don’t have the energy to waste either. However, I passed by here on break so I guess I’ll comment. What would happen if we all left blogging and started handing out tracts on the street? Would there still be time to raise vain questions about the CBF? By the way, any of you ever lose a church position because of a president in the CBF who thought you had the wrong flavor (as in conservative) of friends? Gives you a little more insight on the issue. And, the Word does not strictly prohibit javelin catching but all research indicates this is not healthy. The Word may not “prohibit” taking a drink, but that is far different from “promoting” it. Have you ever watched a little brother die from lifelong drinking? Gives you a little perspective. Blogging seems to be a tremendous waste of time. Just look how much time I wasted.