After recording the podcast which airs today (Episode 12), I have had occasion to speak with others about the issue surrounding the resolution debate which took place in our association as well as those issues which will comprise the focus of the gathering of the Missouri Baptist Convention next week. I have been involved in a discussion on Twitter regarding some interesting developments relating to an upcoming Evangelical apologetics conference. I have spoken with ministry friends over serious issues which they face in their ministries. I have spoken with church members on the burden and heartbreak which accompanies our evangelistic endeavors. In all of these conversations, I have been brought to ask myself this question: “What does it take to get me ‘worked up’?”
As a pastor, I take my responsibility seriously to shepherd the flock in which God has placed me. Thus I am given the responsibility for caring, leading, and protecting our church family under Christ’s lordship. A natural overflow of those concerns comes to the relationships our church has with other ministries, associations, and conventions. I believe that a pastor’s heart will lead him to exemplify the scripture: “Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15). This week, I have been dancing (yes :-) ) on the mountain top rejoicing in seeing people come to Christ as Savior & Lord. I have also shared the burden of a friend over concern for a lost friend of ours who seems to be running farther away from the truth. I most certainly get ‘worked up’ when my church family members share with me their burden for the lost.
As you might note from the opening paragraph, doctrinal error also gets me a little ‘worked up.’ :-D Maybe my friends and I are too well known for that. However, I will not apologize for having problems with those who refuse to be convictional in their Christian life, or churches which are more concerned with cultural identity than discipling believers in the heritage of faith in which our churches have stood for 400 years.
The most recent example I (and I stress that I…I would certainly hate to speak for any other Baptist you know ;-) ) have come across is the upcoming National Conference on Christian Apologetics. This conference, held at a Baptist church and claiming significant Evangelical sponsorship (see the bottom of the conference’s ‘home page’), has chosen Dinesh D’Souza, an avowed Roman Catholic, as one of its keynote speakers who will also lead a spotlight debate with atheist Christopher Hitchens. The speakers roster includes other notables such as Hank Hanegraaf and Johnny Hunt. In my quick perusal of that list, at least one or two more Roman Catholics are featured. My issue here, specifically with the D’Souza-Hitchens debate, is not D’Souza’s ability to refute Hitchens and favor a theistic world view. I have a problem with an Evangelical apologetic conference front-lining a debate with a noted atheist with someone whose world view stops short of an answer which includes a GOSPEL nothing less than salvation by GRACE ALONE through FAITH ALONE in CHRIST ALONE! I have read recently that the Vatican has begun to open the door to reincorporate certain Anglicans back into their fold. I did not realize that we who have inherited a tradition of protest from the Protestant and Radical reformations in our Evangelical, and Southern Baptist, community were opening the door to incorporate Roman Catholicism into our fold. I fear we are allowing ourselves to sound far too indistinct a call when we find ourselves mixed up in events such as these.
Well, I don’t think I have left any room to wonder what it takes to get me ‘worked up.’ As simply as I know how to put it, I believe I could sum it up in saying that anything or anyone who rejects or challenges the foundation of a world view built on Scripture alone which leads us to the Gospel of Christ’s saving work alone to which everyone is called to receive on the basis of grace alone through faith alone and results in the glory of God alone will get me worked up…worked up to pray for that person’s salvation and continued witness of the Good News…worked up to sound a call for clear, convictional living…worked up to warn of the dangers of compromising clear, biblical teaching.
I pray that God keeps me, keeps us all, near the cross!
Sola Gratia!
Pingback: Tweets that mention What Gets You ‘Worked Up’? :: SBC Today -- Topsy.com
James White stated that Hunt had previously committed to this event before the roster was firmed up. If that is the case, Mr. Hunt should now withdraw from participating in this conference. We’re talking about SHARING the stage with those who hold to a different gospel, this does not bring honor to Christ.
In 1555, Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer were burned back-to-back on one stake during the reign of Queen Mary. Latimer’s last words: “Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day, by God’s grace, light such a candle in England as I trust shall never be put out.”
Mr. Hunt…”Play the man.”
Brother Scott,
I see several things from what you have written.
Are you more worked up that Johnny Hunt is involved?
or,..that a Roman Catholic (another gospel) is involved?
or,…that the event is housed in an SBC affiliated facility?
-Chris
John,
Precisely.
Chris,
Yes.
But to rank them… 1)That “another gospel” is presented, 2)That Pastor Hunt is involved, 3)That it is in an SBC affiliated facility.
How can we have an apologia for a common faith when no such consistency is to be found from the list of speakers (&, no, before anyone tries to go there, they need not all be Southern Baptist)?
Sola Gratia.
Scott, I appreciate this post. Who in the world would start a twitter conversation like that? ;)
Anyways, the two other Roman Catholics are Benjamin Wiker and Peter Kreeft. Kreeft has some “interesting” views to say the least. Just look up the reviews of his book Ecumenical Jihad on amazon for some quotes.
I counted and blogged 23 anathemas for myself from Trent from just one session out of 33. The disagreements are still vast. We should not gloss over them.
I really appreciate what you say as a pastor. It reminds me of the latest post at the 9Marks blog that gives a critical review of a recent evangelical conference on missions. It offers some good insights to consider.
Mark,
I think you are a trouble maker, my brother!
I, too, fall under those anathemas. You are right. I don’t believe we have any grounds for a Catholic-Evangelical apologetic.
I will be looking at the 9Marks post. Thanks for mentioning it.
AND, thanks for helping get me all worked up!
Sola Gratia!
As an evangelical (although not a Southern Baptist) it gets me worked up too.
The recent “Making Men Moral” conference honoring a RC author at Union University raised eyebrows over here as well. IMHO making “men moral” isn’t our mission. (Admittedly I haven’t read the book and am judging it by its cover.)
In both cases what we see is a replay of the old “New Evangelical” strategy that was birthed in the 40′s and 50′s with institutions like Fuller Seminary, Christianity Today and the Billy Graham crusades.
Fundamentalism was considered to be a failure for reasons that due to time constraints I can’t go into here. The New Evangelical policy was to engage and cooperate with liberals and later Catholics. The idea was that they (the liberals especially) would be influenced by this engagement. However, it was the evangelicals primarily who ended up being influenced. That this policy of cooperation with non-evangelicals (I’m using the term here in its historic sense i.e. the 5 solas, etc.) has led to one doctrinal compromise after another is not in question.
Some of the leaders of the CR (if perhaps not all) were New Evangelicals. Dr. Richard Land signed Evangelicals and Catholics together and Dr. Timothy George strongly endorsed it. It is this kind of compromise that always made me uneasy about the big tent that is the SBC, even though I knew there were also those who strongly opposed it. Likewise I’ve found the practice of inviting Republican politicians who are not known to be evangelicals to speak at the SBC to be troubling.
Co-belligerance with non-evangelicals on some political and social issues like abortion and others is ok. But let’s not call this form of cooperation Christian. We can only unite (as Christians) insofar as we are agreed on the gospel.
I was merely sharing my workedupedness. Getting worked up for the sake of the Gospel seems to fall unto godly anger – be angry, but do not sin.
Peace (as was my anti-spam word)
Mark,
Thank you for sharing. I hope you know you are not alone in that workedupness!
Chris,
While I share much of your frustration with the Catholic-Evangelical ecumenical happenings of the past, and present, I must disagree that the leaders of the CR in SBC life were perhaps all ‘New Evangelicals.’ I don’t deny that some of our convention’s leaders have made unwise affiliations, affirmations, and alliances, but the solid core of the CR would never be inclined to forge any such union with Catholicism, especially on the issue of the Gospel and Christ’s Commission.
As to the wisdom of political alliances, I will leave that for a discussion on another day.
Sola Gratia.
I see now that Chuck Colson is on the roster. Given his role in ECT, one wonders if he is at least to some degree responsible for this ecumenical slate of speakers. It’s also quite in character, as I noted above, for the BGEA to be involved since they have been cooperating working with Romanism for 50 years or more.
Also note that the event is titled Apologetics and the LOCAL CHURCH.
Brother Scott,
It seems that the conference may be most confusing for Christopher Hitchens, since he is fighting against Romans 1, and now he will be defending his ignorance with a man that denies that Christ declares His children righteous by way of imputation. How bizarre!
It will be a potpourri of activity to say the least.
Blessings,
Chris
Scott,
I agree that the “solid core” of the CR would not be at all inclined to forge any such alliance, especially with regard to the Gospel and Great Commission. Unlike a number of his early allies in the New Evangelical movement, Carl F.H. Henry remained doctrinally sound, and he was a big influence on many of the CR leaders (then and now) on issues like inerrancy and others. My understanding is that as a seminary student Dr. Mohler supported women’s ordination until a conversation with Dr. Henry changed his mind.
Needless to say, the last 50-60 years of evangelicalism is an issue that is not easily addressed in a blog comment, and I don’t wish to hijack the thread here. Once I have done a little more research, I hope to address the issue at some length in a series of blog spost in the near future, Lord willing.
Now back to the issue at hand:
It’s no secret that many Southern Baptists are troubled by cooperation with Presbyterians and other evangelicals. How much more a forum like this, and it being labeled “Apologetics and the Local Church!” Unless some clear statement is made or action taken, I can’t imagine Dr. Hunt’s participation in an event on apologetics and the local church with those who disagree on the essentials of the gospel (and obviously the church as well) being helpful on the GCR front.
Colson’s wife is a practicing Roman Catholic and has been for some time. Remember where Colson spoke earlier this year within the SBC? I am thinking that Colson may be the major influence here.
Chris J,
It is precisely that confusion which Hitchens will face which most aggravates me. You see, the lost friend whom I mentioned in this post is an avowed atheist as well. There is no room for an unclear Gospel, at any time, but especially where it will provide fodder for those already antagonistic to the truth.
Chris P,
Exactly what I was thinking. Pastor Hunt’s involvement, or continued involvement, is highly troublesome and disadvantageous to the GCR & TF in the SBC.
I would really like to hear from our convention’s President regarding his thoughts or plans relating to this conference and his part in it.
Mark,
I honestly do not recall where Colson has been involved/spoken within the SBC this year. Please elucidate. I am quite interested.
Sola Gratia.
Scott,
Unforunately, Colson spoke at the SBC Pastor’s Conference this year. I understand that…to a point.
Colson has some good insight into culture and the battle of postmodernism, etc. However, given is position on the Gospel and that his wife attends not only a different denomination, but a Roman Catholic church is troubling.
It is interesting that things like this slip under the radar, yet some in the SBC consume themselves with other issues that do not effect the Gospel as such. I may be wrong though and most SBCers might have no problem with Colson and the RCC.
Mark
I guess when one adopts the classical apologetics of Aquinas, rather than reformed apologetics, you wind up with strage bedfellows.
Steve
This may have more to do with Dinesh debating instead of the Colsons infleunce.
From the San Fran Chronicle
A: I’m a Catholic by background. I was raised in Goa, a part of India that was visited by Portuguese missionaries a few hundred years ago, which explains my last name.
My wife, Dixie, is evangelical Christian. We met in the Reagan White House, when she was a student intern. We’re members of the Horizon Christian Fellowship Church.
Dixie was born in Louisiana and grew up in San Diego. The issue of me being Catholic and her being Protestant made her parents a little grumpy, but the fact that I was Indian was a nonissue.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/28/RVTK149QSD.DTL&feed=rss.books#ixzz0UjX9j1Jz
Brother Robert,
Hope things are going well with you….
I believe the Dinesh debating is more along the lines of socio-polital endeavers and not theological precision. It appears that is the windsock of the times.
If no one has been following the Roman Catholic belief system. It should be noted that the RC system is not any closer to the Pauline doctrines of justification at this time. In fact, it may be more evident today that the RC doctrines have run even more counter to the biblical gospel in this age.
This gathering of the finite minds will be just another day at the circus.
Blessings,
Chris
I’ve never heard D’Souza speak. However, he often speaks at evangelical churches (many megachurches) across the United States. The fact that he continues to receive speaking invites seems to suggest that whatever he says in these debates with Atheists is not offensive to non-Catholic Christians. I assume he does not touch on the differences between Protestants and Catholics and sticks to debunking evolution and arguments against the existence of God.
I do find it odd that you folks are getting worked up over a simple conference when the fact is that your Ethics Guru – the man who other than Al Mohler is likely the most well-known Southern Baptist in America – is Catholic-friendly and has repeatedly refused to characterize the Catholic Church as a False Church and Catholic theology as a False Gospel. See Land’s most recent book.
Brother BDW,
I’m not so concerned with other men. Either the Gospel is God declaring the sinner righteous by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness or not. That is a very simple proposition that some believe to be less important than the de-bunking of evolution.
The evolutionary debate will go on for as long as there is sin in the world.
Blessings,
Chris
BDW,
In Mohler’s article from a few years ago in Touchstone Magazine Standing Together, Standing Apart he writes (as one example):
He has also said so on his radio show. What does he say differently from Land’s book that would contradict the above article?
Thanks.
Sorry one more from monergism\’s bio page on Dr. Mohler.
Mark,
I was referring to Richard Land, aka the SBC’s Ethics Guru.
I’m aware of the anti-Catholic comments made by Mohler. In fact, I’m pretty sure that Land has Mohler’s comments in mind when he had this exchange with Stephen Colbert:
Stephen Colbert: You said our country is not as divided as it appears in the media. What do you base that on?
Richard Land: Well, I’ll give you an example. I was being interviewed for a national talk show and they said to me, “Dr. Land what do you think of Pope John Paul II”,and I said, well I think he’s one of the transcendent moral and historical figures of the 20th century. And they said, “well that’s not quite what we’re looking for.”
Well, what are you looking for? And they said “well we’re looking for someone who’ll go on the air and say he’s the head of a false religion.” And I said, well you got the wrong guy. But they found someone who did. And so millions of Catholics got the idea that evangelicals have a different view of the Pope and their faith than they actually have. And it was that night that I decided to write this book. I said, I’ve had it.
Land HAD…
Big Daddy,
You do agree with Dr. Mohler do you not?
cb
Let’s talk about something that is really important that gets us worked up. It is Friday and Saturday is coming.
I get worked up when little Jr. High football conferences consider their football nations to be worthy of dialogue or ranking. I am talking about conferences like the: ACC, Big 10, Big 12, South (jokes all), Big East, Mountain West, Pac 10, WAC, etc, etc. And what on earth is the SUN BELT Conference? Is it true that you have to be on probation to play in that conference? What is it; a 12 step program for atheletic type criminals?
And what is it about such Jr. High football nations such as Iowa, North Carolina, Missouri and Nebraska and Wisconsin thinking they should have bowl bids, televised games and that anyone should actually have to pay for a ticket to watch them play?
I would imagine that it would be worth more to watch earth worms race in the Kentucky Derby than to actually pay to watch any of the above play at playing football. I guess if you had spent you entire summer watching Europeans play sissy ball (soccer) you might be willing to pay to watch North Carolina or Iowa play, but I can hardly imagine any other reason.
All true Southern Baptists know there is only one conference and that is the SEC. True devotes of the SBC love the SEC. It is theologically correct. It is what the CR was about and what the GCR should be about.
And of the SEC which football nation stands head and shoulders above the rest? That’s right!! The SABANATION. What other football nation has survived sanctions, penalties, suspensions and investigations like the CRIMSON TIDE and come back in full glory every time? NONE. Who else has NICK SABAN? Nobody. Who else wants him? Everybody? Who else can afford him? Nobody. The TIDE is bound for glory……again. :-) :-) :-)
Not even the GATORNATION Missionary can stop us now.
Now, this is something to get worked up about. This is real. This is important.
So get worked up. Take action.
Support the SEC and cast down all the other imposter football conferences as they try to gain recognition for their little Jr. High football nations.
Long live the SEC and Roll Tide!!!!
I just had a great idea. Let’s bring all boards, agencies and institutions of the SBC under the authority of the SEC. Can you spell Utopia???
cb
BTW,
What on earth is a Kansas Jayhawk? Is it a hybrid Jay Bird? Is it a hybrid Hawk? One thing is for sure. It ain’t no football nation.
Also,
Anybody who would like to have a puppy, I will have a whole bunch of Tennessee Bluetick pups to give away tomorrow night. They might be a little cut up and bruised. But they will get well. They are real hardy. They have already survived the “Kiffin Flu” and you have to be pretty stout to survive that.
But even being that stout is not stout enough to get over being stomped by an ELEPHANT.
cb
BDW,
OK, sorry. I thought you were saying that Land quoted or referenced Mohler. Thanks for clearing that up.
As to CB\’s question of whether or not you agree with Mohler, based on this post may I accurately infer that you do not agree with Mohler\’s position on the Roman Catholic church?
No, I most certainly do not agree with Brother Albert.
Oddly (and uncomfortably), I find myself in agreement with Richard Land, Timothy George, Larry Lewis, and even the late Carl Henry on this one.
As a good Baptist who is opposed to creeds, I doubt I would be comfortable in any Evangelical-Catholic gathering given their emphasis on the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds which I can affirm but do not wish to recite.
A side note about Mohler: I remember either hearing or reading Brother Albert a while back speak about how he’s made mistakes along the way with his choice of words. I can’t help but suspect that Mohler had the aforementioned Larry King Live appearance in mind. He could have expressed his beliefs in a more charitable manner.
Big Daddy,
Happy, happy, joy, joy. You have stated your position on Dr. Mohler.
Now be serious for a moment.
What do you think about the SEC, you poor child of Baylor?
cb
Mark,
I realize you can normally \”DO NO OTHER\”, but could you be serious for a moment and give us your perspective as to why the SEC is the only true football conference?
cb
CB,
I normally try to save the idolatry talk for Sunday School, but I do live in GA and the Dawgs are here. I’m pretty sure GA is SEC country. While I may be at a loss for words on the SEC I will not be at a loss for football as long as we have the SEC.
Mark :)
As the product of Georgia public education (1st grade through B.A. at UGA in 2004), I could care less about the Big 12. Granted, I’ll take the University of Texas over any ole SEC West team and I actually prefer the post-Spurrier Gators to your Saban-led Crimson Tide.
Mark and Big Daddy,
I am presently on my way to a High School Football game of which one of my children will play.
During that time I will meditate upon your words.
Primarily, Mark is of the redeemed in footballology. But Big Daddy has most certainly blasphemed. His situation will take great meditation.
cb
Sorry CB but as usual you are WRONG!!!
My anti-spam word is ….wait for it….JOY! What those of us from a real football school possess. OSU not ohio but Oklahoma State University with the best facillities and tallent that oil money can buy!! We even have enough money to have Saban….but who wants a grumpy ol’ has been….whoops I feel the spirit needing to utter a prophecy….. secisabunchofsissies….I’ll translate it for those that don’t have the gift of translation…. the SEC is a bunch of sissies.
Dude,
You lost to Houston.
OSU is a decent team – a team that is definitely having a better year than my team. But a team that can lose to Houston doesn’t deserve to be mentioned alongside Florida and Alabama.
And while your stadium is nice – Been there, done that – I was surprised at how small it is (seats slightly more than Baylor’s Stadium) especially when compared to the stadiums of Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, LSU, etc.
Jake,
It is just the kind of incredible nonsense that you promote here that gets all of us SEC folks all “worked up.”
When foreign dignitaries visit America do they ask to watch OSU play football? No.
They ask to watch an SEC game between two SEC teams.
Big Daddy has set you straight here; so take heed to what he has said. But I still can’t get a grasp on how a Bulldog bred GA boy can speak kindly of Texas as he has. That still calls for great amounts of meditation.
cb
How about them Hawkeyes…..cant argue with perfect season.
Actually I am Husker fan but I say softly this year!
RM
Robert,
It cannot be argued that Iowa has had a perfect season. That is obvious. Thus far they have won all of their games.
But, in real world football; What does it mean? Nothing.
Iowa football is Jr. High football. It is not SEC football. Therefore: Meaningless in the science of footballology.
Robert, I know you live in Tennessee. I do not know if you pull for Vandy or the Bluetick Hounds, but in case you are for the Orange Dogs, be warned: It ain’t gonna be pretty what the SABANATION is about to do to the sissy-britches KIFFINATION.
cb
I will check you boys later. Right now I have to get to my seat and watch an Elephant stomp a Bluetick Hound.
ALL the more reason that we have our antenna/discernment up as the GCR(and the emergent crowd they play to) gets ‘cozy’ with these folks and we drift towards being Ecumenical/Evangelical rather than the uniqueness of being Southern Baptist!!!
The Blueticks came to the SABANATION hungry. They were relentless in the hunt and any man would be proud to own such a fine pack of hounds. (After all, their bloodlines are SEC registered. So there were no Toy Poodles in that bunch like you would find in the Jr. High conferences such as the Iowa and Texas football nations are part of)
In the end, it took our biggest Elephant to knock ‘em down.
Had Tennessee been playing Texas or Iowa last night they would have gone back to Tennessee with with enough Hawk feather beds to give everyone in Tennessee or enough Longhorn beef to feed the state for two or three years. Neither Iowa or Texas could have stood against Tennessee last night.
There should be no shame in Tennessee today. For no football nation can overcome the SABANATION.
ROLL TIDE.
Absolutely NONE of this gets me worked up.
The question, in my opinion, is whether SBC churches should have conferences on topics like this and invite speakers who are articulate defenders of Theism or other various points that may be shared by Christians of all stripes.
Put me down as one who believes that we SHOULD have such events, though I am not commenting on the entire roster for this conference, etc., only D’Souza’s appearance.
I don’t even think this is a close call. The doctrinal differences between Catholics and Baptists or other Protestants are not the topic.
I must admit that my law school experience and my post law school practice have some impact here.
Many of the most influential writers today in the legal/public policy field who argue for a view of law and society that recognizes the existence of God and many of the truths that Catholics and Protestants recognize are Catholics. Baptists and other evangelical Christians, in case you haven’t noticed, are WAY behind on this. There has been much improvement in the last 30 years or so, but not nearly enough.
I am more concerned that Johnny Hunt is speaking (due to competence with whether he will represent us well) than the fact the D’Souza is speaking. This does not seem to be his strong suit. I can only imagine what Hitchens will write about that.
And I have heard D’Souza speak, though not on this topic. He is excellent. He is on college campuses regularly and is used to the rough and tumble of debate and knows how to handle himself in that setting. He went to Dartmouth and was on the Dartmouth Review. I would say that Mohler and Colson would do fine in this setting, as well. Mohler was on a panel discussion at Columbia within the last couple of years, if I recall correctly. Mark Dever would also do well.
Some have mentioned Dr. Land above. I believe that he has been a very good spokesmam for the SBC at ERLC. At a minimum he at least has the agency representing what most people in the SBC believe and agree with. That is no small feat if you look at the denominational world around you. Agencies in other denominations like ERLC are routinely led by people whose convictions are not even close the constituency they represent.
The SBC has some sad history in this respect, too. How in the world the SBC ever had a member of the ACLU leading the Christian Life Commission (Dr. Valentine), and why the CLC was giving money to People for the American Way (I note without trustee knowledge or approval) will go down as a couple of the most unanswerable questions in the 20th century.
If you really want to get worked up, visit the Baptist Center for Ethics (the CBF version of the ERLC) website and watch them present the “Green Bible” to Al Gore. Now THAT will get you upset. I am referring in particular to the exegesis of what Jesus said when he stood up in the Synagogue for the first time and proclaimed that “Good and acceptable Year of the Lord.”
But if an SBC church hosts an apologetics event that includes a nationally known speaker who is Catholic, I do not even yawn. It’s really a good thing.
Louis
Louis,
Dartmouth and Columbia are Ivy League schools and their football programs are just that: Programs. They are not true football nations. I am sure that D’Souza, Mohler, Land or Colson could deliver a good speech or stand well in any debate held at either school. But I bet that not any of the four of them could even kick an extra point if their lives depended on it. Now, Al Gore’s roommate at Harvard, Tommy Lee Jones, did play on the football team, but that is about AL knows about football although he did invent the internet which has made it easier to talk to more people about football. So I guess he has added something to the game indirectly.
Louis, I have hijacked this blog to talk about football. You need to talk about football. How can you say “Absolutely NONE of this gets me worked up” when we are now talking about football, especially now that the SABANATION is still undefeated?
Louis, you live in Tennessee. Tennessee is home to two SEC teams. How can you not be worked up about that?
cb
CB:
You crack me up!
My mother was a cheerleader at UT in the early 1950s. There are lots of pics of her around UT football lore, including one where she and another cheerleader are kneeling with Johnny Majors in the end zone after his first touchdown run in the Mississippi State game. So, as you can imagine, I grew up going to lots of UT games. My grandmother had tickets on the 50 from 1938 to 1998. My last season to go regularly was 1998, when UT went undefeated and won the national title.
I am surprised that UT is playing as well as they are this year.
I have great respect for the Alabama program. Congrats on the win. I hope someone from the SEC will win the national title, either you guys or Florida. I do think that your quarterback is suspect, however. That’s a bad weakness to have if you are trying to win a national title.
Of course Al Gore knows nothing about football or any contact sport like that. Do you remember seeing him throw the football around with his family in a photo op during the 2000 election recount? He throws like a girl. Clinton does, too. At least Obama can shoot a basketball.
Louis
Louis,
I am glad to know you understand the importance of the SEC to America and the world at-large.
I was impressed with Tennessee Saturday; almost too much.
You are also right about Gore and Clinton throwing like girls.
It makes one realize one of the reasons Ronald Reagan was so much their superior. He play football at a Christian college in Illinois.
Yet Louis, you have opened up another mystery for me about our current Commander and Chief.
I know there is a great mystery as to where he was born. It is also a mystery as to why he has yet to discover the Constitution of the United States even though there are several copies of it around his home and work place.
But now you have opened up a greater mystery to me than either of those I mention above.
This thing that he shoots…..Louis, what exactly is a basketball?
cb
Brother cb,
Those ole elephants always seem to have a tough time with my dear Bevo. I was at the game when we took the ole elephants to the turf yet once again back in 82. I guess we have some compassion for the crimson,…so we did let them win once out of the eight times we have played them.
I just hope those elephants will be able to shake the gator bites and get by Florida, so we can invite this silly notion of sabanation into the real football environment to the west. Bevo would love the opportunity to notch number eight on the rack….I just hope Alabama has enough to get to the game.
Blessings,
Chris
Well…
I am finally able to get back to these comments…and find that CB must have fallen off his rocker and hit his head. It is quite apparent to anyone listening that when it comes to the foosball, he is just not right. The broad way of the SEC will only lead to destruction.
I find great comfort in the courage Jake expressed to come in here as an advocate for my team whose coach IS A MAN (if you don’t believe me, just ask him…or attack one of his players in the Daily Oklahoman)! RIDE ‘EM COWBOYS!
I especially am grateful for the opportunity to vent my concerns over the ecumenical morass which will be the upcoming apologetics conference. We need to pray that our convention does not head down the road openning our doors, hearts and minds to call Evangelical, or even Christian, what the Bible describes as no Gospel at all.
Just hold on to your seats for the next post…
Sola Gratia!
Oh, and BTW, have a happy Reformation Day on Saturday!
Scott,
Thought you might find this interesting.
relevant to the original post
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2009/10/29/the-leader-doth-protest-too-much-methinks/
Robert I Masters
Let me get this straight. The SBC is experiencing a massive decline in membership. You are losing your children to the New Atheism in colleges. Baptisms have massively declined. Folks like Dawkins, etc are experiencing rock star recognition .And who do you attack? D’Souza and Colson. Egads! You remind me of the knight in Monty Python’s Holy Grail. As his arms and legs were sequentially chopped off, he continued to fight declaring, “Tis just a flesh wound.”
Besides showing a profound ignorance of D’Souza’s background, you are shooting at our friends. But don’t worry. Pretty soon, it will just be the few of your type left. Heaven on earth, I’m sure.
Dee,
I see on your blog that you delete “nasty comments.” If your comment above isn’t nasty, I don’t know what is. Or is it that “nasty comments” are simply the one’s you disagree with? :)
On what basis do you claim that there is a “profound ignorance” about D’Souza’s background? Is it your contention that he is not a Roman Catholic? If that’s not it then please enlighten us instead of engaging in drive by posting.
What I and others object to is his appearance at an event that in its title at least is focused on the local church. The so called intolerance or sectarianism cuts both ways, as the RCC does not allow non Catholics to partake in the eucharist.
Those who find Roman Catholicism unobjectionable ought to cross the Tiber given its claims of being the only true church.
More than one commenter has noted the challenges of the age. The same statements were made during the time of the reformation, when the Ottoman Turks were a force to be reckoned with. But the Reformers as well as the anabaptists rightly held their ground.
Christian
I am not a drive by poster. For some reason I did not receive notification of the comment thread. DSouza attends a nondenominational church along with his wife. I have followed DSouza since his days at Dartmouth.
As for the RCC and communion, first look at the log in our eyes. The SBC is now requiring rebaptism of those who wish to be missionaries in the SBC but made the profound mistake of being baptized by another Christian denomination. Have you been following the issue between Mark Dever and John Piper? If I remember correctly, Piper would not be able to take communion in Dever’s church because Piper believes in infant baptism.
I disagree with the RCC on many doctrinal issues. However, they are our friends when it comes to the culture and religious wars. The SBC has a knack of alienating those who would stand with them. But, as I said in my last post, the SBC is in sharp decline. I am not the only one pointing out the problems.
I disagree that my previous comment was nasty. The SBC is in sharp decline and people are leaving in droves. I am one of those. I am about to join a conservative nondenominational church. The SBC has lost a good friend in me.
As for nastiness on my blog, I mean nasty-some of the comments would make many people blush-foul, disgusting ,etc. We love those who disagree with us. We are running a blog. Controversy is our life blood. We like it when people are vehemently disagreeing with us. So, you are wrong there as well.
BTW, you might be surprised at the number of priests who have invited this soon to be exSouthern Baptist to participate in communion. Things may not be as monolithic as you think.
Dee,
I think you may have be conflating the Piper issue with some blog posts a few years ago about Together for the Gospel, in which it was noted that the Presbyterian Ligon Duncan would be unable to take the Lord’s Supper at Capitol Hill Baptist.
The issue with Piper was whether to admit those to membership who had not been immersed upon a profession of faith, not whether Piper believed it was valid baptism. It was a proposal to sever the link between baptism and church membership, similar to the practice of the Evangelical Free denomination and some independent churches. Piper was arguing for the position held by John Bunyan that differences over baptism aren’t worth dividing over, whereas those who disagree with him were upholding the historic Baptist position that baptism is prerequisite to church membership. Dever disagrees with Piper on this, but I doubt that he would bar him from the Lord’s table over it. (Ironically conservative Presbyterians would not admit the unbaptized to the table either–the controversy is over what constitutes valid baptism. And I know some Dutch Reformed who would likewise bar Baptists from the table because in their view baptistic churches do not administer the sacraments rightly.)
You may be right about D’Souza, which is why I asked the question. If so, the numerous media reports about him being a Roman Catholic are incorrect, unless he also attends Mass. If he does not, then he is a lapsed Catholic at best.
The ex-Calvinist and RC convert Peter Kreeft also was on the speaker’s list. About 15 years ago he published “Ecumenical Jihad,” which set forth what amounted to an inclusivist view–that sincere adherents of other religions could be saved without becoming a Christian, taking Vatican II’s liberalized views toward world religions further than the Roman church has.
There are lots of Roman Catholics who have little regard for the teaching of their church, so your comment about priests inviting you is not a surprise. But surely you know the difference between their conception of the Eucharist or Mass and the Protestant view, whether Lutheran, Calvinist or Zwinglian.
Of course, sadly there are multitudes of Southern Baptists and evangelicals who likewise have little or no understanding of the gospel and have little regard for ecclesiology. I would be surprised if the number of active members of Southern Baptist churches who attend even once a month is half of what is claimed on paper.
The RCC is losing members in droves as well, a situation that is only somewhat ameliorated by the mass immigration of Catholics, primarily from south of the border. But many of these are converting to some form of evangelicalism. There are many Spanish language Baptist churches, as well as those of other evangelical denominations. Based on your posts, it would seem that you would view many if not all of these conversions as the exercise of a mere personal preference.
I made clear earlier that I wasn’t SBC (and also offered some sharp criticism of the actions of some leaders, both past and present) yet you address me here as if I were SBC. I was also baptized in another denomination that does not meet the requirements of the IMB guidelines FWIW–although you again broad brush with this issue. Those guidelines do not state that it has to be a SBC baptism, although they do reflect a narrower understanding of the issue than many Southern Baptists are comfortable with.
I’ll close with this–the distinction being made here is between co-belligerence on moral issues (i.e. abortion, etc) and participation in and identification with the local church. What business to leaders who cannot agree on the identity of the church have in discussing “Apologetics in the Local Church?” That’s what’s at issue, IMO.
Is unity to be based on common confession i.e. a shared understanding of the gospel, or a mere outward unity that papers over irreconcilable differences? Based on 2 Cor 6:14ff and other passages, I don’t believe we should regard as Christian those who do not confess the same gospel and that we cannot cooperate with such in spiritual enterprises. As far as I’m concerned, co-belligerence on social issues is fine so long as it’s not under the banner of Christianity. God would have us be faithful rather than pragmatic and compromise the gospel for the sake of some earthly goal, however noble it might appear. (Mark 8:36.)
Part of the problem as I see it with many Southern Baptists and other evangelicals over the past 30 years has been selling out to the Religious Right at the expense of clearly proclaiming the gospel. Contrary to your assertion of the SBC alienating those who agree on moral issues, there have been many non Southern Baptist politicians and leaders who have addressed the convention, some of whom would be considered left wing evangelicals at best (regarding their religious views, not necessarily their politics.)
The result of this overemphasis on political action has been that many think of evangelicalism as primarily being a political platform, and think of various boycotts, etc. when Southern Baptists are mentioned. If combating atheism and other ills in the culture are our goal, then why not link arms with Mormons under the banner of Christianity as well? (And not a few evangelicals recommend doing just that.) It is my well considered opinion that the culture war is over (and has been for about 10 years or more) and the conservatives have lost. Let us be about our Father’s business and not exchange the faith once delivered for a mess of ecumenical pottage.
Brothers,
Any further comments on this issue in light of the Manhattan Declaration which was signed by many Southern Baptist leaders?
IMO it is clearly an illustration of what I noted in comment #7.
Pingback: The Manhattan Declaration and a Few Baptist Snots » The Wartburg Watch