Archive for Building Bridges
Now What Do I Do about This?
Posted by: | CommentsThis question has been dogging me for a few months now. It all began at last year’s MBC annual meeting… *the room begins to swim and then fades away amidst lovely strums of the harp. We are transported to Raytown, MO, October, 2009*… At that meeting I had the privilege, honestly…privilege, of spending a good deal of time with Micah Fries. 
Anyone who knows Micah and me knows that there are some differences between us. One, he is tall…ok, freakishly tall 
(sorry, couldn’t resist), and I am…well…short. Beyond that highly insignificant bit of trivia, we have some differing perspectives on the best way for Southern Baptists to structure our ministries in varying levels of cooperation for the sake of fulfilling our Great Commission calling as churches and a convention of churches. He has the right to be wrong…and so do I. O:-) I do not hesitate to call him brother. I would not hesitate to ask him to preach at our church (just as long as he doesn’t use words like missional or contextualization 
). I have found him to be a significant and consistent ally regarding some of the challenges faced in our Missouri Baptist Convention. I am praying that we see the right things happen for the glory of God and the furtherance of the Gospel… *Now returning to the present* Read More→
Harmony…Unity…Fellowship in the SBC
Posted by: | CommentsA conversation I had the other night, a good and productive conversation, got me to thinking about something. It got me to thinking about disagreements on doctrines in the Bible. And, I just wanted to let all of you know that I believe that it’s okay to disagree on minor issues; on the finer points of theology. In fact, I’d bet you a Krispy Kreme doughnut that none of us, Baptists, agree on every point of doctrine and theology, and that’s okay. We don’t have to agree on every jot and tittle. We can still love each other, and worship together, and fellowship with each other, and serve God together; even if we disagree on the minor, finer points of theology.
Now, on the main things, we must agree. On the main truths of the Bible, we must believe the same. On those things that are clearly spelled out in the Bible, there must be conformity. We must all surrender and yield our hearts and minds to the foundational truths of the Christian faith. We must all believe the fundamentals of the faith. Things like the virgin birth; the atoning death of Jesus; salvation by grace thru faith; the Trinity of God; etc. These are the things that would mean whether we’re even truly a Christian, or not. If someone denied the foundational truths of Christianity, then I wouldn’t even consider them to be a true Believer. But, those people that do hold to the main doctrines of the faith, I call my brother, or sister in Christ; even though they may not be Southern Baptist.
And, as Baptists, we must agree to the doctrinal distinctives which we hold dear; that we believe the Bible clearly teaches; in order to really be considered a Baptist Church. There are things that we must believe; doctrines that make us a Baptist Church. Theology that makes us a Baptist kind of Christian. Things like Believers baptism by immersion; the Lord’s Supper being a symbolic act; once saved, always saved; congregational polity, or governance; etc. If a Church can’t even agree to the BFM2K, is it really a Baptist Church? Is it really a Church that holds to what we consider to be the clear teachings of the Bible? that holds to the doctrines that would make us consider them a good, sound church? I would contend that churches must…in the least…hold to the BFM2K, in order to considered a cooperatiing, Southern Baptist Church.
But, on many, many other things, we can disagree on them all day long; and still worship and serve God together. My friends, there are many, many, finer points of doctrine that we can not see eye to eye on, and it’s okay. We can just have fun trying to convince the other fella that we’re right! Lol. But, these minor things should not cause separation, nor should they cause us to divide. They should not cause strife, nor should they be the source of contention. On the finer points of the major doctrines, we should allow for freedom; even while not agreeing with the other person. Amen? Amen!
Shooting at Rubber Dummies
Posted by: | CommentsI love my iPhone for so many reasons, not the least of which is my ability to subscribe to podcasts and listen to them when I’m in my car. It’s terribly convenient, especially considering that I am too far from civilization to receive any talk-radio signals.
Recently I was listening to the podcast of a presentation by Ravi Zacharias in which he shared lessons learned from the allied invasion at Normandy during World War II. One of the tactics the allies used was to drop, ahead of their advance on a particular town, a large number of rubber dummies in parachutes, rigged with explosives and firecrackers. The German defenders would often spend most of their ammunition on this ruse, shooting at rubber dummies while remaining completely unaware that the real enemy was yet to attack.
As I look around our convention today, I think we ought to consider the possibility that the real enemy of the Kingdom has gotten so many of us involved in shooting at rubber dummies. While there are legitimate concerns on both sides of the Calvinist/non-Calvinist aisle, it is imperative that we recognize that these sides are, in fact, parts of a whole. The wisdom offered by Bart Barber in his recent post, The Barber Plan for Peace, is an excellent contribution to this recognition, and I commend it to our readers.
Another bit of wisdom that I believe can be helpful is an article we published in the wake of last year’s “Building Bridges” conference. The article, titled “Happy Southern Baptists and the Tricky Track,” was authored by Southwestern Seminary president Dr. Paige Patterson, and serves to remind us how necessary both parts are to the makeup of the whole we know as the Southern Baptist Convention.
Join me in my prayer that, through the wisdom God has granted to these men and to others, we may learn to save our ammunition for the real enemy, and ignore the rubber dummies that have occupied so much of our recent attention.
THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS: APOLOGIA
Posted by: | CommentsJohn Mann, who has contributed to SBC Today before, has offered a new treatise which we are happy to publish. He is pastor at La Junta Baptist church and in 2001 he lead the congregation to disfellow themselves from the Baptist General Convention of Texas and uniquely align themselves with the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. In this first article, he argues that the battle for the Bible is really not over, as some still cannot affirm the inerrancy of scripture. Altogether, the next series of posts from him will be his “apologia” as to why La Junta Baptist church made this move.
After having been asked numerous times why our church felt led to affiliate with the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC), I felt it necessary to put our thought process into print for the benefit of those who are seeking direction for their congregation. After having participated in many hours of research, discussion, and observation, I have concluded that the SBTC stands closer to my view of what it means to be a Baptist, both historically and doctrinally.
My observation is that there has been a widening in the gap of like-mindedness and doctrinal unity between the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT), the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), and LaJunta Baptist Church (LJBC). As two rivers flow what is seemingly a parallel path, time will eventually reveal if there is any degree of variance. The further they flow, the wider the distance between them becomes. The gap will eventually become so great that they both cannot be viewed from a common standpoint. It is my contention that this is what has happened with the BGCT and LJBC. When that is the case, it becomes necessary to choose one path or the other, for both cannot be followed.
In sum, our church felt that we needed to withdraw from the BGCT and to affiliate with the SBTC because it is the state convention that stands closest to the Biblical principles, missions support, and convictions that we embrace as a congregation. We are a Southern Baptist church because we believe in the work and message of the Southern Baptist Convention. We are convinced that the Scriptural interpretation and practice of the SBC is closest to our own. On the other hand, the continual drift of the BGCT away from the SBC has revealed a great chasm. Our study was one which began with what we understood Scripture to say, and then, which convention stood closest to Scriptural purity. Our study revealed that to be the SBC, and by extension, the SBTC. We found the BGCT to be sorely lacking in Biblical faithfulness as we understand it.
With that in mind, I offer the following reasons why I believe this to be so. The evidence that is offered is public and accessible for all. I have copies of all the original material on file. The congregation of LaJunta Baptist felt so deeply about the importance of these issues that we voted on August 12, 2007 to include this paper in our historical records and also to allow the distribution of this paper in its entirety to all interested parties. The comments are intended to reflect the personal convictions of the pastor and the people of LaJunta Baptist Church.
Please understand, though I fiercely oppose theological errors (those made by others and those errors of my own), I believe every individual to be of value to God, His Creation, and the work of His Kingdom. My ruminations are simply an attempt to contribute to the work of the Kingdom as we seek the edification of the saints, which occurs in fellowship, and often, in tension.
SCRIPTURE
Doctrine is part and parcel to what it means to be a Baptist. Baptists are people who believe what they do about God and the world because of what the Bible teaches about God and the world. The SBTC without reservation affirms the complete Word of God as being inerrant. However, after studying the BGCT’s stance on Scripture, I noticed a hesitancy to affirm “inerrancy.” In a document produced by the BGCT in 2002 for the purpose of comparing the SBTC to the BGCT, they stated, “most BGCT leaders and messengers in recent years have shunned that word as a politicized codeword more than a descriptive theological statement, while still affirming the complete authority and trustworthiness of the Bible.”
I do agree that the Bible is authoritative and trustworthy, but I must go further and say that the Bible is the perfect and inerrant Word of God. I believe many entities are trustworthy and authoritative. For example, I personally would say that the police force and the military are authoritative and trustworthy; however, I would not say that they do not make errors. I do not hesitate in stating the Bible is inerrant, neither does the SBTC. The Bible is certainly trustworthy and authoritative, but it is much more.
Most BGCT pastors and churches would affirm inerrancy, yet interestingly enough, denominational employees of the BGCT and the agencies and entities to which they send Cooperative Program money may not be required to follow suit. That means that state convention employees may have a different view than the majority of the pastors and churches to whom they offer service. To the contrary, the SBTC has made clear that all employees must affirm their belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. The resulting difference is best illustrated in an article that appeared in February 6, 2006 Baptist Standard which was written by Dr. Roger Olson, a professor of theology at Truett Seminary (a BGCT supported seminary). The title of the article is “Why Inerrancy Doesn’t Matter.”
In this article, Dr. Olson states that Truett professors “vary in their views of biblical accuracy while holding firmly to biblical authority.” He further states that Truett does not need to dictate what professors believe because inerrancy is one of the “secondary matters of doctrine.” Dr. Olson offers his conclusion by asserting that the Bible is “(often) infallible,” and even goes on to state that, in regards to a particular text, “the best approach is to admit that Paul made a mistake.” Biblical inerrancy is not a matter of secondary doctrine to me. It is of primary importance. Without a sure word in our hand we have no sure word for the people. I desire to give my congregation more than a ‘best guess,’ but rather to give them a rock solid word from God. This demands a perfect revelation from God that is both sufficient and inerrant.
Dr. Olson’s conclusion is highly concerning to me because this particular professor is teaching the pastors of the future, and is being supported by monies given by the BGCT. For the time being, the majority of pastors support inerrancy, but given a generation of theological education under men such as Dr. Olson, how far away are we from drifting down the river of theological liberalism? In most cases, as goes our seminaries, so go our pastors. As go our pastors, so go our churches. My concern is that if we remove the Bible from the pastors’ hands, we remove the message from our pulpits. I desire to be aligned with organizations that offer an unqualified voice to the inerrancy of Scripture. I believe this stance is more clearly articulated by the SBTC, not only in denominational documents, but more importantly, by denominational practice.
In sum, the BGCT has left herself without a solid foundation for theological exercise and doctrinal accountability because they have allowed a crack into the foundation upon which they have tried to build their structure. I reiterate, each and every individual is due respect, freedom of conscience, and opportunity to speak. However, where cracks creep into one’s foundation, we are demanded to warn others of the error. A failure to maintain a solidified doctrine of Scripture will inevitably leave one without a foundation capable of the task before it. I believe a failure to embrace a doctrine of inerrancy is to lay a foundation with cracks beneath the surface. These hidden cracks ultimately will be revealed.
Recent Southern Baptist Conventions have heard the repetition of the statement, “the battle for the Bible is over.” However, a keen ear and sharp eye will be quick to discover that the battle for the Bible begun in Eden when the word of God was first questioned, and certainly remains to this day as Satan continues his efforts to seduce Another’s Bride to commit harlotry by satisfying one’s own temporal hunger for self-appeasement. The battle for the Bible will not be over until the Word once again manifests Himself to the kingdoms of the world as the supreme King and Lord.
GCR Specifics from Dr. Akin, With More to Come
Posted by: | CommentsDr. Danny Akin has published the first in what will be a series of 15 articles outlining the Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) he envisions for the SBC. I encourage you to read the article here. In this article he is on record that this vision must be wed to the Conservative Resurgence (CR). To take what he said even further, I do not believe I would be imposing on his words to state that he sees the GCR standing on the shoulders of the Conservative Resurgence. I look forward to this GCR and desire with all of my heart to take part in this endeavor. I will encourage my church to give more, go more, and do more in order to see this vision become productive. We need a fresh wind blowing across the SBC that will unite us and keep us focused on presenting the gospel to the lost. I believe the fresh breezes of unity are experienced in this vision for the GCR. I also have some questions about exactly how this will be carried out. With that in mind I want to ask a few questions that I believe need to be answered as I look expectantly to the future articles that describe the GCR.
Great Commission Resurgence – Revisited
Posted by: | CommentsIt seems that some are trying to paint SBC Today into a corner with accusations that simply are not true. Of those out there that are trying such, they are resorting to false statements and outlandish claims about the motives of SBC Today (here), while others use a cover-up tactic of writing accolades about someone while taking a shot (here). (UPDATE: The owner of this link has commented that he mis-read me on a previous blog. He apologized for that in this comment section and we do thank him as he has displayed courage and humbleness.) It seems that these fortune tellers of the blogging world are trying to paint those of us that are asking questions as somehow trying to tear something down. It would seem that they want to base their accusations on such statements as follows, a statement that was made by me.
I just think your questions about the GCR suspect some hidden agenda… I do not believe Brother Robin sees a hidden agenda, it is just that some who are promoting a GCR say one thing, but actions do not quite go along with what is being said. For example. Dr. Akin when giving his 5 steps to accomplish a GCR states, “We need a revival of authentic expository preaching that will lead us to be genuine people of the book Then he explains, Unfortunately we have a generation of preachers, good and godly men, who believe themselves to be expositors, when what they do in the pulpit betrays their confession.” These are statements to which I can say, “Yes, Amen.” But then he places on his faculty a preaching prof that is known for teaching preachers to preach a “storying” format. This format in its simplest form has for its thesis that Jesus taught in parables and we must just tell the stories and do so in story form. If I understand expository preaching correctly, when you preach parables you use that genre to exposit the text. When you deal with the poetic genre you present the message in the poetic genre. Not every sermon has three points and a poem. Expository messages are text driven not story-form driven. As I said, that is just one example from Dr. Akin’s paper that he promotes something and says that we must do this in order to have a clear GCR. But…
Please do not take the above illustration as a slam against Dr. Akin. I do not desire to do that. I respect him as my President as I am an alum of SEBTS.
The above statement was made in this comment thread. Allow me to walk you through this statement and then tell you a true story. As you look at the statement you will notice that no one has attacked Dr. Akin. Yes, his name is used and yes he is painted, by me, as being inconsistent. From his writings and apparent actions I saw what I perceived to be some semblance of inconsistency. However, what these detractors do not understand is that Dr. Akin and I have since spoken personally about this issue and my assessment is not the same. While I am not in total agreement with his assessment, he and I have arrived at an understanding and I am in support of his position.
I do owe Dr. Akin an apology for releasing information in such a way that would bring a wrong perception of his hiring practices and his commitment to expository preaching. He has spoken to me and expressed that he has not hired a Professor on faculty that is committed to anything less than expository preaching. In fact he was clear that he never would. My statement implied that the Preaching Department at SEBTS was not advocating expository preaching. The prof that I referenced was not hired as a professor but will be used by SEBTS in a joint venture with the IMB in an adjunct role to instruct missionary students in the art to Chronological Bible Storying. This particular teaching style is used where illiteracy is prevalent. After a couple of conversations with Dr. Akin I would like to express publicly my apologies for anything that I said that may have placed him in a less than favorable light. Dr. Akin has consistently beaten the drum for expository preaching. I certainly do not desire to muffle that drum beat by misrepresenting his position.
Now for the story. I was surprised by a Friday afternoon phone call on my cell. My cell phone rings on Friday afternoons, so that is not the surprise. The surprise came by who was on the other end of the line:Dr. Danny Akin. I must say that I am very impressed with his ability to find me. I am honored when he speaks to me at various venues we attend and he is one of the keynote speakers, but was amazed that he would track down my phone number and call me. It seems that he just returned to the country and was in an airport awaiting a connection when he discovered on his email some statements reported to him I had said. We discussed various statements and were able to work through various areas to better understand each other. This is what Christian brothers and sister should do for one another. One area that I pointed out to him was various items that concerned me about the GCR. He expressed to me that the basis of the GCR was the paper delivered at the Building Bridges conference. This conference was identified as a Southern Baptist endeavor. He also expressed to me that the Building Bridges in his mind was within the SBC in order have a GCR within the SBC. Of course if this GCR expanded outside of the SBC it would bring that much more glory to God. However, he was quick to point out to me that he did not advocate and did not think it wise to form partnerships with others outside of the SBC for church plants. We can learn from others, but our assignment is to plant biblically based Baptist churches. I asked him about others using his language and advocating something different. He expressed to me that he could not speak for others. However, when he used this language that is what he believed.
I was elated when I got off the phone with him. He is, I believe, trying to be consistent in what he says and what he does. He also assured me that in the future if I had any questions concerning his words or positions, to feel free to contact him. As busy as he is, I certainly will use that invitation sparingly, but will also make certain I understand his position before I present questions concerning it.
Everybody Wants to Build a Bridge
Posted by: | Comments
Tim Rogers has given us some thoughts on bridge building in the post below. This seems to be the new buzz word for unity and it is being used by various people. This post is one he recently had on his site and has now allowed us to publish it here.
My late father would always offer me sage advice when I was growing up. Whenever I would come home telling him about a deal that was too good to be true he would respond; “If it is too good to be true, usually it is.” Or he would say, “In this world, the only thing worth having that you get for nothing is salvation.” On every occasion I would come home with various ideas and run them past him, he would always interject wisdom into my thought process. On one such occasion I was home after completing my military active duty requirement and had the availability of a GI loan through the VA. I was part of a group of five trying to figure out how to open a junk yard business. Each one, it was agreed would put up $10K and with the total $50K we would begin our own business. Neither of us knew anything about the car business or the junk business. We did not have a business plan and we certainly did not know anything about purchasing land and the restrictions that would be placed on us in the early 1980′s concerning the environment. Neither of the five of us did any research other than how we could come up with the money. I talked this over with my father and he gave some wise advice to me at that time. I can still hear his words ring through my ears as I write this article. He told me; “Tim, before you jump on a band wagon, you need to know where it is heading.” It is these words that I want to echo in this article.
In 2007 at the Union University Baptist Identity Conference, Dr. Tom Rainer delivered a paper on “Evangelism and Church Growth in the Southern Baptist Convention”. In the follow-up to this conference he wrote an article entitled On Building Bridges. His thesis was on how we as Southern Baptist needed to build bridges, I believe, to each other within the convention. I never saw where he advocated that we build bridges outside the convention. I did see two things in the article that did concern me a bit. Dr. Rainer stated there were defined groups at the conference and implied, by a personal story at the conference, that these groups did not desire to mingle or exchange ideas. I was at the conference and I went to a bloggers reception where I exchanged greetings and ideas with Brother CB Scott, Brother Ben Cole and Dr. Dwight McKissic. I left there and went to a reception in the SWBTS area and exchanged ideas with Dr. Malcolm Yarnell along with Dr. and Mrs. Paige Patterson. To be fair to Dr. Rainer, there were more than likely some that were afraid to be seen with others, but I did not get that feeling. I hung out with Brother Wes Kenney and Brother David Worley, gave a ride to the conference to Dr. Ed Stetzer, and had great dialog with Dr. Dwight McKissic. The other concern I had from the article was this statement; “But it seems as if we just can’t stop fighting even though the battle for the Bible is over and won.” I believe we would all agree that the battle for the Bible will forever be at our door. If we ever concede this battle is over, we certainly will have a bridge from Neo-Orthodoxy that leads back into the convention defined as something other than what it is.
In San Antonio we were greeted with a packet of material that contained the booklet, pictured on the left, that advocated Building Bridges. These bridges I cannot comment on as I confess I never have read the booklet. I only present this picture because it is something that some of our leaders are advancing and advanced hard at the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Rainer in his report, once again spoke about Building Bridges, but this time he referenced the foundation on which the bridge should be built. That foundation is something that we all can agree on. But, did he really need to advance the thought that we needed to build this bridge on the Bedrock of Christ? If, as he advanced in his previous articles, the battle for the Bible is over should we not presume any bridge built has as its foundation Jesus Christ? I am not questioning Dr. Rainer’s passion or his purpose. I want to be on that bridge that he desires to build. But, I believe there needs to be some reassessment from him as to his assertion that we throw caution to the wind because everyone in the SBC is a Bible Believing inerrantist. Dr. Rainer is a Godly man and each time I hear him in a presentation I am challenged and moved to seek more of God. He makes excellent presentations and does his research well. I would not be anywhere close to being able to carry his water. However, on this point of Building Bridges I believe he needs to reassess his position.
Enter the next Building Bridges stage. In November 2007 we had a Building Bridges Conference at Ridgecrest where Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and The Founders Ministry converged to make presentations concerning Calvinism within the SBC. This was a wonderful time and I enjoyed getting to meet new people and also interact with others I knew. It was at this conference that I renewed my acquaintance and began a friendship with Brother Travis Hilton. Dr. Ed Stetzer had jokingly referred to this conference as “The Revenge of the Nerds“. We had scholar after scholar making presentation after presentation. Some you could follow and some I still go back and listen to the audio, but to no avail. It seems that this conference advocated Building Bridges to the Calvinist within our convention. It was at this conference that Dr. Danny Akin introduced his new baby, The Great Commission Resurgence. Thus, if I understand this bridge that he advocates we build, thi bridge is extended to the Calvinist and it will lead us to a Great Commission Resurgence. If this is what Dr. Akin means then I am 100% on board. It was refreshing to see Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, Dr. Bart Barber, and Dr. Tom Ascoll stand shoulder to shoulder to put some teeth in Resolution #6 at this past convention. I believe we cannot begin advancing the Kingdom of God until we stop fighting among ourselves. But if he means we build bridges outside the convention to join forces for planting churches because we want to plant more churches then I believe caution and clearly defined road signs need to accompany the traversing of this bridge.
Well, now we see another Bridge that a group of Baptist want to build. In the annual Cooperative Baptist Fellowship gathering, their platform is Building Bridges. What originality. Their bridge, I do not believe, will be built on the same bedrock as the other bridges I have directed us. According to this article a presenter at this conference has questioned the very Deity of Christ. I know that CBF has a statement that they do not promote ideas the individuals presenting promotes those ideas. CBF, for some strange reason, believes they share no responsibility when a presenter presents a heretical view. Smyth & Helwys has taken the BP reporter to task because he inadvertently presumed they were the publisher of the book. Why wouldn’t he presume such? Smyth & Helwys sponsored the workshop and promoted the book during the General Assembly. Smyth & Helwys also is hosting a book-signing for Killinger at its booth in the resource fair. All of this to ask; Where is this bridge going? Will this bridge intersect within the cloverleaf of bridges already being built?
It seems that everyone wants to build a bridge to somewhere, but no one is telling us where the bridge is heading. Neither is anyone telling us what we are trying to connect by building this bridge. Let me add that I do not believe these various bridges that I have presented will end up connecting. I do not want to believe that the bridge Drs. Ranier, Akin, Dockery, and George has pointed us to will be connected to the bridge the CBF is advocating. However, with all of this construction going into Building Bridges, we need to be very careful that the band wagon we are on doesn’t get mixed up in a cloverleaf of bridges and we get confused as to what road the bridge takes us down.
