Archive for Cooperation
Podcast Episode 16
Posted by: | Comments
The Thanksgiving week edition of the SBC Today podcast includes discussions about the Manhattan Declaration, the Georgia Baptist Convention’s removal of a member church, and our Thanksgiving travel plans. We enjoyed the discussion, and hope you will, as well.
Listen to the podcast using the player below, or subscribe in iTunes by clicking the logo here, or the button in the sidebar. Leave your comments here with suggestions on how we can improve, guest suggestions, or to discuss the issues we raised. On iTunes, take a moment to write a quick review for us, or just click some stars to give us a rating.
Below are links to the items we discussed during the podcast:
Enhanced Podcast: Thank You, My Brother…
Posted by: | CommentsI am compelled (some might even say irresistibly drawn) to express my gratitude to a brother in Christ, a fellow laborer among His people.
First of all, my brother, I thank you for your admission of your weakness and frailty. For repentance from sin and purpose to be renewed in your heart and mind, I am thankful. I will be watching and praying that you do not fall again into that temptation, that sin which so easily entangles us. I want to help hold you accountable–not so I can lord anything over you or be ready to once again condemn you, but to encourage you to godliness, holiness, and faithfulness. Read More→
A Caution and Reminder
Posted by: | CommentsA CAUTION AND REMINDER
Unless wisdom flees from us, Baptists will ever see to it that churches, churches and the New Testament type of preachers, meritorious preachers, are, in the right sense, the constant center of their concern, the first objects of proper honor and credit for denominational accomplishments and acquirements—not Boards, nor Associations, nor even Conventions, not Secretaries. These four instruments or agencies are legitimate, highly proper, and useful, indispensable, but they and their funds all stem from the churches and preacher-pastors. There is no iota of discredit here, of course, for these four agencies, but it must be said that there is an alarming drift in thought and practice, particularly in some quarters, in the direction that responsibility and most credit belong to Boards, Secretaries and Conventions. The writer hastens to say that he sees no such drift in Arkansas. History and experience show that where credit is placed, sooner or later right there control will be placed. Where credit abides control will reside. Boards, Associations, Conventions, and Secretaries are necessary, we repeat, and worthy and deserve a great measure of credit, but major credit and honor should be laid at the doors of the blessed churches with their faithful pastors. That is right and just and it ought to be expressly said in reports and minutes and is said in Arkansas at present. It is not at all sufficient to say “that is understood” or “everybody knows that major credit belongs with the churches.” Safety with Baptists lies in staying close to the churches, in continuous and unfailing recognition of the churches and preachers. They by the grace of God made this day possible. They brought us where we are. They, after the Lord and the Bible, deserve credit for what we are and have today. What is “understood” in this case should be underscored. This book is written with the constraining impulse and conviction that churches and preachers, little churches and little preachers (if there are such) and big churches and big preachers deserve and must have consideration and first honor in any such enterprise. Baptist denominational “directors” will do well to “watch their step.”
-J.S. Rogers
Is there ever an era in our denominational life in which this “caution and reminder” is not timely?
Save the Last Chair for Me
Posted by: | CommentsPerhaps you, like me, are overwhelmed at the rapid happening of events within the Southern Baptist Convention. Consider the words of the Preacher, “there is no end to the writing of books,” or the reading of blogs. Recently, a rather eyeopening article appeared here.
In the article, two young Southern Baptists appeal to nuclear disarmament as the way forward in order for the world to produce peace for itself. They base their appeal on the Sermon on the Mount and the hopes of world peace. Merritt boasts that he is a “member of a rising generation of Christ-followers who engage public policy differently than the generation that came before us.” Question: What exactly was wrong with the public policy of those who came before him?
Promoting his supposed more faithful approach than the former generation, Merritt proceeded to postulate that his generation will “attempt to mirror the ministry of Jesus Christ by promoting compassion and justice and peace, we seek to transcend partisanship, and we welcome the opportunity to partner with people of mutual good will.” I suppose that is in opposition to the former generation who did not seek to mirror the ministry of Christ, in Merritt’s view.
The ABP article proved to be intriguing, but it caused us at SBC Today to wonder what theological foundation this political philosophy would be founded upon. Since the effort of nuclear disarmament is headed by Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, one who none of us at SBC Today were familiar with, we decided to examine exactly who Merritt is advocating our partnering with in cultural engagement.
Tyler Wigg-Stevenson certainly has a world-class education that speaks for itself. He earned his bachelor degree from Swarthmore College, a college of the Quaker tradition. Wigg-Stevenson next set his sites on Yale Divinity School, where he graduated summa cum laude. While at Yale, he had the opportunity to serve Holy Communion at the Marquand Chapel, where his wife would serve as preacher. This made for an interesting foray into the doctrinal background of Marquand Chapel. Perhaps most enlightening is the following extended quote from the chapel’s worship guide.
In Marquand Chapel, it is necessary to be attentive to language. This is a community where there is great diversity in people’s prayer practices, and language is central to Christian prayer. Making sure that as many other worshippers as possible are invited to join in your prayer and praise is vital, so we ask you to be critical in your use of militaristic imagery, metaphors that elide blackness with evil, and phrases that say disability is sinful.
In particular, we ask you to be attentive to your use of gendered language for both God and humankind. Naming God as Lord, Father, Master, King and He is scriptural and a significant part of much Christian worship; but Christian scriptures and traditions also name God in feminine and non-gendered ways. Naming God only with masculine nouns and pronouns can create the sense that divinity is characterized by maleness, and not by femaleness, and this can both limit our knowledge of God and, potentially, negatively affect our view of men andwomen, made in God’s image. Additionally, for similar reasons, please do not refer to all humankind as ‘man’ or ‘mankind’ in chapel.
Wigg-Steveson also demonstrates disregard for his American citizenship. In a video found here, Wigg-Stevenson was asked by an audience member about the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons and his concern in regards to America, Wigg-Stevenson responded in part, “I don’t quite get what is going on– why there is such profound antipathy toward Iran in Washington.”
Elsewhere, Wigg-Stevenson said nuclear weapons touch on a number of Christian moral concerns, including protection of innocent life, care for creation and concern for the poor. He labeled reliance upon weapons of mass destruction as “enacted blasphemy.” Perhaps Wigg-Stevenson should examine the history of Iranian-American relations and see which country he would prefer to be a world power.
It seems Wigg-Stevenson and Merritt have confused political philosophy and personal protectionism due to a liberal theology. Indeed, the Christian is commanded by Christ to turn the other cheek when they are the victim of persecution. But the Lord also places the sword into the hand of the Government for the protection of those very citizens whose blood may be shed in their innocence. Would Wigg-Stevenson and Merritt to have their way, America would destroy all of their nuclear weapons, even as North Korea and Iran complete theirs. Then we would cease to be the land of the free and the home of the brave in order to become the land of the afraid and the home of the slave.
Finally, both Merritt and Wigg-Stevenson are written advocates of the Washington DC based think tank “Third Way.” Their website, www.thirdway.org says of the organization, “Third Way is the leading think tank of the moderate wing of the progressive movement. We work with elected officials, candidates, and advocates to develop and advance the next generation of moderate policy ideas.”
In regard to their stance on cultural issues, they write:
Third Way is developing new progressive approaches to the toughest cultural issues. Highlights include: pioneering a new approach on abortion that is embodied in legislation sponsored by both pro-choice and pro-life House members; drafting a bill to shore up the gun purchase background check system that was signed into law after the murders at Virginia Tech; contributing significantly to the planks of the Democratic platform on guns and abortion and helping to define the approach used by the Obama campaign on many cultural issues; releasing a set of common ground policy ideas with a group of centrist Evangelical leaders on issues like religion in the public square, abortion and gay equality;
Would Merritt and Wigg-Stevenson hope to see the SBC become advocates of Third Way? Wigg-Stevenson, a member of a Southern Baptist church and Merritt, a national spokesman on behalf of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in regard to environmental issues must either admit that they would lead in that direction, or succumb to the accusation of hypocrisy.
Considering the constant appeal for younger generations to have a place at the table, may we as Southern Baptists carefully weigh the results of failing to stand firm on Scriptural principles. Let us pray for God to continue to raise up Elishas to follow our Elijahs; but should those who continue to hold to theological abandonment rise to prominence, our concern will no longer be for maintaining a Baptist identity; we will be too busy searching for our Christian identity.
What This Southern Baptist Is For
Posted by: | CommentsOne thing is for certain, when a person stands up for biblical principles that go against an inclusive approach that seeks to cooperate at the expense of a proper ecclesiology in the church planting enterprise, people will seek to discredit you and misuse your statements. First and foremost let me say that I affirm Dr. Mohler’s effort to bring some reason to confusion in the form of what he has called, “theological triage.” In fact, if one would just read the paper that Dr. Yarnell and I produced they would see that nothing was said against nor in disagreement with Dr. Mohler and his “theological triage.”
A few years ago, an early modern paradigm was dusted off and re-offered to postmodern Christians under the name of “Theological Triage.” While we affirm this paradigm as a laudable effort, what we have seen, as of late, represents a distortion of its employment. The misuse of this method can be seen especially in the spiral downward to a “lowest common denominator” approach to church fellowship and ethical conduct. We believe that when theological triage is used in this way, it is being used inappropriately.
Dr. Mohler is a hero in the faith of mine along with people like Drs. Patterson, Akin, Vines, and Brunson to name a few. I pray that Dr. Mohler does not see anything I have written of him as some kind of division from what he has tried to articulate in his theological triage. Again, it is the misuse of Dr. Mohler’s idea by others that I am against. For whatever may be happening, I believe there is a concerted effort by some bloggers who thrive on divisiveness to create division between us, the primary advocates of the GCR, and other leaders in our convention. I direct you to this post here to further explore this.
I want to end this post on items I am for so that those who read other blogs may come back here and see the the truth. Of course I would not be surprised if these statements were misused in order to create further division. It is a divisive nature that some are wanting to advocate so they can discredit us.
Therefore, I am for:
1. Cooperating in the church planting effort with anyone who agrees wholeheartedly with the Baptist Faith and Message so that we may plant Southern Baptist churches that reflect our Southern Baptist beliefs in ecclesiology.
2. Cooperating with other Christian organizations in the effort to feed the poor, help in disaster relief, or provide better medical and sanitary conditions to communities as long as the Gospel is the ultimate effort to be dispensed. But even if I am in a situation where the gospel is forbidden to be spoken, I will not refuse to help a starving child or recently homeless person for that will go against scripture. I will just preach anyway and let the chips fall where they may.
3. Cooperating with other Christians in defeating the moral decay of our society as seen in abortion, gambling, sex trafficking, child abuse, teenage and premarital sex, and other areas of morality that go against clear Biblical teachings.
These three points of cooperation are not exhaustive, but I hope they give a basic idea to many who read other blogs that I am for working with others who differ on second tier issues that define what particular branch of Christianity they are when it comes to moral issues and humanitarian aid.
On my part, this is not a political battle that I seek to engage, but a call to theological honesty. If one claims to be a Southern Baptist and relies on the support of Southern Baptists, then one should believe as a Southern Baptist believes in the area of planting churches. I know that is not a popular position in the blog world, but so be it. God’s word conforms me to the theological and missiological tenets of Southern Baptists. That is where I stand.
Abandoning Doctrinal Fidelity for the Lowest Common Denominator
Posted by: | CommentsWhile attending the FBC Jacksonville Pastor’s conference, the events of last week have weighed heavily on my mind. Namely what our site, SBCToday, should be about. The resource managers have primarily taken up the cause of the nearly forgotten doctrines concerning Baptist ecclesiology. Because of this, some have referred to us as “Baptist Identity” (BI), “neo-Landmark/Landmark,” or “fundamentalist” while sometimes adding “spooky.”
Frankly, last week Friday and most of Saturday, I was not keeping up with the blogs, yet through the preaching of God’s Word at the conference, God was dealing with me in how I represent His Word on the blogs. For what am I willing to suffer in the proclamation and upholding of His Word? This question was driven to me as Dr. Mohler preached from Colossians 1:19-28. Dr. Mohler’s point was that that we are “called,” men of God, not men working in a profession. This calling requires us to uphold the Word of God and suffer if we are called to do so in the proclamation of the truth. Essentially Paul was willing to suffer for the sake of the church to fulfill the Word of God.
It is my opinion that over the past couple of weeks, my name has been suffering for something that does not equate for what Paul is calling us to suffer. Though I believe I have done nothing ethically wrong in my blogging activities last week, I did in fact abandon my primary purpose of proclaiming the wondrous biblical truths of God and in articulating the overall situation Southern Baptists are facing. There is a systematic diverting of attention from doctrinal fidelity by the Southern Baptist (SB) ecumenist. This is being done by aligning oneself to the lowest common denominator for cooperation, a false redefinition of terms, and a pragmatic approach to missions cooperation.
I joined with the other men at SBC Today to bring awareness to the almost forgotten and severely neglected theology of Baptist ecclesiology. If anything, I wanted to be a part of the grass roots movement to help Southern Baptists journey back to their biblical heritage concerning matters of the church.
With this endeavor in SBC Today, I have frequently used a term called “ecumenical” or “ecumenist.” While some have dismissed using these terms as being unhelpful, by using them in the context of Southern Baptists, I have understood it and applied it in three ways:
1. Those in Southern Baptist life who are ecumenical are those who seek to cooperate using the lowest common denominator. Not only in Southern Baptist life is this a movement, but it is also in the wider evangelical community. The recent evangelical manifesto proved this as the document itself abandoned inerrancy as a distinctive for evangelicals. In the SBC calls for cooperating on the essentials of the Gospel is the mantra. After the 2007 SBC Convention in San Antonio the Garner motion was an effort of the ecumenists to keep SBC entities from making decisions beyond the doctrinal limitations of the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M). The ecumenists saw the BF&M as a “maximal document,” limiting the trustees to doctrines only addressed in the BF&M. In other words, the trustees could not fully fulfill their mandate as agents of accountability of the SBC. Fast forward to today. No longer are calls given by the Southern Baptist ecumenist to keep the BF&M as the limit of doctrines that are necessary for cooperation. Now the caveats have increased and the ecumenist desires to cooperate solely on the “essentials” of the gospel as long as those essentials remain in a state of flux so that no one is eliminated from their tent of cooperation. The belief in a regenerate baptized (immersed) church membership no longer matters. The ecumenist wants to work with the paedobaptist or sprinkler whether they were baptized as an infant or not. These issues are not of great concern to the SB ecumenist and do not impede cooperation for them.
2. Those in Southern Baptist life who are ecumenical wrongly redefine terms in order to evoke action towards their cause. Terms have been used to invoke fear among various groups of Southern Baptists. “Fundamentalist,” “spooky fundamentalist,” “Landmark,” “neo-landmark,” and “avant-garde self-styled defenders of Baptist Identity,” have been used against confessional Southern Baptists. Recently the issue of closed verses open communion took front stage. Those who believe that a church should allow, at a minimum, only those who are saved and baptized by immersion to participate in the Lord’s Supper were called “neo-Landmark.” Yet, by this post here, it was shown that those Southern Baptists who practiced this are abiding within the parameters of the Baptist Faith and Message. Those who accuse confessional Southern Baptists as neo-Landmark are themselves outside of what Southern Baptists officially believe. The aforementioned terms have been wrongly used to describe those who are Baptist Identity.
3. Those in Southern Baptist life who are ecumenical focus more on pragmatism and cultural preference (or feelings) rather than Biblical principles in forging their worldview. For instance, one may not want a woman to pastor their church because their discomfort “is personal and cultural – and not Biblical.” But when an autonomous state convention of cooperating churches, because of biblical beliefs, decides to disfellow themselves from a church that has a woman for their pastor, the convention is scourged on blog posts saying that it is unfair for a state convention to hold, in particular, those biblical beliefs not only in doctrine, but also in practice. Autonomy is only held in cases where it benefits the ecumenist. The state convention of cooperating churches, for the ecumenist, is not autonomous in this decision, yet through out Baptist history, there is example after example of associations and conventions who have operated as an autonomous body of churches that did not allow themselves to compromise their doctrines by one church’s decision to act independently of the confessional belief of the body. To claim that cooperating churches in a state convention cannot act autonomously against one aberrant church is weak if not illogical to say the least.
The ecumenical reformer understands certain truths from God’s Word to be stumbling blocks to cooperating with others. Where the doctrine does not pragmatically fit, it must be removed. We see this time and time again in the seeker sensitive or emergent church movement that is creeping into our convention. Don’t misunderstand, doctrine is not unimportant to the ecumenical reformer if it aids their cause, but when it is perceived to being a stumbling block, it must either be removed or avoided because it takes away from the pragmatic benefit of cooperation.
There is no doubt that a movement is afoot to make doctrine of secondary importance behind the shortsighted pragmatical benefits one perceives. When inerrancy (truth without any mixture of error), believers baptism by immersion, and the Lord’s Supper are considered tertiary doctrines that should not impede cooperation in a convention, association, or network of churches, then those who are not ashamed of the doctrines that make us Baptist must speak up and “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”
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.
Great Commission Resurgence – Confessional Identity
Posted by: | CommentsIn a post published July 25, Dr. Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, continued to lay out the component parts of his vision for the “Contours of a Great Commission Resurgence.” In this installment (click here for the post), Dr. Akin pointed to what I believe is the irreducible basis of any of our cooperative work: Confessionalism.
In 2003, Southern Seminary president Albert Mohler spoke to the Sovereign Grace Leadership Conference about his experiences as the first president of the school under renewed conservative leadership. You can download this two-part presentation by clicking here. It is nearly two hours in total, and well worth every minute, especially if you have any doubt as to the necessity of the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention. Hearing Dr. Mohler talk about the sit-ins, the threats, and the faculty-led lesbian commitment ceremony that occured in the early days of his presidency will surely go a long way toward removing that doubt.
Perhaps the most gripping part of Dr. Mohler’s presentation is his recounting of the first convocation of his presidency. Having been hung in effigy from a tree outside the auditorium, this thirty-five-year-old conservative nevertheless stepped bravely into the pulpit and talked about the importance of confessionalism. He was almost immediately confronted, and this began the chain of events that would lead, eventually, to the replacement of nearly the entire faculty. And it really was all about confessionalism.
As Dr. Akin says in the post linked above, Baptists have always been a confessional people. The Conservative Resurgence happened because this sense of confessionalism had largely left our seminaries, which were, as Paul Pressler documented in his memoir A Hill on Which to Die, destroying the faith of their students with liberal theology (p. 346). Our institutions had detached themselves from any sense of accountability, not only to the churches which funded them, but to the confession to which they purported to subscribe.
The Conservative Resurgence restored this confessional identity, and yes, confessional accountability. Though falsely maligned by some as “creedalism,” this accountability to our churches and to our statement of faith is absolutely essential to our continued cooperation as a convention.
I agree heartily with Dr. Akin when he says, “When other denominations are in retreat, apparently seeing how little they can confess, Southern Baptists are headed in a different direction all together.”
I applaud Dr. Akin’s courage in standing strongly for a confessional identity, for as he so well says, “There is no biblical gospel without theological content. There is no Great Commission to pursue without doctrinal conviction.”
The essence of the Gospel is God’s work in bringing persons into a relationship with Himself through the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. Our understanding of the Gospel comes through the revelation God has given us through His Word. The consistency of our message comes from our accountability to one another in the church under the lordship of Jesus Christ, from whom we have received our message and our commission.
