By Joe McKeever, Preacher, former Pastor of seven churches, and retired Director of Missions at the Baptist Association of Greater New Orleans.

The phone call last night was unnerving.

“Brother Joe,” the young pastor on the other end said, “the deacons voted to ask for my resignation.” They had met that night.

“They’ve given me 30 days to get out of the pastor’s residence.” They had also voted 2 months’ salary. And, if he plays along nicely, nothing will ever be said about his having been terminated.

I said, “Did they give a reason?”

“The chairman asked, ‘Do you have confidence in the pastor’s leadership?’ All six of them said they didn’t. So that sealed it.”

Granted, all I have is one side of this discussion. And I know from long experience with this young pastor he is not perfect. In fact, he told me of difficulties in administration he had experienced that may have brought this on.

But I know also that this pastor is a godly man of great integrity, that he works hard at his preaching, and that he has a servant heart. One could do a lot worse than have such a shepherd, particularly a small town church such as the one in question.

Having had 18 hours to reflect on this situation, and from a half century of observing similar dealings from church leaders, I would like to say a few things to these deacons as well as to other church leaders who are contemplating asking their pastor for his resignation.

1. Are you doing this in obedience to Christ? or is this just something you want done?

We who do not believe in divorce in marriage can be mighty quick to implement it in church situations when we find the relationship between the preacher and certain lay leaders has gotten rocky. Rather than trying to work through the difficulties, it’s much easier to drop him off the edge of the earth. He disappears, you will never see him again, and life goes on. Simple, huh?

It is simple unless the Lord God is watching and taking a direct interest in the goings-on. But if this is the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, if He is alive and well and involved, if He cares about the welfare of the ministers He calls into His service, and if He is going to require us to stand before Him and give account for our actions, you had better step lightly here.

2. Are you willing to stand before the Lord at judgment and take full responsibility for doing this?

Before you answer, let’s consider what you are doing:

–you are seriously injuring a young pastor’s ministry. If he recovers at all, it will be years in the doing. No pastor search committee wants to touch a man who has been terminated from another church. He has to be out of the house in 30 days? Where do you think he will go? How will he support his family? (I happen to know the answer to that. “That’s his problem.”)

–you are setting a dangerous precedent for your church. The next time leaders have trouble adjusting to a pastor’s style or temperament, someone will suggest, “Let’s get rid of him like we did Thomas.”

–you are establishing a worldly philosophy for your congregation. “In a difficult relationship? Get rid of the trouble-maker.”

–you are in danger of undoing what God has done. Acts 20:28 says the Holy Spirit makes the pastors the overseers of the church. Not the deacons. By running him off–even with a golden parachute, as the saying goes–you are either discounting that God made Pastor Thomas the overseer or you are saying it does not matter, this is what you are determined to do.

Recently on these pages, we said that church leaders who tear up the fellowship of the church and ruin a pastor’s ministry are probably atheists. They believe in the Jesus of the New Testament days and the Jesus who will return to earth; they just don’t believe He is on the job today and that what they are doing to His church matters to Him.

Some people are in for a rude awakening. They are going to find out real quick that they would have done better trying to work with a pastor who was having trouble rather than destroy what the Lord was up to in that situation.

3. Have you brought in outside counsel?

And we do not mean a lawyer, Lord help us! And not just one person.

Bring in three or four responsible, godly men and women from the denominational office, some other denomination’s resource department, or some counseling office. Bring in people who know about mediation, about reconciliation, who believe in the need of God’s church to work in love and unity..

I am well aware why such deacon groups do not do this: They do not want someone telling them to work matters out with the pastor. They want him gone, and the quicker the better.

That’s why I call them atheists. They clearly do not believe in God’s way of doing things. They do not want the glory and honor of the Lord and His Body to be sustained. They want what they want. It’s their church, by gum, and they’re going to have their way.

4. Has the pastor been able to present his side of the matter before a responsible, non-judgmental group?

The deacons in Thomas’ church met without his knowledge and announced their verdict. Even though the U. S. Constitution guarantees the accused the right to face his accusers, these men do not grant their spiritual leader–that’s what a pastor is!–the same basic privilege.

Everything about this smells to high heaven.

Not every lay leader of the church has pure motives in wanting to get rid of a preacher. Some are godly and mature and their motives may be sound; some are carnal and mean-spirited and self-centered. Some have already picked out a favorite they want to install as pastor, some dislike the preacher because his wife seems uppity, and some don’t want any preacher at all.

The deacons voting unanimously tells nothing by itself.

In a jury trial, the judge questions each juror: “Is this your verdict?”

I say bring those deacons before the congregation and require each one to answer the same question and give his reasons.

5. Have you checked your church’s constitution and by-laws to make sure you are doing things right?

These things are not always implements of great wisdom, but sometimes they are. They should be kept current with the best wisdom of the most mature leaders, and they should be followed.

6. Have you rushed into this?

You have a pastor for years, but decide in a couple of weeks to get rid of him. Was this wise? Fair?

There are indeed times when a pastor needs to be released from the ministry. There are preachers who have no business ever pastoring another church. And to get rid of them can be a high and noble service to the Lord’s church.

If a pastor is doing something illegal or immoral, there should be little debate. Get him out. If it’s a matter of doctrine, philosophy, style, or various practices (he does this too much, but that not at all), move more cautiously. Have lots of discussions and make sure to involve lots of people.

You hush up a matter like this only when to reveal it would embarrass the pastor and his family needlessly.

Proceed cautiously. So much is at stake.

7. Are you willing to tell the full story to the next pastor you consider bringing in?

If you terminate Thomas for practically no reason, an intellligent preacher would correctly assume you could do the same to him also, and decide not to subject his ministry and his family to the whims of such carnal leaders.

You will be able to get a new pastor, so don’t worry about that. But–and mark my words–not the kind you would want to keep. You have guaranteed that no pastor with solid skills and sound judgment will want to darken the door of your church.

So, you will end up repeating this process in a couple of years. This is why churches that terminate one pastor often end up sending a string of them on their way over the years.

So, church leader, think this thing through.

What kind of church do you want yours to become?

(Your decisions in this matter will forward it in one direction or the other.)

Who are you trying to please? (If the answer is anyone other than Jesus Christ, you ought to be ashamed.)

Why not invest in the future of a young minister, to help him become more effective in subsequent churches, instead of crippling him for years to come?

This article appeared earlier in Dr. McKeever’s blog, joemckeever.com, and is republished in SBC Today by permission of the author.

 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!

We need to pray for our nation.  We need to pray for God to watch over us.  We need to ask God to give our national leaders some good sense and wisdom.  And, we need to look to God for our strength.  Also, in November, we need to remember who it was that tried to lead our country into socialism and bankruptcy.   At the next Presidential election, we all need to remember who it was that caused our nation to take such a drastic step in the wrong direction.  We need to remember who these people were who wanted our tax dollars to fund abortions.  We need to remember the ones who wanted our country to make this big change in direction towards socialism, and higher taxes, and more government control over our lives.  I will remember.  Will you?

Anyone who dabbles at all in cultural observation has noted that sadly in the typical American home, the children set the agenda and dictate the values. This is of course due to the dysfunctional mindset that the goal for most homes is the absence of conflict instead of the glory of God. If a parent’s aim is the absence of conflict, it is only a little while until the kids have it their way, right away, keeping the parent from having to deal with tantrums and uncooperative attitudes.

Sadly, these dynamics are not just playing out in our homes, but at the denominational level of our Southern Baptist Convention as well. In our beloved SBC, the over 65s are the elders of our denomination and by and large have run their lap and are now passing on the baton to the 45-65s who are ready to run the next leg of the SBC race. Indeed, the 45-65s are already doing so as they lead more and more of our agencies and boards. And then there is my generation, the 25-45s, the convention “teens.” Some of us, to our shame, are acting like angry dysfunctional adolescents, thinking we know what is best for the family, throwing tantrums and offering uncooperative attitudes when things are not going our way.

But what surprises me is not the immature attitude of entitlement that has been common to youngsters for generations, but rather the credence given to some of the 25-45s by many of the over 45s. This response gives the appearance that the SBC is close to pursuing the goal of the absence of conflict instead of the pursuit of God’s glory. That we have reached a day where the kids are clamoring to rule the roost is Exhibit A of this focus-shift.

In my opinion, the ubiquitous analysis and discussions of the last few years regarding the dynamics of the under 45s in the SBC is making us dysfunctional and unhealthy. Granted, I don’t question the motive for seeking to reach and maintain contact with future Southern Baptist leaders-that mentoring and relationship work needs to take place-I am merely observing that the extent to which we have let such analysis occupy our time has not proven helpful.

In my estimation, there is too much panic among the 45-65s in response to the absence of the younger pastors at our annual meetings, their diminished emphasis on the Cooperative Program, and their apparent perceived lack of support for the International Mission Board. However, often it is the pattern of many youngsters to follow the way of the prodigal by first striking out on their own, against the grain of their parents’ wisdom, only to learn from experience that Dad did know what he was talking about after all, before returning home to the straight and narrow. I believe it is no different within the SBC. I say stop worrying about the trends and fads of 20-45s and start focusing on leading those who presently constitute the core of the SBC. To shift and focus on the prodigal few will only cause us to trip and fall. It is difficult to run one’s lap of denominational service with one’s head turned looking back at the youngsters. Instead we should run as hard as we can with an acute focus on reaching the finish line.

Here are some questions I ponder:
1. Why does it matter if some vocal 25-45s insist on learning the hard way by chasing strategies outside the SBC when our present-day network of churches and agencies are, by the grace of God, actually an incredible Great Commission machine of historic proportions? There are currently two generations serving the SBC in their prime leadership years, which means there is time for the prodigals to fail, come to their senses, and then return to the fold.

2. Why do so many over 45s worry themselves unnecessarily with the under 45s who are absent in body because, candidly, they lack humility and selflessness in heart? Why not mentor the under 40s the Lord has already provided? Just in Texas I can name off the top of my head 15-20 under 45s who are passionate about the SBC. A visit to any of our seminaries will reveal hundreds more, who, like the young David, are busy tending sheep in preparation for ministry. These, I believe, will be the ones to provide ample leadership for Southern Baptist life when their time comes.

What started as a helpful tool-discussion and analysis that centered on the trends of the younger generation-has, in my opinion, occupied the focus of the SBC for too long. I fear that the fads and musings of “younger leaders” have caused us to forget that the SBC belongs to the Lord and is his to increase or reduce in number as he sees fit. If the SBC belongs to the Lord, he will provide plenty of leadership as it is needed. He will protect our future.

Now, before you accuse me of being a 65-year-old in a 30-something’s body, I am not advocating that the SBC find satisfaction in the status quo. The SBC cannot continue as is and expect to be healthy for generations to come. However, this has more to do with the pursuit of need for congregation-wide personal holiness, faithfulness in evangelism, and the simplification of bureaucratic complexities than it does with the generational divide. While I do think we need changes, I also believe the SBC has among its current leadership the wisdom, discernment, and patience to bring about the needed changes for future health and growth.

I also do not believe the present generation of SBC leadership needs heavy input from 30-year-olds to help them make these decisions. My generation does not deserve, or has not yet earned, a voice in the conversation or a seat at the table. We are only beginning to run our lap of leadership service. Scripture is clear that those with white hair have the wisdom, patience and discernment needed to lead. The Lord has raised them up to lead at the current hour and I am thankful he has equipped them for such a time as this.

The SBC need not be intimidated by the attitudes of the immature. It is time to conclude the analysis and discussions about a few among the 25-45s and focus on making sure there is a healthy SBC for the rest of the 25-45s to inherit in 10-15 years. If we will stop looking back over our shoulders as we run the current lap and instead watch where we are going, when the present leadership makes their turn for the homestretch, we will see, by God’s grace, plenty of the next generation there to take the baton and run the next lap until Jesus returns. Perhaps there will be a few prodigals there as well.

I would like to go on record to say that I am not an ostrich who sticks his head in the sand while the world is being destroyed around him. I also am not one of the village people that comes running every time the little boy cries wolf. The time for change is past. The time for change is now. The time for change is in the future. With this change comes responsibility and accountability. I would like to address some of the responsibility and accountability associated with change by addressing some statements and a few questions.

Does the Cooperative Program unite us in relationship? It is the Cooperative Program (CP) that connects us through the state conventions. However, our relationship is not centered on the CP. Our relationship is centered on doctrine, not a common goal of where our money goes. During the Conservative Resurgence, Drs. Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley and a host of other SBC presidents were taken to task on their low percentages of giving. It was then that Dr. Rogers referred to the CP as a “sacred cow”. He was not denigrating the CP; he was merely lamenting how leaders of the moderates were using the CP as a litmus test. Dr. Rogers at that time responded, reminding us that doctrine is what drives missions, not money to place missionaries on the field.

Does accountability remain a strong part of CP giving? The trustees of the IMB, in the summer of 2005, were called to task about placing in writing guidelines that were being used in the interview process for new missionaries. The now-censured trustee that forced this move saw that the Board of Trustees agreed with their committee and he tried to derail the motion. When this did not work he went public with his loss in the hopes of creating such a ground swell that it would force the trustees to rescind the guidelines. The IMB trustees were charged with being Landmarkers, which was very interesting to say the least. The now-censured trustee used a bedrock Landmark tenet–the centrality of the local church’s autonomy–to argue against the guidelines. It seems this now-censured trustee desired to have local church autonomy trump the autonomy of the convention. The Cooperative Program survives because of the Baptist distinctive of the autonomy of the local church. However, local church autonomy does not trump convention autonomy. I do not give to the Cooperative Program out of gratitude, though I am grateful for the people who gave in order that my education was offset. I do not give to the Cooperative Program out of a sense that no one else does it better, though you would be hard pressed to find a better missions sending organization, disaster relief response unit, or a retirement system with the conglomerate of insurances. I do not give to the Cooperative Program out of a sense that it unites the churches in doctrine, as there are many churches that give to the Cooperative Program that do not hold to the same doctrine on issues as I. I give to the Cooperative Program because God’s Word instructs me in accountability, and to support that of which I am a part. If that percentage is 10%, 15%, or 3% makes no difference. One thing that confuses me is the various people that work for SBC entities and have the freedom to do outside speaking engagements, spend time writing books, and are free to work for other educational systems, and then tell me to lead my church to give in support of their entity. While I know their loyalty lies with Jesus Christ, I have one question. Do they not have any sense of loyalty to their employer to give an honest days work for an honest day of pay? As one that leads a church to give to the Cooperative Program, it is hard for me to understand how my giving to the Cooperative Program is needed if entity employees are free to take on full-time employment as interim teaching pastors, Senior Pastors, board members of other evangelical organizations, and give the time necessary to receive their pay and benefits derived from the CP giving of the local church.

It seems that “Relating to Culture” has now become the buzz phrase that is thrown out when someone questions the responsibility of the ungodly teaching of someone. We are told to keep quiet because the person is “relating to the culture” in which he finds himself. No one that I know of has ever criticized a pastor of another church for leading his church to engage the culture. I admit that some have criticized those who affiliate with brothers who differ from us on some serious doctrinal issues. It seems that sometimes I feel like Angie Harmon whenever I see something which I am not in agreement. I am either accused of being a Pharisee, or I am accused of calling someone a moderate. I do not know of anyone that wraps the Gospel in the United States flag. However, having a flag in the worship center does not mean that I am desiring to elevate the Unites States of America above reaching the lost. Also, if I allow voters guides to be passed out during election years it does not mean that I have sold my soul to an elephant. My hope is in the Gospel. I share it with my neighbors, the waitress, or waiter, (I always leave a 20% tip regardless of the service) and I share it with my family members that are lost. I venture out on short term mission trips and try to lead my church to take seriously the commission we have been given to take the Gospel to the nations. As I understand the Gospel, it transcends culture and it will divide. If I am going to take the Gospel to the nations, I must understand that I am expanding the Kingdom of God and the cultural gates of Hell will not stand against it. It is a war, and I am on the front lines and in the trenches. I am not sitting in an ivory tower reading demographics and telling everyone else what they should be doing, and why they are not doing it right. I am on the front lines doing it! I may not be seeing the results of others who are doing it. But, the results are not up to me, they are up to Him. So before I criticize someone for “not doing it” I need to remember that I serve a Sovereign Lord.

It seems that some are referencing questions that seem to be asked someplace as I have not been asked these questions. I do admit that I have never been a pastor of a church larger that 200 so I probably have not been in contact with as many as some have. I must live a sheltered life as I focus on feeding and leading the flock in the culture that God has called me in the area He placed me. However, I do desire to engage these questions as I believe they need engaging.

If Southern Baptist are so committed to the Word of God and the gospel, why are we so ineffective at living and preaching it? In the churches I have served, there is always this unnamed group that wants to change things. When pushed on identifying these people, one is usually told it is a confidential issue. However, to raise this question there must be a follow-up question before it can be answered. It seems that when a person’s lifestyle is called into question that is not in the SBC, those asking this question respond by saying; “he/she is engaging their culture.” Please, we need an answer: who are these in the SBC who are ineffective at living out the Word of God and preaching the Gospel? Once we get an answer to that question we can then deal with the issue. Or could it be that those not “living out the Word of God and Preaching it” are those that the questioners no longer agree with?

In the SBC, why are there so few great expositors? For me, I believe, this is an easy answer. I admit, on the surface, this is a question begging to be answered but the answer is very easy. In the 90′s the only seminary that pushed expository preaching was SEBTS. SBTS had not yet moved to that point but was moving in that direction. SEBTS took the lead in developing a preaching department that only taught the expository preaching method. There has only been one generation taught so far, thus, it seems that we should be seeing them soon.

In the SBC why is there so much redundancy in ministry from evangelism training to church planting to Sunday school training from the local church, association, state and national agencies? Is this good stewardship? It seems that this question is better answered by the entity heads than it is by the churches of the convention. It also is confusing that some who are asking these questions are those involved in creating redundancy in ministry.

Why do so many in the SBC seem intent on isolating and vilifying the 5 percent of secondary issues where we may disagree while not coming together for the sake of the gospel? If Believers baptism by immersion is in the 5% of a secondary issue, then we need not back up on demanding that when it comes to cooperating for the sake of planting churches then baptism by immersion is not a secondary issue.

Are we so theologically inept that we cannot even prioritize the eternal from the temporal, and our preferences from truth? Churches that are started by autonomous churches with their autonomous funds are completely free to partner with any group they desire. However, whenever CP funds are used to begin churches it is not theological ineptness to hold that church accountable to the BF&M 2k. The BF&M 2K is not a personal preference and as Southern Baptist we should never be “embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. ”

As Southern Baptist why do we still seem ignorant of the fact that we must engage lostness in the culture rather than in our buildings? As I said earlier, I agree with this question. However, it seems that it is a question that should be directed to the local church by the pastor of that church. There are many events and outreach strategies in which pastors desire to engage, but God has not broken down that wall in the church setting. Would it not be better to ask the question; “What can the entities of the SBC do to help pastors and churches to engage the lostness in the culture?” It seems the focus of our seminaries existence is to train ministers of the gospel, not to employ people. If we are training ministers of the gospel to go into a church and engage that culture first, then the end result will be engaging the lostness of the culture. Doesn’t it just seem plausible that we must first engage the culture in which God has placed us before we engage the culture of the world around us?

As Southern Baptists why will we not admit that many, not just a few, SBC churches make virtually no impact in their communities for the gospel, and many seem not to care? I do not think anyone has not admitted that. Just look at the baptism numbers from last year. Should we not be asking this question differently as well? Shouldn’t we ask; “Why are our churches more interested in adding members from other churches than we are adding members that are outside of the church?” Why would we ask such a question? Look at the “other additions” found in the Annual Church Profiles and compare them to the “additions by Baptism” numbers. I believe one will find that we have added more from other churches than we have through baptism.

Some would say that the 2006 convention awakened a sleeping giant. Dr. Adrian Rogers, who has been called to glory was awakened in the late 70′s and took the stand to see the convention turn. Drs. Paige Patterson and Jerry Vines, who were also awakened in the 1970′s, are still with us and have issued a call that we not proposition away our Baptist identity for the soup of evangelical ecumenism. We need to come together and learn from the past or we will be doomed to repeat it. When there was change in our convention it came in the form of a layman, an offspring of a denominational employee, and a pastor. These three came together and rallied the SBC messengers. If history is any indication, change will come when the people in the pew say, “Enough.” I do not see a giant in the SBC in the form of younger pastors by themselves. Why? Those that advocate the need to change will not go into the existing churches and expend the tears, sweat, and blood to see God move. They will not sacrifice in that setting in order to see God move. What our younger pastors seem to be more interested in is beginning a church with people that think like them and target only others that think like them. Most young pastors I know have no idea on how to bring a motion to the floor of the SBC. Even if everything were ripe for change it couldn’t be changed because the motion would be ruled out of order. We then hear these younger pastors say that God did not write Roberts Rules of Order.

Allow me to close by saying we all–young pastors, middle-aged pastors, old pastors, entity heads, entity employees, state conventions–must come together. When we come together we learn from each other how to navigate these waters for the glory of God, the sake of the gospel and for the doctrinal unity of the SBC!

Some say that we are at a tipping point. I must say that it is exciting to see those who have been noticeably absent from the SBC in the past change their schedule in order to be at the SBC in Louisville this summer. I urge all who read this to change their schedule and come to the SBC in Louisville this summer. I also urge everyone to change their schedule and come to Orlando in 2010, and Phoenix in 2011 and New Orleans in 2012 and wherever else the convention goes in the following years. For change to come in the SBC it must first begin with schedules.

I praise God for raising up a man like Johnny Hunt, who loved me as a younger pastor and led his church to invest in him pouring his life into younger ministers before it was cool. Remember, though that Brother Johnny began doing this because one before him poured himself in his life and suggested he begin Timothy/Barnabas. That one was Jimmy Draper, one of the old pastors. If we have reached a tipping point, I certainly pray that it isn’t the point where we tip over and spill our precious doctrinal cargo into the sea of relativistic pragmatic syncretism in order to reach people who want the gospel changed to fit their desires so we can say we are no longer in decline. Thus, we will make them two-fold children of Hell.

A minister without boldness is like a smooth file, a knife without an edge, a sentinel that is afraid to let off his gun. Men will be bold in sin, and ministers must be bold to reprove.

How are ministers to reprove sin?  Well it is based on Scripture.  If a minister were to reprove sin based on society and the norms implemented by society, then ministers would today be approving of homosexual marriages.  Oh, wait, we have ministers that are doing that already.  Ok, then we would have ministers approving of husbands and wives ending their marriages because they just are not compatible.  Oh, wait, we have that also.  Ok, then we would have ministers that are approving of killing babies in the womb because it is the mother’s choice whether to be an incubator for nine months.  Well, we have that going on also.  These three issues are results of society driven decisions that preachers make for no other reason but that it goes against conventional thinking.

How does a preacher interpret scripture in order to boldly reprove sin?  Does the preacher have the authority to reprove sin?  What does it mean to interpret Scripture?  Well, there are various positions on this.  I want to point out a position that seems to be under attack by various others in order to place themselves as being enlightened and informed.

There are some that would have one believe being dogmatic about a position is being arrogant.  Arrogance has nothing to do with stating clearly a biblical conviction, the church has affirmed through various councils and other doctrinal statements.  When one interprets Scripture and arrives at a conclusion, it does not mean that one may be cocksure of their position.  If I were to say that I believe something personally with no historical authentication, that is an arrogant place to arrive and one that says he/she is “cocksure” is being arrogant to say such a thing.  However, when one says they are convinced by Scripture a position is correct it is vitally important that one state their position, and how one arrived at that position, then anyone that disagrees will be wrong.

As I move further in this argument, let me assure you that a believer in Jesus Christ does not come to this position on their own.  The Bible tells us in 2 Peter 1:20 “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.” The position that makes one state a Biblical conviction is a position arrived at, not by the person only, but by study and many hours of prayer and working out one’s own salvation with fear and trembling.

Thus, let us test this position out in an everyday environment.  Let us say that you, as a pastor, have a Bible study where you meet with various people to pray and give guidance.  In this Bible Study you have a scripture that is read and then discussed. As this discussion proceeds you allow for various interpretations of the selected text to be propagated, by others giving only their position based on their own decision.  This propagation leaves one believing that any position that has been advanced is the correct position.  However, there is a serious theological dichotomy when one believes that each pericope of Scripture has one interpreted truth that is correct.  As a faithful minister of the Gospel you find yourself in a dilemma.  If you remain silent you allow for each person that presented a different interpretation to leave with the understanding that their interpretation was the interpreted truth and will probably be advanced in future teaching.  Or, you state your position explaining how you arrived there and posit the interpreted truth among those in the Bible Study.  This stance will not win you any friends and it may cause a lively discussion to ensue.  This particular stance will cause discussion among the group and cause you, as the preacher, to engage that discussion.  However, this is the correct stance.  It is based on historical evidence and is also presented not as a private interpretation.

Some may not agree with me on this and that is alright.  I certainly leave that with you to determine your position.  However, before you begin to imply that I am being unreasonable and charge that I am pushing my interpretation on others, you need to remember a text that we are given as Pastors.  2 Timothy 3:15  Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Then Paul reminds Timothy again in 2 Timothy 4:2-5 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction.  For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.  They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

These are the instructions that ministers have.  However, how are we to do these things without a reliable source?  We have a reliable source, but when we have one text with various meanings we do not have a source that is reliable.  I am not suggesting that various people do not come to the text with various understandings and cultural nuances.  I am suggesting that an over-zealous desire to guard against arrogance when interpreting Scripture will lead to a post-modern relativistic position that advocates all positions as valid.  Many of our doctrines have been hammered out on the anvil of truth through the various councils.  We do not have private interpretations of Scripture and we certainly do not advocate that we have the personal authority to say; “Thus saith the Lord”.  We do stand up and say; “Thus saith the Lord” because we have the authority of the church behind us in the interpretation of God’s Word.

Some may advocate the reliability of the text.  However, one needs to understand that we have the completed text before us and it has stood the test of time.  Let’s say that through archelogical findings some historian were to find one of the missing letters Paul wrote to the Corinthians.  The question would be; Is that letter Holy Spirit inspired Scripture?  I tell you, no it is not.  It would be treated as nothing more than the writings of the Apocrypha.  Why?  Because we have a closed cannon.  How can I say that with authority?  This issue was debated and The Church in 393 AD in the Synod of Hippo, produced a list of texts equal to the 39-to-46-book canon of the Old Testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament.  Jerome, when translating into Latin, rejected the extra 7 Old Testament books as Scripture, but translated it at the Pope’s insistence.  However, today both Catholics and Protestants have the same 27-book New Testament Canon. My point?  We have a reliable sufficient text and that text tells us that there is no further extra-biblical revelation.  Also, it tells us that there is no private interpretation.

What does that have to do with our debates in general, and our latest debates in particular?  In general, it seems that some want to elevate the debate to a point that says all interpretations of scriputure are valid.  This is not even worthy of debate, but let’s just handle one issue.  In a debate over doctrine, someone presents that the Trinity is not in the Bible and thus is a non-scriptural argument to describe God.  According to the logic of some, I am to advocate that it is a good point and because I am humble in my interpretation of Scripture I should say nothing in order to allow free flowing discussion.  I know that in the Council of Nicea there were some definitive arguments advocating the Trinity and for me to remain silent and point to various texts that reveal this Doctrine would be tantamount to ministerial malpractice.

In particular, to our latest debates, one would think that we are to accept an interpretation of Scripture to allow for “open” communion when we have for nearly 500 years as Baptist practiced “close” communion.  While I love my brothers that practice “open” but restricted communion, I disagree with them.  Am I to be humble about my interpretation and allow another interpretation to be advocated without any debate?  According to some, that is exactly what I am to do.  Just because one debates a certain issue does not mean that one is trying to “kick out” someone else.  In the weeks following the J316 Conference I have seen two scholars defend their words because others took them out of context to use as a weapon of mass destruction (WMD).  I say this because at no time did those responding to the articles that came out of the J316 Conference contact these two scholars privately to voice their concerns.  It seems that if one would like to speak about differences and disagreements it would behoove one to contact the person with whom one disagrees.  I can tell you from personal experience when one is contacted privately it makes for a better conversation than it is when one is hit with a WMD in a public arena.

As I close, let me say one thing.  The Bible does have only One Truth and it is not open for individual private interpretations.  As one crusty ole codger has well stated in a previous comment stream “<i>“You know the Bible has only one truth. It is our responsibility to seek that truth. All of church history tells us that truth is best arrived at corporately.”</i>  Thus, we may stand and boldly say; “Thus saith the Lord.”

After holding a blue collar job in the secular work force for ten years, I cannot tell you how humbled I was to recognize the calling of God into the ministry one lonely morning at approximately 10 a.m. Having wrestled for numerous months with the Spirit of God, it seemed quite unlikely that God would be calling me to serve his Kingdom as a minister. Nonetheless, upon that morning when time stood still, in one harrowing moment I worked up the courage to say, “Lord, here am I, send me.”

To make a long story short, I was encouraged to at least consider going to Southwestern Seminary for a tour of the campus. Quite overwhelmed and perplexed by the course of events, some 18 months later, my wife, two kids, and myself “sold it all” to follow what we believed to be the will of God. That was seven years ago. Now, I am but a few classes away from completing an Advanced Master’s of Divinity degree, something that was beyond my wildest imagination in the summer of 2000 when we abandoned all for the sake of obedience.

Entering SWBTS with nothing more than a high school diploma meant that I would have to pursue a Diploma in Theology. The years have come and gone far too quickly as I have wrestled late into the night with such subjects as Apologetics, Philosophy of Religion, Pneumatology, and so forth.

Those seven years have also provided me with any number of experiences, both positive and negative. I have known seminary couples who have divorced and I have seen many meet the love of their lives. I have said “goodbye” to as many friends as I have met. I have been confronted with ideas that were more liberal than my own, and a few that were more conservative than my own. Both have been beneficial, either to correct my own wrong thinking or teaching me to defend my right thinking. I have been on the receiving end of financial gifts from concerned administrators and have helped many international students learn how to set up a bank account or change a battery in their car. I have had Paige Patterson as a professor, and Ben Cole as a grader. Both have made unforgettable impressions for different reasons.

My years at SWBTS have offered times of unexplainable joy as well as times of heartbreaking sorrow. Perhaps, at the least, they have afforded me the privilege to speak with some sense of authority, or at least grant me the privilege to be heard. It seems there are some bloggers who have placed SWBTS directly in their sights as they have begun a big-game hunt of their own. They have left nothing sacred, attacking anything from a black lab in the presidential portrait to the President’s wife. Dr. Yarnell has, on more than one occasion been the focus of their attacks. In a desperate attempt at exposing what these bloggers perceive as foolishness, they have even taken aim at the faculty for donning black cowboy hats at Convocation. I dare not think I have the acumen to defend such men any better than they could defend themselves. Perhaps, that, in and of itself, testifies to the integrity these men have, they dare not defend themselves, rather, they have chosen the better way, “rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy,” (1 Peter 4:13).

To a keen and discerning eye these childish accusations and bitter posts reveal much more about the authors than they do their subjects of attack. I have had first-hand observations of Drs. Hemphill and Patterson as President. I have heard countless chapel messages by both. I have watched both men from afar with a certain admiration and have heeded the biblical admonition to respect those in authority.I write all of the above for one reason, and that is that I may say the following within a given context. Southwestern Seminary, her President, and its faculty may not be perfect; indeed they would be the first to admit it. But one thing is for certain, I, among many others, am a better divider of the word of Truth because of the teaching of Dr. Paige Patterson and the faculty he has assembled. Dr. Patterson has demonstrated courage in the face of accusation, and Dr. Yarnell exemplifies academic excellence with evangelistic fervor. I could say such about every professor at SWBTS that I have come to know.To you dear bloggers who are championing yourselves and your efforts at reformation, you may continue to criticize and accuse as often as you wish. That is your right. But know this, your condescension of and disrespect for SWBTS will not go unanswered. There are too many men and women such as myself who will see that the more accurate side of the story is brought to light. Drs. Patterson, Yarnell, Welty, et.al., thank you for your years of service, I am a more godly man and better student of the gospel because of your labor for the Kingdom. Now, that only if I can hold the banner as high as you have demonstrated and instructed me, the Kingdom of God should advance and the Southern Baptist Convention should continue to stand above the rest.

Honored to be a SWBTS alumni and student,

John Mann

They visited about a number of topics, from Dr. Patterson’s taste in music to the blogs that have sprung up specifically to attack church leadership.

This interview lasts much longer than the others at over twenty-six minutes, but if you know Tim, you understand.

I had some friends that were, shall I say, always doing things in expressive ways. Sometimes these ways were harmless and other times they were bordering on vandalism. One particular instance of the latter involved the open expression using paint cans and the outside brick wall of the science lab. It seems that we were out doing nothing that we would want our parents to know about, and one of my friends painted some derogatory remarks concerning our principal. We were caught and punished for the event.

My Daddy expressed to me his desire for me to “come clean” to him concerning this event. The reason? He knew this principal had helped me in the past over some issues that I was struggling with. He could not believe that I felt the way the words expressed about the principal. I came clean with him and he then encouraged me to visit the principal and come clean with him. I refused to do that. The reason? I would betray my friend, I felt. I suffered the consequences of the painting and I also suffered the consequences of refusing to do what Daddy told me to do. But I kept my friend, at least until I got saved. Then he deserted me. To this day that principal believes I felt the way that my friend did. Why? Because I never came out and said differently.

The second memory is of one concerning my family. It seems that there was this girl that I was dating that desired to break up with me. She did break up with me but then set her sights on my brother. He started to go out with her this began a disagreement between us that you would not believe. When my brother and I were younger we would literally throw fists and fight all over the house. This did not really hurt when you were 9 & 7, but when I was 18 and he was 17 these fists caused damage. Daddy finally set us down to help us see that when someone from outside of our family, who probably would never come into our family, caused a division between us, it was not good. Daddy helped us realize that we were brothers that needed to stick together in a family and not allow someone from outside the family make us have such hard feelings toward each other. He was right because within two weeks of this family gathering that we had, the girl broke up with my brother and to this day I do not know where she is.

These two life situations instilled two very distinct and strongly-held convictions within me. The first situation taught me that when I am a part of something that is not right, I need to make certain that my thoughts are not the same as those I am with. The second situation taught me that anytime I disagree with my family, it should not be increased by someone from outside of the family egging on the disagreement.

This brings me to the situation that I have witnessed with the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Brother Dwight McKissic was a featured panel guest along with Brothers Dwain Miller and Scott Camp. These three were featured along with Evangelist Authur Blessitt on Richard Hogue’s broadcast that he hosts for TBN. All of the above mentioned men either pastor churches that are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, or are former pastors and members of Southern Baptist Convention churches. Brother Hogue featured a session on Speaking in Tongues–A Controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention. He opened the program espousing his enjoyment of a good controversy. Here is where I want to focus my attention.

As Southern Baptist we are free to dissent on any issue our hearts desire. I will stand and defend anyone’s right to dissent. Everyone has a right to tell how much you disagree with a certain doctrine and everyone certainly should be afforded that right. However, dissent and controversy are not the same thing. I can dissent without being controversial, but when I become controversial I no longer can call that my right to dissent.

Brother Dwight McKissic has every right to dissent in his beliefs about praying in tongues. However, I do question his wisdom in opening himself up to the criticism he knew would come by appearing on this program. While Brother Dwight and I disagree on the issue of a private prayer language, there are many more things that we agree. I love him as a Brother in Christ and I love him as a person. I do not know Brothers Dwain Miller, Scott Camp, Authur Blessitt, or Richard Hogue. However, I love them as brothers in Christ. I have had a couple of conversations with Brother Dwight since the TBN appearance and I knew before he appeared on this show of his continuationist theology. He openly stated on the show, when asked, that he did not believe that every Christian would have, or should have a PPl.  However, as I watched his appearance on the TBN show, while he did not nod his head in agreement with some of the views being espoused, some could assume from his silence that he held the same theology concerning glossalalia of the other panelist, and even that of the host.  I know that Brother Dwight does not advocate the ecstatic utterances of the Montanists, because I have spoken with him concerning his theology on estatic utterances. I know that Brother Dwight does not believe that there is extra-biblical revelation today because I have asked him personally concerning this issue.  However, his silence on these issues, when presented in the forum, was deafening.
Silence in theological matters is an area that concerns me, but I am also concerned with the public promotion that there is controversy within the SBC by pastors of the SBC, especially when that perception is egged on by pastors no longer part of the SBC. The very controversy that Brother Hogue tried to promote is not the classic view of the charismatic practice of tongues. Everyone knows that TBN takes a classic theological approach to Pentecostal doctrine. There is not controversy within the SBC concerning charismatic practices of speaking in tongues. There is a controversy about private prayer language, which has been debated ad nauseum and those who advocate PPL have strenuously contended that it is not the same as the Pentecostal doctrine of tongues. In the current issue of Charisma Magazine, a magazine that promotes classic Pentecostal doctrine, David Shibley issues an open letter. David Shibley, a third generation pentecostal and graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, appeals to Southern Baptists to accept the classic practice of the Pentecostal doctrine of speaking in tongues. He uses Mrs. Joyce Rogers’ appeal to the 2006 SBC in which she says that the late Dr. Adrian Rogers would not be in favor of the IMB policies. Allow, me to briefly appeal to Brother Shibley. Read the IMB policies before the PPL guideline was added and you will see that Southern Baptist, when Dr. Rogers was living, did not agree with classic Pentecostal speaking in tongues.

How does one conclude? First, I believe Brother Dwight McKissic should issue a statement denouncing the non-biblical views held by those on the program. If he does not do such a thing he allows himself to be viewed in the same pneumotological position theologically as those on that panel. Second, as you can see from the open letter of Brother Shibley, any use of the term “private prayer language” or “praying In tongues” is interpreted by the world as classic Pentecostal pneumotology. As Southern Baptist, we need to seriously consider a statement concerning the distinguishing of the two. If private prayer language does not result from the same pneumatology exhibiting itself in tongues as came from the Azusa Street Revival, then it needs to be articulated in that way. We need to let our Pentecostal brethren know that we love them and we acknowledge their right to believe their doctrine, but we will have no part in planting churches with them. This debate about private prayer language is a family issue within the context of the SBC. We need to resist the tendency to allow those from outside of our family to express our differences.

As Baptists, we disagree over things that range from the color of carpets to the nuances of eschatology, but we clearly state our position. We certainly do not need to allow those outside of our family to use our disagreements as fodder for their grist mills to further their causes.

Baptists and Dissent

The idea of dissent as a virtue—whether a Baptist virtue or otherwise—is among the most nonsensical theories promulgated among mankind.

Dissent is neither a virtue nor a vice, so far as its intrinsic properties go. Dissenting to pay your taxes is generally a vice. Dissenting to participate in a plot to assassinate the President is generally a virtue. The act of dissenting, in and of itself, is neither noble nor vile—’tis all in the subject matter of one’s dissent.

Dissent is a part of the Baptist story, but dissent is not a distinctive of Baptist identity (or if it is, it has often been a part of the darker side of our identity). Where dissent is laudatory in Baptist life, it is because Baptists were willing to take unflinching stands on matters that other people saw differently or deemed tertiary.

Although dissent is not a Baptist distinctive, religious liberty is. Baptists are a people committed to religious liberty for all people. What is religious liberty? It is important to know, for false versions of this principle are seemingly omnipresent. Religious liberty is the conviction that the temporal sword ought not to be employed in strictly spiritual matters. So, unless it has to do with policemen, armed troops, vigilante mobs, judicial rulings, or legislative dictates, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Baptist principle of religious liberty.

Indeed, it was the conviction of our Baptist forebears that churches and associations had the obligation to govern their own affairs according to their doctrinal convictions. It was precisely because they wanted to be more strict WITHIN their own churches that they wanted the government to be less strict—nay, uninvolved altogether—in governing their churches from without. Those who made scruples over baptism and regenerate church membership, believing in a more restrictive purity in church membership were the Baptist objects of state-sponsored persecution. Religious liberty enabled Baptists to form congregations composed only of those who did not dissent from their pursuit of obedience to Christ’s commands.

Certainly there is not the slightest scintilla of biblical witness for dissent as virtue. There are, however, volumes of evidence for the idea that the temporal sword ought not to be wielded in spiritual matters. There are two realms, typified by Roger Williams’s idea of the “Two Tables of the Law.” The Baptist position is not that spiritual matters ought not to be governed, but simply that the state has not the authority to govern them. Rather, that authority belongs solely to the church. The effect of course, is that every individual has liberty—if one differs with the governing decisions of one’s church, one can leave it and join with (or even form) another church more to one’s liking, and the church cannot invoke the powers of the state to stop it. Our commitment to religious liberty means that we believe it is the obligation of the government not to punish dissent over matters strictly dealing with one’s relationship with God.

Yet the biblical model is a church strictly and powerfully governed. I almost mentioned this in my earlier post about the death penalty—the early church not only wasn’t opposed to the death penalty, but they also executed it themselves. But please note, they did it by exercise of the spiritual sword—the power of God—and not by the power of the government. The church that slays people for discrepancies in their contribution statements bears absolutely no resemblance to these modern-day coffee klatches so careful to tiptoe around matters that God has declared but people have relegated to tertiary status, but it also resembles not at all the church so spiritually weak that it must call upon soldiers or policemen to do its fighting for it.

I’m thankful for the Baptist commitment to religious liberty. It reminds the government not to presume to take up authority that belongs to God alone. It reminds the church not to trust in chariots or horses. Let’s not mutilate it into yet another postmodern exaltation of “diversity” over substance. We belong neither to pre-modern society, modern society, nor post-modern society. We are citizens of Heaven, and once we arrive there, dissent will be entirely a thing of our past. Thank you, Lord.