by Norm Miller
“Delight yourself in the LORD; and He will give you the desires of your heart” — Psalm 37.4 (NASB).
This familiar passage is the favorite of many God-fearing believers. Sometimes, however, mammon mongers posing as televangelists cite only the latter half of the verse, hoping to sate their materialism by prostituting the truths of God. But, there’s a prerequisite to realizing the desires of our hearts, and that’s to delight ourselves in the Lord.
What Christian isn’t delighted with what God has done? — the beauty of creation, the bliss of marriage, the joy of grandchildren. And, of course, the birth, death, burial, resurrection and salvation of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
Yes, we are delighted with what the Lord has done. But, are we delighted IN Him? You know, it’s one thing to be delighted WITH the new pool in your backyard, and it’s another to be delighted IN it. It’s one thing to observe and another to experience.
It’s fine to be delighted with what God has done. But let those things serve as appetizers to the full meal. Quit looking at the menu and order yourself a plateful of what God has for you. Don’t just spend time WITH God, spend time IN God. If that new pool in your backyard represented God, then don’t just admire the pool, jump on in. Splash around, float on your back, swim a few laps.
When you approach God in this manner — to live IN Him — you will soon realize that the deepest desire of your heart is to be in God. Yes, the desire of your heart will be to delight yourself in the Lord. God knew that about you all along. That’s why He said, “Delight yourself in Me, and I will give you the desires of your heart.”
by Johnathan Pritchett
Graduate Student, Biola University
SBCToday contributing writer
Former Biola professor, Dr. John Mark Reynolds, (now Provost at HBU) taught a three-day lecture in 2011 for us students in his Cultural Apologetics class. Therein he mentioned the need for older, spiritually mature women to exert more influence in the church, again. Many of us didn’t think much of that then; but after seeing the hubbub surrounding the video of former Hannah Montana star Miley Cyrus — who exhibited a ridiculously tasteless, debauched song-and-dance act at MTV’s VMA show — I realized exactly what Dr. Reynolds meant, and he was right.
See, Miley Cyrus is from a “Christian” family that went to church, not unlike Britney Spears (a Southern Baptist, by the way), and other former Disney stars who grew up to become tasteless and tacky. It isn’t that the entertainment industry in the United States is as absurdly wicked as that of Japan, but we are moving a whole lot closer every year. It also isn’t that we can put the blame squarely on the entertainment business either. Church-goers consume their products, and many of the Mileys and Britney come from evangelical churches.
In the 1950s, church ladies held power and influence. They decried the immorality in Elvis swinging his pelvis. And, while Ed Sullivan thought it prudent to show Elvis from the waist up, most people in the church figured the church ladies were overreacting. After all, Elvis was just a nice southern boy who grew up in church and sang some hymns mixed in with his other tunes, and the 1950s were a “wholesome” time in the good ol’ U.S. of A. So we are told.
However, as Peter S. Beagle wrote in the introduction of Lord of the Rings, “The Sixties were no fouler a decade than the Fifties — they merely reaped the Fifties’ foul harvest …” The decline in public decency in pop culture since the 1950s has been on a steady path to the gutter; and every decade, the voices of our dear church ladies are shouted down repeatedly whenever they speak against the decline in morality, taste, class, and manners.
We are now at the point where they hardly bother with sounding alarms in church anymore. This, of course, would be the church ladies of the Greatest Generation. Their daughters, the Baby Boomers, are a mixed bag when it comes to their moral and cultural compasses. Some have become fine church ladies like their mothers, but others have forgone the prospect of being a church lady, have undergone plastic surgery and other physical enhancements, and attend church and wherever else in the same sort attire as their granddaughters.
After all, who wants to be perceived as a nagging, killjoy church lady?
Most women in church among the Gen Xers and Millennials simply don’t have the same moral compass as some of their parents and grandparents. This is not to say they are immoral, but it is to say that they are, like the men of those same generations, simply desensitized to all this on the one hand, and at a loss how to prevent their sons and daughters becoming like these former teeny-bopper pop icons who embrace tasteless and tacky, immoral lifestyle of popular culture on the other.
The women who are of the Greatest Generation are mostly widows now, and the Baby Boomers in church, both male and female, are a mixed bag. The watered-down, milk-n-cookie preaching found in the worst of evangelical mega-churches is the product of the Baby-Boomers. They wanted their Gen Xer offspring to like church, so they made it “cool and hip.” That, combined with an abuse of Matthew 7:1 (forgetting all about Matthew 7:2-5), and we have the rapid decline of morality in both church and pop culture at the exponential rate we find today. The men who still have their moral bearings can still instruct men, but what the church really needs, and what the United States really needs, is for seasoned and mature church ladies to start wagging their beautiful, wrinkled fingers at all of us!
Consequently, however, such women have been stripped of most of their influence in both church and culture, having been written off as Chicken Littles, spoiling the congregation’s attempts at “relevance” in contemporary culture, and spoiling everyone’s fun on the weekends.
Well, the whole nation is all the worse for it!
We need church ladies to tell us that we need to have manners. They need to threaten to wash our mouths out with soap for being lax and using, by today’s standards, mild language such as “crap” and “fart” in the sanctuary.
We need them to yank upward the belts of boys (and some “men”), whose pants sag to the ground, thus revealing plaid boxer shorts.
We need them to rebuke the younger girls (and some of their own 30+ y/o daughters) for dressing immodestly at church.
We need them to get on the pastor and church staff for trying too hard to “relate” to the young folks through worldly means.
We need them to tell parents of any age to act their age, to have more class and good sense than the lost people their age, and to do a better job at raising and disciplining their kids.
And, of course, we need them to call out the vulgarity of pop culture and celebrity behavior, as well as the church’s indifference to it. After all, many church folk spend lots of their entertainment dollars on this stuff, which helps keep it around while it gets worse every year.
In any case, Miley’s “twerking” isn’t something Miley invented. It goes on at high school dances, night clubs, and everywhere else younger church members go on their Friday nights out; and by younger, we can call that the 16-45 demographic these days.
So please, let the church ladies have their say again for all our sakes. Let them be what God has called them to be. Let them be the glorious naysayers, and more importantly, the moral compass that we need them to be, before their example is finally gone and there really is no going back. Let them instruct us, and, if they wish to scold us while doing it, all the better. We deserve it.
by Dr. Rick Patrick, pastor
FBC Sylacauga, Ala.
The Truth, Trust and Testimony in a Time of Tension Report stands as a visionary call for Southern Baptists to engage in collegial conversation regarding our differences in soteriology and other associated matters. Clearly, this outstanding report should not be viewed as a call to abandon the discussion, but rather as a challenge to those on both sides to conduct the conversation using our best manners. One might even compare the T5 Report to a football referee who gathers the captains from both sides prior to the kickoff and exhorts them to exercise good sportsmanship and to play a clean game. In other words, this important conversation is not over. It is only just beginning.
For quite some time, those with doctrinal convictions similar to mine have been in search of a term with which to identify ourselves. It is especially important to us that this term be acceptable among those with whom we disagree. Let us assure you that in our search for such a label, we are not seeking to offend, but to identify our position with the kind of theological precision that encourages mutual understanding. It is surprisingly harder than one might imagine to identify with an acceptable name the soteriological position which we believe to be the majority view among Southern Baptists. Thus far, our attempts have proven unsuccessful, but we are blessed with plenty of time and patience, and will eventually find a term everyone can agree upon.
The Disqualification of Every Currently Proposed and Utilized Term
Below is a listing of terms that, for the various reasons explained, are inadequate to define our soteriology and, in some cases, are even particularly offensive to us. By looking at all of the terms that do NOT work, we draw closer to the one that does.
1. Non-Calvinist: No one should have to define themselves simply by what they are not. This definition by negation sadly contributes to the unfortunate misunderstandings found in many of our discussions, as it is often assumed that our position is #2 below. As a Dallas Cowboys fan, I would hate to go through life known only as a Non-Redskins fan.
2. Anti-Calvinist: Some Calvinists may misunderstand my view as consisting solely in the opposition of theirs. This is precisely why we need to state our position using a positive term. Certainly, the views will remain in conflict, but it will be much easier to see that each side is simply promoting their own position rather than attacking the opposing view. While I am FOR them and not AGAINST them, I am not WITH them, at least theologically, on this family of issues. I am certainly with them in sharing Christ.
3. Modified Calvinist: It has been suggested on occasion that all Southern Baptists are Calvinists of one sort or another. Those of us who disaffirm as many as four out of the five petals on the TULIP refuse to view ourselves as any kind of Calvinist at all.
4. Modified Arminian: This offensive label is a partial term. No one wants to be called a modified-this or a semi-that. It fails since Arminians view Perseverance of the Saints as a negotiable doctrine while our position is uncompromisingly committed to it. Since we disaffirm such Arminian baggage, most of us view this label as a pejorative term.
5. Semi-Pelagian: Most Southern Baptists believe that God has given all men the ability to respond to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the gospel. To disaffirm Total Inability is not to embrace a man-centered theology nor to suggest that man initiates the salvation process. In the summer of 2012, many Calvinists equated our position, held by seminary presidents, pastors, theologians and a Who’s Who of denominational leaders, with this 1500-year-old heresy. Fortunately, this ugly name-calling chapter is now over.
6. Biblicist: Some prefer to use this term, by which they mean that their position is the only one found in the Bible. Clearly, this label would be claimed by both sides. It is thus unacceptable not because it offends but because it fails to differentiate.
7. Baptist: Once again, one cannot simply claim to hold THE Baptist or Southern Baptist view on this matter, since there are many Southern Baptists on both sides.
8. Traditionalist: By referencing A Statement of the TRADITIONAL Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation, this term actually met many of the necessary criteria: (1) it was not a term of negation, (2) it was not a partial term, and (3) it was not associated with any theological views containing unnecessary baggage. While it did gain a fair measure of support and usage on my side of the theological aisle, it was deemed unacceptable by Calvinists who interpreted the word “traditional” only in its historical and cultural sense. They assumed we were claiming that our Southern Baptist heritage only supported our position without including theirs. Interestingly, among dozens of articles, I never read a single Traditionalist who made this assertion. Regardless, the term Traditionalist is out. The search for an acceptable theological label continues.
A Case for the Use of the Term Savabilism
Before discussing the merits of the term Savabilism, I would like to make an appeal first to my Calvinist friends and then to my Traditionalist / Non-Calvinist friends:
Savabilism is a term that not only fits semantically but works quite nicely grammatically. It may not be perfect in every respect. It may take everyone a while to get used to it. But consider its many advantages:
What Is A Savabilist?
A Savabilist believes every lost person is savable.
A Savabilist believes that when he shares his faith, the other person’s response is truly free and has not yet been determined. A Savabilist believes God certainly knows what the other person’s response will be, but denies that He causes the person to respond in that manner.
A Savabilist believes God does not unconditionally choose but that He unconditionally loves.
A Savabilist believes that because of this unconditional love, Jesus died to atone for the sins of every single person. Hence, every single person is savable.
A Savabilist believes it is God’s one and only true will for every person to be saved.
A Savabilist believes God has given to every person the ability to respond to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the gospel, either by freely choosing to accept God’s grace or by freely choosing to resist it.
A Savabilist is not a universalist. A Savabilist believes that many people will die and go to hell.
A Savabilist believes the reason the lost go to hell is neither because God chose them for hell, nor because God declined to choose them for heaven, but rather because they freely chose to reject the grace of God.
A Savabilist believes that once a person freely places their faith in Christ and He saves their soul, they cannot possibly lose their salvation, but will persevere eternally since their salvation is sealed by God forever.
= = = = = = =
In Words With Friends—Part Two, I will labor to promote a more precise taxonomy for the broad array of positions currently crowded together under the banner of Calvinism. My fervent hope is that someday soon every Exit Sign on the Soteriological Highway will have its own unique street name so we can find our way home without confusion.
Mt. Pisgah Baptist Church
Michael Kirby, pastor
I am constantly amazed at the power of a simple and straightforward presentation of the Gospel. At our service yesterday, we had two boys profess faith in Christ and desire to be baptized. They were moved to ask Jesus for His forgiveness and we praise God for His wonderful grace.
CONNER, WALTER THOMAS (1877–1952). Walter Thomas (W. T.) Conner, Southern Baptist theologian, received an A.B. degree from Baylor in 1906; in 1908 he received both a Th.B. from Baylor Theological Seminary (which chartered in March 1908 as Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) and an A.M. degree from Baylor University. At Rochester Theological Seminary, he received a B.D. in 1910. Conner studied at the University of Chicago and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Kentucky, where he received his Th.D. degree in 1916. When Southern Baptist Theological Seminary began to award the Ph.D. degree instead of the Th.D., Conner upgrading to Ph.D. status with an additional thesis on the topic “The Idea of Incarnation in the Gospel of John” in 1931.
Conner was ordained by Harmony Baptist Church, Caps, Texas, in 1899, where he was serving as pastor. He served as pastor at numerous Baptist churches and was the first pastor of Seminary Hill Baptist Church (now Gambrell Street Baptist Church) in Fort Worth. In the Southern Baptist Convention, Conner often lectured at conferences and assemblies and spoke at state and national conventions. The Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board utilized him as a counselor and advisor in selecting missionary candidates.
Conner’s enduring legacy to Southern Baptist life lies in his 39-year teaching career at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He joined Southwestern in 1910, and endeavored to make theology practical rather than speculative; in the faculty his recommendations for prospective teachers were tantamount to administrative approval; and in the administration his long tenure provided continuity from the first president to the third. Systematic theology was Conner’s main responsibility, and he soon distinguished himself as the preeminent Southern Baptist theologian during the 1930s and 1940s. As a theologian, he was at home among both laymen and scholars. His lectures and books were written with the layman in mind, but they display an underlying academic depth and extensive knowledge of his field. His theology reflects the influence of three former professors: Benajah H. Carroll of Baylor, A. H. Strong of Rochester, and E. Y. Mullins of Louisville. But Conner’s theology still displays his own acumen; his theological works reflect a biblical rather than systematic approach. Conner’s complete theological system is best expressed in his works Revelation and God (1936) and The Gospel of Redemption (1945). He wrote 15 books and numerous articles for professional journals and other periodicals. He was a member of the Southwestern Society of Biblical Study and Research, and in 1946 he delivered the Wilkinson Lectures at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago.
“We are safe in saying that no member of Adam’s race will be eternally lost apart from personal choice and personal guilt. Any interpretation that says that we as individual members of Adam’s race are lost because of covenant made with Adam in the Garden of Eden or because we were present in Adam and participated in his sin as an act of sin-any such interpretation as either of this is not interpreting Paul. It is in one case following some questionable principles of law in the realm of religion and in the other some questionable metaphysics invented several centuries after Paul. One goes back to a Dutch lawyer, the other to subtle Christian speculator of North Africa who brought much of both good and bad into Christian theology…
…What Paul meant to show us in Romans 5:12-21 was a wonderful Redeemer who gives more than we lost in Adam. But in a cloud of theological dust raised about the imputed sin of Adam we have lost sight of Paul’s wonderful Redeemer and have seen only Adam’s sin and an imputed guilt that never existed except in our imaginations.”
W. T. Conner, The Faith of the New Testament, (281-82), 1940.