I saw a statement approximately one month in the past concerning the possibility of an alternative Pastor’s Conference (PC) at Phoenix.  My immediate reaction to this was we did not need anything that would divide us as Southern Baptists (SB).  It seemed to me that many different things were already dividing us and we just did not need a meeting that would clearly represent a demarcation within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). This understanding comes from a deep seeded conviction that I am going to be loyal to the SBC and will make my voice heard when there are things that I just cannot remain silent about any longer.  I would rather be an inside voice for change than an outside voice of criticism.

As I pondered this latest development within our Southern Baptist Pastors Conference (SBPC) concerning the theological plurality seemingly promoted by our leaders, I found that alternative meetings already exist.  I found that we have various groups meeting for the simple fact the SBPC does not meet their particular style of worship or theological agenda. One can go here to find the various 2010 Events held in Orlando coinciding, and at sometimes conflicting, with the SBPC and some were scheduled in conflict with the Annual Meeting.  One will find listed as various competing and conflicting events the National Filipino Meeting, National African American Meeting, SENDNYC Board Meeting, and the Southern Baptist Messianic Davidic Worship and Dance.

The question that begs being answered concerns the appropriateness of these meetings. Is it appropriate for these meetings to take place?  The answer obviously follows, certainly! It is appropriate for any group of SB anywhere to get together for a meeting.  The question, however, does not have as much to do with the appropriateness of the meeting as it does with the appropriateness of the timing of the meeting.  Should these groups remove themselves from a time of worship together with other SB pastors?  As of March 10, 2011 we already have events scheduled during the SBPC.  We have the Fellowship of Native American Christians gathering at 10 am on Monday morning for a time of worship in Room 226A on level 200. There is no ending time scheduled thus one easily presumes this would be a daylong event.  In researching this group, I must say it will be very tempting for me to attend their event though I am not a Native American.  Notice their description as stated by Brother Emerson Falls, past President of the Oklahoma Baptist General Convention:

“In our charter, we do have two requirements: support of the Baptist Faith and Message [SBC statement of beliefs] and giving to the Cooperative Program [SBC missions support channel],” Falls noted. “We put that in there because we didn’t want to send the message that we were forming a separate convention or something like that. These are all Southern Baptist churches and we want them to be supportive of the SBC. We just recognize that the SBC probably doesn’t see everything that we see, and we want to begin identifying some of the needs we see nationally, particularly in the area of church planting….

They certainly are strong supporters of the SBC and the historical giving apparatus of the Cooperative Program.  Notice they also desire to have a church-planting network that does not target Native Americans but partners with Native American churches.  We also see a meeting for the National African American Fellowship followed by a dinner.  The schedule for their meeting is from 4-6:30pm.  At the 6:30pm mark their dinner is scheduled to begin.  The Dinner will last until 9:30pm the same time the SBPC ends.  On the calendar but with no dates and times is the SB Messianic Fellowship and also a Dance.  If history is any indication, the schedule for Orlando was Friday through Sunday pm.

With these various events that target people based on ethnicity one certainly questions if there is a division developing.  We can presume the need for various groups center around either methodology or theology.  If it is methodology then what methods are we missing in the SBPC that would make members of these groups walk away from the SBPC, if even for a couple of hours?  If it is theology then one can say that we have always had theological differences, but are those differences so wide that we have to form a different group meeting?  There is one question that trumps these questions just asked; would another group be good or bad for the SBC?  I want to look at the positives and negatives of another group of pastors meeting during SBPC.

The positives concerning another SBPC is that it may reflect better the theological moorings of the majority of SB. Let’s face it, the predominance of speakers in the ASPIRE SBPC do not connect with the majority of churches within the SBC.  If one would examine the speakers, in total concerning their theology, it would fall into a Neo-Calvinistic category. What do I mean?  If one were to ask the speakers where they were concerning their soteriology one would find them identifying themselves within a “Calvinistic” mindset.  They would respond they were 5, 4, or 3-point Calvinist, thus, identifying themselves within the boundaries of a systematic theology that 85% of the pastors in the SBC reject.  Therefore, another conference would be a good thing.  It would appeal to the 85% of those pastors pushed to the side by the very leadership these pastors put in place. With a new conference there would be an opportunity to experiment with a new format. I know that I love hearing my heroes preach, but let’s face it.  While I can sit and listen to Dr. Jerry Vines plow close to the corn and shell the peas, or hear with great awe as Dr. Paige Patterson enunciates Greek and Hebrew words peppered throughout his sermon like I use redneck slang, I am not desirous of sitting all day long just hearing someone preach to me. It is like the old joke that most pastors will drive one thousand miles to preach a sermon but will not walk ten feet to hear someone else preach a sermon.  In 2006 the success of the Mohler and Patterson debate was not that it was a debate about Calvinism.  It was successful because it had to do with a topic of the day.  Therefore, a new format that would carve out some time during the Pastor’s Conference to hear pastors discussing the how-to’s of various topics would be a great format.

One other positive I see with an alternative SBPC is the visibility it would give to pastors not within the “loop” of leadership with the current leaders of SBPC.  Let us be very honest here.  I know Brother Vance Pitman because I saw Dr. Johnny Hunt groom him.  He was at Dr. Hunt’s Timothy/ Barnabas events.  Dr. Hunt took great pleasure in announcing him as the church planter he was placing in Las Vegas.  Thus, when it was announced that Brother Vance was going to be nominated for President of the SBCPC I got behind him and publicly cast my lot for him.  With an alternative conference it would open up a whole new venue for pastors to attend.  The alternative conference could focus on one specific theological perspective and invite only those speakers that held to that theology.  For example we could call this alternative the Cooperating Southern Baptist  Pastors Conference.  Of course, with a name like that,  some would probably  dub us the next Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.  Which brings me to the negative of an alternative conference.

The negative part about another SBPC is it may reflect negatively on those leading this group much like the alternative meetings of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) reflected on the moderates. The CBF leaders, along with those who participated, were seen as people who had their teeth set on edge by the sour grapes of losing their leadership voice. That would be the same way that those who organize, and possibly those who attend, an alternative conference may be viewed.  However, today there would be a difference in those who lead an alternative conference.  The Conservative Resurgence was not about a different methodology that changed a theology.  It was about a theology that oversaw the dilution of Scriptural authority.  The CBF Pastors gathering was due to those in leadership at the time disagreeing with the theological position of the inerrancy of Scripture. The alternative conference today would not be as much theological as it is methodological.  The methodology of a strict focus on church planting has replaced the methodology of personal evangelism.  I remember leaving the Nashville convention when Ricky Skaggs blew that sophar and a commitment to personal evangelism pervaded that convention and the SBPC.  However, as soon as we left that convention we were hearing the disturbing news that some expressed they were offended by such a show.  The SBC was even charged with idolatry because they unveiled a statue of Billy Graham.

As a result of this push back we have seen personal evangelism and discipleship fade like a bad dream only to be replaced with a new church planting initiative.  Allow me to say that I am not against church planting.  However pointing to new church plants and saying we are making a difference in the lives of the lost is like focusing on baptisms and saying that we are increasing the kingdom of God.  Church planting is the result of presenting the Gospel and seeing people come to know Jesus Christ.  Thus, steps for a church in her strategy are evangelism, baptism, discipleship, and then church planting.  If we focus on church planting then we not only start churches with unsaved people but we also give a false sense of eternal security to those we are trying to reach.  We become nothing more than Roman Catholic in practice—just be at church and you can get blessed.

One other negative aspect of an alternative conference is the further divide it would encourage.  I have some friends that chose to align themselves with the CBF.  While I have no doubt at all about their salvation, we still have hard times communicating and even having fellowship together.  What once was a great friendship has become a passing comment and a once a year “missing you and sure would love to see you” email.  It is a shame and is just as much my fault as it is theirs.  While neither of us realized we were drawing a line in the sand, we just cannot seem to cross over that magical dividing line. An alternative conference would be a line drawn in the sand.  Once that conference was planned and the speakers agreed to come the line would be drawn and the gauntlet would be thrown down.  What has been in the past a mere disagreement over issues no one is willing to budge on, this alternative conference would accentuate a disagreement into a division.

Therefore, in concluding this post, let me express my desire.  I certainly desire to see our convention come back to the theological/doctrinal moorings that brought us through the Conservative Resurgence. Yes, inerrancy of Scripture was the battle cry, but according to Nancy Ammerman’s book, Baptist Battles, the inerrancy debate led to revealing various disagreed upon doctrinal parameters between the conservatives and the moderates.  For example, the conservatives rejected social drinking and the only ones adhering to such doctrinal beliefs were the moderates. Thus, we can say all we want that we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, but there are certain doctrines that come out of that belief our leaders have moved us from.  Another doctrinal belief we have moved away from is turning our convention into an evangelical ecumenical gathering.  Certainly we desire to hear from other leaders outside of the SBC and we have done so in the past.  I believe it was during Dr. Adrian Rogers’ second term that Dr. D. James Kennedy addressed the convention.  Dr. Rogers, in his introduction, said to Dr. Kennedy; ‘Dr. Kennedy, when you go under we will come over.’  As only Dr. Rogers could do, he pointed out our differences and let the entire evangelical world know, including the SBC, there were certain practices we as Baptists hold to that are not negotiable.

I encourage our leadership, and all pastors, to understand we may not be correct on everything concerning doctrine.  However, our incorrectness in certain doctrine does not give us carte blanche reasons for throwing the SBC to the side and starting over.  But neither does it mean that we should be a bunch of theological imbeciles surfing on the shorelines of Christendom while watching a diluted doctrinal tsunami coming at us while we are sitting still yelling, “kowabunga dude this is going to be one gnarlatious wave.”

Tim Rogers

Sunday Service with Richard Mc Pheeters

Nearly everybody from SBC Today went to see ex-Oklahoma pastor Tank McPheeters deliver God’s word. A strange coincidence, Tank actually interviewed at Immanuel before I did, but did not feel the call to this church. We now know why because he pastors New Salem Baptist Church in Cox Creek, Kentucky and is working on a PhD. The church was founded in 1801 and the current building was built in 1906. Some noted previous pastors of that church are A. T. Robertson and W. O. Carver. Listening to Tank preach gave me reassurance that he was carrying on the great preaching and scholarship tradition of times past.

After church, Tank’s wife cooked lunch for all of us. Her generosity and cooking ability is great. Trust me, no one walked away hungry. All of us thank Tank, his wife, and the church for their hospitality.

Pastors Conference

For me the pastors conference seemed like a constant barrage of negativism. Many who I talked to felt they were being scolded for not running big numbers. Not all the sermons were like that. There were in fact two high points. First was Gov. Mike Huckabee. He is correct in pointing out that the problem with America, and dare I say our churches, is not financial, but moral. He encouraged us to hold the line on biblical values and to keep on sharing Christ. The other bright spot was David Platt. Everyone who I talked to said that Platt hit it out of the park. There were some other great sermons, but Gov. Huckabee and Bro. Platt are two that gave the most buzz.

Convention

Dr. Mohler presented the motion for the task force on the Great Commission Resurgence. Going into the convention I had mixed feelings over the whole motion. When I left Perkins, I thought I would vote against it. On the road I had further time to think and give consideration to changing my mind. I also had the opportunity in Louisville to talk further with other people. When I heard Dr. Mohler, I was 99% sure that I would vote for the task force. I admire Dr. Mohler and his plea was very moving. I came to 100% certainty when a messenger, who was against it, said the problem with our convention was Calvinism and that the GCR task force was unnecessary. He even compared the Calvinists today to the Primitive Calvinist of a bygone era. Needless to say, his misinformed rant sealed the deal for me and I voted for the task force. Ultimately, I don’t necessarily believe it is a bad thing for an organization to examine itself periodically in order to maximize the stewardship of what God has given her. I just hope that the change presented will directly benefit the local church. I am praying for the task force.

Another momentary lack of judgment was when Wade Burleson wanted to replace Bart Barber on the list of new trustees at Southwestern. Bart had already committed to not teaching adjunctively while a trustee at Southwestern. In doing so, he removed any conflict of interest that may have been present. Unfortunately, whether Wade knew about Bart’s resignation from being an adjunct professor or not, the motion was presented and overwhelmingly defeated. In this, the convention affirmed Bart as a trustee of Southwestern. I thank the convention for their trust in my friend.

The other big news was the severing of ties with Broadway Baptist Church for their openness to homosexual members. Why it took so long for this action to occur still baffles me, but I am sure that the procedure of the convention allowed all parties involved to make the right decision. Kudos to the SBC in making this stand.

Quotes of Worth

PUBLIC – Johnny Hunt: The perception and vision of the church is God’s standard.

PRIVATE – Anonymous: Tertiary definition- Anything that Jesus commanded that I don’t agree with. :-)

Post Convention

Most everyone that I have talked to has been pleased with the convention. This year there have been no calls of victory by any one group. Most are pleased with the eighteen-member task force that has been appointed by Dr. Hunt and all are committed to praying for the people serving. I did sense a feeling of unity from the convention. The question is, will this unity last when recommendations come from the newly appointed task force?

This year will present some challenges for the SBC, with finances being a major obstacle. But I also believe that God has many great things still planned for our convention. May we all be in prayer as the task force assumes it’s mission and our churches seek to fulfill theirs.