After affixing my signature to the Great Commission Resurgence document I found out something that did bring some concern to my heart.  The document was changed in its wording and I really do not remember if it began with twelve axioms or ten.   I was directed to the document from Between the Times, the official blog of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (SEBTS).   In that blog article it says that the Great Commission Resurgence website was launched under the direction of Dr. Johnny Hunt.  However, Dr. Danny Akin, SEBTS president, has been the one promoting the GCR and the site even has his chapel message manuscript posted.  I assumed that the site was the result of Dr. Akin’s collaboration with Dr. Hunt, Dr. Merritt, and Dr. Rainer as those three were the first names of entity heads and former SBC presidents on the site.  However, I see that any inquiry concerning the site is to be directed to Jim Law, Executive Pastor at FBC Woodstock.

I would like to just point to a concern and a promise as I continue on this train that is heading down the tracks that are being laid.  First the concern.  Tim Guthrie has eloquently articulated the same concerns I have about changes in this document having been made after opening it up for signatures.  I, like Brother Tim, agree with the changes because it does strengthen the area of concern that I had in my initial observations, found here.  Here is my promise. I have signed this document and will gladly ring the bell of the train.  There are no caveats for me in signing this document as I am fully aware of what has been said.  However, if this train begins down a track that has not been covered in the document or an element that has been covered is redefined to mean something that the document says it doesn’t mean, then I will stop ringing the bell and remove my name.  That, my friends, is not a caveat; it is a change of tracks.

I look forward to encouraging Dr. Hunt as he leads us on this GCR train.  I can hear the call coming from the leadership as we come to Louisville: “All aboard.”  I wonder if some version of the following song will be played to encourage everyone to get on board?

First, the argument that one cannot find in Scripture a prohibition against the consumption of alcohol. This seems to be the strongest argument around. However, turn the tables to another argument from silence, on that says; Scripture does not encourage alcohol consumption in moderation and listen to the comments. Both arguments are arguments from silence because Scripture neither encourages, nor prohibits alcohol consumption. However, if one were to peruse the scripture one will find text prohibiting any alcohol consumption concerning ‘strong drink’. What exactly is ‘strong drink’? I do not desire to get into the debate of when one is drunk or when one is not. The amount of alcohol that one drinks varies when it comes to being past moderation and being considered drunk. Also, can one experience a slight ‘buzz’ and still be considered drinking responsibly, thus being within the limits of moderation. Of course one could argue that drinking one beer or one glass of wine at a meal is what it means to drink in moderation.

The second argument that inevitably comes to the forefront is the culture. It seems that in the culture we live there are many who now drink in moderation and find it offensive for others to insist on abstinence. It seems that some churches are having Bible studies in bars in order to attract those that frequent the bars, or to make the church appeal to the culture it is striving to impact. This argument is a good one and it seems that many, as I, have a hard time agreeing with its conclusions. While I will be the first to say we must impact our culture, I see this as more of a compromise for the culture than I do as a confrontation of the culture. Let’s say that I was going to hold a Bible study for men and really wanted to draw a bunch of men for this bible study. Let’s say that I decided the best way to attract men was to meet at a local Gentleman’s club. What would be some of the pitfalls for such a promotion? Would we be engaging and confronting culture or would it be more of an enticing and compromising within culture? This leads me to my point.

In a recent blog post entitled Alcohol Unplugged Revisited, Dr. Nathan Finn openly suggested that the young leaders he was teaching would end up doing away with the position of alcohol abstinence. He suggests that those who take an abstinence-only view on alcohol are not relying on the sufficiency of Scripture. He then states: “This is where Scripture ought to be sufficient to guide our private choices. This is the aspect of this debate that troubles so many younger future leaders. Which is why they will change it one day…” Dr. Finn seems to base his argument on the thesis; “the main point of the post was to argue against mandating a total abstinence position”. However he goes on to say; “It is not legalistic to abstain, just like it is not hedonistic to imbibe in moderation.”

I wonder, first of all, if Dr. Finn would agree with Dr. John Piper on salvation being one of Christian Hedonism? Dr. Piper defines Christian Hedonism as; God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. If Dr. Finn defines hedonism in the same vein Dr. Piper defines Christian Hedonism, then I do take issue with such a definition. Hedonism is sinful period. You cannot place adjectives around hedonism and define it differently. It is like saying adultery is alright as long as it is a loving committed relationship until the relationship is discovered. I do not desire for this to spiral into a discussion of hedonism so I will presume that Dr. Finn, in his use of the term, does not agree with Dr. Piper’s position.

I do agree with Dr. Finn when he says “It is not legalistic to abstain.” For one to see scriptural content that would lead one to believe that abstinence is the preferred rendering of the biblical text is not legalism. However, I would like to expand this statement to say; neither is it legalistic for the SBC to require of her employees a commitment to abstinence. The reason is the same reason one can say it is not legalistic to abstain. While there is no place in Scripture found to advocate a position of abstinence, neither can one find a scriptural injunction that directs one to consume beverage alcohol in moderation. If one were to concede to an argument of moderation, when would one be able to tell they have passed the mark of moderation into drunkenness? Also, if it really does not matter for them in terms of drinking the one drink; why not drink cola, water, sparkling water, grape juice or milk? One may respond that consuming an alcoholic beverage is a freedom they desire to exercise. However, I submit that abstaining from the moderate use of beverage alcohol is an exercise of freedom in the same way that Paul admonished the believers in Corinth to abstain from eating meats. It is all about the weaker brother.

With this in mind, I would like to advance Dr. Finn’s position: It is not legalistic to abstain. Neither is it legalistic for a corporate body to implement employment standards of abstinence. In the SBC, these standards are implemented based on the biblical beliefs of the majority in the body. This majority is not being legalistic when they clearly advocate their personal biblically based belief. To reference such a belief on a personal level, as Dr. Finn has already conceded, is not legalism. Thus, to advocate this personal belief together with a majority of others that believe the Bible teaches the same thing is not legalism. If as Dr. Finn suggests, younger leaders come along and change this belief they would not be implementing a hedonistic attitude on the convention. Unless, he agrees with Dr. Piper, then I would have to revisit my argument. :)

Where does this take us? Dr. Finn mentioned these younger leaders are members of his classes that he teaches at SEBTS. It does seem that Dr. Finn would serve the convention well as a professor being paid by CP funds to encourage younger leaders to stay within the SBC and not just seemingly throw up his hands in surrender because of an issue that is heatedly debated, and one where he is not in the majority. I lived through a time when professors, whose beliefs were in the minority, were questioning everything the leaders of the convention enacted. I remember the contentious feelings aroused in some of my fellow classmates when professors openly disagreed with the direction of the convention. I remember the threats issued by professors of leaving the convention if things did not change. I remember beginning my studies and seeing many friends that began with me leaving to go outside of the convention, following their favorite professors. I certainly believe that Dr. Finn would do well to learn from the history he teaches concerning the Conservative Resurgence and how it was made more difficult because professors openly in class stood in opposition to the decisions of the Baptist in the pew. While he has not threatened to leave the convention, he certainly has placed himself in a precarious position. His students are questioning things to the point that Dr. Finn believes they are about to leave. Dr. Finn is on the front lines concerning the young leaders. Why would he not engage these young leaders to remain and follow the decisions of the Baptist in the pew, instead of issuing statements that sometimes come across as threats concerning the future of the convention?

Jesus says, do not defend yourself, don’t fight, do not appeal to the law, do not a man recompense to which you are entitled… go beyond what is demanded, stop thinking in terms of repayment and resistance… In the church, we are failing at this greatly in the blogsphere. What we have done in the blogsphere in the name of integrity or in the name of truth or in the name of this is for the good for the entire convention, yea right, this is for your personal good so that you feel good, in the name of all that. We have gone on to cyberspace and said, here is how we are going to deal with what we see to be evil, we are going to go out there and say all manner of things about the people that we don’t like and we are going to take positions in opposition to the things we don’t believe in, but who in the world told you that you need to be the one to set the record straight? What Jesus says is do not resist evil.

I would suggest listening to the whole sermon before commenting. It is 30 minutes in time, but well worth listening to in its entirety.

The year was 2004, and I quivered in my seat at the dark cherry table. Approximately ten feet away sat one of the best minds in the Southern Baptist Convention. The occasion for my anxiety was a PhD oral examination. In that setting I recognized that Dr. Russ Bush, professor of philosophy and academic vice president, had forgotten more than I would ever learn.

With his eyes peering over the black framed glasses that added to his professorial image, he said, “Mr. White, please tell me whether or not Superman could be saved.”

The bewildered look on my face communicated accurately the puzzled thoughts of my mind. Of all the questions for which I prepared and all the questions which he could have asked, why this one? With his characteristic philosophical brilliance, Bush led me down the trail. “If Superman could be saved would Christ be his Savior or is there another…” Like a flash of light, his real question hit me. He wanted to know if I believed in the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as Savior. When I identified the real question and responded with my view, he said, “Well done.” I still remember the joy of receiving those words from this man. His next concerned Xena the Warrior Princess, but that story is for another day.

Thousands of stories like this exist demonstrating that in addition to intellectual brilliance Russ Bush was a man committed to godly essentials. One prominent example is his contribution of Baptist and the Bible. A man committed to inerrancy and the exclusivity of Christ, Russ Bush epitomized conservative Christianity at its finest.

As evidenced below, Bush was continuously full of surprises.

This astute academician could communicate as no other philosopher I have seen when in the presence of a baby. He shifted from discussing epistemology with PhD students to grabbing baby shoes and drawing infant laughter with equal success. He loved children, and they loved him.

Most will remember him for his great writing, his denominational service, his leadership in the evangelical and philosophical community, and his academic prowess. While he earned all of these accolades, I will remember Russ Bush as a godly man and my mentor.

I will never forget the classes held in his home hosted by his lovely wife Cindy. I will never forget the president of the Evangelical Theological Society taking time to talk with me, a student, in the halls of an ETS meeting. I will never forget the hospitality of my family spending the day in the comfort of his heated home while my power was out. I will never forget his insistence on holding my daughter immediately after he received the Distinguished Alumni Award from Southwestern Seminary.

On January 22, 2008, our sorrow was Bush’s gain as a brilliant man of godly humility went home to be with his heavenly Father. Southern Baptists lost a great theological educator, and I lost a mentor and a friend. I am confident that Russ Bush did not quiver when he heard the Lord say, “Welcome home my good and faithful servant—well done!”

__________________________________

Dr. Thomas White, Vice-President for Student Services at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, earned Doctor of Philosophy and Master of Divinity degrees from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., studying under Dean Bush.

UPDATE*** Every comment will be emailed to Dr. Bush’s widow, Cindy Bush for her perusal as she grieves his death. As Thomas and Matt have done tell us some of the stories that you remember where God used him in your life.***

Monday, Wes Kenney and I had the opportunity to sit down with President Danny Akin of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. After the interview, Dr. Akin told us about his website, dannyakin.com, which is packed full of free resources, from sermon audio to complete publications. It is an outstanding source for pastors and anyone else interested in studying the Bible with the help of one of the leading theologians of our day.

During the interview, we talked about a variety of topics, from confessions of faith to expository preaching to the emerging church. Recently Dr. Akin led Southeastern in sponsoring a conference that focused on the emerging church. One of the main speakers was Mark Driscoll from Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Dr. Akin had the opportunity to talk about why he helped in sponsoring the conference and he gave some of his thoughts on Mark Driscoll and the ministry Driscoll has in Seattle.

Thanks to Micah Fries (pronounced “freeze”) for his blog that led me to a great site, sponsored by Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church in Seattle, for helping pastors, laypeople, and students with their New Testament Greek. Re: Greek is a site that will be a major help in studying your Greek Bible, especially for all you seminary students who don’t have major bucks to drop on a Greek parsing program. That’s because Re:Greek gives you the parsing. Of course, to keep us out of hot water with our former Greek professors, we add the disclaimer that all New Testament Greek students should strive to memorize and apply all those parsing charts and use programs like this only as a back up. I would like to thank those who put this program together.

The audio from the interview is available below. Enjoy the Greek tool, Dr. Akin’s resources, and the interview.

Dr. Richards spoke clearly about this distinctive. He attributed the waning of this distinctive to “evangelical ecumenism.” Dr. Richards clearly defined a New Testament church by pointing out four marks:

1. Preach Grace alone by Faith alone through Christ alone. This type of preaching will incorporate the Security of the Believer.
2. The Church is comprised of Baptized Believers.
3. The Bible is the final rule of Faith and Practice.
4. She is autonomous in her Theo-democracy.

Click below to listen to his message. Get your Bible and follow a true statesman as he proclaims the Truth.