Johnny Hunt is the pastor of First Baptist Church in Woodstock, Georgia. Baptist Press reports that “during his first year as pastor, the church baptized 318 people and had 268 additions by statement and letter. Since he arrived, the church has seen average Sunday school attendance grow from 275 to 4,705, according to the 2007 Annual Church Profile.”

We pray that this interview helps everyone get to know more of the heart of this great man of God.

Within the week we also hope to bring you an interview with another candidate, Dr. Avery Willis.  Continue to prayerfully consider whom God would lead you to support to be the next leader of our convention. See you in Indy in June!

Brother C.B. has posted his thoughts on Dr. Patterson’s latest article over at Baptist Press. We encourage you to read both the article and Brother C.B.’s thoughts entitled Patterson Speaking Wisely. You can find the article and C.B’s thoughts at the link provided. We must say that we agree with our Brother’s assessment of the article. They are spot on, or as C.B. says, a ten ring at 1000 yards.

I am not a blue blood in the SBC. I was raised in the Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ [Christian Church]. As a child I was immersed in order to receive salvation. A series of events led me to visit a local Baptist church, which I had been warned against my whole life. Some time later, I approached the pastor about becoming a member, which to my surprise, he denied my membership unless I would submit to, what he termed, true baptism.

This sent me on a scriptural search seeking clarification on the true purpose of baptism. It soon became evident that the baptism I had received was not a New Testament baptism because it was taught that it was the vehicle of grace. The baptism that Christ commanded was not a baptism resulting in salvation, but a baptism that followed salvation. I concluded that though my salvation was a proper salvation, my baptism was an improper baptism. I had one of two choices; I could justify my “immersion” as being ‘close-enough’ or I could fully surrender to the Lordship of Christ and receive a proper baptism. For me, a proper baptism was not a matter of “doing my duty,” it was a matter of surrendering my will to my Lord. To fail to submit myself to a proper baptism was not only a failure to submit to the church I was attending, but a failure to submit to Christ whom I had confessed as Lord.

Proper baptism ultimately was not a matter of submitting to the authorities, but it was a matter of submitting to the One who claimed to have been given all authority (Matthew 28:18). He not only commanded the ‘how’ of baptism, but also the ‘why’. To fail to realize this was to fail to properly acknowledge Christ as Lord. Of course, being distinctively Baptist is not simply a matter of baptism, but it is the submission of all my personal agendas to the confession that Christ is Lord. All doctrinal distinctives are necessarily a matter of Lordship. I obey because He is Lord and I am not.

I, to this day, am immensely grateful for a pastor who had the courage to be willing to deny the opportunity to “add another one to the roll” because of his conviction concerning New Testament baptism. In my search for an understanding of biblical baptism, I learned that the ordinance is not just about doing my duty; rather it has implications that are inseparable from other cherished doctrines. I was delighted to see that indeed salvation is entirely a work of Christ alone and is not dependent upon any work that I might accomplish. If salvation then is truly by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, then so must be the security of my salvation. In short, since the ordinances are inseparably married to other doctrines of Christ, for me to believe a falsehood about the ordinance led to a wrong belief about to Whom the ordinance testified.

Today, there are many who assert that if a given doctrine speaks to anything beyond salvation, then it is not necessary and may even be detrimental to speak about a particular doctrine outside of one’s own local church context. Many would say that my initial baptism was legitimate (even though it was taught to be a regenerative act) just because it was by immersion. To justify an improper baptism is to offer a theological statement declaring the ordinance to be unimportant.

This idea would be espoused by many who would welcome a more ecumenism into the SBC. Today we face the move of a new ecumenism that threatens to dispose of the distinctives that many of our Baptist forefathers gave their lives for. This leaves the person who is wrestling with the decision of whether to join the ecumenical movement or to remain distinctively Baptist in quite a quandary. To fail to join the ecumenical movement is to invite ecumenists to paint the distinctive Baptist as divisive, intolerant, and unloving. These accusations garner quite an emotional appeal. On the other hand, to join the ecumenical movement is to say to many of our Baptist forefathers that the persecution they suffered was, on their part, ignorant at best and evil at worst.

The danger the ecumenical movement offers is that which they so readily accuse the convictional Baptist of perpetrating. Allow me to illustrate. Every summer, our town has a 4th of July celebration, complete with hotdogs, Cokes, fireworks, and probably apple pie. This little party is sponsored every year by the local ministerial alliance. It is one of the two most opportune times to share the gospel as the town gathers in one localized place. I faithfully loaded up a trunk full of gospel tracts and took my church members who were willing to the celebration, having one purpose in mind; to share Christ with the lost.

Within one hour of our walking around handing out tracts and asking people if they knew Jesus, I was approached and was threatened to be arrested for sharing the gospel on private property. The one who threatened me was not an atheist, but a fellow pastor. The property I was trespassing on was not the Wal-Mart parking lot (where I have often shared Christ without threat) but a church parking lot.

Within a few minutes I stood before representatives of the local ministerial alliance who continued to threaten me with legal action. The council was made up of pastors from various denominations, all of which I had come to know. The following day, I sent an appeal to the president of the ministerial alliance, himself a Southern Baptist, and asked why I was not allowed to share the gospel at such a wonderful and opportune time. I was given three reasons.

First, my tract had not been approved by the ministerial alliance. They had the legal right, but if unity is their true desire, then why was not my orthodox message acceptable? So much for autonomy in the ecumenical alliance.

Second, my forward approach was too divisive. The covenant of the alliance is that they would set out tracts on a table and allow people to pick them up and ask questions, but they were not to “put people on the spot.” This seems to be an extra-biblical theology because, though the apostles did not seek to be offensive, neither did they fear being labeled as such. For the church to compromise presentation for the sake of societal toleration is a practice that cannot be shown in Scripture.

And third, I had not submitted myself to the authority of the ministerial alliance. The ecumenical had narrowed the parameters of those who could share Christ. I was one of the ones excluded because I failed to submit myself to their authority. That assumed authority seems to be quite close to a top down ecclesiology. The ecumenical had waged war on those who are identified with doctrinal distinctives and evangelism was the first casualty.

So, just what was my approach at this celebration of freedom? I would walk up to an individual, ask them if they would like a free pamphlet, and then ask them if anyone had ever shared Christ with them. The material did not list the name of my church nor did it use the word ‘Baptist.’ It was simply a tract that explained the Gospel in terms of repenting of sins and placing faith in the crucified and resurrected Christ. The fear of the ecumenist is that distinctiveness will keep someone from responding to the Gospel. This fear is so real that it leads to a greater error; no one responds to the ecumenical gospel because when all of the compromises have been made, there is nothing left to respond to.

Recent news has been released that the Southern Baptists have had a membership drop for the first time in years. The question we must now ask ourselves is, “why is this occurring?” Some say that it is due to the fact that the Convention has been too bold and divisive in some of our statements. Others have said it is because we are not making the Gospel relevant. May I offer another suggestion? The ecumenical movement has led us to attempt to remove so many of the barriers that keep lost people from coming to Christ that we have removed the Stumbling Block and the Rock of Offense. Now we invite the world to come without realizing that an offenseless message and a powerless cross leaves nothing for them to come to. Is it possible that our baptistries are dry and our pulpits are cold precisely because we have developed a fear of being distinctive?

Many are seeking to erase the doctrines of Baptist distinctives. There is an attempt to weaken New Testament baptism, the Scriptures face constant assault, proclamation is being trumped by therapy, and unity is being defined as the ability to “get along” instead of realizing that it is a development of the divine movement of the sweet Spirit of Christ. I embrace the Baptist Identity movement, not because it is Baptist, but because it acknowledges Christ is Lord and I am not. My call is to walk intimately with my Savior, search out the things He has revealed, communicate those to the lost world, love my neighbor as myself, be driven to my knees in repentance often, edify His church, obey His word, and do it all because it will bring glory to my Savior. In sum, He has spoken, I must obey. Just as He as reassured Elijah that he was not alone, so has He assured me.

The goal for the local church is not JUST to bring people into Christ, but to bring them in Christlikeness. That is, salvation is not the end of a hard road, but the beginning of a wonderful journey where the Spirit of God makes us into the image of Christ by using the proclamation of His word in the fellowship of His saints. We cut the work short when we seek to make a person a Christian without making them a disciple.

I will summarize by offering a few inseparable thoughts that concern me about a possible development of ecumenism within the SBC.

1. Ecumenism tends to run the risk of having religious activity apart from a theological basis. For example, all that matters is THAT a person was baptized. The WHY becomes quite superficial.
2. Ecumenism tends toward developing a soteriology without developing an ecclesiology. Here we see again the separation of evangelism from discipleship.
3. Ecumenism tends to desire unity apart from fidelity.

The warning against ecumenism is not so much one of soteriological concerns, but of ecclesiological concerns. I would affirm that there are saints of God in differing denominations. However, I would not affirm that every church that contains saints is a church that is discipling their saints into health. We should be concerned if our theology lends itself to having Christians who do not develop into maturity.

The commission of Christ is to witness the Gospel to the lost. However, the journey does not end with salvation, but it begins with a salvation that introduces one into discipleship. A continued deemphasizing of doctrine will ultimately destroy discipleship. When the discipling process is destroyed, evangelistic activity will not be far behind.
Perhaps I could adopt the words of Richard Fuller. “Once, for all, let me say that I am a Baptist on principle, and not in sectarianism nor bigotry. I love all who love Jesus; but I do not love error, and cannot treat religious error, as if it were unimportant.”

In the third post I will seek to demonstrate what I believe the so-called Baptist Identity should seek to accomplish.

SBC Today would like to thank John Mann, pastor of LaJunta Baptist Church in Springtown, Texas, for contributing this series of posts on the subject of Baptist identity.

This post begins a series of three posts by guest contributor John Mann. John has been the pastor of LaJunta Baptist Church in Springtown, Texas since November 2000. He is currently completing his MDiv with a concentration in Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has been active in the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, which he served on the resolutions committee in 2007. He has a great passion for theological and expositional preaching. John was raised in a different denomination, but a deep study of Scripture convinced him that Baptists were more accurate in their understanding of the Bible, which has led John to join a Southern Baptist church by baptism as a young adult. His journey to the SBC has created a desire to better articulate an accurate understanding of differences within various denominations.

“The distinctive principles of the Baptists are those doctrines or practices which distinguish us from other Christian denominations. It is held by some that no doctrine or practice should be classified as distinctive which has at any time been shared, in whole or in part, by any other denominations. But this limited sense of the word distinctive is too narrow for ordinary speech or common sense. For example: The Greek church and the Baptists both practice immersion, but their doctrine of baptism is widely different from ours. Authority, subject, and design all enter as much into the validity of this ordinance as the act itself. More than mere immersion is necessary to constitute New Testament baptism.” BH Carrol, Distinctive Baptist Principles.

“Preacher, don’t tell me all of that doctrinal stuff. Just teach me to love Jesus.” On the surface, this seems to be a reasonable statement that one could build his ministry on. After all, who would not “amen” the statement that true Christianity is simply loving Christ. The Ephesians were rebuked because they had “lost their first love,” in Revelation 2. The first Epistle of John instructs its hearers that true obedience is bound up in love for God and love for the brethren.

However, for one to divorce the discipline of proper cognitive knowledge about God from the passionate pursuit of loving God demands the redefining of love in such a manner that love is no longer defined by Scripture, but rather it becomes defined by the cultural moorings of an emotional feeling that is separated from factual knowledge regarding the subject loved. Simply, the depth of one’s love for God is at least partially related to his understanding of God. To fail to recognize this truth will ultimately have tragic effects upon missional and evangelistic efforts, corporate worship, and future opportunities for Southern Baptists to engage a rapidly developing world.

There are those who want to make everything that is not a matter of salvation into a tertiary doctrine. To do this is to fail to recognize that there are doctrines that are not necessarily matters of salvation, yet still have destructive ecclesiological results. For example, if the movements of ecumenism were to come to fruition, consistency would demand joint worship services because the only reason for choosing a denomination or a local church would be personal privilege over and against theological conviction. Given that in these joint worship services there would be a plethora of distinctives recognized, decision counseling would take on a whole new context; if a new believer committed to follow through with baptism, who then would be the one to baptize them? Would we have to ask them if they desire a Methodist, Presbyterian, or Baptist baptism? Would they expect the church to accept their infant baptism?

What about times of corporate prayer? Would we invite everyone who advocates speaking in tongues to stand in the northeast corner, and those who pray understandably to stand in the southwest corner? What about the celebration of the Lord’s Supper? Would it be a sacrament or an ordinance? “Symbolical observers on the right, sacramentalists to the left.”

Granted, there are none to my knowledge within the SBC who are advocating the erasure of distinct local congregations. But honesty demands that those who are advocating moving away from doctrinal distinctives for the SBC stand up and say that it is naïve at best and foolish at worst to propose that all doctrinal distinctives will be erased in this fallen world. The very fact that they hold a membership in a local church evidences their recognition, either consciously or unconsciously, that doctrine is important.

At its heart, ecumenism exists because the world’s expectations of the church have become priority over biblical revelation to the church. We currently live in a day and age of an eroding recognition of absolute truth. Given the volatility of the current cultural climate, the Bride of Christ must be quite aware of the impending danger of prostituting herself to the world. If we continue to drift into the waters of the ecumenical movement, we will find ourselves swept away by the forceful currents of theological pragmatism that champions worldly acceptance to the exclusion of biblical fidelity.

The danger of this is that by allowing the ever-shifting winds of cultural popularity to direct the vessel, we will find ourselves without a doctrinal rudder to direct our course and a biblical compass to point our direction. In part 2 I will share a personal testimony about the danger that the ecumenical movement poses to the spread of the Gospel. Let us press on to greater evangelistic activity while still recognizing the One who has commissioned has instructed us to “teach ALL THINGS that He has commanded.”

I, Tim Rogers, would like to begin this post by saying that if my words and disagreements with others had anything to do with contributing in the attacks toward Dr. Yarnell, I am sorry. I also would like to acknowledge my sorrow concerning my statements describing Dr. Tom Ascoll as uncooperative. Where I wrote that Dr. Ascoll was asked to affirm the SBTC resolution, he affirmed my words, but his decision not to affirm the resolution does not mean he is being uncooperative.

Dr. Malcolm Yarnell has called us back to the true heart of the resolution. I will say that we must remember that the SBC has a process in place once the resolutions are released. That process is known as the Resolution Committee. They can view the resolutions and make one of three decisions. 1.) They can choose between the two resolutions and send one to the floor. 2.) They can take both resolutions and combine them and then send them to the floor. 3.) They can refuse to allow any resolution out of committee concerning this subject. I, and I think Dr. Yarnell would affirm, agree that if either resolution or a combination of these resolutions come out of committee it will probably receive my vote.

Dr. Yarnell, your words before us today certainly brings us back to the heart of the matter.

My heart is broken for us and our people. Even our leaders cannot come together and promote a revival without cross-accusations, etc. We need not say more about it, need we? Call me a mystic, but I see no way for us as Southern Baptists but broken prayer. After reading various comments from Southern Baptist friends of all persuasions at SBC Today, it became apparent that we have reached a crisis.

We live in a world corrupted by evil and filled with evil people, including ourselves. It is by grace that those of us who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord have been born again. And, it is by grace that we can even try to live sanctified lives. And, it is by grace that our salvation will be brought to a successful conclusion by God.

The issue before us, ultimately, is not whether Tom’s resolution is superior or whether the SBTC resolution is superior, nor is it about how the events transpired in both resolutions coming to be. The issue, ultimately, is about whether our churches will truly resolve together to recover Regenerate Church Membership. This is our hope and is the reason that ties Bart and I so closely together, and what makes our hearts believe in what Tom is doing. Our hope is that all Baptists will keep our eyes on Christ’s will for us and our churches, as our forefathers did, when they were at their best.

My friends, we are all sinners and subject to divine wrath, an eternity in hell - that is the bad news. The Father, however, sent his only begotten Son to atone for our sins on a cross, and he offers salvation to us freely through faith - now that is good news. What all of us are arguing is that the Gospel is free, but that it has implications for our lives.

Those who have been born again (i.e. regenerated) must live as born again people. This includes both our individual lives as Christians and our corporate lives as churches. What we all detect is that we have perhaps been striving to do so as individuals, but we have not been so successful as churches. This is where the rubber hits the road. The resolution is intended to serve as a summons for us to change our ways and seek to implement the Gospel in our corporate lives just as we seek to implement it in our personal lives.

I pray that this will not get lost in all of the supposition about who said what when and where, and what were their motivations. I cannot speak to the motivations of others, and, like Paul, I cannot even judge myself adequately in this regard. What I do know is that my heart has a burning passion to glorify my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and the churches that led me to him are not always evidencing that passion. This breaks my heart. This makes me weep. This is why we want our convention to pass a resolution on Regenerate Church Membership, and then begin living it out.

Although I love being a Baptist, it is not really about being a Baptist. Although I am a non-Calvinist by conviction, it is not really about being a non-Calvinist. What it is about is Jesus. He is my Savior and has forgiven this worm for all of his sin. And He is my Lord and calls me to a full life in him.

When I look around, I see imperfect people who have been saved by grace through faith. I see people whom I respect highly because God works so magnificently through them upon me as they mine and speak God’s Word. And I see people whom I have difficulty with because it is obvious that they are resisting and not implementing what God has for us. What is really disconcerting is that the people I respect and the people with whom I have difficulty are the exact same people, and that includes me.

I pray that we will remember that God is perfect, and we are trying to be, and not think that any of us are any better than anybody else. I pray that we will repent of our sinfulness as individuals and as churches and come back to where God wants us to be. There are no perfect Christians this side of glory, and there are no perfect churches this side of glory, but we have to try to do better.

We have to be better Christians. We have to be better witnesses about Christ. We have to be better teachers about Christ. We have to be better at forgiving one another. We have to be better, and none of us are there, yet, and none of us can accuse another for his or her failures. We must simply glorify Christ in all we say and do, and we haven’t been doing very well at it, have we?

Where are the Christians today that God will use to bring a mighty revival in our world? Where are the Chrysostoms? Where are the Luthers? Where are the Calvins? Where are the Cranmers? Where are the Smyths? Where are the Helwyses? Where are the Kiffins? Where are the Granthams? Where are the Gills? Where are the Fullers? Where are the Spurgeons? Where are the Edwardses? Where are the Mullinses? Where are the great saints for today? They could be us.

Rogers could be our Chrysostom. Patterson could be our Luther. Mohler could be our Calvin. Dockery could be our Cranmer. Kenney could be our Smyth. Barber could be our Helwys. Welty could be our Kiffin. Lemke could be our Grantham. George could be our Gill. Page could be our Fuller. Vines could be our Spurgeon. Moore could be our Edwards. Rainer could be our Mullins. Me, I just want to sit at the feet of these men, be inspired by them to witness, and be a better witness to the only one who can save this world from its repetitive disasters of nature and justice. Could we be these people? Could we be better witnesses to the Gospel, not just in our words, but in our lives, individually and corporately?

This is my passion. This is my soul’s desire. I want to say, “Thank you, Jesus, for everything you have given, are giving, and will give me. I am so sorry for not being a better witness. I am so sorry for not being a better churchman. I am so sorry for not glorifying you as I should. Please forgive me for my failures, and help me to be better express your grace. I am not very smart, Jesus, but I trust you will help me be a better theologian, in spite of me. I am not very bright with people, Lord, but I hope you will help me be a better minister to people, in spite of me.”

My friends, that is my heart, and I have no other purpose. There are no hidden agendas here. There are no covert emails. I am a broken man looking at a broken people, and I know Jesus Christ is our only hope to be better. His grace saved me and his grace will make me a better man. His grace saved the people in our churches and only his grace will help our churches to be better churches.

“Oh, Jesus, would you bring your churches a revival? Oh, Spirit, would you bring the lost regeneration? Oh, Father, would you grant your people the grace to live as you command? As Augustine said, Lord, ‘Command what you will but grant what you command.’”

In Christ,
Malcolm

We thank God for men of heart and conviction like Dr. Yarnell.

Some suggest that this decline has the potential to be a good sign, if it could be determined that it is the result of churches working toward the ideal of a regenerate membership. Others, predictably, would have us believe that the sky is falling and the apocalypse is at hand, and that the blame lies with those who would resist the sacrifice of our distinctives in order to be accepted by the burgeoning ecumenical mindset pervading much of the wider evangelical world.

But in reality, it is too early to tell precisely what these numbers mean. Dr. Ed Stetzer has provided some analysis on his blog. There are some rather broad assumptions contained within Dr. Stetzer’s post, and in the comment section of that blog post, Dr. Malcolm Yarnell has offered some challenges to those assumptions that will be helpful for us to consider as we seek to place this news in its proper context. To that end, I encourage everyone to read Dr. Stetzer’s post, as well as Dr. Yarnell’s comment, which is reproduced below:

Dearest Ed,

Thanks for this post. As always, you do provoke thought. However, there are so many assumptions that have gone into your statements, that it is impossible to evaluate them with any depth. Perhaps you would be willing to spell out your thoughts more with detail. For instance, consider these five issues raised in your post:

1. Why should we assume that the Conservative Resurgence has not led to a Great Commission Resurgence in the hearts of conservative Southern Baptists? Perhaps there is a passion for the Great Commission that is already existing in our churches. Perhaps the churches are busy proclaiming God’s Word, but the Spirit in His sovereignty has not yet seen fit to bless us with the numbers we desire to see. Perhaps our focus should be less upon meeting statistical goals and more upon simply being faithful with what responsibilities we have been granted.
2. Exactly who are these “young leaders” that we are losing? Are they the leaders that God has brought to the fore amongst our churches? If so, have their churches left the SBC? Moreover, may not the elevation of these “young leaders” actually be the very source of the “young vs. old” division that is decried? Moreover, in promoting young leaders, do we not take the risk of downplaying the elders who the churches have chosen to lead them?
3. Exactly who among our churches has lost their focus upon the gospel? Is the implication that somehow our churches have forsaken the gospel? How do we verify this rather sharp claim, which, if true, indicates that our churches are no longer, in essence, churches? Needless to say, this is perhaps the most troubling issue raised, for without the gospel, we have no hope of salvation.
4. When did we ever decide that our theology was “in order”? Can any of us really claim to have reached perfection in the development of doctrine, apart from standing complete in our salvation before the heavenly throne? Should we not always be about promoting the truth and defending the faith? Is the theological task ever truly finished this side of the Second Coming?
5. Exactly what “parameters” have been narrowed in the SBC? Have we not, at our best, been about preserving the faith once for all delivered to the saints? Who, among us, are busy about narrowing parameters of cooperation? Could it be that the parameters have stayed the same but those parameters are no longer appreciated by everyone?

Thanks, my old friend, for raising these important issues. I look forward to our clarifying theology and practice together as Southern Baptists who believe that this is a truly great convention of churches. Let us be the best disciples we can be to the Lord who died on a cross and rose from the dead for us by going, making disciples, baptizing, and teaching all things that Christ has commanded us, even when those things are resisted, even when those very things bring us to frank yet friendly conversations.

In Christ,
Malcolm

“The trustees received a report from the president where he provided his annual disclosure of his compensation information and entertained questions related to it and the same information for the rest of the seminary’s senior administration.

Chairman Van McClain stated that “since Southern Baptists expect that their entities supported by the Cooperative Program will be governed with integrity and accountability, I am glad the salary of the president of Southwestern has been fully and willingly disclosed to all of the trustees of the seminary, even though Dr. Patterson has refused an increase in compensation since his arrival in 2003.”

I spoke by telephone with Keith Collier, and he had no explanation for the omission. He told me that the release as it now appears on the SWBTS website has not been edited since it was posted on April 11, so it is clear that BP was deliberate in removing the paragraphs quoted above. I contacted BP by email to ask about the omission, but have received no response.

News organizations certainly are within their rights to edit anything they publish for style, length, and content. It is curious to me that they have chosen to omit this information concerning the president of the seminary, who has been relentlessly attacked for enriching himself with Cooperative Program dollars but has refused to accept even a single cost-of-living pay increase in the five years he has served at SWBTS.