At this year's 2009 Southern Baptist Convention in Louisville, Kentucky, there will be a motion presented that will call upon all Southern Baptist employees to sign The 2009 Great Commission Resurgence Document. Once the motion is approved by the majority of Southern Baptist Convention messengers, the 2009 GCRD will be used as a tool of evangelical accountability for all Southern Baptist employees. Those Southern Baptist agency, missionary, and seminary employees who refuse to sign the 2009 GCRD will be terminated immediately and with cause from their Southern Baptist jobs.The reasons for the need for this motion include the following:
(1). There are a number of non-evangelicals within the Southern Baptist Convention, and their refusal to sign the 2009 GCRD will identify them.
(2). The 2009 GCRD contains only statements regarding evangelical essentials with which no true evangelical Southern Baptist could disagree.
(3). The 2009 GCRD is a bare minimum statement of evangelicalism, and though Southern Baptist agencies may add additional evangelical requirements for employment, there can be no caveats by SBC employees or prospective missionaries to the 2009 GCD when they affix their signatures to it.
(4). Southern Baptists have every right to determine who it is will be paid by Cooperative Program dollars, and if the majority of messengers demand signatures to the 2009 GCD, then ALL Southern Baptist Convention employees must sign, resign or be terminated.
(5). Using the 2009 GCRD as a tool of evangelical accountability will ensure the reversal of the numerical decline within our Convention, and will increase both baptisms and new church plants.
(6). Those unwilling to sign the 2009 GCRD are free to remain in the Southern Baptist Convention, but they should not be allowed any leadership positions.
(7). For those who complain that Southern Baptists "have no creed but the Bible," we gently remind them that only "liberals" would ever refuse to sign a document passed by a majority of Southern Baptists as a tool of evangelical accountability.
We are six weeks away from the Southern Baptist Convention. Those who refuse to work to bring about passage of this motion to make the 2009 Great Commission Resurgence Document a tool of evangelical accountability for the SBC should issue a personal apology to these people.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Sarcasm Alert: The foregoing has been written for my Baptist Identity friends.
147 comments:
Sarcasm Alert: The foregoing has been written for my Baptist Identity friends.
Till I read that last line, for a moment, I remembered President Ronald Reagan addressing Sam Donaldson, that he did not have a lobotomy. I was wondering if Pastor Wade had one.
Good one Thy Peace.
:)
Hopefully the sane will see the insanity.
Well I wonder if Dr. Patterson will sign or lose his job... using your line of thinking...
So far, he has not signed and I don't see any desire for him to do so.
;-)
Wade,
As one of those "these people"--not the 13 who were fired but among the 34 who resigned in 2002 to protest the action--I very much appreciate the humor of your post. At the same time, I doubt that the BI folks will see and appreciate the sarcasm. I suggest you prepare for the scathing criticism that will undoubtedly begin appearing here shortly.
First, show yourself cowardly anonymous commenter.
Second, this would truly be funny were it not so sad that it has already taken place in the SBC multiple times by the resident SBC pharisees that seek to control and condemn if we don't line up.
Wade,
I saw that you signed the GCR document; I have as well. However, I was wondering what you thought of Commitment #5 in the GCR document which reads... "A Commitment to a Healthy Confessional Center. We call upon all Southern Baptists to look to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as a sufficient guide for building a theological consensus for partnership in the gospel, refusing to be sidetracked by theological agendas that distract us from our Lord’s Commission."
I noticed it doesn't say anything about "caveats". I am in full agreement with Dr. Akin when he says... "Our agreement on The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is an asset, not a weakness. It is a plus and not a minus." Are you in agreement?
The document also reads... "We must be especially mindful to resist contemporary threats to our historic, biblical Baptist identity." I like that carefully chosen wording, don't you?
I guess my question is... are you sure you want this document used as a "tool of accountability".
Sarcasm Alert: The foregoing has been written from one of Wade's Baptist Identity friends.
And since when did the Southern Baptist Convention become a meeting of significance?
Joe White:
Are you ok with the 2000 BF&M being a creed and that those not willing to sign off on it should not be allowed any type of leadership position, be a missionary etc?
The SBC convention only has a hand full of people who attend any more and they all pretty much vote the same way.
The SBC is declining and IMO part of it stems from the 2000 BF&M. We had never had a creed that people had to sign off on but we do now.
Sarcasm alert--but it is stopping those thousands and thousands of Southern Baptist women preachers that would have sprung up to pastor our SBC churches and that was the main goal of the 2000 BF&M.
"And since when did the Southern Baptist Convention become a meeting of significance?"
Well. That says it.
Thirty some years ago, the 'takeover' made it a joke;
then a nightmare for many Christians.
Since, it has fielded such leaders as PP, Brunson, Mohler, ad nauseum.
It finagled to enforce the bfm2k as a creed, and to 'punish' those who would not sign as a matter of their consciences.
It has led to the firings and expulsion of many fine Christians and the voluntary leaving of many more who would not tow the 'party line' of the B.I.
It tried, but failed, to demote the position of Christ in
the bfm2k. (The B.I. forgot about the promised protections of the Holy Spirit to defend the Church)
It's 'leaders' have degenerated into a group of money-hogging Pharisees who wouldn't know Christ if He came back today.
Significant? Perhaps yes, but all in the wrong direction: away from Christ and away from The Way.
Significant as a Christian organization. Absolutely not.
Harmful, deceptive, greedy, and mean-spirited. Not Christian.
Joe White,
I do believe the 2000 BFM is an asset, not a weakness.
Forced terminations for those who have minor differences with the 2000 BFM is ridiculous . . . BUT
I look forward to your consistent approach and for your calls and appeals that your Baptist Identity friends who refuse to sign the 2009GCRD be terminated?
The more you write, Joe, the more you convince to actually encourage the person who contacted me about the motion to go ahead and present it.
I would argue against it - and be consistent:
I would be very, very interested to see how you would argue against the motion to terminate those SBC employees who refuse to sign the GCRD.
You fellows have made the bed whose sheets very well may suffocate the life out of you.
In His Grace,
Wade
As we say down here in my neck of the Baptist woods, "I ain't signin' nothin'!"--well, except the back of my paycheck.
I did once sign a typewritten copy of the Abstract of Principles at Southern Seminary so I could teach Baby Hebrew while I was a Ph.D. student there (1985, I think it was, thus pre-CR/FT [that's "Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover"; I offer the phrases in alphabetical order and not in the order of valid designation]); I'm sure the orthodoxy of my approach as I taught the Hebrew alphabet and those magnificent Hiphil and Hophal verb forms was the topic of much discussion in the Faculty Lounge, entry to which I was not granted as a mere Instructor. Maybe I should I have read it more closely, since I reckon I'm not too thorough-going of a Calvinist.
Anyway, I've signed no doctrinal statement since then and I have no plans to do so, not that it will matter since my moderate convictions (oxymoron alert!) and stubborn Baptistness will not allow me to play a leadership role in nor be employed by an SBC entity.
Joking (?) aside, I close by saying that what the SBC definitely needs is yet another creed to place alongside the Peace Committee Report (as an aside--has there ever been another instance in history where "findings" in a report were applied creedally?), the BFM 2000 (and the future editions that are, unfortunately, inevitable), and the ex cathedra pronouncements of certain leaders.
Some of those on your "apology ist" were good friends of mine. We definitely lost our best & brightest.
Wade,
Did you even read my comment? Where are the "calls and appeals that your Baptist Identity friends who refuse to sign the 2009GCRD be terminated?" I am afraid you have confused your own sarcastic post with mine.
Then there is this comment... "You fellows have made the bed whose sheets very well may suffocate the life out of you." For some reason, I don't think that is quite what Dr. Akin or our leaders have in mind with the GCR.
On a side note, it is nice to read that you consider the BF&M-2K as an asset.
Tom Parker,
You asked... "Are you ok with the 2000 BF&M being a creed and that those not willing to sign off on it should not be allowed any type of leadership position, be a missionary etc?"
To quote Wade Burleson... "I do believe the 2000 BFM is an asset, not a weakness."
Forced terminations for those who have minor differences with the 2000 BFM is ridiculous . . .
Question--if someone believed that it was ok for women to pastor churches and preach, would you consider that a minor difference?
Answer: yep, very minor
Joe Blackmon,
You, sir, are avoiding my question.
When the motion comes before the Convention to terminate those seminary professors who refuse to sign the 2009 Great Commission Document, and the majority of the messengers (however small a number there are) pass the recommendation . . .
Will you argue that your friends be terminated for refusing to sign the document?
We wish to argue that we should FIRE people who see know problem with "women pastors" but you will NOT argue for the firing of people who have a problem with the Great Commission?
I am on my way to meetings in OKC, and will be unavailable for comment. Your infautation with women pastors, Joe, will have to wait until you give a rational and logical answer as to why it would be wrong for a Convention to pass the motion to terminate professors who refuse to sign the 2009 GCRD.
In His Grace,
Wade
Wade:
Clever.
As you know from what I have said on this blog and my recent comment on Bart Barber's blog, I am all in favor of the maxims and the sentiment. Not in favor of a formal emphasis or document etc.
But this post does, again, raise a question that I have never gotten straight in my mind.
It seems to me that for years some had been saying that there were theological problems in the schools and that the profs there should agree with the BFM.
Others said that there were no theological problems in the schools AND that even if there were, academic freedom and the priesthood of the believer meant that Baptists could not impose a test or theological requirements on any professor. Using the BFM in such a way, they said, made the BFM a creed.
Apparently, enough Baptists believe there were problems in the schools that needed to be addressed, so we are where we are on that.
But I still hear from time to time the old battle cry, and it makes me wonder.
For those who believe that the profs at a seminary or college should not be required to sign off on the BFM, is there any standard that you would apply? And if so, what?
Louis
Joe,
If Jesus Christ Himself made a big deal out of something, then it's important.
He did make a big deal out of many things that the current SBC 'leadership' have ignored or kicked to the curb.
If Jesus Christ Himself did not make a big deal out of 'keeping women in their place', then it speaks volumes to Christians.
Maybe it's time to rearrange our priorities to be more in line with those of the the Lord.
What WAS important to Him?
What mattered?
Go to the Gospels and read.
And then re-think what is primary.
Use Jesus Christ's words and actions in the Gospels as your guide.
Promise: you will not go wrong.
Anon,
Nope. Not minor at all. Thanks. Have a nice day.
Wade,
I'm not avoiding any question. You didn't ask me. :-)
As to whether I think someone should be fired for not signing the GCR I've personally got a few question about a couple of the axioms that I'd like more clarification as to what they mean before I could say where I stand on the GCR.
BTW, not that you necessarily wanted to put this on your blog, but how is your child doing from the emergency surgery a few weeks ago? Well, I hope.
I think its a great idea. I might decide to go and present that as a motion.
Personally, it greatly concerns me how quickly those in "power" in the SBC can get rid of the ones that are not like them.
Joe Blackmon and Joe White you guys better wake up because if the trend continues someday someone will remove both of you if you are not willing to sign something to stay in the SBC.
Sarcasm alert--some really want the SBC all to themselves, their own little club. Kind of sounds like a takeover. Oh, wait a minute that is what the stated purpose of the CR was.
I love how Joe can do battle one minute and then show compassion for someone's child the next.
JOE, you may be rough on the outside but you have a heart for people. Many Christians think that is what matters most. I think it must be so.
:) Love, L's
L's
I'm like a good bagel. Crusty on the outside, soft and chewy on the inside. On second thought, that analogy is kinda gross. Nevermind.
Tom,
You may well be right. And, truth be told, there are going to be people that thought it was ok to have women pastors in heaven while there will also be BI people in hell. But we know whatever group you fall into, CPA's will be at the front of the line, right? (inside joke)
Wade,
I hope that this document outlines and provides enforcement for the specific order of fulfilling the Great Commission
as laid out by Dr. Yarnell .
I surely don't want to be accused of teaching anyone to obey Christ before they become a disciple (even though I don't know how to accomplish that feat). Also, we are to avoid teaching them anything before they are baptized. Yeah...
B. Nettles:
Isn't it amazing that Dr. Yarnell and others on "the blog" do not allow comments.
These same people would be in charge of removing those that do not agree 100% with them.
Sarcasm alert--but with our denomination in decline the GCR is the perfect thing to turn the ship around. maybe it will be as successful as the CR. Yeh!
Tom,
Or as successful as BMT (Bold Mission Thrust), the great evangelistic effort which the CR/FT derailed.
Michal Ruffin:
You said:
"Or as successful as BMT (Bold Mission Thrust), the great evangelistic effort which the CR/FT derailed."
I 100% agree that the BMT was a great big plan for the SBC and God will hold those that derailed BMT accountable.
Some want to act like the BMT was no big deal, but it was a very big deal until the CR/FT. But then it vanished into thin air.
We are a declining denomination and those in charge are clueless as to why and they want to lead us. Scary isn't it?
Tom,
I think you picked up on the seriousness of my BMT comment but, since "sarcasm" has been a recurrent theme in this comment thread (responding to the "sarcasm" of Wade's post), let me make it clear to all that I was not being sarcastic in that comment; I was as serious as I know how to be.
Louis,
The short answer from some would simply be the Bible.
For others they would say that the 1963 BFM was a sufficient confession of faith.
The seminaries have always had "Abstract of Principles" to further clarify doctrinal and directional clarity.
Still for others, they would argue that it is ok to ask for professors and denominational employees to affirm a BFM (whatever version is in vogue) but not ok to sign it. This perverts a confession into a creed
Or they may be asked affirm where there is agreement and then write(or explain) differences.
It is obvious that the convention and it's agencies need doctrinal paramenters. The BP would not have occurred it it was not for the 1925
BFM.
Where there is substantial disagreement is what that looks like, how it is done, and the reasoning behind the methods.
That would be the CP (Cooperative Program)
...would not have occcured if it was not for the 1925 BFM
On a serious note, there seems to be a conflict in the language of points IV We call upon all Southern Baptists to unite around a firm conviction in the full truthfulness and complete sufficiency of Christian Scripture in all matters of faith and practice. and V We call upon all Southern Baptists to look to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as a sufficient guide for building a theological consensus for partnership in the gospel, refusing to be sidetracked by theological agendas that distract us from our Lord’s Commission.If Scripture is considered sufficient and the BF&M2000 is sufficient, how is that not saying they are equivalent. Before all the howl's of "straw man" come flooding in, go study Paul's debate language and his legitimate examinations of peoples' uses of words. And wouldn't the affirmation that the BF&M 2000 is a "sufficient" document preclude EVER changing it?
I think a better (probably not perfect...after all, I am fallen) term for the BF&M 2000 which conveys the proper intent is "reasonable." (I'm not debating the specifics of BF&M, just the substitution of adjectives.)
I just read the GCRD thinking it actually had something to do with the Great Commission. Imagine my surprise (not) when I discovered it was only a repackaged version of the BF&M 2000 and an endorsement of the Quiverfull movement.
On an unrelated note, Dr. Phil is back.
But the bfm2k declared the Scriptures to be INSUFFICIENT in that the Words and Actions of Jesus in the Scriptures would no longer be center stage.
Talk about a conflict. It doesn't get any worse than that.
Rodney:
Thanks. I agree with you, there has to be a standard.
But there is no perfect standard because the more one defines things, the more one needs to define things further.
But that does not mean the effort should not be undertaken, even though all of us participating in it realize it is not a perfect process and there is no perfect effort.
I figured you meant "CP". I am the king of typos because of my stream of consciousness type of writing, so I can pretty much figure out what we are saying.
Have a great day.
Louis
There IS a Perfect Standard.
But people don't recognize Him yet.
Wade,
Your continual confusion between your post and mine, and between Joe Blackmon and Joe White (me), is starting to confuse me. :)
Let me see if I can clear this post up a little bit.
1) You wrote a sarcastic post about the GCRD calling it a "tool of evangelical accountability"; and you directed it at "your Baptist Identity friends."
2) I responded with a sarcastic post pointing out that commitment #5 contained a reference to the BF&M-2K. This was done to show that what you hoped would be cause for "terminating" BI folk, would in actuality get people like you "terminated". My question was... "are you sure you want this document used as a "tool of accountability."
3) You responded by saying that I would be suffocated by bed sheets.
4) I responded by saying you missed my point.
5) You responded to Joe Blackmon and me (I guess), in a sort of rant that is hard to follow... insisting that I am avoiding your question.
No, Wade... I will not be advocating the "Firing" of people for failing to sign the GCRD. You may think this inconsistent on my part, however, the GCRD is not a paper written for doctrinal accountability. Instead, it contains several ideas and suggestions for a way forward. It is not a confession of faith.
In your attempt to get in a good jab at "your Baptist Identity friends"; you have instead done harm to the GCR with this post, as well as perverting the intended bridge building purpose of the paper. My prayer is that you will climb down from your hobby horse, and climb on board the Great Commission train with like-minded Southern Baptists. The GCRD is a way forward, not a way to rehash old battles from days gone by. As my former pastor used to say... "When God moves it is time to get in, get out, or get out of the way!" I think this post places an unnecessary obstacle in the way, a hindrance if you will for others to get in.
But the bfm2k declared the Scriptures to be INSUFFICIENT in that the Words and Actions of Jesus in the Scriptures would no longer be center stage.
Actually, the reason that wording was changed was probably to prevent Mainstreamers from being able to continue asserting "Oh, well the Bible can't possibly mean [insert biblical doctrine they wanted to ignore here] because Jesus was too kind and loving to EVER have meant that".
Joe Blackmon:
You said--"Actually, the reason that wording was changed was probably to prevent Mainstreamers from being able to continue asserting "Oh, well the Bible can't possibly mean [insert biblical doctrine they wanted to ignore here] because Jesus was too kind and loving to EVER have meant that".
Sarcasm alert: I did not know that there were any Mainstreamers left in the SBC. They were all cleansed out of the SBC by the CR instead of focusing on Bold Mission Thrust. What a brilliant plan?
But the bfm2k declared the Scriptures to be INSUFFICIENT in that the Words and Actions of Jesus in the Scriptures would no longer be center stage.
Talk about a conflict. It doesn't get any worse than that.I really don't know how we can accept that the words and actions of Jesus be center stage until we affirm and pronounce that the scripture we have that tells us the words and actions of Jesus are Truth.
All we know about the words and actions of Jesus are found in scripture, remove that from the table and deal with just Jesus alone, what would you come up with and how would you know if it be true or not?
Therefore the criteria for interpreting scripture must be what we use to understand the words and actions of Jesus.
Joe, give us an example of this from the Gospels.
Quote Jesus and tell us that He didn't mean what He said because it conflicts with a doctrine that is unChrist-like.
Your turn.
Jesus IS the focal point of the Scriptures. All else is commentary.
"Therefore the criteria for interpreting scripture must be what we use to understand the words and actions of Jesus."
No need for any man or group of men to 'interpret scripture' in order to understand the words and actions of Jesus.
That role is completely filled by the Holy Spirit. Any men who claim otherwise are in error.
No need for any man or group of men to 'interpret scripture' in order to understand the words and actions of Jesus.
That role is completely filled by the Holy Spirit. Any men who claim otherwise are in error._____
Yet to know if our interpretation is of the Spirit there is a built in divine system to check. Our interpretation must line up with the scripture.
Anon
You got it backwards, yo. I'm not saying that something Jesus said contradicted scripture. I'm saying for instance the Mainstreamers arguement that "Oh Paul couldn't be saying that women can't be pastors. Jesus was too loving and kind to allow something like that. I mean, He had Mary go tell the apostles He had risen. That proves that Paul couldn't possibly have meant that prohibition to be universal for all times and places".
The Too Long; Didn't Read (TL;DR) synopsis of Wade's post:
Bart Barber conscientiously objected on his site to certain wording in the GCRD. If he had taken the same approach with the human-written BFM2K, he would not have a job now.
Wade's point is that conscientious objection is not a sign of unBaptistic or unChristian behavior. This has been a central theme of Wade's blog since he put it up. And, therefore, Bart should not be disqualified from serving by his unwillingness to sign a document or to take issues with provisions in that document as a matter of conscience.
Greg Harvey
P.S. It took me the better part of an hour to figure out where Wade was going with this including reading the GCRD and having my own objections to wording and provisions. So I figured I'd try to create a useful summary for the comment thread.
OK, I'll bite:
(1) Scripture is divinely inspired; Jesus Christ is divine.
(2) Scripture points to Christ; Christ fulfills Scripture.
(3) Scripture tells us how to be saved; Christ saves us.
(4) Scripture guides us in worship; Christ is worshipped.
(5) Scripture is the written Word of God; Christ is the living Word of God.
(6) Scripture is the revelation of God; Christ is the ultimate revelation of God.
"Yet to know if our interpretation is of the Spirit there is a built in divine system to check."
So you are saying that the Holy Spirit is 'not good enough' and needs the judgment of men in order to be acceptable?
Take another look at scripture.
So you are saying that the Holy Spirit is 'not good enough' and needs the judgment of men in order to be acceptable?
Take another look at scripture._____
What I am saying is that not just any interpretation of scripture will do. The same fallible man who can misinterpret scripture can misinterpret the Holy Spirit.
I had a church member once who told me, they did not need the bible they had the Holy Spirit. Should I have agreed and told them they need not look at scripture any more.
You also tell me to look at scripture... yet with your position, I ask why? Why can't I just depend upon the Holy Spirit to make known to me what He wants to make known.
But then again, I depend upon scripture to tell me how to Holy Spirit works. I do believe that is why you ask me to look at scripture. You can't remove it as the first line of human understanding of who God is and how God works.
The Holy Spirit
The Paraclete will play a significant role in the lives of Jesus' followers. They will be privileged to know the Paraclete, as they have known Jesus (14:7, 9, 17). The Spirit will be within the disciples and will remain with them, as Jesus remains in and with his friends (14:20, 23; 15:4-5; 17:23, 26). The Spirit will guide the disciples along the way of truth (16:13), even as Jesus is the Way and the Truth (14:6). Jesus has taught those who would listen (6:59; 7:14, 18; 8:20), and now the Paraclete will do the teaching (16:12-15). The Spirit will empower disciples to testify to Jesus (15:26-27; 20:21-23).
___The Spirit also has an important role to play in relation to the world. The world that did not accept Jesus will not accept the Paraclete (5:43; 12:48; 14:17). The world that did not recognize Jesus (7:28; 8:14, 19; 14:7; 16:3) will not recognize his Spirit either (14:17). Like Jesus, the Paraclete will bear witness in the context of the world's hatred (7:7; 15:26-27). And the Paraclete ultimately proves the world wrong concerning its verdict on Jesus (16:8-11). Jesus' "advocate" will become the prosecuting attorney bringing the world to trial before the bar of Truth.
___Living as Jesus' disciple while he was on earth required knowing him, loving him, trusting him, obeying him and learning from him. We now experience his presence with us through knowing, loving, trusting, obeying, and learning from the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth.
___Jesus describes the Paraclete almost entirely in functional terms. He tells us what the Spirit will do with and for us. He is God's presence among us (14:16-17). He is our personal teacher (14:26; 15:13). He brings thing to our minds and helps us understand them (14:26). He is the source of our peace (14:27). He empowers our ministry and witness (15:26-27). He comes to us in our sorrow (16:5-7). He convicts the world of sin (16:8-11). He focuses our attention on Jesus, glorifying him (16:13-14). He makes spiritual truth clear to us (16:13-15).
"You can't remove it as the first line of human understanding of who God is and how God works."
The scriptures are the inspired word of God. They cannot replace the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete.
The Holy Spirit was there when the authors wrote the scriptures.
He is there when we who read the scriptures seek to understand them with His Guidance. He is the Presence of God in our lives and points us towards Christ.
Your 'leadership' in the SBC has fallen short of that, haven't they, in how they treat people?
Oh yes.
No man can come between you and the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit indwells within you and guides you and your conscience.
And one more thought:
The Holy Spirit teaches truth; therefore He will not teach God's people anything but the truth; And because He is the Spirit of truth, he will not lead a believer astray.
I could sign the document were it not for article V:
"We call upon all Southern Baptists to look to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as a sufficient guide for building a theological consensus for partnership in the gospel, refusing to be sidetracked by theological agendas that distract us from our Lord’s Commission."
Sufficient guide? I strongly believe in the necessity of creeds and confessions, but the BFM has never been sufficient, nor has it ever served as a reconciliatory guide.
sidetracked??? How arrogant of some to think that the practice getting to the root of theological issues through study, debate, and prayer could in anyway sidetrack the "great commission" which is, imo, the 3rd in order of importance in a list of 3 important tasks of the church.
Finally, while we claim to be a people of the Book, we are also a people of the petition. Sad, and distracting. We are a people of the tongue--WE TALK TO DANG MUCH! We are a people of the pen--we will sign anything--for or against--that which strokes our ego driven philosophies.
No. I shall not sign. err...I cannot sign. For I am a Baptist, but not the "swimming pool in the parking lot" sort a Baptist. I am a Westminster Baptist. I shall listen to the Man from Macedonia, not the man from Woodstock.
k
Tom, I am ok with making employees of any organization holding to the core values of that organization.
Tom, I am glad there was a take over its good to get rid of the liberals. BTW, the liberals took over the convention.
Kevin, Why the swipe at Johnny Hunt?
JEFF said, "Tom, I am ok with making employees of any organization holding to the core values of that organization."
PROBLEM: Those missionaries weren't working for Baptist 'leadership'.
Those missionaries were called to the service of the Lord by God Himself. He was their CEO.
To dismiss them by trying to force them to sign anything was a direct slap at the Authority of God.
A missionary is one on sacred duty for the Lord, not a pawn of a bunch of run-away fundamentalists who are playing 'we control things now'.
Some men made a terrible mistake.
They need to repent.
God's missionaries were doing sacred work and should not have been treated as they were.
Founders Ministries Blog > Why I signed the Great Commission Resurgence declaration
"Kevin, Why the swipe at Johnny Hunt?"
Well, quite honestly, I am tired of anti-Calvinists. I really have no interest in attempting to cooperate with men who would call other brothers "calvinazis."
There are enough men and women of like faith with whom I can cooperate that I expect to be busy for several lifetimes before ever needing to worry about Hunt. He is free to do it his way. But his way has led to a 16.5 million member SBC--The biggest lie since--- whatever the last biggest lie was. I am convinced that perfect church discipline coupled with perfect discipleship and evangelism would still result in a net loss in total SBC membership for at least a decade--all the while growing the kingdom.
I see the GCR as more of the same. I am not buying into it.
We need a covenant community reformation. The lack of what Spurgeon called "The Little Church" is killing the big church.
If I have said once on here I have said it a million times---now we can clearly see it--the sheep are grazing themselves off a cliff.
Sadly, what is at the bottom of the cliff is a mega-church.
:(
What we are seeing is a bunch of young bucks wanting to be the stars and in charge of something but they're not quite there yet. Now they have to think up a new name and some flashy new concept but its still the same song and dance.
It is said by many that those in the CR "eat their young" so I hope the young ones will beware. We need to beware that they don't turn out like their elders.
I thought Paul said to Timothy to watch your doctrine and "your life" as it impact salvation of others. As a result, I won't stand by thi creed if they refuse silence to Mrs. Brown's wishes.
They are not getting rid of the liberals, they are getting rid of the gentle fundamentalism. I don't see any creed in the Bible that says if I don't witness this week that I am somehow a reprobate. I's d rather be silent, live right, and attract interest of others and then give the reason of my character then the other way around with hypocrisy abounding
One more thing needs to be there "to repair the rift between all baptist churches as caused by the development of the "Southern" baptists who spurred the civil war by not addressing the slave issue properly in America's history.
The life of a Christian IS his witness. Words are meaningless by comparison.
From the document:
"Some of our denominational structures at all levels need to be streamlined for more faithful stewardship of the funds entrusted to them. We must address with courage and action where there is overlap and duplication of ministries, and where poor stewardship is present. We are grateful for God’s gift of Cooperative Program dollars to both state and national entities. Both state and national entities must be wise stewards of these funds, and closely examine whether the allocation of Cooperative Program dollars genuinely contributes to Kingdom work or simply maintains the status quo. "
They are kidding, right? We 'streamlined' and got NAMB. Hunt signed the support letter for Bob (spend NAMB money like a drunken sailor) Reccord. Lest we forget Patterson's taxidermy bills charged to a seminary and the pastry chef. We could be here all day listing the great waste at the SBC and lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.
From the document:
X. A Commitment to Distinctively Christian Families. We call upon all Southern Baptists to build gospel-saturated homes that see children as a gift from God and as our first and primary mission field. (Deut. 6:1-9; Psalm 127, 128; Eph. 6:4)
The family is the first institution ordained by God and the foundational institution in all human cultures. Unfortunately, in our own time we see the family attacked on a number of fronts. Too many Southern Baptists have embraced unbiblical notions about marriage and family. Too often we believe that children are a burden rather than a blessing and smaller families are more “responsible” than large families. Too many believe that motherhood is not valuable as a woman’s unique and primary calling and is not as “fulfilling” as other occupations. Too many believe that husbands and fathers are not uniquely called and gifted for leadership in the home and that biblical gender roles destroy authentic equality."
Now we are seeing the doctrine of quiverfull and FIC being slipped in. What next, prairie dresses?
Srange how they never mention this:
32I want you to be(AM) free from anxieties.(AN) The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, 34and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. 35I say this for your own benefit,(AO) not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
Would someone show me the word "denomination" in the Bible?
anonymous 10:19
that is the BEST comment i've read on this blog in the last 3 years.
Lydia,
This really caught my attention as well:
"Too many Southern Baptists have embraced unbiblical notions about marriage and family. Too often we believe that children are a burden rather than a blessing and smaller families are more “responsible” than large families. Too many believe that motherhood is not valuable as a woman’s unique and primary calling and is not as “fulfilling” as other occupations. Too many believe that husbands and fathers are not uniquely called and gifted for leadership in the home and that biblical gender roles destroy authentic equality."
And you (Lydia) said:
"Now we are seeing the doctrine of quiverfull and FIC being slipped in. What next, prairie dresses?"
My thoughts exactly! If the SBC starts to micromanage the lives of members regarding childbearing and specific gender roles (i.e. women are to manage the home and that's all), I predict there will be another mass exodus from the SBC. But who are we to counsel them -- after all, we're the weaker sex!
The more the fundamentalists drive people they can't control out of the SBC in an attempt to 'purify' it; the more they will lose numbers.
No one is joining up.
So the only way to increase numbers is mass pregnancies followed by 'home-school' isolation from the 'contamination' of the ideas of other Christians.
People are going to RUN from this big-time.
My thoughts exactly! If the SBC starts to micromanage the lives of members regarding childbearing and specific gender roles (i.e. women are to manage the home and that's all), I predict there will be another mass exodus from the SBC. But who are we to counsel them -- after all, we're the weaker sex!
Thu Apr 30, 10:31:00 PM 2009
What I would like to know is where this is a primary focus in the NT? I do not know many Christians who do not affirm the importance of family and love children. However, I have counseled and grieved with many Christian women who could not have children. And many who have gone through the grueling and expensive process of adoption.
I also know quite a few non Christian families that fit the descriptive beliefs of section X. Some are Hindu, Jewish, agnostic and many are Muslim. So, how is this uniquely Christian?
I would also like to know exactly what it has to do with the great commission? Specifically.
What I read between the lines are Dominionist ideas. I have read the same things over at Vision Forum and the Bayly Brothers.
Greg Harvey wrote: Bart Barber conscientiously objected on his site to certain wording in the GCRD. If he had taken the same approach with the human-written BFM2K, he would not have a job now.
Wade's point is that conscientious objection is not a sign of unBaptistic or unChristian behavior. This has been a central theme of Wade's blog since he put it up. And, therefore, Bart should not be disqualified from serving by his unwillingness to sign a document or to take issues with provisions in that document as a matter of conscience.
It took me the better part of an hour to figure out where Wade was going with this including reading the GCRD and having my own objections to wording and provisions. So I figured I'd try to create a useful summary for the comment thread.Wade writes: "Greg, once again you nailed my intentions. My only regret is it took you an hour to figure it out." Smile.
I mean no disrespect to the signatories, but I do not see the value in another "we call" type document, especially one that calls for us to embrace the most recent misguided attempt to define what it means to be a Baptist.
I call for all Southern Baptists to reject this new attempt to define us. It places denominational values above Scripture, continues the specter of guilt over slavery, abuses the notion of the priesthood of the believer, embraces the sexism of cultural Christianity, and moves the SBC closer to irrelevancy.
Anon, Then tell them to stay over their for free---let the Lord pay them. Who do you think signs the check?
"but I do not see the value in another "we call" type document, especially one that calls for us to embrace the most recent misguided attempt to define what it means to be a Baptist."
It all started back years ago that stupid thing called the "Memphis Declaration." Then creation care, now Great Commission. Good grief. I am gonna quit and start my own denomination. L's, I am making you the first Bishop of Women's Ministries and Prelate of Psalmistry Prayer.
Btw, L's, today I had an interview at a Sisters of Mercy Hospital in St. Louis (It is right next to my seminary). I had no idea how "Catholic" the hospital was. The recruiter asked me not what my beliefs were, but if I would be able to fit with the Hospital's Mission statement and if the "prayerful" and "Christian" environment would be a problem. :) (I think he asked because of the fact that I am a Baptist preacher.)
If it is a problem, what a wonderful problem to have. This Baptist boy is getting a Presbyterian education and working for the Sisters of Mercy. (hopefully)
Sometimes I know that Jesus looks to His left and chuckles when my name comes up. :)
k
Some ideas on overcoming the recent blogger comment compression of white space after html tags:
- use a period '.' (or ',') after the html end tag. This will "anchor" the placement and it will not remove any whitespace that follows it, examples: space chars, line feeds or carriage returns.
- if you are using a html tags in between words, then use a space before the html end tag (if ',' is not viable after the html end tag).
Jeff:
You said--"Anon, Then tell them to stay over their for free---let the Lord pay them. Who do you think signs the check?"
Sarcasm alert--"What a christian type of comment." It is who controls the money. If you really believe that then the SBC should not take any money from ____________? That is anyone who does believe exactly like you. How ridiculous!!
How old are you? Let me guess, less than 40. All you know about the CR is what you have read or been told.
Your comment is the type that is all to common since the CR, and the Liberals did not take over the SBC either. You're dreaming on that one.
You've been taught well--kick them out, kick them out.
Be careful because that sort of attitude has a way of usually coming back to bite you.
Hi KEVIN,
It's me, L's
I LOVE the Psalms! :)
I hope you take the job with the Sisters of Mercy in St. Louis.
I used to work in the Catholic hospital that was next door to my prep school. I was a volunteer for my junior and senior years. Then, they HIRED me to be a weekend 'ward clerk' and this gave me some extra spending money during my college years. That hospital had the best reputation in the city for good patient care and I know that the nuns had plenty to do with that.
I hope they offer you the job and that you take it. You would add muchly to the 'prayerful' and 'Christian' atmosphere, Kevin.
Also, once you get to know the nuns, you will find that they will pray for God to strengthen you for your studies at the Seminary. The nuns will watch over you, Kevin.
You will be surrounded with prayer.
God is good.
Let me know how things work out.
When do you start school?
I will pray for you to make a good beginning. Love, L's
Young Tom Parker, You obviously didn't read my response to anon.
Stephen:
I am with you on this one.
I don't see the list of horribles in the document that you see.
But I do question of the value of another document like this.
I don't know about you and your church, but we have been going about the Great Commission since we were founded 16 years ago. That has been our church's sole agenda. I suspect it has been yours.
This document, while well intentioned and is something that I agree with in principle (again, I haven't parsed it the way that you have), is implying that the SBC hasn't been doing the Great Commission for years and that we need to resurge something.
Anyway, the best way to resurge something is to do it. Not talk about doing it.
Reminds me of a "prayer" meeting where 45 minutes are taken in announcements and prayer requests with 15minutes left for praying.
Louis
But then again, I would rather see this be the big topic of conversation leading up to the convention than the evils of Calvinism or some other recent in-house controversy that is likely to calm down if we all just take a breather.
Louis
I have a question for Jeff and others with a similar outlook: should we look upon misionaries as "employees" who have a "job" for which "we" (i.e., the SBC) pay them?
I have had several jobs in my lifetime. I worked at a service station (yes, a SERVICE station, where, when a car pulled up, I ran out and asked "How much gas, please?" then pumped it for them, I worked for a college (just as a student employee, mind you), I worked for two city governments, and I worked for a business. But I haven't had a job or been an employee going on 23 years now. I have had a calling, at a church, as a pastor. And yes, they understood what I believed before the church extended a call, but I didn't sign anything, and I don't have something new to agree with every time there is a new group of members (and in my setting, between military and government employees, that happens pretty frequently).
I understand how the idea of considering missionaries as "employees" arose. It is an artifact of the CR, as considering these people "employees" somehow made it more palatable to require them to sign off on changing ideas (remember Dr. Adrian Rogers and "pickle theology"?), as well as making it more attractive for control freaks and micromanagers, in persuing an agenda-driven mindset of theological uniformity, rather than a Gospel-driven goal about the Great Commission. But I suggest that ultimately the idea of missionaries as employees does a great disservice (1) to pastors and staff ministers as well as to missionaries and (2) to the written Word, as this makes them both into "hired hands." John 10:12 says, "The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it."
John, I agree that we want missionaries who are called, but let me ask you a question. Do you believe that ANYONE can call the IMB and say I am called to be a missionary give me the money? There have always need standards and there will always be standards. I believe that the BFM is a good document for someone to sign to affirm their basic beliefs. As a Southern Baptist, how would anyone find that objectionable! I don't get it. Are they employees? Yes to a degree they are---They are being paid by an organization, but they are employees with a call.
Jeff:
I see you are still concerned about the control of money this morning and that these missionaries are employees. Wow!
The IMB and 'standards' in the same sentence?
No way.
Wade,
As always, I say what I say at the risk of the accusation of bias. [So be it.] But I want to say publically what I think after reading my copy of your new book "Hardball Religion."
I also know you are completely unaware of my intention to do this. I hope it is alright to do it in a public forum.
I regret posting so close to John Fariss's superb comment which deserves an answer. But I will of necessity as I'm leaving town for the day.
You are cetainly aware that I have already read the book chapter by chapter as you wrote it. But, I must say, this time I read it through in one sitting yesterday afternoon, finishing it the first hour of this morning. It was captivating reading. It was clear. It was eye-opening to anyone willing to be open.
The narrative form made it read like a novel and your anecdotal moments gave a break [often needed] from the necessary detail of meetings and meanings of motions presented at various times in the narrative.
I will honestly confess I looked for any bitterness that could have crept into the writing of one facing what you revealed you faced...and found none. I looked for the issues that you have desired from the beginning to put before all the Convention and i found them in the most understandable language anyone could wish for.
If our Convention awakens to the dangers articulated in "Hardball Religion" and changes course, this book will be viewed as one of the major catalysts for such change.
If our Convention does NOT awaken to the dangers we face within, this book will be viewed as the voice of one who saw and shouted to an unhearing ear to the shame of all.
Either way you have been faithful to an obvious calling of God upon you that I and many others may not have had the commitment to fulfill.
I read one blogger who said, I'm assuming he read the book, it was nothing more than a compilation of posts written on your blog. As the saying goes, "One man's trash is another man's treasure." Though it is FAR MORE than that, it does reflect an accurate record of the times you've spoken to the issues without personal attack, even before many were listening. Besides. "Thy Peace," one of your frequent commenters has proven the value of putting things together for a clear picture of any issue.
I am convinced you'v given us a genuine "What meaneth these stones" moment for our future as a Convention. Now I hope we have one.
As to errors... you admitted you could mis-state and make an error. If someone points out any error and documents it, you said you would correct it and apologize for it. I have most of the record of the events and I've found none so far. Maybe someone would oblige if, in fact, you are in error.
I'm proud of you the person and grateful for you the pen-man. I will close this by using a quote from my late friend Ron Dunn who used to say..."This is just my humble but accurate opinion."
[Factoring in all of the obligatory bias of course.]
DAD
Tom, I am concerned about how God's money is handled. Do you think it has handled correctly at FBC Jacksonville? I don't think it was.
Again, Tom if they are not employees---why are they paid?
Are they volunteers?
Ask the IRS what they are?
I am called to be the pastor of the church I serve but I am also an employee because they can fire me any time they desire.
Your bias against what has happen is clouding your present vision.
The IMB/FMB has always had standards. Your problem is you don't like the current standards.
Kevin said, not the man from Woodstock. That one threw me off until I read subsequent comments. I was thinking, "Is he talking about the dude that said, 'It's a free concert, man!', or the one who made the announcement, 'There's some bad acid going around out there so be careful.'" Then I started singing "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes."
Have you ever listened to Woodstock? Just stay away from County Joe and the Fish.
Thanks for the laugh.
Jeff:
You said to me--"Your problem is you don't like the current standards."
You are dogone right I do not like them. That you and I can agree upon.
Let me guess you will tell me to get out of the SBC.
Are you familiar with the word DECLINE?
You also said--"Tom, I am concerned about how God's money is handled. Do you think it has handled correctly at FBC Jacksonville? I don't think it was.
You will convince me you are serious when you and the other SBCers quit taking money from those that do not pass your test to be a "true" SBCer. Until then it is just BIG TALK!!
What on Earth is useful at all about "...thoroughly orthodox, distinctively Baptist..." anything? Is there an angry comittee that will be screening SBCers at the pearly gates?
Dear Jeff,
I do not have the time just now to go into the details your question warrents, so let me just touch what I see as the high points.
Within the framework of your reply, should the IMB (or NAMB for that matter, although they actually fund relatively few missionaries) just just give money to anyone who says, "I am a missionary, send me money"? Of course not--no more so than I told any church I have served , "I am a pastor, give me money." That is a strawman argument because I did not suggest that. If you believe I did, either you did not read closely enough, or, more likely, I did not make myself sufficiently clear.
There is a middle ground between indiscriminately giving money to whomever, and the approach of using a document like the 2000 BF&M (or the '63 or the '25 , whatever) as a creed on which one had to sign off and be in total agreement with, period, end of paragraph, combined with the attitude that those who do not sign/do not agree/deviate from are employees who are not offered employment or should be terminated for deviation from that document.
Outside the framework of your question, it seems to me that you are presupposing that it is both healthy and Baptist to use a man-made document as a creed, and despite your concession of missionaries as "employees with a calling," you are still regarding them as employees, with a lot of attention to "our" money and strings attached to it. That, it seems to me, is at least close to the issues of control and money that Tom Parker mentions. In other words, it seems to me to be a rather business, even worldly approach, rather than a Biblical one.
Sorry to run, but I have some other obligations now.
John
Just so I'll be on topic before I leave... am I still correct in thinking that no one calls the IMB and asks to be a missionary ...but must come through an SBC church that has a bit to do with the process of examining their life and belief system?
Are the missiomaries ultimately working for SBC churches? If so, how much input should those churches have in any requirements for appointees doctrinally and how is that input to be given?
When standards are established for appointees what, if anything, should be done in reporting to churches, or at least the Convention, as to WHAT and WHY those standards are necessary? Just wondering since we're talking about somebody's "employees."
Jeff, if God has called these missionaries, what OTHER standard do you need?
For goodness sake, missionaries don't go into this for the money.
They plant seeds and God reaps the harvest. They serve a Higher Authority who WANTS them and calls them.
What 'men' have placed themselves in a position that they can tell a God-called missionary he is 'not good enough'?
Let me guess. Oh yes. Those guys.
The 'appointed' of the Lord PP and his cronies. Are they fit to dismiss God's missionaries?
They think so. Why? That is between them and Satan, isn't it?
Wake up Jeff, the Church isn't a 'business' making a 'profit'.
The 'Church' doesn't call these missionaries to service, so they don't have the right to get rid of them.
Wow, Dad, thanks for the compliment!!
I owe you dinner.
:)
To all:
Every single trustee for the IMB is drilled with the concept that the missionary is authorized and sent from THE CHURCH - the IMB only facilitates a cooperative effort among thousands of individual churches, but the call, the sending and the support comes from individual churches.
I do like the statement on Scripture in the 2000 BF&M better than the 1963 statement and I humbly encourage my brethren of a moderate persuasion to take a look at Herman Ridderbos's "Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures" if they have not.
However, I do think I have a difference of opinion concerning confessionalism with many of my conservative brethren.
An inspired document is one thing. An uninspired 2,938 word document [the BF&M] is another thing.
Some might admit it is not perfect.
Then what sense does it made to require perfect adherence to an imperfect document?
If you are going to be a perfectionist with something, then shouldn't it at least be perfect?
God Bless,
Benji
Blogger comment bug allows anyone to delete comments.
It would appear that Google/Blogger have either inadvertently introduced a serious bug to their comment system or they've added a feature intended to drive popular blogs away from using "Anonymous" comment posting.
It now appears that if you are not logged in and view the comments in a Blogger blog then the system will allow you delete any comment on someone else's blog if it is either (a) Anonymous or (b) has a Name/URL entered by the user.
Blogger Comment Bug Fixed.
Today, we became aware of a bug affecting Blogger's comment feature. Within four hours of identifying the bug, we began to roll out a fix to all users affected. We take Blogger issues very seriously, and sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused. The bug has been fixed; ...
NYT > CYBERWAR - Iranians and Others Outwit Net Censors.
I do have some concerns in relation to Axiom V.
V. We must affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as a healthy and sufficient guide for building a theological consensus for partnership in the gospel, refusing to be sidetracked by theological agendas that distract us from our Lord’s Commission. (1 Tim. 6:3-4)
First, this wording is framed in such a way that it comes across to me as communicating that if one has a disagreement with the BF&M, then one's view is a distraction from Christ's great commission.
I would be happy to be wrong on this.
However, if this is true, then even B.H. Caroll's view concerning Spirit baptism would have to be considered a distration from Christ's great commission since it conflicts with the BF&M statement.
Second, by using the word "agenda" it casts a different viewpoint from the BF&M in an immediate negative light to me.
Third, this kind of statement could be used to promote a kind of attitude which dismisses a different viewpoint instead of engaging it.
Personally, I think this statement from the 1689 "Baptist" confession is worthy of reflection in relation to staying on our toes with what is biblical and not merely confessional.
"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also."
Example of Anonymous comment deletion in this post is here.
"the missionary is authorized and sent from THE CHURCH - the IMB only facilitates a cooperative effort among thousands of individual churches, but the call, the sending and the support comes from individual churches."
But is this REALITY?
We have 45,000 churches. In reality would should have 45,000 missionaries. We need to wipe out the associations and use ALL the money to send missionaries. Churches need to do local missions themselves. An associational missionary???? Poppycock! By the time you build the Associational Headquarters, pay the secretary, fill the office with furniture and equipment, and the salaries, there is little left for Jesus. What have we gained? For one you got yourself a glorified pulpit supply, a newsletter editor, and someone stroke to the backs of little dying churches--keeping them open in their state of deadness and sin for another year or 2. What an unholy waist!
State Conventions seem to encourage bi-vocational pastorates instead of advocating the consolidation of churches and attempting to supplement ministers' incomes to allow for full-time ministry. Additionally, we need to finally put to rest the old hard-shell notion that ministers of the Gospel need not be educated. We need an educational standard of excellence. Small churches already get retirement help from Guidestone for their pastors, the SBC needs a program in place whereby small churches who agree to hire SBC seminary students and grads will receive help in paying that pastor for a period of time.
I will get chewed over this statement, but I am here to say that while there may be some uses for bi-vo pastors, the goal should be to eliminate the practice. It is impossible to pastor a church with the average time required to prepare for sermons, work another job, raise a family, visit the sick, etc, and feed the sheep. (God bless those men who try, and/ or DO.) But what usually ends up happening is the study time fails, the sermons become topical and full of stories and yelling instead of true exposition. Hence the starving of the sheep.
A preacher preaching a morning sermon properly exposited and full of all the necessary homiletical flair; a Sunday Evening sermon designed to teach biblical narrative or lessons on daily life, and a Wednesday evening devotion could be derelict in duty to spend less than 30 hours in study per week. The only way I was ever able to even come somewhat close to this was by keeping my preaching close to my studies at school. So I know how difficult it is. While I never once preached a canned sermon, I did lean heavily on men like Piper and Sproul and MacArthur for ideas and help with application. Anyway...I forget what the purpose of this post was so I shall just stop.
:)
Word Verification: progyms
As in: lets gets us some of dem Southern Baptist progyms!
"I would be happy to be wrong on this."
Sadly you are not. I smelled the stench before I got down to Article V.
The BFM2000 is a "pretty good" statement of faith. But it is not the best one out there. I would sign it with a minimum of 2 reservations but honestly feel that after I REALLY get done with it looks more like a piece of Swiss cheese from an anorexic cow. I have to do less slicing and dicing to the Westminster Standards and the Belgic Confession than to my own. That bothers me. And to be forced to "get behind it" in order to be considered "missional" bothers me too.
K
(quotes in my statement above used for emphasis only)
Jeff, I'm back, so I will follow up on what it seems to me (and I feel so led) the process should be like for missionaries.
One, the candidate should feel or believe (the difference in the two, IMHO, is a matter of personality type; those who "live" primarily in their heads would say, "believe," while those who primarily "live" in their hearts would say "feel") that they are called by God to be a missionary to such-and-such a country through this particular agency. And that presupposes that they are Christians and members in good standing of a local church.
Two, before a missions-sending agency--say in this case, the IMB--extends a call (or, if you prefer, its affirmation of God's call), it has a responsibility to its constituency--the churches which are the Southern Baptist Conventrion. They should of course verify that the candidate is a Christian and a member of a church which contributes to the SBC. If the church is good enough for the SBC to accept its money, it should go no further in examining it (re: security of the believer, the candidate's baptism, etc.); if there is a problem at the church that the appointing agency believes is too far outside the Baptist consensus, then no fuinds from that church should be accepted, which would automatically disqualify candidates from that church. They should of course be certain that the candidate is of good moral character, has no legal issues, and is sufficiently mature in both a spiritual and emotional sense, as well as being suitable for the mission field to which he wishes to go (i.e., health issues, educational matters, langauge fluency or the ability to learn languages, etc.). This is all background of course.
Certainly the candidate should be, I believe the current catch-phrase is "baptistic." And I would even go so far as to say that the 2000 BF&M could be used, although I personally have more qualms with its wording than I do with the '63 version. However, I do not believe that should be used as a document "of doctrinal accountability" in the strict sense that it seems to be currently being used. I believe that a candidate should be allowed to articulate and explain any reservations he may have with it, and that just the fact of reservations should not be a bar to extending the call/affirmation of a call. Rather, this document should be used as exactly what it and the '63 BF&M say thay are, as documents which represent a consensus of opinion among baptists, not a statement of finality. The appointing authority can then decide if the candidate is close enough to the consensus to be appointed or not. This system will not work, of course, if a majority of the appointing authority believes that the BF&M must be used as a creed, with no leeway at all, a sign-it-or-leave-us attitude. It will work, however, if it is used in the historic sense of a Baptist confession of faith.
Maybe it has always been done this way, but I fail to understand why the trustees of the IMB have such a hands-on approach to appointments. I would think that IMB administrators should do that, and the trustees should concern themselves more with policy and direction than administration. If, of course, the trustees believe that administrators have erred, they have a responsibility to make corrections, just as (again, IMHO) the Convention at large has to responsibility to make corrections if they believe the Trustees have erred. Unfortunantly, we are being told that this is not the case. We have been told that the trustees are the final authority, and the only way to reverse their decisions is to have a sufficient number of trustees appointed that they reverse themselves, but the Convention at large cannot direct them. Thus we have the Gardner Motion, passed by the Convention, which says the BF&M is a maximum document, and trusteees who say it is minimum document, consequently they can add whatever they feel they should, and no one can tell them any different. Furthermore, if once on the field, a missionary moved too far from the consensus, there is adequate accountability to deal with it administratively, and if necessary, through the trustee system, and finally, the SBC at large.
Now I have no experience whatsoever in being a trustee or working through a missions-sending agency, neither the IMB or any other. What I think "should be" might well change in the unlikely instance that I were appointed and got into the nuts and bolts of the machinery. But it seems to me that (1) this is close to the way that the FMB functioned successfully for years and (2) that it is consistent with Wade's statement that "Every single trustee for the IMB is drilled with the concept that the missionary is authorized and sent from THE CHURCH - the IMB only facilitates a cooperative effort among thousands of individual churches, but the call, the sending and the support comes from individual churches." And it further seems to me (my opinion and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee, BTW) that the current proceedures used--including using the BF&M as a creed and estabishing parameters that exceed anything the Convention has passed or that many of the churches have passed--is altogether inconsistent with the concept of the IMB as an agency which simply facilitates the efforts of the indivudual churches.
Well, I will get off my soapbox now and go work on the old VW bug I've been tinkering with for years.
John
Kevin,
The 2000 BF&M as "like a piece of Swiss cheese from an anorexic cow." I like that. Well said.
Either you're growing or I am one, because I find us more and more in agreement than we used to be.
John
To all my Calvinistic Baptist brothers and sisters:
Come over to the DARK SIDE! Affirm the first Baptist Confession, the 1643/1646 London Confession, rather than the one the subsequent generation used to convince the Brits they were a legidimate Christian group, like the Presbyterians, rather than a sect
John
Kevin:
You wrote--"What have we gained? For one you got yourself a glorified pulpit supply, a newsletter editor, and someone stroke to the backs of little dying churches--keeping them open in their state of deadness and sin for another year or 2. What an unholy waist!"
First of all it is waste not waist.
Secondly, those little dying churches are still alive until they are dead. Thirdly, the sin part you speak of you I do not have a clue what you are tying to say.
You also said--" will get chewed over this statement, but I am here to say that while there may be some uses for bi-vo pastors, the goal should be to eliminate the practice. It is impossible to pastor a church with the average time required to prepare for sermons, work another job, raise a family, visit the sick, etc, and feed the sheep. (God bless those men who try, and/ or DO.) But what usually ends up happening is the study time fails, the sermons become topical and full of stories and yelling instead of true exposition. Hence the starving of the sheep."
I'll be as kind as I know how but you are an arrogant and ignorant person who has not a clue what he is talking about.
I would argue all day long that bivocational pastors are the backbone of the SBC.
God provides a way for them to do their jobs. It is not for you to understand how they do it.
John,
Actually the 1646 London Baptist Confession is my all time favorite confession.
But even I could not sign off on every jot and tittle of it. For now at least:)
Name calling always brings an argument crashing down no matter how valid Tom. It also grieves the Lord. And scripture doesn't speak all that highly of it either.
There is a blogger named Spiritual Samurai who has a valid argument about some corrupt goings on in the BGCT. But he also spends alot of time name calling. His arguments are valid, but no one listens because he has so denigrated himself and his witness with his childish name calling. He has been relegated to the sidelines by his own doing. And the Lord is unable (unwilling?) to use him until he stops with the insults and name calling.
I can just see it now: A LDS goes to the IMB and declares I believe in Jesus and I have a call. So you believe in Jesus---good here's some money go and be a missionary for the SBC Convention.
The ultimate authority of the SBC is with the church. If churches don't like what the IMB is doing---tell them to do something about at the conventions.
... or they can just dispense with the convention and its politics and control and band together with other like-minded churches and do their own thing. Some already are.
Mike Everson and his GBC disciples are notorious Calvinist -
Mike is one of the meanest men in the ministry, bar none - with his sons Chad Everson and Jarrod Everson following daddies footsteps very closely.
Be careful running with these men, they are distructive to the ministry.
Alan, They certainly have that option. When the church I pastor called me it had standards that came with that call. They didn't just say hey come here and be our pastor. They believe that God wanted me to pastor them, however, this didn't mean that there were no standards.
Alan Paul:
Thanks for so kindly bringing what you did to my attention.
I sincerely repent of what I said to Kevin and Jeff within the last week. I ask their forgiveness. I really find myself saying things on a blog I would never say to someones face and that is sin for me to do that.
I really need to quit blogging.
The suggestion to do something about anything at the SBC convention always sounds really good, but with rare exception it is a faint hope. [The CR was a truly impressive logistical event.] The great majority of the people who go to the convention are going to see friends (and hear some good sermons) and take a vacation. Or else they come there for the above reasons and/or with a single vote in mind. By the time you get to something like we talk about here, many are out on the vacation/shopping part of the activity--and those who are still in the room are generally not for it. Whatever "it" is.
Bennett Willis
Tom, I have no problem with any the comments you wrote to me our about me. I have no doubt you are a Christian who loves Jesus and the SBC. We can argue, disagree and still be friends. Your only problem is you need to move to Arkansas and then you see the light.
"Secondly, those little dying churches are still alive until they are dead."
What is the defintion of a dead church? I think I know a mega church that is 'dead'.
Our chosen way of doing business is to have a convention once a year. It doesn't matter how small the numbers are. I think it is time to rethink how we take care of business as a convention! Webcasts and stuff like that would greatly increase the numbers.
-1) I believe there must be standards for all those called to get money from the SBC. I am not calling these employees for the sake of those not smarting then me. :)
-2) I believe that standard should be determined by the churches of the SBC.
Word verification: Jeff is right everyone else is wrong. :) At least that's how I saw it.
I have a dear friend who is a bi-vocational pastor. He supplies (only exposits and is reformed) but mainly pastors those he works with as a PT in a hospital.
Of course, I know there are many who have made 'pastor' an 'office' who will disagree.
Jeff, what 'standards' are you talking about:
the 'standard' way of appointing a trustee to vote in sync with the 'leadership'
the 'standard' treatment of missionaries who cannot sign the bfm2k out of conscience
the 'standard' way that Wade was treated when he was a trustee
What 'standards' are you talking about?
As soon as a 'standard' departs from Christian morality and ethics, it should be discarded in favor of a Christian approach
The standard as voted by convention.
I could not sign this document or affirm it. That does not mean I am in total opposition to it. Rather, while it speaks of the sufficiency of scripture, like BFM2000 it apparently is intended to augment scripture, thereby rendering scripture insufficient.
Nope, my soul rule of faith and practice is the Bible.
'voted by convention'
May we remind you of the vicious tactics of the 'take-over' of the Convention.
Once again, 'majority rule' cannot be allowed to drown out decency and moral, ethical behavior of Christian people.
SBC needs real Christian standards once again, not the nightmare that came on board with the coming of the CR.
That's your opinion! I think the process is fair and I think the standards are fair. Are we perfect no? Was it perfect before CR gain control? No.
We can all point to bad examples.
Bottom Line: That's how we operate as a convention. If you don't like it do like Wade is doing---point out what you think needs to be changed.
I understand about the standards you speak of, my comment was more a general comment about the increasingly pointless and irrelevant convention (other than the IMB but those in control are trying their best to corrupt that beyond recognition as well) and the churches freedom to walk away from the nonsense and begin to do God's work again instead of the endless bickering and fighting and dealing with the control freaks.
Tom, you took the right path in repenting.
But Jeff, look at all the dead bodies (ruined lives) as a result of the CR watch.
We didn't see THAT before.
There is NO argument: only the proof that resulted from CR betrayal of Christian values.
And Jeff, what about all that money? And those 'leaders' who demand 'the best' for themselves and their families at the expense of the Lord's tithe monies?
The 'results' of years of CR rule of the SBC speaks for itself.
Loudly.
Very loudly.
That's your opinion. I think the CR has been a blessing to the convention.
Jeff- How about a dialogue? How about answering the questions? That's suppose to be how this works - iron sharpening iron an' all that...
Oops.. just realized that the opposing view is anonymous... I take my comments to Jeff back. No sense in dialoguing with a non-entity.
The SBC Identity Blog's scripture of the day is instructive to this discussion.
"We know that we have passed from death to life because we love our brothers. The one who does not love remains in death."
1 John 3:14
Wade,
It is my prayer that we do see a revival and the most definite thing we know is number 10. We have to get back to family values. When we see families focusing and growing in Christ, we will see a difference.
"'What an unholy waist!'
'First of all it is waste not waist.'"
lol Actually Tom, my spelling is prolly more accurate. (some will get this some will not)
:)
As for your apology, I offer no forgiveness for I was not offended, not sought an apology from you. I understand that you said what you said out of arrogance and ignorance and therefore give you grace.
I do not seek your apology, but I will ask you to do one thing. Re-read my comment. Then come back and tell me how I could have offended you or any other bi-vo pastor. My gripe is with the system. The system has bread pastors who are doing all they know how to do. I am saying a different system is needed. I am saying out resources are spread so thin we have become ineffective. I have no doubt the Lord can accomplish His will through poorly constructed man made systems. But we should desire to be biblical. I submit the structure of many SBC churches, indeed the Conventional structure itself is NOT biblical.
I will not throughout the baby if the baby doesn't mind getting out of the bathwater to patiently wait on the side with a towel. If not, then bye, bye baby!
k
PS: This is of course all moot for I have no power. :)
"thereby rendering scripture insufficient."
Linda, might I suggest that Scripture is indeed sufficient for all things, however, due to the nature of its, physical, written form, it is not sufficient to communicate itself alone, nor interpret itself alone, nor does have in itself the ability to be concise, nor communicatively systematic on its own.
NEWS FLASH!!! God uses people to communicate His Word. THEN He uses the Spirit to make it stick and to apply it.
And so Luke had it right when he said that it is good to compile a list [of doctrines] most surely believed among us.
Blessings to you most excellent Lindaopholis!
:)
What the Holy Spirit can do is this: if a man preaches something and calls it Christianity, the Holy Spirit can activate the gift of discernment. This gift enables you to accept or reject the man's teachings as you discern whether or not they are true.
Ever hear someone carry on about a point of doctrine and you did not feel right about it? Well, there is a reason for that: the Holy Spirit has given you discernment.
"Ever hear someone carry on about a point of doctrine and you did not feel right about it? Well, there is a reason for that: the Holy Spirit has given you discernment."
Careful not to base your decisions on your feelings. The devil is responsible for many of those feelings.
Click HereToday, Dr. Bryan Chapell, President of Covenant Theological Seminary, and Professor Jerram Barrs, Professor of Christian Studies and Contemporary Culture, and Resident Scholar of the Francis A. Schaeffer Institute at CTS discuss the muchly debated issue of women in ministry. I think many of you would find this 23 minute discussion on Dr. Chapell's daily internet program, "Living Christ 360" to be a very refreshing take on the subject. Even if you disagree with a few of the points, you just might come away with some hope. :)
Happy listening!
K
I have a question how did the IMB/FMB go about placing missionaries in the field before CR.
What were the requirements?
Jeff, the question should remain: what is the difference observed in how missionaries WERE TREATED before and after CR take-over.
After, of course, they were no more to the CR than pawns in a doctrinal war and could be fired for failure to bow before
the bfm2k idol which the CR had created.
You are not facing this 'change' and its implications.
CR created an idol and demanded that men bow before it. If they did not, they were sacrificed to it. That's the truth and you know it.
Wade,
I’ve read your ‘sarcasm alert’ a dozen times and have decided ‘I can’t get there from here’.
1. The sarcasm is written to the BI people.
2. The date of the SBC is not sarcasm.
3. “Those who refuse to work to bring about passage of this motion…(that would be me but I’m not BI) should issue a personal apology to these people:” [fired missionaries]
What is sarcastic about number 3?
Fact: Those who work to bring about the motion will get more people fired. Right?
So why should the ones not working need to apologize to fired missionaries?
I agree with what I think you tied to say, but it just doesn’t come out right to me.
I believe if everyone refused to sign the BFM 2000, no one would have been fired, and egg would have been on the faces of those who now have inflated egos that they have written a paper that is our “doctrinal guideline”.
(I haven't read all the comments as our computer has been down for several days.)
Crowder, I am listening to Prof Barrs now. Thanks for the link. We are seeing rays of light here and there of those who are admitting indirectly this whole issue of 'women' has gone too far. (Such as Ware, SBC paid prof, teaching that woman are made in the 'indirect image of God, etc)
He admits his wife was a more mature Christian than he was when they married and he could learn from her. So, how could he have been her 'spiritual head' at that time? hmm.
Good stuff... is ONE step in the right direction.
But he does, unfortuantly, use the Trinity to teach unequal earthly roles.
He is teaching equal access to the Lord (good) but he is mischaracterizing physical differences as being spiritual differences. He also has a very shallow understanding of the Book of Ruth.
When folks quote CS Lewis on his analogies concerning women, they need to check whether it was written pre Joy or post Joy. Lewis' demeanor changed after that experience.
I did appreciate his point about women praying aloud at church. It is amazing how typical this is at many churches.
The problem these men will have is finding the line in the sand where women can exercise their spiritual gifts. They use the word 'office' as the line. But, unfortuantly, we both know that the idea of 'office' was added to scripture and 'ordain' was also for deacons of which we know for a fact a woman was one. They are stuck on the institutionalization of gifts.
But, with all this, I do appreciate their heart on this matter.
You didn't answer the question:
What were the requirements to become a missionary before the CR?
Kevin do we get butter with those bread pastors or does it just go to waist? :)
Bennett Willis
Post a Comment