Tuesday night at the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention, the messengers overwhelmingly voted to adopt a motion from Al Mohler to "authorize the President of the Southern Baptist Convention to appoint a Great Commission Taskforce charged to bring a report and any recommendations to the SBC meeting in Orlando, Florida June 15-16, 2010 concerning how Southern Baptists can work together more faithfully and effectively in serving Christ through the Great Commission."The Convention in Orlando next year is setting up to be a doozy. Not only will there be a new President elected, but the report of this Great Commission Taskforce will be as controversial as the Peace Committee Report of the mid-1990's.
There are three reasons why this Great Commission vote Tuesday night launches a year of controversy:
(1). Baptist State Convention Executive-Directors and Dr. Morris Chapman are united in their belief that certain agency heads, particularly Jerry Rankin, Al Mohler and Danny Akin are looking for churches to give more money directly to their institutions rather than through the Cooperative Program where state conventions and the Executive Committee would receive a cut of what is given. Whether this is true or not is not really the issue - it is the perception.
(2). Some Southern Baptists, particularly Paige Patterson, Malcolm Yarnell and others affiliated with Southwestern Theological Seminary believe the Great Commission Resurgence Declaration does not go far enough doctrinally. Wanting a much firmer and official "Baptist Identity" spelled out in the Great Commission Declaration, Baptist Identity adherents have signed the document with "caveats" or not signed it at all. Many who argued against the Great Commission Recommendation Tuesday night said the growing influence of Calvinism in the SBC is the reason for the decline in baptisms, and no Great Commission Declaration would ever weed out what really needs to go in the SBC - Calvinists.
(3). Dr. Morris Chapman made, in my opinion, a very strategic mistake during his Executive-Director's address Tuesday morning. As stated above, Dr. Chapman is adamantly opposed to the Great Commission Declaration because of a feeling those in support of it will work to "cut out" traditional Cooperative Program accounting. In essence, Dr. Chapman believes Danny Aiken and other agency heads have long sought the Convention to label any DIRECT gifts to any specific SBC agency as "Cooperative Program" giving. Dr. Chapman takes the position regarding the Cooperative Program budget that most local SBC pastors take regarding their local church budgets. Once people begin to "designate" gifts then the idea of a unified and cooperative budget goes out the window.
However, rather than addressing the practical and financial concerns associated with GCRD Article 9 (i.e. the restucturing of SBC agencies and ministries) during his address, Dr. Chapman delivered a rather polemical strike against Calvinism. Dr. Chapman, in essence, blamed Calvinism for the decline of baptisms, giving and missions in the SBC. Several who opposed the Great Commission Recommendation Tuesday night picked up on Dr. Chapman's attack against Calvinism. Dr. Chapman's strike against Calvinists in the SBC was a mistake.
In an extraordinary luncheon meeting at Sojourn Church after Dr. Morris Chapman's address, Dr. Danny Aiken publicly apologized to all his "Calvinist" friends present at the luncheon (Dr. Mohler was seated to his left on the platform) for the "shameful" misrepresentations of Calvinism by Executive-Director Morris Chapman. I don't know when I've seen agency heads at such odds with each other as they seem to now be.
My Vote on the Great Commission Resurgence
In the end, I voted for the Great Commission Recommendation Tuesday night. Honestly, after the Baptist21 luncheon today at Sojourn where national agency leaders seemed to either advocate or condone bypassing state conventions in order to give directly seminaries, the IMB, or other national entities of the SBC, I was withdrawing my support for the Great Commission Resurgence Declaration.
However, after hearing the floor debate on Tuesday night and realizing that those voting AGAINST the Great Commisison recommendation were either slamming Calvinists, or opposing evangelical cooperation, or were strong advocates of Baptist Identity - I voted FOR the Great Commission Motion.
I admire Dr. Chapman, but I think it was a very strategic mistake to oppose the Great Commission Resurgence on the basis of blaming Calvinists for the problems in the SBC. Others heard his address and picked up the mantra Tuesday night during the debate on the Great Commission recommendation. In the end, the diatribe against Calvinists by those opposing the GCRD Task Force is precisely why I voted FOR for the GCRD Task Force.
Otherwise, I probably would have voted against it. It is not my desire, nor will it ever by my desire, to defund state missions ministry. I can't speak for other Baptist state conventions, but I can guarantee you that the work done in Oklahoma is extraordinary. Frankly, I am far more comfortable with the accountability of how our STATE Cooperative Program funds are being spent than I am with the accountability of hour our NATIONAL Cooperative Program funds are being spent - particularly when our national convention refuses to adopt GAAP or FASB conflict of interest guidelines - something our state Baptist Conention did years ago.
Needless to say, things are getting very confusing in the SBC. I told my wife three years ago that the reason I was taking a stand against excluding charismatics from the IMB and the SBC is because if you don't draw the line there, then those who hold to the doctrines of grace would be the next ones targeted.
Well, it sure seems that some very signficant people are now taking direct aim at Calvinists in the SBC.
Hold on tight. It could get really rocky.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
95 comments:
Wade,
It seems that your vote was one of conscience and it must be respected.
The big picture, though, is as sad as it was predictable. I believe you were the one who coined the phrase "crusading conservatives" and it is still appropriate. The present (post-1979) SBC was birthed by and built on a crusade mentality. Too many people--leaders included--have nothing to live for unless they have something to attack.
And so it was the "liberals"--then the "gays"--then the "female pastors"--then the charismatics and those not baptized according to Landmark standards--and now, apparently, the Calvinists. (Let me head off one attack by saying that no, I do not equate all of those groups). But who knows who will be next?
There is a kind of fundamentalist who must have an enemy to crusade against or he/she feels that he/she is not doing God's work.
Y'all have a mess on your hands, but, frankly, you've been making it for 30 years now and it's going to take a long, long time to clean up.
Anyone and everyone who does not conform in every point may as well face the fact that they will one day come for you--if for no other reason than to ask you to leave.
As I said, sad, but predictable.
One more thing--GCR or no GCR, the agency heads who supposedly want more direct funding or who want such funding to count as CP giving are, in a roundabout way, going to get what they want whether or not they benefit from it.
What I mean is that churches that are paying attention will become less and less inclined to give their money through the unified CP budget because they will get tired of funding the foolishness they keep hearing about and seeing on the national, institutional, bureaucratic level and so they will pick and choose.
Again, whether Southern, Southeastern, the IMB, etc. would benefit is an interesting question.
My guess is that, given the great love that Baptists have for the missionaries, the IMB would do ok. I'm not so sure about any other agency.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First, they came for the ones who spoke in tongues. I didn't speak up, because I don't do that.
Then, they came for those who hadn't been baptized in an SBC Church (yes I know the real deal). I had been, so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the Calvinists. I'm not, so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for those who didn't sign the BF&M. I had, so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for those who used birth control. We don't, so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me. And there wasn't anybody left to speak up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My thanks to Mayer/Niemoller/Bob Cleveland.
The thought of a "fractured" style of giving to SBC operations should scare anyone who has ever planned a budget.
Programs with a "good" story suddenly have more money than they can wisely use and programs that have been around for a while are short. The planners then try to anticipate the directed giving and adjust for it. This creates uncertainty and resentment because suddenly the % to a traditional program goes up and the % (of undesignated money) to the "popular" programs goes down.
Encouraging "designated giving" makes having a managed program very difficult. Think about your own church budget. How could it work if a significant group of your donors decided that they would designate that the money they give should go to some orphanage somewhere? Then some other group designates something else. You might suddenly find that you could not pay salaries and utilities.
Bennett Willis
You might suddenly find that you could not pay salaries and utilities.
Is this.... bad?
Wade,
You have made a very weak attempt to keep your attack on BU guys with this post. Not one BI guy was against the GCR. Not one! Just who are speaking of?
Have representatives or heads of the 'state conventions' ever met together as a formal group to discuss mutual problems? (Sort of like a 'Governor's Conference'.)
If not, this might be a good time to bring them together and put all this out on the table. Maybe some good will come of it. It certainly wouldn't hurt.
"Pro-active" is much more productive and positive than re-acting once the damage has been done.
Tim
Thanks
Robin
I AM NOT A CALVINIST!
That being said and emphasized, why the heck is Calvinism being blamed for the decline in the SBC? I know when I was first saved & baptized, I didn't know Calvin from John Doe. If you ask me, this is just another way to try to deflect what the real problems in the convention are.
Wade, I have really grown to like and respect you. I am really sad that Calvinists are starting to become targets in our convention.
Robin, Tim: I would be curious to know exactly what the CR means to you, in other words, do you agree with all that was said tonight? It seems Tim had some issues with JD Greear's message for example. Enough that he wrote a post about it. So I'm kind of scratching my head that all of you were for it.
Thy Piece:
I find your illustration to be extremely flawed!
The SBC is not nazi Germany besides the "they" is always shifting in your attempt to equate the two.
For example the they in opposing tongues and the they in speaking out against calvinism.
In the Niemoller statement it was always the Nazis.
Rob
Wade,
I never could figure why you signed the GCR in the first place but I can now.
From your description of events, it seems that for whatever reason, the Great Commission Resurgence Declaration has become a rallying movement for those who want to see more designated giving and less Cooperative Program giving.
But now, according to your account, we can add that that the GCR is more identified as a campaign for Calvinism, or at least a campaign against those opposed to Calvinism! You actually say that your decision to support it is now primarily due to your being offended by what Morris Chapman said about Calvinists and since he’s against the Resurgence document, you are for it!!! What a shallow reason to campaign for something.
Are you saying that you are now willing to support designated giving over the cooperative approach because you are angry about what Morris Chapman said about Calvinists? Even if I disagreed vehemently with Dr. Chapman’s conclusions as to the cause of our SBC problems, that would not lead me to abandon my commitment to a methodology that I knew to be the most effective in applying our SBC resources!
It all seems like a bunch of childish, shallow bickering and power playing by all involved. The bottom line is that it results in the focus being taken away from winning souls to Christ and our having a broken heart for the lost souls of the world as we get worked into a frenzy to campaign for our little cause of CP or Calvinism.
Knowing how God operates, one can only perceive of things getting worse in the SBC and our having fewer baptisms, fewer churches being planted and a lessening of God’s anointing power upon our beloved Convention. So let’s all act like a dog with his foot caught in the trap and chew on ourselves. Can’t wait to see who wins, the dog or the trap. God help us.
The Calvinists only pastor smaller churches compared to noncalvinists!! There are no REAL Mega Calvinst Churches that I am aware of anyways. A Few with a 1,000 or so,but not FBC JAX or Bellevue.
They have said this for years, yet do not even know what Calvinism teaches. I am glad Akin called him out and called him out publicly and referred to it as shameful.
Thank you Danny.
Grace
Romans 5:1
Wade,
I would have voted against the GCR because of the words of those who are for it. You voted for it because of the words of those who were against it. I am more afraid of what those who are for it will do if it passes than what those who are against t will do if it fails.
If we call all money given to SBC agencies CP funds, then we have to change the name from Cooperative Program to “everyone for himself program” which is exactly what we had 90 years ago and why we adopted the cooperative program.
It will be interesting to see who Johnny Hunt appoints to the study group. When we see that, we will know what the report will be.
Sadly the declines will continue in the SBC. Too many problems, divisions, etc.
And after the CR we were told that Great days were ahead in the SBC--well I have not seen them yet.
The fight continues to be about power and money.
Tim and Robin,
My sincere aplogies.
I only thought the BI was against the GCRD because many BI leaders signed the document "with caveats."
It is with gladness that I accept your demand that everyone understand the BI is FOR the GCRD.
All Southern Baptists should now know that signing a document with caveats does not preclude somebody being FOR that which they sign.
Thank you for the clarification and I believe you have been most helpful.
In His Grace,
Wade
I just wonder what Jesus thinks when He watches all the infighting, groups to join, and that sickening vote against Broadway Baptist Church. He might be wondering if He died in vain.
Wade,
“(2). Some Southern Baptists, particularly Paige Patterson, Malcolm Yarnell and others affiliated with Southwestern Theological Seminary believe the Great Commission Resurgence Declaration does not go far enough doctrinally. Wanting a much firmer and official "Baptist Identity" spelled out in the Great Commission Declaration, Baptist Identity adherents have signed the document with "caveats" or not signed it at all. Many who argued against the Great Commission Recommendation Tuesday night said the growing influence of Calvinism in the SBC is the reason for the decline in baptisms, and no Great Commission Declaration would ever weed out what really needs to go in the SBC - Calvinists.”
Just reading your post, and not hearing these comments from the floor of the convention first hand, one get’s the impression that the majority of the “Baptist Identity” movement are in truth very Anti-Calvinist (no big surprise) and the real reason why many of them did not, and will not, support the Great Commission Resurgence is that it was written by, or heavily influenced by, leading SBC Calvinist.
If this is true then the “Baptist Identity” movement is not only Anti-Calvinist, they are also “Anti-Cooperation”… (again no big surprise).
Did they actually say from the convention floor that “Calvinism in the SBC is the reason for the decline in baptisms, and that Calvinists need to be weeded out?”
If so I would like to know how the convention floor reacted to these comments? Were they a lot of amen’s? Was their silence? I am sure there were not the “boos” that such a comment should have received?
Grace Always,
Texan said:
"I just wonder what Jesus thinks when He watches all the infighting, groups to join, and that sickening vote against Broadway Baptist Church. He might be wondering if He died in vain."
I believe the Word speaks to that point. He didn't die in vain and He is bigger than any problems or denomination like the SBC.
I get the sense after reading comments like yours that many who call themselves moderates are cheering for the demise of the SBC. Go ahead and be the "armchair quarterback" and gripe and complain from your lofty spiritual easychair. The situation reminds me of disgruntled church members who are never satisfied no matter what happens.
Another reason the Orlando convention next year will be a doozy: The FBC Jax Watchdog and his supporters will be there, with bells on. Accountability and transparency will be a must for both sides of these issues. And some censure of Mac Brunson for his actions and words will be brought to the floor. All of this, and much more, are already in the planning stages. 2010 - Orlando. Can't wait. We can only hope Mac will be nominated for president.
I really wish Baptists would go back to their Arminian beginnings, but that is just a personal preference. It sickens me to hear many blame Calvinism for the decline in baptisms. I suggest it has more to do with the fact that the SBC has diluted the gospel by having a close identification with the Republican Party and the fact that the BI movement excludes many people. When Richard Land says something, many people hear his words as the official stance of the SBC. They can't hear the true gospel because they think to be a Baptist (Christian) is to agree with Land.
Founders Ministries Blog > The Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Vote Passed.
5. The growing humility within the SBC. I heard agency heads, featured preachers and seasoned pastors saying publicly what has needed to be said for a long time. God doesn't need the SBC. The SBC can fail and be thrown onto the ash heap of ecclesiastical history and the kingdom of God will march on victoriously. It is that kind of awareness and humility that breeds the kind of perspective on the SBC that may well lead us to see our brightest days in the future. Until we get over the SBC we will not be in a position to utilize it for kingdom purposes as we ought.
Morris Chapman’s comments are not only offensive to me as a Southern Baptist Calvinist, they are demeaning to me as the pastor of small congregations in the SBC for over 15 years now.
According to Chapman’s opinion if you’re not a Mega-Church pastor then you don’t count for much in the SBC. I have always considered the small church pastors in the SBC as our “Home Missionaries”. It is clear from his comments that Morris Chapman does not share this view of the thousands of small church pastors in the SBC who have made great personal sacrifices in order to serve in our small SBC churches and enable them to continue to reach the lost in our own backyard with the gospel message.
I find it absolutely amazing that any Southern Baptist Leader would have such disrespect for our “Home Missionaries”. This kind of arrogance and elitist attitude is exactly what has turned so many of the younger generation of Baptist Pastors off and why they are heading for the exits in record numbers.
It’s time to give Morris Chapman his gold watch!
Grace Always,
Texan: I'm completely sure that Jesus knows that He didn't die in vain.
Wade: I was really surprised to see your comments on the day, after having spent the whole day (7:45am - 11:00pm at the convention.) It's like we weren't in the same building?! (I'm a 27-year-old seminary student, 1st time attendee)
1) Except for Chapman's address, I thought Tuesday was a strong display of unity, led by Johnny Hunt and the Executive committee. Even though I know we differ theologically, I value their leadership and excited to cooperate in the Gospel with them.
2) I agree with what Mark Dever and Danny Akin (not Aiken) said at the 9Marks at 9:00pm event - that there are "outlier" groups on both sides who still think cooperation b/w Calv's and non-Calv's is not possible, but their numbers are dwindling. The majority of people are warming to the idea that cooperation is possible, especially with the evident cooperation b/w Hunt-Mohler-Akin-Page concerning the GCR.
3) I don't think the GCR is primarily about giving directly to SBC entities. From hearing Akin's explanation at the 9Marks at 9:00pm event, I think this was initiated by men broken by lostness and trying to focus our discussions back on our cooperative task.
For others, I think a more helpful and less cynical report is being given on the 9Marks blog: http://blog.9marks.org/
Stephen: I want SBC'ers to return to their early theology as well! We apparently just disagree historically on what that theology was: (http://www.founders.org/)
Ben,
Thanks for commenting. If you reread my post you will see that the perception of state executive directors and Morris Chapman is that the GCR is a means to alter Cooperative Program funding disguised as a rally around the Great Commission.
I am not declaring that the case, just offering the perception. It could be that you don't see this because you have not conversed with some of the people with whom I have visited abou this subject.
Also, please know that there are some really good things coming out of this year's Convention. I would agree that a number of young pastors and young people came this year - far more than in year's past. I also think, as Lin said in a previous comment, that more and more people "get it." I am hopeful, as are you, that there is a great deal more unity.
Blessings,
Wade
Jim,
You wrote that you, "get the sense after reading comments like yours that many who call themselves moderates are cheering for the demise of the SBC."
I am one of those whom you would (and I think have) identified as a "moderate." And I can assure you: I am not cheering for the demise of the SBC. There may be some who were directly hurt by things the CR did back in the 80s who are--I don't know, I didn't move in those circles back then, even though I had some of those folks as professors. Even those, I doubt, because (1) hurt or not, they have moved on, and (2), whether ot not they are "your" type of Christians, they are Christians, and know how to forgive and that they are compelled by Christ to forgive. I don't know anyone who is cheering for the demise of the SBC, and that includes folks far to my left. A lot of us are not at all surprized that it is going that direction--but that is a far cry from cheering it on. And those of us "moderates" who are still in the SBC did not remain in the hope of going to a funeral, but rather in the hope that we could still make a meaningful contribution to it and through it.
Sometimes the "sense of things" we get are more colored by our own perceptions and prejudices than by reality. I suspect this is one of those.
John
Greg Alford,
You ask about the hall's mood when Dr. Chapman gave his polemic address against Calvinism - it was mostly silence, a smattering of applause in some places.
When he spoke articulately on other, and more important matters, he received much louder applause.
Stephen
You are sadly mistaken when it comes to SBC roots being in arminianism.
It is quite the opposite my friend.
Tom Nettles wrote a book ("By His Grace and For His Glory") 20 yrs ago about the subject, to date it has not been refuted.
Bill
Romans 5:1
Greg: One person did sayfrom the convention floor something to the effect of: "This resolution speaks to centering on the Gospel, but we no longer agree what the Gospel is because of Calvinism's effects on the SBC. Calvinism splits up families, churches, and the SBC is now doomed to die the death of the primitive Baptists unless we can solidify what the Gospel is..."
The fellow messengers around me sat in disbelief and I heard some quiet groanings or chuckles b/c it seemed so outlandish. Yet, the guy in front of ume nodded his head in agreement with the speaker. And Yet again, when Frank Page gave his endorsement of the GCR immediately following, the same man gave a bigger nod in agreement for Gospel cooperation. The overwhelming vote on the floor suggests to me that the vast majority do not find the presence of Calvinistic theology a barrier to Gospel cooperation.
Bill,
Have you ever heard of the General Baptists? They were the first Baptists, beginning with Smythe and Helwys, they wrote the first Baptist cofession of faith (the London Confession of 1643/46), and they were the primary (if not the only) Baptist group in the South in the earliest years of Baptist history in America. They were Arminian.
John
This is a Test.
First Question.
Cooperative Program Birthed in 1925!
Great Commission Birthed over 2000 years ago!
To which should we owe the greatest allegiance?
Second Question.
How did the Church Survive until 1925?
John
I would encourage you to read "BHG and FHG" by Nettles. There were actually 2 streams of Baptists the General--who also believed that you could lose you salvation, and were also heavily baptismal regeneristic.
The SBC arose out of the Particular Baptist movement.
Greg
I have made those same statements about Chapman for almost 20 yrs.
It is amazing at the pastors to which I speak who have no idea what the Gospel entails!! (No Stephen and John, I am not talking about Calvinism here). In fact, never mind
Bill, I'll admit my research is dated. It goes back to my seminary days, 1984-87. It was mostly in primary source material for the early Baptist churches and associations in Virginia and North Carolina rather than the secondary source you quote (and I admittedly not read it, nor am I likely to, what the demands of the pastorate). If I am slightly oversimplifying in stating that the General Baptists were Arminian, you are drasticly oversimplifying the situation with your statement that, "The SBC arose out of the Particular Baptist movement," as if that absolutely proves that all the early Baptists (or at least all in the early SBC) were Calvinists.
I do not have time to recreate and/or locate my research from way back when. You will probably disagree with it anyway, and that's OK. But I suspoect we will just have to agree to disagree on it.
John
after the SBC lobotomized itself by jettisoning moderates from its leadership ranks, is it any wonder that it would eventually end up chasing its tail?
John Fariss said:
"whether ot not they are "your" type of Christians, they are Christians, and know how to forgive and that they are compelled by Christ to forgive."
First of all, I don't think you find in my comments where I said "my" type of Christian. Secondly, to forgive is to release the offense and not bring up the past. I don't sense that from moderates at all. In fact, many who comment on this blog find ways to get their digs in about the past. That doesn't sound like forgiveness to me.
The age old trick of the CR was to label anyone who disagrees with you as a "liberal" or a "moderate." Now it seems that if we disagree we are "wishing for the demise of the SBC."
Sorry, but it didn't work then and it doesn't work now. Remember that the big mega church pastors who are the darlings of the CR usually give about 1.5% of their budgets to the cooperative program. And you wonder who is wishing for the demise?
I also am quite well aware that Jesus knows He didn't die in vain. It was simply a statement to draw light to the infamous vote of yesterday.
Jim:
You said--"I get the sense after reading comments like yours that many who call themselves moderates are cheering for the demise of the SBC. Go ahead and be the "armchair quarterback" and gripe and complain from your lofty spiritual easychair. The situation reminds me of disgruntled church members who are never satisfied no matter what happens."
Jim I do not believe any moderate wants to see the demise of the SBC.
It's really that the CR failed and someone has to be blamed and surely those in full support of the CR would never ever take even an inch of the blame.
BTW I still do not know what you or anyone who uses the term moderate actually means.
Deja vu all over again.
20 or so years ago when some churches in Oklahoma who where against the 'CT' (Conservative Takeover) chose to designate their Cooperative Program monies to certain organizations, they were told, "no, you can't count it as CP money if you designate it." It was presented in the quarterly CP giving reports in the Baptist Messenger as "other giving" or somesuch.
What a difference a couple of decades make. It may be that those old stalwarts of giving may be able to call their contributions to the Kingdom through the SBC as CP giving after all...
Gary
Norman, OK
I think guys like Chapman, Patterson and Vines are panicked because the convention is leaving them behind. They don't offer much in the form of vision...they're more known for what they're against than what they're for and honestly we're sick of it. I have no doubt they love God and are fine preachers...but we need vision and the SBC needs an overhaul...focusing on what we're against and blaming the other camp for all of the problems is childish and so we're saying...enough!
Grady,
Good comments. I liken it to many older people in the church who do not know how to love the new generation and let them use their talents, dreams and God given skills to the fullness of the gospel.
For me, when a church sits on a corner for 20, 30 40+ years and it looks the same, has not grown, has not reached their community... this breaks my heart. I don't think this is what God intends for the local church, nor for the SBC.
Its time to build it or bury ut.
Dear JIM SHAVER,
You ask us this:
"Second Question.
How did the Church Survive until 1925?"
Jim, here's a hint:
IT WASN'T BY OUR DOING.
In our pride, we forget that sometimes.
Love, L's
Jim,
You are right when you said, "First of all, I don't think you find in my comments where I said 'my' type of Christian." What I wanted to convey was the sense of division (me verses them) that I get from many of my more conservative brothers. My perception--maybe wrongly--is that at least some very conservative brothers see the world in terms of "my type of Christians, i.e., Southern Baptists" and "other Christians, so-called." Perhaps you are not among them, or perhaps my perception is not based in reality. At any rate, you are correct, it was a statement of my own frustration, not reflecting something you have said, and I apologize for it.
I disagree, however, with your second statement, "Secondly, to forgive is to release the offense and not bring up the past. I don't sense that from moderates at all. In fact, many who comment on this blog find ways to get their digs in about the past. That doesn't sound like forgiveness to me." Your definition of forgiveness sounds like it is based on a popular misunderstanding of Jeremiah 31:34. That verse says, "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more," and too often people go about as if God gets a case of divine amnesia, and therefore, if a person has forgiven, he/she too has amnesia. I operate on a different definition however: that when a person forgives, they desire a restored relationship, and even if that does not happen, they sincerely wish the best for the party who inflicted some hurt. But there will be pain left over even after that--I know of no marriage which fails to teach that, as none of us are divine. If you hear "digs," well, is it not not possible that either what you hear are legidimate complaints that have yet to be dealt with, or pain left over even after forgiveness? Besides myself, two other "moderates" have already spoken up and stated catagorically that "we" do not desire the demise of the SBC. Please consider our words rather than your perceptions.
John
Bill / John Faris:
I had all Baptists in mind, not just SBC. Bill, you are right. The SBC has Calvinist roots. The churches I have researched in Georgia in the 1830s - 1860 were Calvinist and we all know the SBC was organized in 1845. John, you are also correct in your statement about early Arminians. That is what I had in mind.
So I will stick by my statement that I wish all Baptists were Arminians. But, they are not. Lets move on and address the more pertinent issues of the decline of the SBC....and it is not Calvinism....at least from my limited perspective.
"Secondly, to forgive is to release the offense and not bring up the past."
Huh? Great doctrine for those who 'offend'.
But what if they are not really repentent? Say, for example, an adulterer husband who has been forgiven. I guess that means the wife should not question it when he stays out late with female clients over and over? Then it would be stupid not to 'bring up past behavior'.
(The CR leaders have not changed either)
Forgiveness is releasing the right to vengence. It does not always mean fellowship or restoration. If the other party is unrepentent or phoney in repentence and still keeps doing the same thing to other people, you don't throw your pearls in front of them.
Once again, we see a lot of blaming the victim. If they dare bring something up then they are unforgiving, bitter, etc.
We have to repent to be forgiven by God for our sins. I think many folks miss that one. Even our CR leaders.
Stephen
TY for arighting the conversation. You are correct. This conversation needs to live in the experiential lives of ALL SBCers not by singling out some as others have done.
Because of His Grace,
Bill
Romans 5:1
One person did say from the convention floor something to the effect of:
"This resolution speaks to centering on the Gospel, but we no longer agree what the Gospel is because of Calvinism's effects on the SBC. Calvinism splits up families, churches, and the SBC is now doomed to die the death of the primitive Baptists unless we can solidify what the Gospel is..."
I’d be willing to bet a glass of vintage California Cabernet Sauvignon that the person making those comments was a BI/Landmarkist.
Yes, all anyone has to do is look at the pitiful condition of Southern Seminary to see what Calvinism will do to any institution it infects… (Please read with dripping sarcasm) How sad is this?
Grace Always,
Wade,
The most notable thing was the absence of any motions made by Wiley Drake. Perhaps he was afraid to fly after praying imprecatory psalms against the president, or since making threats against the president is a crime, perhaps he has been added to the No Fly List.
Steve,
My wife thought about making a motion to form a task force to locate Wiley since he is such a staple at the SBC meetings and seemed to be a missing person. I told her I would second it.
It would have been referred to someone to report back next year and by then...
I know one way we could get more money to the mission field. Get rid of some DOM positions. I don't get what a lot of these guys do anyway. With modern technology why do we need an association every other county or parish. What is a little strange is how one association will have 150 churches and another will have 20. How about combining 2,3,or 4 associations and taking the salaries and budgets these associations have and send out more missionaries.
"I know one way we could get more money to the mission field. Get rid of some DOM positions."
What about the Hemphill and Welch positions. What is it they do?
That would cover a few more missionary positions based on their high salaries.
Hemphill seems to write a lot of books. Is that on our dime? Does the SBC get to keep the royalties?
Baptist Beginnings
For the record, Baptists began with Arminian and Calvinist roots. Some were Arminian, others were Calvinist.
Theological diversity has always existed in Baptist life. I distrust any Baptist History that attempts to trace Baptist origins to one stream or another, whether it be Calvinist or Arminian.
I can only speak from personal experience here, and I know there are others whose experience is different. But from where I sit in the bleachers. . . .
I have served five churches in five associations under seven DOMs in three states. Two associations were rural, two were small city/rural, and one was suburban/city/small town. Of those seven DOM's, three were great, one was good, one regarded the part-time job as an opportunity to drink coffee with his buddies and write a book that was never published, one did not have a clue what was going on in his association or have much interest in finding out (others told me he was not always like that, but had gotten burnt out before I came there), and one was probably good or better, but I left shortly after he arrived. In none of them was there a bloated bureaucracy. Sure, there were disagreements occasionally, and always someone who thought funds should be allocated differently (I have thought that myself on occasion). But all of these associations did a lot with very little, even those with less than ideal DOM's.
I have had less contact with state associations, although I have been active in my state convention. I have been to various workshops and seminars they have put on, all of them good, and for the most part, at a cost that ranged from very reasonable to downright cheap. All of them--BSCNC, BGAV, and BCMD--have worked hard, and while there might be "some" bureaucracy, as is normally the case the larger the oreganization is, I think we got a lot of bang for our bucks with them.
Where is the bloated bureaucracy? Well, NABM spent a million CP dollars on an interactive display about North American Missions that was mothballed after a few months of people ignoring it, not to mention a leashed corporate jet. The IMB spends who knows how much paying for nearly a hundred trustees to attend six (I think that is what I have read) meetuings a years, and what? One overseas trip a year for each--airline travel, food, and lodgings, while missionaries are (according to some who have commented on Wade's blog) pay for mission necessities out of their own pockets. And in seminaries--well, when I was at SEBTS 1984-87, Dr. Lolly drove himself where he needed to go, and Mrs. Lolly did the cooking (they may or may not have had someone to clean--I never heard they did, but it is possible). Dr. Drummond had a closet expanded and air ducts ran into it for his wife's furs, but I never heard of additional servants. Now Dr. Patterson has a driver, security personnel, a staff, and one or two cooks for "Pecan Mannor." You tell me: at what level do we find a bloated bureaucracy?
John
And BTW, combining associations seems to make sense. I will support it as soon as we start combining churches and equalizing membership and receipts between them. When should I expect action on that?
John
Some people like associations while others loathe them. Is it possible that many associations are better positioned (yet lack the resources) to help the local church than the state or national convention?
yes, I have been in associations where I seldom saw or interacted with the DOM. I have also had some of the strongest servants for His Kingdom who were my DOM.
Our upcoming mission trip to western PA is highly because of my love and appreciation for the DOM and the work He is doing. Any help we can give adds to the great work He is building for Christ.
In Alabama it will be interesting to see if this becomes discussion at local church levels.
Several large percentage CP churches in my opinion should cut the CP giving in half and send the other half to the Baptist World Alliance.
Such would be more honest 'designation" of the baptist identity of their heart.
The SBC benefits too much from too many churches who keep giving cause they don't have the will to discuss what has happenned in the SBC last 35 years.
That is sad.
As Elvis said to President Nixon:
Mr. President, you run your show and I'll run mine.
Jim Shaver,
You asked how did the Church survive until 1925.
The answer could be: ‘Just like the Church survived for 1900 years without the ‘code word’ inerrancy.
Jim Paslay, if you think this is a “dig” by a moderate, you may be right, but I believe it’s the truth.
Tim Marsh:
I think your statements about the origins of the SBC are factually incorrect.
History I believe shows that at least for the first 7o years the SBC was confessionally Calvinistic.
BTW----If SBC wants to be Arminian want not combine with the free will Baptists.
I assume you dont trust Tom Nettles then!
Rob
It's encouraging to see the names of those Johnny Hunt selected for the Resurgence committee. Seems like a good representation of various interests. Have to pray for them.
For all of you like Texan who have attacked the SBC for disfellowshiping Broadway Baptist Church, I offer this article by someone who knows what it is like to struggle with same sex attraction (and be lovingly disciplined for it):
Baptists Right to Boot Broadway?
Newww BBC Open Forum > What's with all the yelling and anger?.
Three quick quotes:
1. Shakespeare--"Much ado about nothing."
2. Jesus--read Matthew 23 in a modern translation for clear observations about the current SBC.
3. "The higher the monkey climbs the tree, the more you see his tail."
In 1979 it was said, "You can steal the bus, but someone has to put gas in the tank." Obviously, the Mega-church bus picking up all the people has no money for the SBC bus trying to send missionaries cooperatively. HOWEVER, now we have to decide whether they are Calvinist, Conservative, Liberal, Inerrantist, whatever-ist.
PLEASE--give me a break. We are the source of humor for all non-Christians and it ain't pretty.
Wade--keep up the good work. At least a few aren't blindfolded by all the "Dr." titles. Behind them are spoiled little boys whose mother never told them they can't always get their way. What a vicious marble game on the playground and you would think somehow it might quit before knuckles get broken on the loosers!
Hello, D.R.,
Thank you for sharing from that perspective.
I am still left wondering about some things.
If the Lord Christ sat at a table with tax-collectors and 'sinners',
can we make the assumption that none of those 'sinners' were homosexuals?
When we speak about being 'friendly' to 'sinners' of any kind, do we mean 'condoning' the sin by our presence with them?
Or allowing their presence in our midst?
What are we to make of Our Lord's example in sitting down to eat with 'sinners' and shocking the Pharisees? Does His example have meaning for our own time?
Does the SBC still believe that when Broadway Church gathers in community to pray in the Name of Christ, that He is still Present in their midst, in accordance with promises of Holy Scripture ?
How do Southern Baptists explain the 'disfellowship' of Broadway to their young people in a way that they can understand?
Thank you, if you can help with these questions. L's
Robert,
You are right about the SBC. In 1845 the SBC was largely Calvinistic until EY Mullins' influence at the turn of the 20th Century. Interestingly enough, according to Fisher Humphreys, no one has told the story of the shift to a more Arminian theology at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century.
However the Baptist movement began in 1609 with a more Arminian tilt under the leadership of Smyth and Helwys. About 30 years later a Calvinistic group of Baptists arose.
Interestingly, according to Leon McBeth, these Baptist traditions actually developed independently. My point is that Calvinists and Arminians as Baptists later united around the primacy of the Bible for faith and practice and religious freedom.
Why can it not continue today?
Sorry, Robert, if I originally misunderstood you.
Wade,
YOur statement about caveats is absurd. First, ask the ones who signed with caveats why they did. Second, your attempt to connect this with your signing of a Statement of Belief of the very organization one serves is completely different. Even my 12 year old knows that difference. Third, you cannot deny that there is NO group as you keep proposing that is lock sync in step with some pope. Your exageration and false perceptions that you have propogated have been clearly proven wrong.
So sorry for you but enough is enough Wade. The GCR is off and running - get happy!
"Stephen Wilson, a member of the executive committee, told The Baptist Press that although Broadway Baptist does not officially endorse homosexuality "they were allowing members and also people in leadership that were homosexual.
"The church was in effect saying that it was OK to have members who are open homosexuals," Wilson said. (USA Today)
so, in effect, if the problem with homosexuality is that it is a sin, then perhaps the church should get rid of all gossipers, liars, adulterers - all sinners.
It's been stated a gazillion times but I guess once more won't hurt:
The issue is repentance.
And in order to repent one must first admit to living in sin. It matters not what the sin is; what counts is the sinner's attitude toward it.
To deny what God has called sin or to rationalize it, as well as to admit it is sin and keep on indulging in it, is grounds for expulsion in order to keep the Body pure and turn the sinner over to Satan to be taught a lesson (1 Cor. 5:5, 1 Tim. 1:20).
Anyone who has a problem with that has a problem with the God who decreed it.
I serve in a Missouri SBC church that gives directly to the IMB and other other agencies because we refuse to support the Missouri Baptist Convention's law suits. When we made the decision we assumed that some of our members would be concerned and that we would have a vigorous debate. In a church with over 1000 active adults, no one opposed the decision. I don't know what label someone might stick on our church but we simply decided to do what we felt would promote the Kingdom of God.
When a denomination strays off course and intentionally attacks people who disagree with controversial decisions, it's leaders cannot expect those same people to fund their actions.
The SBC needs to drastically change to allow our members to participate in the direction and decisions of the convention, otherwise the level of interest will continue to be minimal. Less than 1% of the SBC attended this convention. Did anyone suggest that that might be indicative of something? Did anyone take Wade's recommendation to allow those who did not attend the convention to participate in on line voting? Evidently, not.
D.R., I am in total agreement on Broadway.
Now, if we can just do the same for the pedophiles, sexual perverts and those who in leadership coddle and make excuses for them. Instead we put their wives on the GCR committee and let everyone know we affirm the fact their church ignored scripture in the case of the pedophile minister of prayer.
Such is the SBC
D.R.,
I, too, appreciated the link you provided. It was interesting to read the perspective of someone who believes that homosexual behavior is wrong yet struggles with that temptation. I can't relate to the specific temptation, but I can relate to failure and repentance. And I appreciated his comments regarding the difficulty of measuring the repentance of someone who continues to struggle and fall.
L's,
You raise interesting questions. We can all find it difficult at times to practice a Christ-like balance of graciousness and zeal for righteousness and holiness. In my view, we can demonstrate the grace of Christ by having personal relationships ("eating") with those who are not following God's ways ("sinners"), and thus demonstrate His Spirit rather than the self-righteous spirit of the Pharisees, who would never "lower" themselves to have a relationship with someone who did not live up to their standards. But we can also demonstrate the holiness of Christ by acknowledging that God expects His people to behave in certain ways and by separating ourselves from those who claim to be His people yet refuse to turn away from sin and turn towards following His ways.
I would explain this to a child by reminding them that I can love them without always liking or approving of what they do.
-----
Tom
Lydia said...
Now, if we can just do the same for the pedophiles, sexual perverts and those who in leadership coddle and make excuses for them. Instead we put their wives on the GCR committee and let everyone know we affirm the fact their church ignored scripture in the case of the pedophile minister of prayer.
Baffling, isn't it? The SBC can take collective action regarding one specific sin, but the leaders claim that "autonomy" prevents them from taking collective action to protect children. And being part of a church (and wife of a pastor) that ignores Scripture is no hindrance to being appointed to a committee that could infuence the future direction of the entire SBC.
-----
Tom
Tom Parker said:
"It's really that the CR failed and someone has to be blamed and surely those in full support of the CR would never ever take even an inch of the blame."
Who says the CR failed? I sure don't and I'll shock you, Tom. As a full supporter of the CR, I believe there are some Fundamentalists within the convention who have made mistakes and should take blame for some of the rancor in the convention. There have been those within the CR leadership that haven't always exhibited Christ in their behavior. I have failed myself.
And so have people on this blog who continue to bring up the past and paint with a wide brush. To make the statement that the CR was all about money and power is asinine. And as long as people make those type of statements, I can't see any healing taking place in the SBC.
It is so much easier to sit on the sidelines and point a finger and criticize than to get in the game and lift a finger and contribute. Maybe that is what's wrong with our convention.
Jim P:
You said to me:"To make the statement that the CR was all about money and power is asinine."
Well by all means--you can call me Thomas, Tom, Tommy, and now asinine and I will answer to all of them--wink-wink.
But you see the CR was all about money and power. We will just agree to disagree. I really like that word asinine because it almost sounds like a cuss word but a christian could use it and argue that they were not cussing. Funny how the english language works.
You also said to me and others--"It is so much easier to sit on the sidelines and point a finger and criticize than to get in the game and lift a finger and contribute. Maybe that is what's wrong with our convention."
We are not allowed to participate in the game so what you just said is nothing but blowing smoke. But it sure sounds like we are the ones that are making the convention decline--Not.
After reading about all the goings-on at this year's SBC annual meeting, I'm glad I'm at Disney World. It's fun.
Founders Ministries Blog > Reflections on the #SBC2009.
I was even blessed to have both fun and serious conversations with brothers with whom I disagree theologically. It is good to be able to have good-spirited banter over differences on fine points of doctrine, as important as they are, knowing that we agree on the essentials of the gospel. I enjoyed that kind of fellowship on more than one occasion. It is also good to be able to confront a brother with love and respect with whom there is strong disagreement and to be shown love and respect in return. Some of us may never agree on some points this side of heaven, but we can learn to disagree without rancor and resorting to caricature. I believe that this kind of spirit is spreading within the SBC and, despite the antics of one or two blogs that continue to assert half truths, distortions and conspiracy theories that border on paranoia, will ultimately the SBC of tomorrow.
I wonder what would happen if politics, personal agendas, pride, and power were removed from these Southern Baptist pastors who preach from the same Bible I read.
Do they really, and I mean really, know who Jesus is?
They think they do, but there are very very few who understand such a simple commandment!
Matthew 20:25-28
Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
The sheep do not support the shepherd; children do not store up for their parents. The problem, Christendom-wide, is that the whole paradigm is upside down to what it should be.
Let those who consider themselves "under rowers" take off the fancy robes, the titles, the badges, and the salaries, and take their places at the oars. Then we will see who is really a bond-servant and who is a "hired hand". Under-rowers are not found at the helm.
Most believers must exercise their spiritual gifts voluntarily while supporting themselves. Why do "pastors" et al think that this is too heavy a burden for them-- unless they're doing things they ought not to be doing, like "lording over the flock" and running a business where a Body should be?
Will the "lords" listen before it's too late and true believers are forced underground?
Doug and Paula,
Maybe you guys have hit on something.
I think it's the Holy Spirit doin' the hittin'. :-)
Tom Parker said:
"We are not allowed to participate in the game so what you just said is nothing but blowing smoke."
That's funny, Tom. The last time I checked every cooperating church is allowed to send messengers to the SBC. Are you a part of a cooperating Baptist church? If so, how can you make that statement. Maybe what you were trying to say is that I choose not to participate.
You can spout all you want that the CR was all about money and power. But those of us who saw and experienced the theological problems within the convention know better. Revisionist historians can sometimes fool those who are too young to remember, but they can't fool those who were there.
Jim Paslay:
Please and I do mean please answer me just one question--Was the CR a takeover? My thanks in advance for your answer.
Yes, I will go to my grave spouting that the CR was about power and money, because it was.
In the late 1970's the talk of the SBC was Bold Mission Thrust but it sure disappeared in 1979 when the busing in of messengers began and the politics of taking over the SBC was in full force following the lead of PP and PP.
You can call it revisionist all you like, but the tactics of the takeover ruined a great denomination.
But remember we are not a denomination in decline--so some would say.
And you saw the theological problems and I do not doubt that at all, but there are always two sides to a story and you are only giving your side.
Ethics Daily > SBC's Expulsion of Texas Church Reinforces its Negative Image.
Ethics Daily > SBC Agencies Asked to Investigate ‘Cussing Pastor’.
After the five Driscoll and Acts 29 motions, Hunt warned messengers to be careful about what they say in motions because “the world is watching.” He also warned that leveling accusations could open the door to legal problems.
However, the very next motion urged LifeWay not to sell books that were “contrary to the gospel and/or the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.” Specifically noted in the motion were The Shack, 90 Minutes in Heaven, any books by T. D. Jakes and John Hagee, and any Catholic study Bibles.
Tom Parker said:
"In the late 1970's the talk of the SBC was Bold Mission Thrust but it sure disappeared in 1979 when the busing in of messengers began and the politics of taking over the SBC was in full force following the lead of PP and PP."
Answer me one question? Did moderates engage in politics and the busing in of messengers as well? I'll answer that for you, YES. Was it a takeover? I personally saw it as a course correction like turning an aircraft carrier. You can't do it all at once but slowly you get the ship back on course.
Before Daniel Vestal switched and identified with the moderates, he agreed there were significant theological problems. He said he abhorred the politics and then he went out and became one of most political figures in Southern Baptist history.
There will always be problems in a denomination our size but hopefully with the Lord's help we can overcome the problems and the challenges. We need to get back to winning people to Christ and discipling them!
Jim Paslay:
Did the moderates as you use the word start busing before or after the takeover began?
For all you good old Southern Baptist homphobes that are proud of your vote, here's a great writeup. Maybe we should require this ritual in all Southern Baptist churches.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9916G6O0&show_article=1
The sheep do not support the shepherd; children do not store up for their parents. The problem, Christendom-wide, is that the whole paradigm is upside down to what it should be.
Let those who consider themselves "under rowers" take off the fancy robes, the titles, the badges, and the salaries, and take their places at the oars. Then we will see who is really a bond-servant and who is a "hired hand". Under-rowers are not found at the helm.
Most believers must exercise their spiritual gifts voluntarily while supporting themselves. Why do "pastors" et al think that this is too heavy a burden for them-- unless they're doing things they ought not to be doing, like "lording over the flock" and running a business where a Body should be?
Will the "lords" listen before it's too late and true believers are forced underground?
Thu Jun 25, 10:50:00 AM 2009
Amen, Paula. Which is why they translate double honor to mean a bigger salary. :o) A worker is worthy of wages but even Paul refused to be a burden.
I am still trying to find out the names of all pastors of all the NT churches and why ALL the Epistles were not addressed to them. hmm.
Tanx Lydia! :-)
'nuther question for the paid clergy argument:
If "pastors" get double pay, then who gets single pay? Please show explicit scriptures in the NT letters to support your answer.
Concerning "deacons": please show where Paul or Peter or any other NT writer equates the 7 from Acts 6 with any teachings on "deacons". In fact, try finding even one reference to that event.
Just for fun. ;-)
Texan said:
"For all you good old Southern Baptist homphobes that are proud of your vote, here's a great writeup. Maybe we should require this ritual in all Southern Baptist churches."
Your name calling is rather childish. And you hide behind an anonymous title. How convenient. I usually get the homophobic rant from the far left but it is surprising to hear it on a Baptist blog. Tell us, Texan, what would you have done to Broadway Baptist Church in Ft. Worth?
Tom Parker said:
"Did the moderates as you use the word start busing before or after the takeover began?"
They were the ones in control and didn't see any problem with our theological drift toward neo-orthodoxy. They didn't need buses at first! May I ask what state you were in when the CR began?
Jim Paslay:
You said to me:
"They were the ones in control and didn't see any problem with our theological drift toward neo-orthodoxy. They didn't need buses at first! May I ask what state you were in when the CR began?"
Are you saying that part of the strategy of the CR to takeover the SBC was to bus them in to vote and then to leave?
Not sure what the state that I was in is relevant?
Jim,
What is childish is you calling someone childish because they don't agree with you or those like you.
I would have left them alone and sent them along with our blessing. They are doing something that obviously none of you guys have the courage to do.
Texan said:
"I would have left them alone and sent them along with our blessing. They are doing something that obviously none of you guys have the courage to do."
Courage? Allowing homosexual couples to be in a church directory? Stupidity, maybe but not courage.
As for the name calling being childish, you were the one who used "paranoid" and "homophobe" to describe people who were for taking action against Broadway. If you are against the action taken against Broadway, then say so. But leave the name calling aside.
Well said!!!
It would be wise to get away from the attempts to impress with logic and theological terms AND get on with encouraging one another to be loving and plain spoken.
"They will know we are Christians by our love" AND they will understand the message devoid of Gnostic Calvinistic special terms which few understand in the general public.
K.I.S.S.--Keep It Simple Stupid!!!
" ... believe in ourselves as children of God and that we are called to see people as God sees them, not as we would like them to be."
Jean Vanier
Post a Comment