;)
Sin In the Camp
Posted by Rob Ayers in Bible & Theology
1But the people of Israel broke faith in regard to the devoted things, for Achan the son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of the devoted things. And the anger of the Lord burned against the people of Israel.
(Joshua 7:1)
The people of Israel were given a simple charge in terms of the disposition of Jericho. Everybody and everything (including animals) would be killed (save the family of Rahab who protected the spies) and no spoils of war – everything was to burn. Achan, from the tribe of Judah, became tempted beyond his ability to overcome. Because he could, he took some items that were banned, and with the knowledge of his family, hid them with his possessions. When it came time again to go and fight, God allowed Israel’s enemies at Ai to have a victory. In the process, Israel lost thirty-six soldiers in battle. Joshua, God’s chosen leader, bowed before God in contrition and fear, asking if God was with them, why they had been defeated?
10The Lord said to Joshua, “Get up! Why have you fallen on your face? 11Israel has sinned; they have transgressed my covenant that I commanded them; they have taken some of the devoted things; they have stolen and lied and put them among their own belongings. 12Therefore the people of Israel cannot stand before their enemies. They turn their backs before their enemies, because they have become devoted for destruction. I will be with you no more, unless you destroy the devoted things from among you.”
(Joshua 7:10-12)
God instructed that each tribe, clan, and family be brought before Him, and determined by lot (urim and thummim the “holy dice”) which one of the soldiers was guilty of sin. Achan was chosen, and when confronted confessed before Joshua and the people his sin. He was then led out into the valley of Achor with his wife, children and all of his possessions, and there all of them were stoned and burned for Achan’s sin.
Of course most in this era would refuse to face the idea that in this “age of grace” (even those of you who refuse in the main the tenets of dispensationalism hold somewhat to some minor points of the system without knowing it – go figure) that God would be so vindictive that He would demand the life of the sinner as well as his entire family for his crime. While connected to my greater point, this part is not the main emphasis of this post. Suffice it to say that I do not believe that his other family was as “innocent” as some suppose – a point that I WILL expound upon. What is important in this is the following question: How does God view sin in terms of His continued good work in the church – locally and corporately? How is our relationship and “undiscovered” sin affect God’s good work in the realm of our ministries? In other words in our scheme of things, will God bless (see the term “pragmatic” blessings here) those whose sin is unrevealed? And what then is the crime (and punishment) of hiding the sins of others for “the greater good” or even for “political expediency.”
All of us sin. We are told that, and all of us know that or we had better. There is not one perfect of us in the bunch. All of us if left to our own nature would develop an insatiable desire to satisfy ourselves to our ruin. Each of us has character flaws that without the strength of Christ we would succumb to. What happens if we allow our selfish selves to get out of hand? Will God bless us despite our flaws? Thankfully the disposition of Achan (or even Ananias, with his wife Sapphira) are not the norm on how God deals with our public and private sin – otherwise we would all be dead.
What about the churches? Can the local church be so much in the wrong that God will not bless that church? Churches are made up of individuals, and as individuals can be found in sin so can a body of believers. Perhaps a body lacks faith in not believing that God is bigger than their circumstances. Or like many churches there are individuals who have a problem with desiring the acquisition of power, while others in the same church who have a problem in forcing accountability. Or perhaps a church has a runaway minister with the same problem in which sides are drawn. In many cases, this conflict in a church forces a split. Often a church does not reach out to the community with the gospel of Christ. The individuals in this church often conclude that it is always “somebody else” who is suppose to be engaged with the lost, and never themselves – or better yet they see evangelism as a threat to their little kingdom, so they have no desire to grow beyond themselves. Or another church fails to see a changed culture, and as such fail to engage that culture preferring to stay “where they are” instead of reaching people around them with the never changing gospel of Jesus Christ. In another example, instead of a church reaching their neighborhood with the gospel, they move their church location to the tune of up to several million dollars for the sole purpose of moving themselves to a neighborhood “what they are or desire to continue to be” instead of “where they were at.” Southern Baptist Churches are closing by the hundreds because of these sins of commission or omission every day.
What about our cooperative church bodies? If an executive at an SBC seminary has an anger problem, who is supposed to bring that leader into account when trustees will not? Is it a “sin” to spend large amounts of money for things like luxury cars, oil paintings, and big homes when much of student housing dates back to the early ‘40’s with little update or change in the last sixty years? And how is this extravagance holy when missionaries cannot even meet the needs of those they are ministering to on the field? Is it a “sin” to build multi-million dollar “Baptist Buildings” just so executives can be comfortable in swash surroundings while the Mormons are flat out beating our pants off with multi-million dollar television ads designed to get one of their “missionaries” in the door of a searching person who then tells them a great tale about God and families?
Just where is the accountability that these issues require? It seems to me in the life of the individual, our churches, and our institutions that a lot of the people of God have their collective heads in the sand. Like most things, we hope the conflict will just go away – if we ignore it will not buy us any trouble. Or we may know a lot about what is going on: sins that need to be addressed biblically and lovingly in the individual, our churches and institutions. Instead of dealing with it openly and honestly, we hide it for the purpose of saving ourselves, or to curry favor with power players, or for the sake of political expediency use it against others a piece at a time for our own political goals. God help us if we know something or could do something that would further the advancement of the Kingdom of God (or remove sinful roadblocks that hinders the work of God) but to do so would be too much of a hassle, put us in a bad light, or lose our jobs.
The thing about all of this is that God is not mocked nor will He be – all things hidden will be found out with or without our help. We will confess willingly or forcibly – it is our choice. God’s Kingdom will not be impeded by anything man can do. It is a fact that those who are sinning or hiding other’s sins will not be blessed – and may indeed be under God’s curse. There is so much about the churches and the cooperative bodies of the Southern Baptist Convention that are not pleasing to God today. Could this be the reason that we as a collective are in a place of stagnation? The Scriptures give a word to those who wish to rid themselves of the malady of “Sin in the Camp”:
14If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
(2 Chronicles 7:14)
May a sweeping move of the Holy Spirit catch us on fire for these evil days! May we once again see the moving of heaven as the hand of God convicts us, moves us, and fills us with His boldness! God bless your church today, and the Southern Baptist Convention!
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Rob,
You’ve hit on so many sore spots, I don’t even know where to start.
But I’ll try right here…
You said, “Is it a “sin” to spend large amounts of money for things like luxury cars, oil paintings, and big homes when much of student housing dates back to the early ‘40’s with little update or change in the last sixty years? And how is this extravagance holy when missionaries cannot even meet the needs of those they are ministering to on the field? Is it a “sin” to build multi-million dollar “Baptist Buildings” just so executives can be comfortable in swash surroundings while the Mormons are flat out beating our pants off with multi-million dollar television ads designed to get one of their “missionaries” in the door of a searching family to tell them a great tale about God and families?”
Yes, if those things are, indeed, happening. A big YES!
I’m not sure about some of the things mentioned. But the large, expensive real estate and buildings within our denomination is a huge pet peeve of mine. And we all know that money is a strong temptation. I fear that this may be the greatest danger of the huge piles of money amassed through our beloved Cooperative Program … so much money.
I believe that the extravagance at the “upper levels” of SBC life (there shouldn’t be any “upper levels”), if it is real and documented, should be addressed swiftly.
Geoff,
Rhetorical – How can it be addressed immediately when these leaders are insulated from criticism. Further when anyone in Blogtown does raise a criticism, there are those who will say – “take it to the trustees” – after a few meetings and nothing is said openly about the issues that are addressed here, then it gets mighty depressing that anyone who is in control is listening very well – or are afraid to “rock the boat” because of the reasons I have listed above.
God is not mocked. He is the one who listens and is concerned with our problems and sins. Prayer is needful and is in much demand across our churches for ourselves, our churches, and for our conventions. How many of us pray for revival? I know I do.
Rob
Indvidial Christians are supposed to deal with their own sin. Other Christians are supposed to lovingly confront brothers and sisters who aren’t dealing with their sins. Congregations are supposed to deal with members who will not respond to any correction. Leaders (including pastors and vocational evangelists) are supposed to deal with entire congregations who won’t deal with corporate failure. If every denominational official is a member of a local church and the people and the congregation do what they are supposed to, we won’t have problems. If anyone of these don’t take the initiative to deal with their sin, God will discipline them. He may even shut them down (reference the letters to the churches in Revelation).
P.S. You’re going to have to show me in scripture the dollar amount spent on a car that qualifies for sin. I, too, have a hard time with what I consider extravagant living, but every person I know in every church in this country is living extravagantly compared to people I know in Jinja, Uganda.
Cyle,
In your first paragraph, I don’t believe we disagree at all. If these were to happen as you suggest, then we would have fewer problems.
I don’t believe that the scripture gives any indication concerning a dollar amount for an automobile. I recently have had to purchase two cars within a year, paid cash for them (having saved up for the eventuality) and they are currently in use. I recognize that those in Jinha, Uganda would consider me a wealthy man. I look at it as a minimum of supporting my family, and keeping wheels under me to do my work in the culture God has placed me. My criticism is going beyond the “minumum” of what we truly need, to enjoy the maximum of what the world offers. That is what is the issue – it is an issue in individuals, in churches, and in our conventions. Convention employees in my view do not need expensive SUV’s (edit: add here “paid for by Cooperative Program funds – what a person does with what God has given them is their business between themselves and God, for they are the steward accountable for it”) unless they are ministering daily in hard to reach places that require the extra expenditure in both vehicles and space in vehicles to get there. Let’s just face it – there are some who drive Cadillacs because it looks good when they really need to be driving a Prius so that money can go to other “necessary” things.
Now that may not be my best argument in the world – but you got it!
Rob
Brother Rob,
Allow me to play a role that I am very uncomfortable with–the Devil’s advocate. :>)
Seriously, let me ask you and your readers some questions.
First. Let’s say that the only way to deal with the extravagance is to remove the Presidents and trustees of the institutions and find new Presidents and trustees. How would you proceed to accomplish this huge task?
Second. One is successful in removing those in power and replacing them along with the trustees. What new problems will arise that one would say needs to be changed?
Third. We have new Presidents and trustees and we also have a new set of problems. Who decides if these problems are bigger than the ones we had?
Fourth. Let’s say that these problems are only confined to one, maybe two institutions. Thus, we remove Presidents and Trustees. Do we not have a new power base established by a ad hoc group that are really never satisfied with anything? What happens when another President does something this group is not in agreement with? Do we throw him out just because he is painted as extravagant?
The pet peeves that you have pointed out is nothing more than the same pet peeves that brought about communism. It was a division of the haves and the have nots.
I am not saying that you are promoting communism. I am saying that you are pointing out the same principle that everything should be equal and everyone should live like everyone else. I am saying that what a person does with the salary he/she earns is their business. If I want to purchase a jet plane for my personal use, then it does not concern the congregation that I serve in the least.
Also, if we trade in these leaders for other leaders, then we have a whole new set of problems we have to deal with. Oil paintings have been around for sometime. $80k oil paintings do not bother me. Could we have used that money on a church plant? Certainly! But we have church plants here in the US where NAMB commits $36k to reach people that can support a church. If you want to begin assessing where money is being spent that could otherwise be spent better we first have to look in our back yard.
Blessings,
Tim
Rob, a lot to chew on in this post if one deals with the multiple specifics. But since I believe you are speaking to the most specific–sin in the camp–it probably weighs heaviest on my mind in how one goes about cleaning out the leaven from another’s cupboard. I have more than I can possibly do to keep my own cupboard clean. And when I see others cleaning another’s house with dirty water or soiled rags, it gives me pause.
I do believe God is the one who will exact His judgement upon those who are guilty of sin. I don’t think it is my responsibility to question how He does it.
There are those within our convention who seem to think it is their sole responsibility to act as watchmen/women for the sins of others without answering to questions regarding their own. (attitudes, motives, and intentions.) This leads me back to my closet and brings me to my knees for I am no one to be pointing fingers when my own thoughts may impugn another brother or sister.
Who says when correction is needed? Who determines how long a brother and a sister remain in sin? Who determines the heart of another? Discernment is needed. Wisdom is needed. Steadfast patience is needed. What we “do” with another’s sin must be in complete compliance with the Word of God–in our actions, attitudes and thinking. That is a tough order to fill. Prayer is our only recourse in situations beyond our control.
“And He Who searches the hearts of men knows what is in the mind of the Holy Spirit [what His intent is], because the Spirit intercedes and pleads [before God] in behalf of the saints according to and in harmony with God’s will.” Rom.8:27
I take it to Jesus. I seek the Spirit’s interceding interpretation of my heart, my motives, and then I leave in His keeping (my brothers sins), that I may not stumble and become as they are. selahV
Selah,
You are indeed wise! In all cases I attempt to pull the log out of my own eye before I take the splinter out of the other. I am certain that what Joshua wanted to do was to go and hide rather than be the leader of Israel on that day. You even hear him being conciliatory toward Achan when he says, “…my son, tell me what you have done.” I am certain that there were many tears in Joshua’s eyes when he commanded that the penalty commence. Yet Joshua knew without the cleansing that there would be no more victory. The penalty for taking the banned things had already been published for all to see. Achan was the one responsible for his family’s death. My one and only purpose in bringing this up should be obvious: If we know of our own sin, we should disown it and repent. If we know of others sin that would cause the work of the Kingdom to grind to a halt, then it is our duty and obligation to first pray, then to lovingly confront our beloved, and then if necessary to bring it to the assembly. This is the way that God works among His people – we are no longer a part of the world and the “cult of individualism” that insulates us from other human beings. We are a body – and when one part hurts, we all hurt. Otherwise Peter’s response to Annanias makes no sense.
We should be concerned indeed if our brother is in need of correction. The retort of Cain speaks loudly out to us from the centuries, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Of course we are – or we will denigrate to be like Cain who killed His brother because Abel found peace with God.
Rob
Tim – I’m sorry, but I see no resemblance
I don’t believe that I am advocating any of those things here. I am addressing a spiritual issue, and not one of political intrigue. My sole corrective is found in 2 Chronicles 7:14.
Having said that, I am not an advocate of the status quo. If there are problems, they need to be addressed, and there needs to be those who are willing to address them instead of ignoring them. Individuals ignore their sins or hope they go away – Churches ignore the problems and never confront anyone – Institutions have problems because invariably the deck is stacked with “yes” folks rather than anyone who would be a contrarian. A lot of the problems of the SBC specifically could be solved by the convention in a vote. The vote would settle the matter, and we could do our part in getting out the information before hand so that no one would have the excuse in saying that things were ambiguous.
I do not wish to see entity heads fired – just a realization on their part that what they do they do not in a vacuum. I wish to see churches that are strong and grow and include in their work the greatest to the least. I wish that families and individuals in the body to be strong and less dysfunctional. This will only come about if we all wake up, and place all of us before the throne of grace in prayer.
Rob
I certainly would like to see you in a $80,000 painting, that is if it is no big deal.
Another thing Tim -
“Idealistically” the people of God are equal before Him. We could get into a long discussion about Marxism, the dialectic, “Conflict Theory” ad nauseum. Marx did not get his theories in a vacuum. He just devised an Utopian world without God – yet took those things he found appealing from both his Jewish roots and Christian upbringing. The best example of this idea of Christian egalitarian community is found Acts and advocated by the Apostle Paul (see 1 Corinthians). It is just in this culture of rabid individualism that we have a problem in seeing it – and any attempt to appeal to this ideal is called communism. There is only one head in the Christian community and that is Christ. And even he did not have a pillow for his head, did not own a chariot, washed his disciples feet, and died a criminals death for those who would believe.
Rob
Well, Rob, I agree with 2 Chron. 7:14 and have stated such on various posts and comment streams. Until this is done by all, we face the consequences of our own sin and the sin of others.
My question is who is to say who is sinning? It seems that as I read the blogs which are pointing out the errors in SBC leadership, opinions differ as to what is right and what is wrong. As we in our churches seek to comply with the commandments, opinions differ as to the meaning of sin. As we as individuals witness the sin in another, we differ in whether or not it is a sin. God is the definer of what is missing the mark and consensus cannot even be reached on the point at which it becomes sin. Are we debating each other or God Himself?
If we were to come before the convention to voice our disapproval of entities and leadership, who would speak for me? And you? And sister so and so and brother so and so? And if we are to vote on something, how can it be voted upon if the words are so twisted and confusing that no one understands what they are voting for or against? There are no perfect answers and I wonder how I can effect change other than where I stand in the middle of my air-space.
Ultimately, I think we are living in days we shall face the consequences of our apathy, our unrepentant sin and the unrepentant sin of our brothers. I fear not, because my faith and trust is not in chariots and horses but in Christ alone.
Maybe I have a lot to learn about being my brother’s keeper. selahV
Selah,
You speak much about the confusion of this age. Indeed we live in confusing and trying times where words are bandied about without knowing what they mean.
In example I was in my philosophy class discussing this very point about language yesterday (don’t ask me how we got there – it may have been providential). Someone brought up the issue of the Decalogue in light of capital punishment: “Does it not say to not murder?” I replied that if one was going to appeal to the Torah, then they also needed to quote Leviticus 24:13 as to the penalty for murder which God spoke to Moses in the wilderness. A girl spoke up and said, “well, it all depends upon how you interpret that.” I first read the section in Leviticus, feel silent for a moment, and then responded, “I am glad that you agree with me that Leviticus is fairly straightforward in dealing with murderers.” She argued with me, “I did not say that!” This went around for some time, and I finally responded, “Well, that is how I interpreted you!” She visibly deflated – she got it. “You want me to take your simple words straight up – but you want the ability to interpret others words to your whim. I agree with you in the first part – I just wish you would take other words and statements from others with the same specificity as you want others to take yours.”
For one thing, the only “person” who can speak for us clearly is ourselves. That is why members of the convention are called “messengers” rather than representatives. For much too long, our congregational meetings across the board have been much too silent and oftentimes non-functional to the point where others for the sake of both “peace” and expediency have taken over the bodies stewardship and priestly duties that they rightfully own. The only reason that resolutions and words are so twisted and non-specific in the SBC today is because frankly the rules that govern anything that the body votes upon go through substantial hoops. I am all for removing the obstacles, placing before the people the issues that are not inhibited by politics or political concerns, and hearing the true voice of the people. I am all for calling for a holy convocation where the rubber meets the road, disseminating everything months in advance so that everybody knows what the body is going to talk about, and then coming together, debating it, and then voting upon it. The primary reason that no one goes to these meetings at the national, state, or associational level (including the churches) anymore is that they are merely social conveniences where the business of God before the assembly is hardly ever broached – it is just a great big expensive party where everybody is bored silly with report after report after report where no true accountability occurs, and all the problems are swept under the rug. In my view, this is not true stewardship, or honoring God.
Sorry about the rant. You know – I love you my sister.
Rob
Rant on, Rob. no need to apologize, my brother. I hear you loud and clear. Perhaps that is what is needed to get us all in the swing of things–an open court brawl with microphones turned up and placed all over the convention floor. We could have the virtual convention with everyone participating from their computers and cell phones. (I believe Debbie Kaufman suggested something like that after SA.)
Rob, I can tell your heart is hurting for the state of our dysfunctioning body. I join you in your concern. I just don’t think the answers are as forthcoming as the visibility of the problems. For instance–right or wrong–there are always two sides to every situation and sometimes more than two sides. I have no way of discerning all the variables. I don’t know that anyone has all the answers or even some. BUT…I am going to rejoice anyway!
Again, I say rejoice! In all things I give thanks. When I am faced with various trials and tribulations, I count it all joy. I think we’re told to do that because we KNOW and are CERTAIN of the ONE Who is working out all things for His purpose. Even when I don’t understand or feel things are fair. Life just ain’t fair. We live in a fallen world with fallen people of whom some are justified and being sanctified at individual paces and to His timing.
Like I said, I’m just beginning to learn we have all these problems–which to me are miniscule in light of some we face. But that is me…selahV
Rob,
I read your post with interest. Indeed, I read it twice to actually discern if I’m both hearing you correctly and if SBCImpact is now moving into the political arena with their posts.
I must say, the sermonette was passionate. I heard my Old Testament professor, Dr. Enlowe as far back as Boyce in 1979, come to class one day with his guns loaded–”Sin in the Camp!”
Honestly, though, I do not recall our Brother, now with the Lord, chiseling out as many liberties with the text as you seem to have enjoyed, Rob.
I get the impression that you do not think it a bad idea to march all our horrid SBC offenders outside Nashville and run them down with four-wheelers and mud-doggies. No child should escape! Why, the cowardly, ungodly nerve of someone like me thinking God would not approve of such measures today. Some pitiful God I serve!
Tell, us Rob, as others have insisted but I think you may have tiptoed away too soon before answering: Which sins should qualify for such a sentence? Recall it does not have to be too bad, for all Achan did was covet and steal. I once stole some ‘caps’ for my toy pistol. Would I qualify for public extinction?
The problem you’ve created for yourself, Rob, is a failed hermeneutic impossible to consistently maintain: You’ve taken an OT narrative and rather than allowing it to describe what did take place then, you’ve made a massive leap in logic and forced the OT narrative to prescribe what ought to be the case now.
Your problem becomes as you look at say another narrative–Genesis 22–when Abram raises his knife to his boy’s throat, with every intention to kill him, proclaimed it was God’s will for him to do so. Conclusion? It would be just as much sin for you not to kill your son if you think God told you to than for Abram little Issac. Of course, one could rattle on about that being God’s will to infinity. We put people in straight jackets who think like that.
Why do I get the impression this post is not an exhortation to Scriptural principle but a pointed, aggressive rebuke to the alleged sins of SBC men of late? I suppose it’s because you mentioned “an executive at an SBC seminary has an anger problem.” Perhaps that just gave it away, Rob.
The truth is, even if one could employ the OT narrative as a text applicable here, there are simply too many variances to overcome.
First, Joshua is a Special Man–one who literally took Moses place. Is there someone today who wears his boots? I think not.
Secondly, this is a special era when God still speaks vocally and infallibly to people through a man. Do we have that today? I think not.
Third, Joshua received direct, supernatural revelation about Achan’s problem. Did we get that today? I think not. All we get are letters with no names attached.
Fourth, Achan himself confessed up. Do we have that today? I think not. What we have are cowardly charges, rumors and innuendo from other people.
Fifth, Joshua was so broken about it he wept publicly before the Lord. Do we have that today? I think not. What we have are safe, secure bloggers–many of which are precisely like me–relatively unknown in the SBC apart from a few other bloggers on the internet. A blogger calling for public repentance of our leaders over the internet is similar to one little pig calling on another little pig to quick hogging momma’s teats. Our audience is slim.
I could go on with the false comparison but no need to. I wanted to at least mention, my brother Rob, the untrue rhetoric you seemed to employ.
For example, you wrote that “Southern Baptist Churches are closing by the hundreds because of these sins of commission or omission every day.” The ambiguity of this statement stands notable–is it hundreds of SB churches closing every day? If so, the SBC vanishes in a just under a year. If other, please advise.
Finally, Rob, you write: “God’s Kingdom will not be impeded by anything man can do. It is a fact that those who are sinning or hiding other’s sins will not be blessed – and may indeed be under God’s curse.”
First, ‘if God’s Kingdom will not be impeded by anything man can do’, what the heck are we worried about? I am often amazed at some of our Calvinist brothers who fight to the death the idea that “God’s Sovereign Will cannot be overthrown” but squirm like a worm stuck with a hook when things don’t go like they think God planned it. I have never figured that one out.
Secondly, it is not always true that ‘those who are sinning or hiding other’s sins will not be blessed.’ Granted they may very well be under God’s curse. But His curse can decidedly–at least in this life–be viewed as blessings. Rain pours on just and unjust. Weeds get the benefit as do the garden fruit.
Rahab, harlot though she was, was blessed. The entire book of Judges is about God’s people being blessed with a Judge to deliver them after they purposely told God to get lost.
Shucks, Rob, if we take the language at face value you wrote-’those who are sinning …will not be blessed.’-the Gospel stands itself, condemned and impossible. Which one of us was ‘not sinning’ when the Gospel found us? And, consequently, which one was ‘not blessed’?
I fear, Rob, when our purpose is to indict, allege, point fingers and condemn, we end up getting it skewed. God’s Word itself is a hammer. It needs not our little finger to pound away at somebody’s heart. All it needs is proclamation.
Unfortunately, it seems, at least from my reading of your post, my Brother Rob, instead of proclaiming God’s Word, you simply shouted out your many complaints about the Southern Baptist Convention.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
My Dear Peter,
And here I thought you merely castigated people you really do not like. I don’t really remember that we really have gotten in a tussle in the past. Gosh, after your diatribe (I am trying to watch my words here) I really do not hope I raise your interest anymore. Egadds!
Suffice it to say that my purpose was not to complain or point fingers. My heart is broken because of my belief that our convention of churches is plunging into darkness because of our endless squabbles over power and prestige – a position of status quo which it seems you support.
I do not claim perfection in my writings, Peter. They are no where near on the same level as scripture, so they are not inerrant. I am certain in my proclamation here that I have made many errors in logic, hermeneutics, and otherwise. I claim no supernatural knowledge save what the Spirit of God has granted to every believer. At the same time I do know that God speaks through me as He does through you. I accept your reservations at face value – now will you accept my admonitions? Critics are not always wrong, regardless if they are defending the status quo, or criticizing it. I would have been surprised if I did not receive a cautioning word from you – you should not be surprised that while I do not quote verbatim or deal in the theatrics of the “reformers” which are the ire of the “establishment” bloggers, I do tackle issues which are the result of my relationship with Christ, and my perception of the way things are. As I noted to Selah, my purpose in writing the post was spiritual, and not political. I am not calling for putting anyone in stockades, or burning anyone at the stake, or taking them out and stoning them, or even releasing them from any position, high or low, President to custodian from any Southern Baptist entity, so stand down. I am calling for everyone, beginning with myself, to prayer and a call to repentance for ourselves, our churches and convention. No more – No less. Will you join me?
Rob
You should note that my name is prominently displayed, so I am neither anonymous nor a coward – my name is behind my convictions. I note your name is prominent as well. We at least have this one (and I note many other things) in common.
Rob,
*Good morning, Rob. I do not think I mentioned you personally in the comment I posted, did I? Thus, whether or not I like you or you me should be irrelevant. Indeed since we’ve never met, I don’t know how either of us could communicate in those terms.
And as far as my apparent support of ‘status quo’ would you be so kind as to offer evidence to substantiate that. Just because I have refused to accept an anonymous letter, the testimony of a man who is publicly known to possess a vendetta against a certain leader, internet gossip or a host of other ill-conceived ‘evidences’ about particular leaders–leaders whom I have never met in my life–does not, at least in view, constitute a commitment to ‘status quo’
Not that there’s anything wrong, all things being equal, in itself about the so-called ‘status-quo’ Evidently, though, the ‘status quo’ some are describing–similar to your post, Rob–is a ‘status quo’ that accepts sin, ignores problems, worships certain men and buries its head in the sand all for political purposes. If that is ‘status quo’, the one’s defending it should be beat up, choked and left for dead.
In essence, Rob, you have those Southern Baptists who, like myself, believe wholeheartedly in the Trustee system to address real issues–even if it takes much longer–defending sin.
Hence, do not think it easy to quietly tiptoe away when the charge of defending sin has been leveled. Not even to mention the unfair way the charges of sin are brought against the leaders.
Nor are we talking about you being perfect, Rob: “I do not claim perfection in my writings, Peter…I am certain in my proclamation here that I have made many errors in logic, hermeneutics, and otherwise…” Why then, Rob, do you appear to move quickly in passing judgment upon others? Especially judgment about which we have no clear and irrefutable proof?
As for “errors in logic, hermeneutics and otherwise”, you seem certain you have committed, Rob, I suggest, if I may, you refrain from making assumptions based on what you know to be incorrect.
Here is a good question for you to consider: If I make inaccurate statements, possess flawed logic and/or employ an inadequate Biblical hermeneutic which stands as the basis of my admonitions, do I possess the moral respect to demand of another he/she listen to my admonitions: “I accept your reservations at face value – now will you accept my admonitions?” Not, my brother Rob, when you openly admit such problems exist with your base analysis.
I agree with you Rob, that critics are not always wrong. Critics are necessary. I am one. Just as you dissent from the so-called ‘status quo’, I am presently a critic of dissent–or at minimum, a certain sector of it. We all accept that. Nothing personal–at least with me.
Critics, however, in order to be acceptable, from my view, must have real, tangible proof to raze a man’s character, leadership competence and possibly regenerate status, do you not agree, Rob? In addition, the evidence it self must be handled Biblically. What’s Biblical about internet exposure, I have yet to understand. Hence, I’m just not buying those wares being peddled, especially in the box they come in.
Finally, (it is a diatribe, is it not:^), you say you’re not calling for their heads, Rob: “I am not calling for putting anyone in stockades, or burning anyone at the stake, or taking them out and stoning them, or even releasing them from any position, high or low…” My question, Rob, is how your disclaimer fits with the text of Scripture you chose for this post. You write plainly that “Of course most in this era would refuse to face the idea that… that God would be so vindictive that He would demand the life of the sinner as well as his entire family for his crime.”
I agree with you about your name attached. That is a good thing as is mine. And, in the end, we possess a lot more in common than ever we could muster differing.
Grace, Rob. With that, I am…
Peter
*I hereby make public notice than any and all words in this comment thread are not the personal views of Peter Lumpkins but belong totally and exclusively to ‘The Establishment’ All inquires are to be directed to them.
rob,
what kind of cars did you buy? where did you get the money to buy those cars? and, did you say…”cars”…with an “s”? rob, what if a group of your church members, if you’re a pastor, decided that you bought two cars…thus you’re being too extravagant. i mean, two cars…wow!
rob, i beleive what we’re seeing with certain bloggers is the desire to nit pick certain seminary presidents and other sbc leaders to death. this group does not like the cr leaders being in powerful, influential positions, and they’re trying thier best to assasinate the character of these men who are not in line with thier agenda. i mean, how many of us could stand the microscope of someone who is obsessed with finding fault with your life, and then exposing every shortcoming, every fault, every mistake to the world? just because they dont like you, or they dont like what you believe, or they dont like the fact that you disagree with them? i dont think that any of us would like that kind of scrutiny, would you?
i agree with you, rob, that maybe we need to calm down salaries at the state level and at the sbc level. they seem to be a little too much to me as well. i agree that we need to be a little better stewards with the money the Lord has entrusted to us. i agree that leaders ought to be Spirit filled and wise. but, the insistent nit picking and fault finding and accusations of certain bloggers needs to stop. and, we dont need to let them get away with thier character assasinations. do you agree?
david
David, Alias Valfan007,
Do you believe it is Okay for a church to Hide information (Non-Confidential) from the members that pay their salary???
Do you think it is okay for a Pastor to be unethical in dealing with employees of a church???
In His Name
wayne,
i know from experience that there’s no need to even answer you. it’s a waste of time and typing effort.
but, here i go…..of course people in my church should know info. about our church, unless it’s something that a member has told to me in confidence. they dont need to know that.
also, of course it’s wrong for a pastor to treat staff unethically.
but, wayne, let’s put your life under the microscope for a while. are there things that we could see about you that we could magnify to the world? that we could play up until it becomes a huge mountain instead of staying the molehill that it should be? are there any shortcomings in your life that we could really trumpet loud and long until people begin to look down on you? are there idiosyncrecies in your life….any personality quirks in your life…that we could obsess on until we have you looking like a clod and a jerk to the blogging world out there? huh?
brother, i love you in the Lord, but i really cant go along with this crowd that just wants to nit pick any conservative, sb leader out there just because they’re not ecumenists, and they’re not egalatarian, and they’re not whatever else it is that certain bloggers find distasteful.
david
Friends,
I appreciate the nature of your discussion but the tone is getting a bit aggressive. Can we dial back a bit and discuss these issues as if 1)our SBC teens and kids are reading this (which they may be) and 2)as if each of you was a guest having a discussion in someone else’s parlor with others listening (which you are)and 3)God is in the room with us as we write (which he definitely is). Please remember that the foundation of this forum is gentleness and grace. The intellectual and spiritual challenge is – can we discuss these things which deeply affect our emotions without letting our emotions get the best of us (or bring out the worst in us) so we might honor God?
Just a gentle reminder, fellas. Thanks for your cooperation.
Always wait 30 minutes before responding to anything that upsets you in the slightest. Then delete your first response and write a new one.
The beauty of the Internet is that NOTHING ever “slips out of our mouth.” We always have time to reconsider our words if we will.
Brother Roger,
Thank you for the concern about atmosphere. I do appreciate such, and while I do not know if my own exchange with our Rob is included in the chemistry that prompted your reminder to be less aggressive, I will assume such and honor it.
I do possess a further concern–the original post. Clearly, from the perspective of many of us who’re still engaging the sometimes grungy politics of SBC life, this post overflows with political rhetoric.
From the veiled statement about President Al Mohler’s ‘anger issue’ to ‘establishment’ folk–of which, it is presumbly alleged, I am a card-carrying member–who ‘bury their heads in the collective sand’ when leaders ‘sin’ constitute, at least in my view, a revisiting of the purpose SBCImpact publicized.
Heretofore, unless I missed it in my feed-reader, SBCImpact has managed to remain a politics-free zone, something I thought was at the core of your vision. Rob’s post, from my view, clearly interrupted that impressive track record.
I can only predict that if future posts address the volitile political issues of our SBC, one should expect that responses from ‘the other side’ will log on.
Thanks again, Roger for the great site SBCImpact is and what you all have made it. I trust it will not atrophy into just another SBCOutpost.
Grace, With that, I am…
Peter
peter,
amen.
david
Bernard: welcome to IMPACT. dont’ believe I’ve had the opportunity to read your thoughts before. Appreciate your suggestion here regarding comments. I find it difficult sometimes to finish typing a comment before several have logged on and commented on the same point. Can be rather frustrating at times to look at my finished comment and see it is simply repetitive of another’s.
One thing I’ve tried to do (as I’m chasing this rabbit), is to re-read my own comment as if someone else is addressing me with my words. I consider how I’d feel or think with the same words coming at me rather than from me. And occasionally I find myself deleting my comment and even quenching the impulse to write another.
I suppose if we’d all consider the sage words of our Lord, “do unto others as you would that they do unto you” we might all become better communicators, don’t you think? selahV
I’ve been sitting this one out until now, but feel compelled to comment at this time.
I appreciate Roger’s encouragement toward civility. It was well-spoken.
Peter – You stated, “Clearly, from the perspective of many of us who’re still engaging the sometimes grungy politics of SBC life, this post overflows with political rhetoric.” Frankly, brother, I just don’t see it. Rob simply took an OT passage and made application beginning with the individual, then the church, and then the denomination. You can take issue with his hermeneutic (which you did), but to label this entire post as a political hit-piece (as we are all too familiar with on other sites) and its author as a member if the “hit squad” is simply wrong.
From my perspective you “keyed in” on a single paragraph of the post and took rather dramatic issue with it, at the utter expense of the rest of the post.
In your response to Rob, you stated, “I do not think I mentioned you personally in the comment I posted, did I?” Need I point out that Rob named neither names nor institutions in his post? He made a handful of general comments, a few, perhaps, with some inference, and left the details up to the minds of the readers. You filled in your own blanks, as did I. Personally, I saw much more of last year’s NAMB problems and our growing number of extravagant state convention buildings within that paragraph. You chose Paige Patterson and Al Mohler for your “blanks.”
Slightly political? Yes. Making a strong point? Yes. Provocative? Probably. Stating his (Rob’s) view? Yes. But “overflowing with political rhetoric?” I really don’t think so. From my hillside in beautiful Kentucky, you seem to have made a bit of a mountain out of a molehill.
And when did Southern Baptist politics become “off limits” for this site? None of us is a-political. We are all, after all, Southern Baptists. We simply made a conscious choice not to FOCUS upon matters which are divisive. But we never promised not to mention them.
I will remind everyone of these words from our first post. I wrote them. They state our intentions well:
“sbc IMPACT! is the vision of a group of Southern Baptist bloggers who desire to host a truly edifying, thought-provoking, civil community for the examination and discussion of issues that affect Southern Baptist churches.
Instead of dwelling upon SBC politics and personalities, sbc IMPACT! will be a place where issues, even the tough issues, can be discussed and debated in a God-honoring manner. It will be a place where Southern Baptist ministries, churches, and missionaries can be highlighted and lifted up. It will be a place where differing views can be stated in an atmosphere of dignity and respect.”
Peter, though we have never met face to face, I consider you a friend in this world of blogs. Most often we see “eye to eye” on lots of things. But I simply do not agree with your assessment of the post, or the man, in this instance.
My friend, your views and statements are, indeed, welcome here. In fact, we would like to hear more of them! Especially on those uplifting, non-controversial posts. Not just when you find a point of disagreement.
To all – I greatly appreciate your readership and involvement in this project. I sincerely believe that, until the limited “head-knocking” on this post, we have, indeed, lived up to our own goals and expectations. I trust that you all see that, as well. God bless … now I’m going on vacation!
Since we do not edit each other’s posts on this blog, I’d best let Rob address your concern about the nature of his post.
But in my opinion, I think Rob’s original post was an interesting treatment. Some of the questions it raises are:
“Does this scripture passage apply to us today?”
“Who holds leaders accountable in the SBC?”
“What constitutes a sin that requires our or God’s intervention?”
And last, “what do I do about these actions of others that trouble my spirit?”
Part of Rob’s answer to that last question was to repent of his own sin and pray for collective repentance in our convention. So I saw this post as a big theological question, or series of questions, with our current SBC controversies as the illustration and couterpoint, rather than a political post complaining about the SBC. and I found Rob’s conclusion to be humble and in keeping with the spirit of sbc IMPACT!
As for me, I am not seeking to engage people in political debate, but do intend to write about NAMB, associations, State Conventions and SBC structure and strategy from time to time. When I do this, it will be my practice to not criticize individuals, and to try not to make generalities or inflammatory statements. I think the only thing in Rob’s post that is really inflammatory is the scripture itself. And I appreciate his courage in wrestling with that one here in this forum.
Please continue to pray for us all, that sbc IMPACT! might be a Philippians 4:8 kind of place!
Geoff,
Thanks for the comment, my Brother. First, you evaluate two rather long comments coupled with a shorty with this one-liner: “From my hillside in beautiful Kentucky, you seem to have made a bit of a mountain out of a molehill.” Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Secondly, out of my first comment totalling 1,013 words (btw, entirely too long, I fully concede) a full four sentences–a handful of words, comparatively–make any reference to convention issues. The thrust of almost the entire comment was questioning the right and proper use of the Biblical narrative Rob chose and its applicability.
Thirdly, my second comment was indeed more to the political phenomenon for the simple reason that Rob rightly offered a rejoinder. Here are his words: “My heart is broken because of my belief that our convention of churches is plunging into darkness because of our endless squabbles over power and prestige – a position of status quo which it seems you support.
According to our Brother Rob, ‘status quo’, evidently defined by him as ‘power and prestige’ is something which allegedly I support. Tell me, my Brother Geoff, is this political or is this apolitical language? Should I or should I not engage, not on my behalf alone, but millions of other SBs who rightly question their alleged participation in assisting the ‘plunge into darkness’ by their wholesale support of the ‘status quo’?
Fourth, as for filling in the blanks, I’m afraid you nailed me there–at least 50% of it. I did fill in Dr. Mohler and will gladly repent in sack cloth and ashes if Rob will kindly tell me I missed the connection. As for the blank with Dr. Patterson, I’m afraid you get a zero, Geoff. I did not mention him. That’s your assumed connection, not mine.
Fifth, I did not say politics were off limits, I said “Heretofore…SBCImpact has managed to remain a politics-free zone, something I thought was at the core of your vision.” How that is supposed to be contrary to “Instead of dwelling upon SBC politics and personalities, sbc IMPACT! will be a place where issues, even the tough issues, can be discussed…” I do not know.
Nor my Brother Geoff, do I understand your purpose as you publicized it to even hint at political issues being discussed. Again, it your blog. You guys/gals are perfectly free to envision precisely as you wish, including political themes.
My simple reminder was and is, do not be surprised if those ‘log on’ who perceive the political overtones of a post and offer ‘the other side’. Hence, to our Roger I said: “I can only predict that if future posts address the volitile political issues of our SBC, one should expect that responses from ‘the other side’ will log on.”
I trust your vacation a much needed r&r. Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Dear Rob,
You are a very bad boy.
Dear Peter,
Peter I commend you for your prose, which reads a bit like the footnotes from a history book written about the Vichy government in France in 1941.
Dear Volfan,
Where is your brain?
I am so exhausted I’m going to take a nap.
Jerry,
Be kind or be deleted. I think we have been clear on that.
Besides, you are an articulate and gifted writer. You can do better (and be more gracious) than the comment above.
Blessings,
Roger
Dear Jerry,
Trust you are well and am glad you finally cranked up the old software and opened the SBCOuthouse back up for business. You were missed.
I must say, though, my fellow servant, while I certainly appreciate to no end the warm compliments about my ability to produce prose, for some reason I do not think you entirely meant it to be so hunky-dory. Alikening me to Nazi sympathizers in France is a hefty analogy, I’d say.
And, while I will reflect on that, my Brother–cross my heart and hope to die–I cannot imagine in a hundred lifetimes, supposing I possessed them, making one of my Brothers here–whom I love in the Lord but with whom I strongly disagree on denominational politics–out to be a sympathetic person with Hitler’s Third Reich.
Southern Baptists. I love them with my soul. But what a curious culture we’ve created for our kids.
Grace and faith, my brother in the Lord. With that, I am…
Peter
I know this may be a firestorm, but isn’t the kind of “structure” that most of the people on this blog long for something more like what the CBF instituted. A loose association of churches with a common on majors and a willingness to dialogue on minors?
I’m not connected with them in any way right now, but their conversation sure does seem to be more civil overall. They have their issues as well…but when you relinquish an element of control, you are going to have those. If you want to have denominational top-down accountability then the SBC should move towards a PCA form of government…which in my opinion they are attempting to do — just using different methods.
I think we need a return to the essitials that started the Baptists in the first place – priesthood of the believer, autonomy of the local church (not just in name) and coorperation in evangelism and transformation of culture.
Just my two cents…probably worth 1.
-Mike
Mike,
I don’t think our structure is the problem. Our problem is sin. There is nothing in our structure that keeps us from having integrity, being gracious or majoring on the majors. We may blame it, but the truth is that our real problem is our selfishness and sinfulness.
CBF’s problem, in my opinion, is their doctrine, which is a mess. I am glad they get along with one another, but wish they had stronger theology.
That’s my penny’s worth back at ya.
mike,
some of the cbf crowd are in these blogs argueing things like egalatarian views and ecumenists views, etc. also, i agree with roger farrell…their doctrine is terrible.
jerry grace,
where’s my brain!?! well, i guess it’s still sitting up there inside of my skull. what’s your point?
david