;)
Separatist: Is Thy Name "Southern Baptist"?
Posted by Les Puryear in Uncategorized
According to dictionary.com a “separatist” is:
| 1. | a person who separates, withdraws, or secedes, as from an established church. |
| 2. | an advocate of separation, esp. ecclesiastical or political separation. |
Recently, I’ve noticed separatist rhetoric coming from several different blog sources here, here, here, and here. One blogger has even labeled baptists with separatist tendencies as “Hyper-Baptists.”
Like it or not, there does seem to be some form of separatist baptists arising these days. Wade Burleson has defined separatists as “Doctrinal purity is essential for cooperation, and since there are no non-essential or unimportant doctrines in the Bible, it is absolutely necessary for there to be a uniform doctrinal interpretation of all Bible doctrines, and if not, separation from those who hold to different doctrinal interpretations.”
Perhaps some will judge by this post that I am in the Burleson camp and stand opposed to the SBC Today crowd. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I have stated before I am in no one’s camp as I strive to determine my position based on issues and not personalities. I count as friends Wade Burleson and his friends as well as Bart Barber and his friends. And so for those who want to pigeonhole me into one side or another, I’m not going there. 
I am concerned about the separatist attitude I am reading. It seems to me that some Southern Baptists view the word “cooperating” as only valid when one Southern Baptist cooperates with another Southern Baptist. To work with churches of other denominations in the orthodox Christian world is frowned upon and the pastor who does so is viewed with great suspicion as to his loyalty to Southern Baptists everywhere.
It’s my considered opinion that Southern Baptists can work with other denominations of orthodox Christianity in many ways such as evangelism, social ministry, and community worship services. I am quite happy to participate in community Easter and Thanksgiving services with other churches in our community which are AME Zion, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran. In addition, we work together to provide clothing, help for financial needs, and other ministry needs in our community. I love my fellow pastors and I have much more fellowship with these brother pastors in my community than I do with Baptist pastors in my association but who are not in my local community.
I am not in favor of unrestricted ecumenism or interfaith initiatives. However, I am very happy to work with all my brothers and sisters in Christ to reach our community for Christ and serve as His body here on earth.
I hope that I am wrong about the separatist tendencies I see in some Southern Baptists. IMHO, separatists only do harm to the cause of Christ. My bible says nothing about heaven being comprised of only Southern Baptists. If we truly believe John 3:16, then we will love, work, and cooperate with “whosoever believes in Him.”
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Brother Les,
I maybe would buy into your “theory” of separatists Baptist if you could show a trend. A post written here and there does not a trend make.
As to the post to which you point for your conclusion, you seem to be a little sporadic. The latest post you reference is Sister Debbie’s in Oct of ’07. Brother Bart’s post is Sept. ’07, Brother Joe’s is June ’07, and Brother Wade’s is Jan. ’07.
IMHO, you theory of separatist fails, and fails miserably according to the facts.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim- I disagree with your last comment and must therefore, sadly, discontinue our fellowship.
Brother Strider,
You are terrible! :>)
Would you not agree that sparsely mined articles from 6 months to over a year past are not really a basis for assigning one into a category? Especially if the category carries with it the innuendo baggage that comes with the word separatist?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim – “innuendo baggage”? Most separatists that I know – and I know plenty, with due love and respect – are proud of the title.
Tim,
Somehow I knew you were going to disagree with my post.
What does the date of a post have to do with the poster’s position? Have those whom I have referenced changed their positions? If so, let them speak.
Les
Tim Keller wrote a fascinating three paragraphs in his new book “The Reason For God” that I think are very insightful into an issue such as this…
I shared the paragraphs over at my blog today.
I definitely think they are worth the read for anyone…
Les,
If you’ll think back to your seminary days, you might recall that one major theory of Baptist origins is labeled “English Separatist Descent.” Granted, there are at least three other classifications of views regarding who Baptists are and where they came from, and these competing viewpoints have sometimes brought forth spirited dialogue…sometimes even argument…over their many, many differences. Yet I can identify one thing at least about which EVERY theory of Baptist identity and Baptist origins is in total agreement: Baptists were (and are) Separatists.
If you are not a Separatist, you’ll need to write a felicitous letter at once to the following address:
The Most Reverend Father in God, Rowan Douglas Williams, by Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England and Metropolitan
Lambeth Palace
London
SE1 7JU
But, of course, you are indeed a Separatist, as is every Baptist on earth.
This Sunday evening, when we meet for our community service, I’ll be sure to tell the Farmersville Ministerial Alliance, which has asked me to preside for five years, that you have declared that I can no longer serve with them in this capacity. I wish that you would have informed me sooner, especially since I have made reference multiple times on my blog to my enthusiastic service alongside these brethren. I might have been spared a couple of years of acting contrary to these convictions that I didn’t know that I had.
Of course, I am unwilling to make FBC Farmersville one iota less Baptist than it is in order to cooperate with FUMC Farmersville, Grace Assembly of God, Church on the Rock Farmersville, or any other of the assemblies in our community. If forced to choose between obedience to Christ and fellowship with man, I will choose obedience to Christ. Guilty as charged. Such compromise is not necessary in our partnerships ” to provide clothing, help for financial needs, and other ministry needs in our community.” If we were trying to partner to plant a church, for example, then we would quickly discover our incompatibilities for such a task.
But for every purpose that you have given herein, If find that Joe and I are quite the contrary to what you have alleged us to be. Emptied of any propositional meaning, this post amounts to little more than a disparaging slur.
Les,
I agree with you that this a significant issue. However, I am willing to concede that, at least for many, it is not primarily a question of an uncharitable heart. Bart Barber, Malcolm Yarnell, and others, as I understand them, are just being consistent with their views of New Testament ecclesiology. I happen to disagree with those views on some important points (though agreeing with them on many others).
According to the Nicene Creed, the early Church believed in “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” Although the Roman hierarchical system ended up coopting and distorting the biblical ideas alluded to here, these terms still comprise an essential nucleus of what it means to be truly Church.
I am in agreement that the “believers church” tradition has contributed a very needed corrective to the doctrinal agglomerations of history. The problem is that, in meantime, some “Baptists,” spurred on, in great part, by the conjectures of the Landmarkists, have neglected, and even, in some cases, disowned, the primitive church’s understanding of and emphasis on the universality of the pilgrim Church on earth.
I believe more dialogue on this issue can be helpful, as we attempt to identify the root issues that tend to divergent approaches. In order to do this, though, I believe those on both sides will need to do their best to listen as charitably and as objectively as possible to what those on the other side are saying.
Thank you, David. I agree that the root of our issues lie in differing views of ecclesiology. Thus, they present themselves primarily when we discuss ecclesiology (in the planting of churches, strengthening of churches, etc.), and not at other times.
root…lies
I just HATE it when my subject and verbs is not cooperating.
Les,
Can one cooperate and yet still be allowed to maintain his specific, convictional, biblical Baptist Identity? Or should I (oops…I mean ‘one’
) stifle his convictions for the sake of cooperation?
My problem throughout this debate has never been cooperating with other churches (Presby, EV Free, Methodist, Sovereign Grace, etc.)…it has been the call of the Cole-eson-ites for me to let go of my convictions to become a United-Methodist-Presbyterian-Churches-USA-Emerging-Ecumenical-Southern- Cooperative-Mainstream-Baptist-Fellowship-Baptist.
I and many of my mindset, and unbelievably so to the apparent consternation of the ‘reformers,’ can cooperate with others of similar convictions for the sake of the Gospel and community ministry.
To broad-brush those wishing to call Southern Baptists to solid, consistent, convictional living based on our biblical theology as separatists who simply will only talk to ourselves is inaccurate at best and disingenuous at worst.
SOLA GRATIA!
I have not changed my views. I offer up for consideration Acts 29, Dwight McKissic, Wade Burleson, Sheri Klouda. Is this not separtist although 3 out of 4 are still Southern Baptist and one would like to be?
That should be separatist.
Les,
Were I to gauge my own experience by yours, Les, I count it very similar. Indeed I would not hesitate to place my cooperation with other denominational Christians side by side with anyone here. I learned to appreciate long ago what Francis Schaeffer so often spoke about–”co-belligerency”.
That conceded, mixing the cooperative working with other Christian groups outside one’s fellowship in specific ministry projects and arguing for retaining one’s specific theological identity within one’s fellowship are entirely two different matters.
Those at “SBC Today” or the “crowd” as you dub, I sense, are very much open to the first matter but argue tirelessly about the second. As do I.
Now as for being squarely in the middle, my Brother Les, do not be surprised if there’s only a handful who have the same perception as your own. Besides, “middle-of-the-road” was the bread and butter, choice self-designation of the pre-CR Moderates. I surely don’t think you belong with them.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
I should clarify, the reason I mention the above is if we cannot cooperate amongst ourselves, how could we fully cooperate with other denominations on anything without at least some disdain for their doctrine?
Bart,
I understand and am very aware of the of the use of the term “Separatist” in baptist history. As I hope you can see, my definition of the term is different from the historical use of the term in baptist history.
If, in fact, your view of “separatist” is that Southern Baptists only cooperate with Southern Baptists, then we are in great disagreement. But then, we’ve been down that road before, eh?
Scott,
I agree with your second paragraph. We never let go of our convictions for the sake of cooperation.
Peter,
As I’m sure you’ve noticed, I have very strong convictions and do not hesitate to share them. I also respect you for the same qualities.
I do not view myself as “middle-of-the-road” biblically or any other way. To portray me that way is a mistake just because I state my friendship with many baptists who disagree with each other.
To others,
Thanks for the discussion and I hope you will continue to talk about this. I have a heavy schedule today and will not be able to engage you as I normally would. Play nice.
Les
Les,
This is one of the Better Post in regard to what I see is Happening in the SBC. Baptist, Baptist, Baptist Only are invited to the Table. THIS MENTALITY (1. Perceptual framework: a habitual way of thinking or interpreting events peculiar to an individual or type of person, especially with reference to the behaviors that it produces 2 Intellectual ability: somebody’s intellectual ability)
IS NOT WHAT JESUS CHRIST IS ALL ABOUT!!!
We the SBC as an Organization have Lost Our Witness to the whole world and that is the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. We need to Fix our Broken Fences as it relates to our Brothers and Sister in Jesus Christ
In His Name
Wayne
Les,
I don’t know that we have been down that road before.
Regarding definitions, I see two in your OP. First, you have cited the dictionary. That definition matches precisely the meaning of “Separatist” in English Reformation History (and, by extension, Baptist History).
Second, you have cited an inflammatory definition by Wade Burleson, and one that describes nobody I know. Let me ask you this, Les: Have you not read anything that I have written about Calvinism in the past two years? Do you count me as somebody trying to drum all Calvinists out of the SBC? Did you miss my post entitled “Thank God for Calvinists“? And if you have read any of that at all, how can you with a straight face and a clear conscience allege of me that I believe that “it is absolutely necessary for there to be a uniform doctrinal interpretation of all Bible doctrines, and if not, separation from those who hold to different doctrinal interpretations”? Is that a Kool-Aid mustache I see on your lips?
Further, since I have explained on my blog that I am involved in my local community in EVERY TYPE of ministry for which you have blown your own horn here, how can you allege that we differ on these points?
I believe that Baptists are justified in desiring for Baptist churches and Baptist cooperative bodies to be (insert gasp here) Baptist. I am perfectly willing for these Baptist believers to cooperate, either individually or corporately, with others in those areas in which they can reach agreement. Indeed, my spirit of cooperation is so broad as to reach BEYOND the Body of Christ. I will gladly petition the government alongside Mormons to end abortion, for example.
“Can two walk together unless they be in agreement?” No. And that is the formula in my mind for doctrinal agreement and cooperation. How much must we agree in order to cooperate? We must agree about what we are attempting to do together.
It seems to me there may be some different assumptions as to the meanings of such phrases as:
“cooperate with others of similar convictions for the sake of the Gospel and community ministry” (Scott Gordon)
“co-belligerency” (Peter Lumpkin)
“fully cooperate with other denominations” (Debbie Kaufman)
For me, there is an important difference in the way we may relate to non-evangelical groups in a “moral majority” type of coalition (including Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jews, etc.) for the furtherance of certain causes, and our essential unity as the Body of Christ. One is basically pragmatic, and will fluctuate according to the situation at hand. The other is a question of essence. We share a relationship of family with all those who are truly born again. And nothing can change that. We don’t just cooperate, in order to be more effective at what we are trying to accomplish. We are irrevocably joined together as part of the same Body.
Yes, it is true, there are some who claim the name “Christian” who are not truly a part of the Body. We need spiritual discernment, and consistent application of biblical truth, to determine when such is the case. And, when we do arrive at this conclusiion, indeed we must separate from these “wolves in sheep’s clothing.”
And, there are certain “ministry projects” on which we will cooperate more with certain members of the Body than with others.
But, until we have clear what we really mean when we talk about “cooperation” and “unity,” I believe we will largely be talking past each other.
Les,
Thanks. You write: “I do not view myself as "middle-of-the-road" biblically or any other way. To portray me that way is a mistake…" O.K. I accept the fact that I may be mistaken. However, if I am mistaken about “middle-of-the-road” could you please inform us what you meant on Sept. 19, 2007:
Now, as for the point I made, I’ll make it again: you appear to confuse working with those outside one’s fellowship with retaining the identity of one’s fellowship.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
David,
I’m not sure why “co-belligerency” I mentioned as belonging to Schaeffer was in your post, but I agree about the varying assumptions in play. Indeed my view of Les’s post is that he’s collapsing two different questions into one.
You write: “For me, there is an important difference in the way we may relate to non-evangelical groups in a “moral majority” type of coalition…for the furtherance of certain causes, and our essential unity as the Body of Christ.”
I personally was not referring to exclusively “moral majority” issues. A Community Easter Sunrise service, for example, similar to Bart’s example above, is not a “moral majority” example but one that recognizes the larger spiritual unity of the Body of Christ.
On the other hand, attempt to dissolve the visible constructs that distinctively sets the faith communities apart from one another and watch the hinges crack at the seams.
The question is ecclesiology. And Baptist ecclesiology, at least from my perspective, cannot simply be one of many vegetables in an evangelical soup: “… O thou man of God, there is death in the pot. And they could not eat thereof.”
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
I was not “picking on you.”
Just pulling out random phrases in this comment string that illustrated what I was referring to.
I agree with you about the Community Easter Sunrise service. Although I don’t have specific evidence to back it up, I get the idea every now and then, though, that some in the “Baptist Identity” movement might frown on that. Maybe not. But, the impression given at times seems to lead to that conclusion.
It would help me to better understand your position, if you could flesh out a bit more what you mean by:
“the visible constructs that distinctively sets the faith communities apart from one another.”
In my case, for instance, I am not referring to returning to hierarchical institutional unity, like the RCC, or organizational and doctrinally compromising unity, like the WCC.
I am referring to something more informal and organic. I am referring to attitudes. I am also referring to grassroots relationships.
David
Peter,
’tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard.
David Rogers,
I have to Say a BIG AMEN to your Comment Above. It grieves me to No End that they are so Blind that they can’t See How Jesus Prayed for all of His Children are to be United in Him.
Joh 17:9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.
Joh 17:10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.
Joh 17:11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
Joh 17:12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
Joh 17:13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
Joh 17:14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.
Joh 17:15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.
Joh 17:16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.
Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Joh 17:18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.
Joh 17:20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
Joh 17:21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
Joh 17:22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
Joh 17:23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.
Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.
Joh 17:25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me.
Joh 17:26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”
In His Name
Wayne
David,
Perhaps the answer to your question for Peter might come, at least in part, from considering this related question: “Ought the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention to be laboring to plant and strengthen any kind of church other than a Baptist church?”
I would answer in the negative.
Indeed, in light of the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention has affirmed the doctrines of The Baptist Faith & Message as those doctrines “most surely held among us” and “precious and essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice,” then I believe that the IMB ought to have as the goal of its labors the planting and strengthening of churches that would be in agreement with the BF&M—churches embodying these “essentials” that we have “most surely” identified. These are essentials to “well-being” but are not all essentials to “being” for these churches.
My proposed question, if it does not condense all that we as Southern Baptists have discussed for the past few years, does epitomize the discussion ongoing in this thread about “separatism,” “cooperation,” and “unity.”
Wayne,
You might add to your lengthy quotation the following:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, unless they have previously been sprinkled as infants and do not desire to be baptized, teaching them to observe the primary doctrines among the things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
I think that’s in Matthew somewhere.
Peter,
As always Pwter, you Miss the Main Point in the Posts.
YOU FORGOT THE CHRISTIAN SIDE and it is SAD that those on Your Side have that same Problem.
Peter, please read the above Bible verses and Meditate on Them.
MEDITATE
1. Empty or concentrate the mind: to empty the mind of thoughts, or concentrate the mind on one thing, in order to develop the mind or spirit, aid contemplation, or relax
2. Think carefully about something: to think about something calmly, seriously, and for some time
In His Name
Wayne
Bart,
Go and make Baptist disciples of all nations in the name of BAPTIST. OH NO…
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
In His Name
Wayne
Les is a grown man and can defend himself, but I see a game going on with his words that bothers me.
Les is a middle-of-the-road blogger in that he hasn’t cast his lot with a “side” and can’t be counted on to tow anyone’s party line.
Les does not appear by his writing to be middle-of-the-road in a negative sense in any of his historically orthodox theological convictions.
Bart,
As we both agreed above, the answer to your question comes down, in my opinion, to our understanding of ecclesiology.
For example, is there a biblical reality that we can call “church” (or “Church”) beyond the “local congregation” (as we as Baptists have traditionally conceived it) and an assembly that will only be gathered in the eschaton? Personally, I think that the “Church” that will be gatheread around the throne of the Lamb is one and the same as the tangible reality that is still “under construction” on the earth today. If we, as Southern Baptists, are a part of that Church, then, yes, it behooves us to work cooperatively with others (and with Jesus himself), to build it up. The relative solidarity or lack thereof we show towards the rest of the Body is not inconsequential.
None of this precludes, as I understand it, IMB missionaries being expected to teach and advocate a “believers church” (or “baptistic”) understanding of the organization and practice of local congregations. Neither does it preclude an attitude of solidarity and practice of charitable cooperation with other groups of true believers who may not “dot their i’s and cross their t’s” just like us.
To be a little more specific, I have observed missionaries on the mission field, in the name of a supposed faithfulness to Baptist Identity boycott joint prayer efforts and joint evangelistic efforts. I have seen some show very little concern, and even disdain, for such things as Ministerial Alliances and Evangelical Councils. I have also observed, on occasions, how brothers and sisters from other denominations and groups question why certain Baptists have to be so “isolationist” in their approach. To me, that makes me sad. And, from what I understand from the Bible, I can’t help but thinking it makes Jesus sad too.
Bart,
I’ve never been one–to my own hurt I realize—who delved into Shakespeare much. But, I do recall, with the fondest memories, Wiley Coyote being blown up by his own bombs he intended for that little feathery bird. According to some, that image is reasonably close to Hamlet’s.
David,
I think Bart’s words are apt. I would add that “organic” and “grassroots” supply more vagary—at least the way I see it–than my own selection: “the visible constructs that distinctively sets the faith communities apart from one another.” By that I am referring to our distinctives as Believing Christians.
No matter how one slices it, David, no matter how much we can cooperate with other evangelicals in “organic” or “grassroots” ways, we will not be able to weld our ecclesiologies together. If that is what you mean by “organic” and/or “grassroots”, we will register our disagreements, argue our points and move forward in love.
Wayne,
I know it, Wayne. I ever miss everybody’s point. I suspect I’m simply doomed to an ignorant, hopeless existence.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Stuart,
Since I apparently am the only one who’s mentioned “middle-of-the-road”, presumably you are referring to my statements.
Consequently, if you could point to where my statements–assuming mine are the ones referenced–caused the judgement that there is a “game going on with his words that bothers [you]” I’d appreciate it.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Stuart,
Thanks for asserting my status as a grown man.
Perhaps you can further explain how my words bother you. I deal with issues, not personalities. I love people on all sides of our baptist issues, however, I don’t agree with anyone all of the time. If that’s middle-of-the-road, then so be it.
At least we have a good discussion going, eh?
David,
I must admit, it would require some grievous difference to provoke me to boycott a joint prayer effort, presuming that we were organizing for pray for something worthwhile. I will not soon join Richard Hogue in praying on-screen for Southern Baptists finally to discover the Holy Spirit (whom, apparently, they have never met). I would not quickly join in prayer for anything that I thought wrongful to seek from God.
Further, I know that I have occasionally MISSED prayer meetings that I did not BOYCOTT, simply because I was convinced that the Master had assigned me elsewhere to be and otherwise to do at that particular time.
But if the issue here is that we have Southern Baptists among us who think it wrongful to join in prayer with those who do not agree with us about ecclesiological matters, then you and I can find unity in thinking such pickiness to be silly.
Peter,
Perhaps my last comment to Bart gives a little more definition to my use of the terms “organic” and “grassroots” in this context. I would also add the following examples:
-when you arrive in a new town to plant a church (or even before arriving), do you intentionally seek out the leaders of the other congregations (Baptist or not) to share your vision, seek their counsel, and pray together with them?
-when joint prayer meetings, and joint evangelistic and/or community ministry projects present scheduling conflicts with other activities, where do you place your priority?
-do you get excited about things like the March for Jesus (http://www.gmfj.org/pages/home.htm)? What about things like the DAWN initiative (http://www.dawnministries.org/) for encouraging churches and of all denominations and groups to actively plant churches, with a strategy to saturate a particular country with the gospel?
I’m still not totally sure I know what you mean by “our distinctives as Believing Christians”? Are these different from the distinctives of other Believing Christians? How or how not?
David: I agree with what you have posted so far, except may one thing. Could it be that Bart, I, Peter, agree on the definition of cooperation but disagree on who and when to cooperate.
Bart,
It sounds like we agree on the “joint prayer meeting” thing. There are probably a hundred different examples where we could go down a checklist, and answer how we would respond to a particular situation. There are, no doubt, those among us who would tend to consistently respond on the more “separatist” end of the spectrum, and others who would tend to respond on the more “open” (or, if you will, ecumenical) end of the spectrum. The types of things I mention in my post to Peter above are the types of things I think we, as Southern Baptists, could take a bit more of an “open” approach than what we many times do.
Another good example that comes to mind… I never have been able to understand how we can justify biblically the prospective “firing” of the IMB couple in West Africa a couple of years ago for working together on a church planting team with another couple from the Christian and Missionary Alliance.
Apparently, my last comment to Peter didn’t make it through moderation, due to posting 2 links in the same comment. Let’s see if it works this way.
Peter,
Perhaps my last comment to Bart gives a little more definition to my use of the terms “organic” and “grassroots” in this context. I would also add the following examples:
-when you arrive in a new town to plant a church (or even before arriving), do you intentionally seek out the leaders of the other congregations (Baptist or not) to share your vision, seek their counsel, and pray together with them?
-when joint prayer meetings, and joint evangelistic and/or community ministry projects present scheduling conflicts with other activities, where do you place your priority?
-do you get excited about things like the March for Jesus (http://www.gmfj.org/pages/home.htm)? What about things like the DAWN initiative for encouraging churches and of all denominations and groups to actively plant churches, with a strategy to saturate a particular country with the gospel?
I’m still not totally sure I know what you mean by “our distinctives as Believing Christians”? Are these different from the distinctives of other Believing Christians? How or how not?
Here is my link to DAWN that I tried to post in the other comment:
http://www.dawnministries.org/
And here is the March for Jesus link again:
http://www.gmfj.org/pages/home.htm
Debbie,
I’m not totally sure. What do you think of the World Council of Churches?
Other specifics:
Should we, as Southern Baptists, participate in the Lausanne Movement?
What about the The Gospel Coalition?
Why or why not?
David,
The fact that we could go down a checklist and find items of agreement and items of disagreement is evidence, ipso facto, that the differences are not nearly so stark as Les (dependent entirely upon Wade’s definition, apparently) has painted them to be.
If you wish to schematize a continuum and suggest that I dwell further toward the “Separatist” ideal than you do—well, I think we all know that to be true. To argue such is to say that Bart Barber is more Separatist than Les Puryear or David Rogers. Yet this is not what Les has argued. Rather, Les has argued that I am “Separatist” while by implication he is not.
And that is just nonsense.
Bart,
In practice, what you say here is probably true. However, it still seems to me that the “continental divide” as far as all of this is concerned is our understanding of biblical ecclesiology. But, admittedly, there are probably some nuances in our different views that are often by-passed in many of these discussions.
Bart,
I have not attempted to paint a “stark” picture. My intent is only to raise a flag before the SBC slides too far toward folding inward and becoming an island unto ourselves.
Les
Les,
Sorry I wasn’t clearer. I don’t think you were playing games with your words.
Peter,
To pull out that old quote as a sort of “touche” seemed little more than a game. Anyone who has read his writing over two years knows both of his independent voice in blogtown and of his historically orthodox theological positions. “Middle of the road” clearly applies to the one and not the other, in spite of what the “pre CR moderates” comment implied.
David,
I am confused why, David, you insist “our distinctives as Believing
Christians” is nonunderstandable. If it is so difficult to understand my Methodist brother next door possesses shadows of truth toward which my Baptist body declines to recognize, I do not know what else to say. Of course, you know this. Why you are portraying yourself uninformed about it is the larger question.
Nor is it necessary to tease out Baptist distinctives on a full scale on this thread. Again, the larger question is precisely why you would reiterate these questions pertaining to such. For me at least, it may very well reveal what’s so darn controversial in the SBC presently: exactly what kind of church do we as the SBC desire our CP dollars fund? Will it be specifically a Baptist congregation or a blended, soup of varied evangelicals?
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
David: I must admit that although I know of he World Council of churches through the eyes of my upbringing, which is they are evil and a sign of the end times, I am not that familiar with it nor the other two you mentioned. I will however research to see what information I can find, but as of now my answer is I don’t know. I do admit there would be certain criteria that would cause me not to cooperate. To list them would take up more space than I am allowed here.
My question on Baptist Distinctives would be which “distinctive” is correct? I’m confused to that term myself. Are we not a hodge podge of different Baptist histories and non-essential doctrine? So I agree with the statement “our distinctives as believing Christians is non-understandable.”
Les,
The problem here is that you raised the Oklahoma state flag rather than your own. I mean that sincerely and as tenderly as I know how to say it. Write your own definition of what you mean by “separatist.” If it is what I genuinely believe, I will genuinely own up to it. Come on now, you know I’m not bashful. I’m not evasive when it comes to my convictions. With whom will you cooperate and how that you don’t think I will do so? THAT could be a worthwhile conversation.
Peter,
Actually, I am not pleading “uninformedness” as the reason for my lack of understanding, only a bit of difficulty intuiting what your somewhat oblique wording is meaning to convey.
For example, when you say “our distinctives as Believing Christians,” I honestly don’t know it you mean to equate this with “Baptist distinctives.” I understand that as Baptists, we have some beliefs on certain topics that differ, for example, from those of Methodists.
With regard to your last questions, I would hope our missions dollars are going towards the establishment of doctrinally sound baptistic congregations that share fellowship, show solidarity, and practice unity with the broader Body of Christ (those that faithfully proclaim the essential message of the gospel).
Les,
And it is a needful conversation in this post, because as I say for the third time and as you have so far refused to acknowledge, EVERYTHING that you mention in the original post is something that I do in Farmersville. Nor have you ever read a single, solitary word at Praisegod Barebones disparaging such things. I dare you to show otherwise, and if not, I beseech you to revise your post to reflect this reality.
Debbie,
Fair enough. Some people might understand the phrase “fully cooperate with other denominations” as condoning participation in such initiatives as the WCC. That is actually a “straw man” argument that is used against the view I am advocating. I think it is important to keep this distinction clear.
If others want to insist on using the term “evangelical ecumenism” to describe the view people like me hold, at least they need to make clear that we do not support “ecumenism” in the popular sense of the word (e.g. WCC, etc.).
I am glad you plan to study these questions out further. I think you will find it to be a quite enlightening investigation.
And now for something REALLY IMPORTANT:
The MEMPHIS TIGERS are getting ready to take it to the Jayhawks, and show America they really are for real!! Go Tigers!!! Shake off the haters!!
I understand now why you questioned my phrasing, in fact I can agree with you on this, but wonder what phrase would be better? I haven’t a clue.
I also must disagree with you on the Memphis Tigers, and I will warn you that this might be a criteria for cooperation. My husband and I are originally from Kansas and there is only one team in this contest, the JayHawks. But we can discuss this later.
Stuart,
I think you fail to understand the humorous invalidity of your point, my brother. The very first comment in this thread, Tim made suggests it. Speaking of Les’s evidence for the “trend” he sees, Tim retorts:
Les’s post I referenced which you described as my ‘pull[ing] out that old quote as a sort of “touche"’ was written in the very same time frame as the post by Bart Les referenced.
Thus to refer to “playing games” because the quote is “old” is gut-busting hilarious–unless, of course, you’d like to indict Les in the same way. Wanna go there?
What is not so hilarious, Stuart, at least to me, is how one could attempt to defend such a blatant contradiction such as this:
And, to do so by suggesting another was "playing games" when he was perfectly willing to be corrected, is a bit wierd. The wiser course, Stuart, is simply remain silent about that one. Kinda like Les has.
For me, that’s similar to “I voted against the war before I voted for the war”. Or was it the other way around?
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
Let me make this clear. I deal with issues, not personalities. Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I don’t. Sometimes I agree with Bart Barber, sometimes I don’t. Sometimes I agree with Wade Burleson, sometimes I don’t.
I am biblically centered as I’m sure you are. I do not sit on the fence on issues. That is the context of which I use “middle-of-the-road” today. It should be obvious to even you that the context today is different than my previous post. Context, my friend. Context.
Bart,
Is it not obvious to you that I added Wade’s definition because I agree with it? Brother, what you do at FBC, Farmville is your business, not mine. My issue dealt with your post, not your daily operations at the church where you are privileged to pastor. I would not infringe on the autonomy of the local church.
As Peter has told me many times, “This is not personal. We’re discussing ideas.”
Les
Les,
Although it did indeed seem obvious that you were agreeing with that definition, one ought to be gracious and allow the luxury of changing your mind.
So, state it plainly now. You are alleging that I will not cooperate with anyone who does not agree with me on every single point of doctrine. Is that it? Because that is plainly what Wade’s definition says.
And if that is your point, then explain my “Thank God for Calvinists” post and the other stuff that you’ve read on my blog day-after-day for two years. All of that forms the “context, my friend. Context” of what you have alleged about me today, does it not?
Or is a contextual reading to try to understand what someone is REALLY saying a privilege that extends solely to you?
Bart,
You’re funny.
Les
Les,
Sometimes I try to be funny. I have a post over at my blog right now that is intended to be funny. But over here, I’m not at all trying to be funny.
This will cease to be personal and will become about ideas when you actually make some effort to demonstrate that you are talking about actual ideas that actual people actually hold.
Very well, I leave the matter alone, noting for all who come behind and read this post:
1. Les Puryear has implied today that I am someone believes that “it is absolutely necessary for there to be a uniform doctrinal interpretation of all Bible doctrines, and if not, separation from those who hold to different doctrinal interpretations.” I have asked him to clarify whether that is what he meant to say, and his brilliant response is “You’re funny.”
2. I have demonstrated clearly that these allegations are false, and have done so by referring specifically to a point of theological difference between Les Puryear and myself, viz., he is a Dortian Calvinist and I am not, yet I gladly cooperate with Baptist Calvinists in an entirely unrestricted sense and have even written a blog post in praise of Calvinists. Les refuses to address these points at all, either to attempt to refute them or to acknowledge them as true. The totality of his response, again, is to heap accolades upon my sense of humor, which I am less-and-less able to locate as this thread progresses.
3. I have specifically demonstrated that I cooperate vigorously with Christians of other denominations in my own community in every manner that Les offered in the original post as a point of difference between himself and me. Again, Les refuses to address these points at all, claiming that it would violate our local church autonomy for him not to libel me. He is not at all interested in what I do in my ministry, for somehow his ministry endeavors are germaine to the post, but mine are not. Why do I imagine that, if I were someone who refused to participate in eleemosynary endeavors with people of other denominations, the autonomy of my church would no longer pose such a barrier? Even David Rogers, with whom I often disagree about ecclesiological matters, has been unwilling to adopt Les’s strident tone.
4. The post to which Les has pointed readers on my blog is, ironically enough, one opining that Christians should NEVER separate except upon matters of serious theological gravity, yet Les is alleging that I am the one who will separate over the drop of a hat. He is, in his actions and affiliations, not one whit less “separatist” than I am, and has point-blank refused even to enter into discussion to defend the idea that he is.
In conclusion, I suppose that every blogger has had an occasion to make an accusation or a categorization that arose out of a misunderstanding. I’ve had to retract things before. Most of us have NEEDED to do so, whether we have found the courage or not. Anyone blogging for very long at all ought to be gracious about the giving and receiving of apologies, as I promise to be when Les admits that he is wrong. But to see someone make such harsh allegations, be completely unable to advance any defense of them, and yet stand behind them nonetheless, is a new low in blogging.
And with that, I tip my hat to you all and depart.
Les,
Who is disagreeing that “[You] deal with issues, not personalities…[you] agree with [me], sometimes [you] don’t…[you] agree with Bart Barber, sometimes [you] don’t…[you] agree with Wade Burleson, sometimes [you] don’t.”? Are you suggesting, however, that others either from the “Burleson camp” or the “SBCToday crowd” cannot follow the same? I can say with no fear whatsoever that I believe I hold to the same premise as you claim for yourself.
Secondly, Les, perhaps you employed “middle-of-the-road” in a completely different way presently than you did in your post. I conceded such when I brought it up. You simply claiming such is not proof if it, however. It surely looks very much the same from my end of the street.
And you making such an absolute denial–”I do not view myself as “middle-of-the-road” biblically or any other way. To portray me that way is a mistake…”–in your latter response to me lends weight contrary to your assertion now. Others may decide for themselves.
Someone as “even I” can figure that out, my brother.
With that, I am…
Peter
Bart,
Nothing would please me more than to be wrong about what you had posted. If you believe that I have misunderstood your post, then I gladly offer my apologies. As I stated earlier, my major concern is that the SBC not become an island unto itself. If you share that viewpoint, then say so. I want all of us to work together for the advancement of the Kingdom of God.
Les
Peter,
I’m glad to hear that you hold to the same issues-driven premise as I claim for myself.
Les
David,
My first reference that made no sense to you was the term to which I gave credit to Schaeffer–”cobelligerency”. You appeared to assume I meant some type of “moral majority” position I suppose to unit in challenging secular culture.
I offered clarification with an example of a community sunrise service that I suggested embodied the larger spiritual unity of the Church.
The second phrase I am allegedly unclear about is nested within that same context: “the visible constructs that distinctively sets the faith communities apart from one another…” It is mentioned in visible contrast to the “larger spiritual unity” of the community sunrise service.
Indeed that is precisely the frame of reference for my clarification–”By that I am referring to our distinctives as Believing Christians.”
Given the context of a community sunrise service, depending on the village/city aize, there’s anywhere from 6-10 different Christian denominations meeting, each denomination possessing differing distinctives from one another, and even that on a sliding continuum.
Yet, as clear that appears to be from my perspective, you once again ask for clarification since my words are “somewhat oblique”. For me, three times is enough.
As for your allusion to “baptistic” congregations being planted, David, I am quite sure much of the contention today swirls around such “baptistic” issues. I am just as sure that a Church could be “baptistic” but not be a Baptist Church.
Finally, as for getting excited about working together with others of similar but different Christian fellowships in evangelistic projects, the answer is, I sure do. I’ve worked with dozens of denominations–including mainlines–in city/area wide evangelistic festivals. The model I’ve used most is very similar to the BGEA.
But doing evangelism together and planting churches together are two entirely different operations. The former can work very well because it’s not about compromising ecclesiology but about uniting around the irreducible Gospel. The latter is neck-deep in ecclesiology.
And Churches like Southern Baptist Churches, at least historically speaking, having strong theo-ecclesiologies will inevitably clash over “community churches” “city churches” ,or perhaps even your term, “baptistic” churches.
For me, and the Southern Baptists I know and have known in the 25+ years I’ve been around, planting churches with nonBaptists is simply an idea that desperately lacks a solid NT theology. But if you think differently, be my guest. I wish you the best.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Debbie,
I was not really “questioning” your phrasing, in the sense of implying it was bad or mis-stated. For that matter, neither what either Scott Gordon or Peter said. Only using these as examples, in this discussion, of the need to make sure we understand correctly what other people mean when they say what they say.
If I had to suggest another way to express what you said, I might avoid the word “fully,” since that might be understood to imply organizational union. Also, I personally prefer to talk of cooperating with the rest of the Body of Christ, and not with other denominations, as such. But, I freely admit that is probably a bit ticky.
Congratulations on the KU win. My Tigers “snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory” tonight. It is what it is. I am sad. But I will get over it. Maybe next year. 8(
Les,
Thanks. I most certainly do. Know also, I am fairly certain, at least from what I know of them, the SBCToday “crowd” holds no less concern for issues over personalities. Indeed, truth be told, they may surpass both of us.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
I don’t want to get overly pedantic about it. But, whatever. Maybe we can come to a good understanding anyway.
1. I think I understood correctly your “co-belligerency” comment. I was merely pointing out that some people (not necessarily me) might interpret that to refer to initiatives such as the Moral Majority, since that is the context in which that term is normally used. And I did not intend to make an evaluation one way or another of this type of “co-belligerence.”
2. Regarding “visible constructs…,” it is entirely possible the problem was with my understanding and not your wording. I think I know what you meant now. Sorry for being so difficult.
3. Regarding church planting, and cooperating with baptistic churches: I have had experience working on an interdenominational church planting team (before I was with the IMB), and with all Baptist church planting teams. Sometimes, the complications can be just as great, if not greater, working with other Baptists. There are all sorts of issues that can “throw a wrench” in fruitful cooperation. Ecclesiological differences between the various stripes of evangelical “believers church” or “baptistic” churches out there have not, in my experience, proven to be among the most thorny.
Yet, as I have heard stated in various church planting seminars, working in teams to plant churches is not necessarily easier, but it is better. In my experience, it is very hard, if not impossible, to make it long-term on the mission field, without learning the fine art of dialogue and compromise on non-essentials.
Instead of “all Baptist church planting teams,” I should have said “church planting teams comprised exclusively of Baptists.”
David,
Again I have to commend you for following the Holy Spirit in your Witness in carrying out The Great Commission. It is very, very Sad for me a Laymen to read about Baptist and how they want to Control the Holy Spirit in and how He Moves and Works. This Fact Tell me a lot about the People who are doing this Control Thing. I know a lot of a lot of Christians that have changed Denominations and I also know that the Presbyterian PCA does at times Baptist by Emersion in Swimming Pools at the request of the Believer. If we follow People like Les Puryear’s and You David’s way of following the Holy Spirit we are not Dividing The Church that Jesus Christ is Building with or without the SBC (Baptist Churches). For all others may you Truly Search Your Hearts. To All May God Be Glorified.
In His Name
Wayne
Yeah David, I was going to say something here about the win, but I just couldn’t do it to you.
I had a really great comment on here that was pretty long, but was self-explanatory. Unfortunately, the internet connection in the poorest country in the world isn’t always the best. As such, that comment went down the drain.
Here is the light version: If a church is to be Southern Baptist, let it affirm one of the BF&M’s. This will clarify all of the trouble caused by the word ‘autonomous.’ This also clarifies a church’s position on primary beliefs and periphery ones. Then let each individual church cooperate with whom they want, but knowing that their cooperation may be treated by whatever level of the denomination with which they associate (association, state, and/or national).
So, if a church wants to plead their case for cooperation with other denominations on ecclesiastical issue (church planting), they may do so at the Convention meeting. There, the Convention as a whole (as represented by her delegates) will decide what are our parameters of cooperation. It will not just be left in the hands of trustees or some committee.
Thus, the local church regains her voice and the Convention knows exactly who she is. The churches are free to leave, but are not free to act in discord with the Convention whole. This may cause some pain at first, but the end result for all involved should be positive.
Pretty sure there wouldn’t be many SBs left, pretty quickly.