;)
Baptist Identity? Assembly of God Identity? Denominational Issues in an Ecumenical World
Posted by Dave Miller in Baptist Life, Church & Missions
The Baptist Identity movement has been one of the driving forces that energized the Baptist blogging world (both ways). Some bloggers have consistently advocated that the key (or a key) to the renewal of the SBC is a reaffirmation of those distinctive doctrines and practices that have marked Baptist churches historically. Others (myself included) have argued that while we appreciate and affirm Baptist doctrine, we believe some of the actions advocated by the Baptist Identity leaders have gone too far. We have discussed (argued over?) whether someone who prays privately in a prayer language should be allowed to serve as a missionary. We have examined open and closed communion. We have discussed how much authority the local church has over baptism, and whether a baptism performed by a church with certain faulty doctrines can be considered valid.
This will not be a BI-bashing post, nor will the comment stream be allowed to go there. I use the term as a descriptor, not as an insult. The term was used in the Report of the Mission Personnel Ad Hoc Committee in May of 2007, which dealt with the IMB guidelines on glossolalia. They warned that the “rapid spread of neo-pentecostalism and its pressure exacted on new churches in various regions of the world warrants a concern for the clear Baptist identity of our missionary candidates.” SBC Today, one of the prominent websites in the Baptist blogosphere states its mission as “Restoring Unity through Biblical discipleship and Baptist Identity.”
I am in about 95% agreement with the doctrine and practices of those in the Baptist Identity movement. I am committed to the continuation of the Conservative Resurgence of the SBC. I believe in the importance of baptism by immersion of believers. I stand strongly by the Baptist Faith and Message (as a general doctrinal statement, not a creed), especially the 2000 version. However, on the blogs, I have spent most of my time arguing with the BI folks about that 5% of doctrine on which we disagree.
Undeniably, we have argued these issues in ways that have produced more heat than light at times. But, ultimately, these are real and important issue. We still have to face them. We must decide as a denomination who we are and what direction we are heading. But the main reason I bring this up today is that I have discovered that we are not the only denomination struggling with our identity.
Assembly of God Identity Movement
I read an interesting article in a recent issue of Christianity Today, the October 2009 issue, entitled “Holding Their Tongues.” It describes a conflict raging in the Assembly of God denomination. Evidently, many AG churches have grown large by deemphasizing their distinctive doctrines – especially the practice of tongues. At their biennial conference in Orlando in August, Noel Roberts of Bethel Temple Assembly in Jacksonville observed that in their rousing worship there had been no messages in tongues at all. The South Texas AG District Council brought forward a resolution calling the denomination to a renewal of their “biblical Pentecostal distinctives”, the most basic of which is their belief that the initial physical manifestation of the Baptism of the Spirit is speaking in tongues. The resolution passed.
We Baptists are not the only ones struggling to find our identity. Reading that article was like seeing a mirror image of the BI controversy in the SBC. In the last 20 years, the evangelical unity movement has made great strides. I can remember being at the Pastors Promisekeepers meeting in Atlanta several years ago listening to Steve Camp sing powerfully about tearing down the walls that separated Christians one from another. I enthusiastically befriended men from independent Charismatic, Foursquare and Assembly circles, and have been enriched by that fellowship.
But as we began to fellowship across denominational lines, we began to ask ourselves if denominations had any purpose at all. Some of my friends view denominations as inherently divisive and therefore evil. It seems to me that we have to answer two questions as we go forward. We have argued about these and have moved on to other issues. But I think we still have to answer these questions.
1) Exactly what does it mean to be Baptist? Southern Baptist?
2) How involved should Baptists be with the greater evangelical world? (Acts 29 network, other missions agencies, etc)
Brick Walls and Picket Fences
I have written a book entitled “Brick Walls and Picket Fences.” I worked hard on it and was ready to try to publish it when Dr. Mohler went public with his “theological triage” concept – which I could almost swear he stole from me, except I am pretty sure Dr. Mohler is completely unaware of either my existence or my writings. In my book, I spelled out four levels of “truth” with an appropriate response toward each.
Level 1 is “Brick Wall Doctrine.” Around some doctrines we should build a “Brick Wall” of separation. These are the fundamentals of the faith – doctrines related to the gospel, the nature of God and the faithfulness of the scriptures. If someone compromises on these doctrines, we must not fellowship with them, but contend with them for the faith.
Level 2 is “Picket Fence Doctrine.” A picket fence is a friendly boundary between neighbors. We do not separate from them completely, nor do we treat them as if they are our enemies. We regard our neighbors as brothers and sisters in the faith. But we recognize that our differences are significant enough that we must continue to worship in different houses. This is where Baptist Identity (however we eventually define that) comes in.
Level 3 and 4 are not significant to this discussion. Level 3 is “Dinner Table Doctrine.” That is doctrine we sit around our fellowship table and talk about – things like eschatology and the authorship of Hebrews. We need not separate over those. Level 4 is what I call “Personal Space Truth.” On some issues, Paul told us we should each follow our own convictions under the Lordship of Christ and not judge or condemn one another. (These are issues like observing the Sabbath, dietary issues and such).
Southern Baptists have been pretty good about holding forward on the “Brick Wall” Issues. The sure foundation of God’s inerrant Word. The Trinity. The Deity of Christ. The depravity of man. Salvation by grace through faith alone, because of the substitutionary atonement of Christ. We have built a Brick Wall around these issues, as we should.
But we have had much more trouble with the “Picket Fence” issues. Most of the “Baptist Identity” related issues are not fundamental to salvation. But they are significant issues we must deal with. Should we build picket fences between different soteriological camps? Should Calvinists and non-Calvinists go their separate ways or work together for the gospel? How narrowly should we draw the parameters of fellowship in our denomination? Is the Baptist Faith and Message a sufficient confession of our doctrinal consensus, or should agencies be allowed to go beyond those to set more restrictive policies?
It is dangerous to bring these issues back up, because we have a track record of fighting over them instead of discussing them. I hope that we might have a decent discussion about these here. David Rogers opened this topic a few weeks ago, asking about the “Hills to Die On” in SBC Life. I’d like to open the debate more.
1) What are the essentials of our Baptist Identity?
2) At what level should Southern Baptists partner with other denominations, parachurch organizations or non-denominational networks?
Please hear me. I hope we have a lively exchange. I think we need to discuss these issues and develop a consensus to guide us. But I think we are better than our past discussions of these issues have demonstrated. We can talk about this without invective or derogation.
Let’s focus on the future, not the battles of the past.
So, what say you?
Can someone explain to me in simple terms what is Baptist Identity?
I might as well call a dance here at Dave’s Grand Ball since the admission and refreshments are free.
Tom Parker,
In “simple terms” Baptist Identity can be explained in three words: New Testament Christianity.
cb
Dave,
Recently, I attended a meeting at a local Southern Baptist Church and the traveling preacher basically reinvented the 1960′s Sunday School program and was promoting the “old” plan in a “new” way through a book he had written. He was working in the convention on the State level and was touring to sell and promote his book. My question: If we placed separate levels within our denomination wouldn’t the Convention have to support each level of this plan? The reason I ask this is because evangelism is a given, however, it is viewed differently from the Armenian camp than the Calvinist camp. One camp has a more influential emotional gospel approach and one has a very truth oriented gospel approach. It is difficult for me to mix that within the same church. I think that would be an issue for some.
CB,
Wow!
Are you saying that everything else is NOT New Testament Christianity?
I thought David said we were not going to fight over this post? So much for that…
CB:
Can you elaborate, because it is my fault, but I do not not know what you mean by saying it is “New Testament Christianity.” My thanks in advance.
CB:
Do you consider yourself a Baptist Identity person?
Greg,
I did not say that at all.
Pull those little claws back in there, sweetheart. Maybe I will ask you for a dance later.
All I was doing was promoting my new book like Dave is his.
My book is entitled: SIMPLE BI.
I planned to give an overview by sharing the chapter titles. And now you come and accuse me of starting a fight. Shame on you, Greg. I’m gonna tell yo Momma on you for bein’ mean.
cb
Tom Parker,
I was raggin’ on you just a little. Poor Ole Greg is just always so up-tight.
Seriously Tom Parker, I do not define myself as a BI guy in the strict sense it has been defined by some who post on blogs.
Some people who have “defined” BI on blog posts have no true depth of theological understanding. (I am not talking about Dave Miller or David Rogers and please don’t ask for sake of saving a fight that Dave does not want.)
cb
I agree with CB (sort of – not about sports, of course) that we are trying to be a New Testament church. But we need to spell that out a little more carefully. What are the basic requirements?
We need to be more specific. What are the core fundamental principles of our view of a New Testament church (from our Baptist perspective)?
We may have to deal with the past, but I just don’t want this to be a rehashing of old anger.
Let’s keep working on who we are.
I’ll have a stab at #1.
Credobaptism by immersion.
Congregational polity.
Autonomous Churches.
Bill:
Thanks.
Bill, I think that is a good start. Do you consider your list complete?
Tom,
From my limited understanding of the issue, Baptist Identity refers to a movement within the SBC to cement some long-held “Baptist” practices as a kind of minimum standard for fellowship within the SBC. Some issues that I see brought up are private prayer languages, closed communion, the limits of cooperation with non-SBC entities, and what constitutes a “legitimate” baptism. Both sides of the debate argue that their position is more closely in line with NT practices.
BI folks tend to view PPLs as contrary to Baptist faith and practice. Other BI folks believe that only baptised members of a local church can partake in communion in only the local church. They tend to favor autonomy over cooperation and I think some believe that almost any partnering with non-SBC entities constitutes doctrinal compromise and impurity.
Legitimate baptism from the BI camp tends to be more constrictive. For example, if I witnessed to my coworker, he accepts Christ, and I take him out and baptize him after we get off of work, it wouldn’t be legit because I was not acting under the authority of the local church.
Most of the debate tends to revolve around stories, hypothetical situations, and the like. I personally would like to see some good exegetical debate, not just the simple “This verse says, ‘…’ so I’m right.”
I lean away from the BI camp on these issues. If anyone from the BI camp thinks I misrepresented BI views, please add your input too.
CB was right on with his answer. BI is simply NT Christianity as set forth in the Bible. It’s just how we, as Baptists, believe the NT. If you want to know what BI doctrine is, just read the BFM2K.
David
And, I hear all of these people talking about denominations being evil, and divisive; and it makes me chuckle a little bit. How do you get rid of denominations as long as you have people out there, who do not want to follow the clear teachings of the NT? I’m not talking about the gray, hazy doctrines? I’m talking about the clear teachings of Scripture….like Believers baptism by immersion; Lord’s Supper is symbollic and is for Believers only; salvation is eternal, not temporary; etc.
So, how would we tear down the evil, divisive, denominational walls when a person wants to teach that salvation can be lost in a SS class; and another wants to baptise his infant son; and another person wants to take the Lord’s Supper as a work to earn salvation?????
David
David Volfan,
So are you saying that Andrew, and the old IMB BoT, are wrong to link BI with a certain position on PPL, for example? Because, the BF&M doesn’t say anything, one way or another, about that.
David,
Personally, I would have no trouble adding something about tongues to the BFM2K…to show what Baptists believe true tongue speaking is and is not. Right now, I, personally, would have no trouble with someone having a PPL, as long as it stayed private and personal. The trouble is…not many that I have known can keep it a PPL. They seem to always be compelled to “share” it. Thus, the trouble begins.
David
It’s also not conducive to privacy when the application process for positions within the SBC asks people if they have a PPL. Likewise, if someone asks, should someone with a PPL refuse to answer? I think the “private” in PPL refers to the practice, not the knowledge of the practice.
Volfan,
Perhaps others say what you say here about denominations being evil and divisive. But, I, for one, am not saying that–necessarily.
I think there is a lot to be said for denominations, as long as they are not used in an unbiblical and divisive manner.
I have recommended this article many times on the blogosphere, but I think it is so important, and on target, that I will not grow tired of recommending it.
Have you read John Woodhouse’s “Christian Unity and Denominations”? If not, I think you might really benefit from giving it a careful read. I would be interested in your response afterward.
http://matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/library/2687/
Volfan,
RE #17: We can talk all you like, at another time, about your personal opinion on PPL, and about mine. However, the topic of this post is Baptist Identity. You said, in comment #14, that a good way to know BI doctrine was by reading the BFM2K.
In light of the PPL question, do you stick by that statement or not?
Dave: It may not be complete, but in my mind those are the big ones. Obviously I’m assuming certain core things like our understanding of the Gospel.
Oh, I would certainly add perseverance to the list.
Even with my short list, they are not all issues to divide over. For example, there may be churches with true elder-rule polity. I seriously doubt we would disfellowship (nor should we) such a church.
I have my own convictions on other issues like gender roles, eschatology, soteriology, charismaticism, alcohol, etc. I personally would not divide over those issues although I know many would.
David Vol,
I don’t think it is particularly helpful to say, “BI is biblical” – read the NT.
Every group believes their doctrine comes from the NT.
I am saying we need to clarify those “irreducible minimums” – the doctrines on which we cannot compromise and remain faithful Baptists.
Can we be SBC but not hold to credobaptism by immersion? I would think not.
Can we be SBC and differ on PPL? I certainly think so?
Bill has tried to define his views. I would love to hear you do the same, David.
What baptist doctrines are essential to our identity as Baptists? Can you be more specific?
And, if the BFM2K is our statement, should we then assume that there is no need for doctrinal statements beyond that? I think that is the question David is getting at in comment #20.
I keep hoping we can all get into a substantive debate.
Andrew’s summary of the issues in comment 13 is both concise and well-defined. Thanks.
Dave,
At the risk of totally derailing this comment stream, I’m going to go out on a limb and say I don’t think it is important, or even biblical, that we have “an identity,” per se, “as Baptists.”
As specifically Southern Baptists, as David Worley mentions, we have codified our common beliefs, by way of the Baptist Faith & Message. For the most part, I think this is a good thing, as we need to have some sort of a standard we agree upon, as we attempt to cooperate together on common goals and ministry projects. I say, “mostly a good thing,” because, as I have mentioned on other occasions, I think the BF&M is out of touch with the consensus of Southern Baptists on the issue of close/closed communion. Other than that one point, I have no gripe with the present make-up of the BF&M, nor with the concept that the doctrines spelled out in the BF&M form the basis for our cooperation.
However, I believe that, biblically, our “identity” is to be found in Christ and Christ alone, not some denomination or another. I believe that is what Paul is referring to in 1 Cor. 1:12-13, when he talks about saying “I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos,” “I am of Cephas,” etc.
This does not mean that congregations are not autonomous in their polity. Nor does it mean that we should not hold to biblical doctrine, which, I, for the great part, am in agreement, is reflected in the BF&M. Nor does it mean that we are forbidden from cooperating in a special way with other like-minded congregations in particular ministry projects.
However, our “identity,” as such, is in Christ, and not, in being Baptist. And, our spiritual family is comprised of all those who are also in Christ, not just other Baptists.
Therefore, if someone asks me what group I am a part of, I respond, I am a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ. If they want to know about my beliefs concerning particular interpretations of the Bible, I am happy to oblige them. And, indeed, these beliefs match up pretty well with the BF&M. And, I am also a member of a local congregation that cooperates with the SBC.
But, I am not, as far as “identity” is concerned, a Baptist. I am a Christian, a follower of Christ. I am also an evangelical, understood in the following sense: I am a Christian who believes the gospel, the evangel. Actually, for me Christian and Evangelical are synonyms, in this respect. If you don’t truly believe the gospel, you are not truly a Christian.
However, it is possible to be a Christian, and not a Baptist.
The faultline between Richard Land, Sarah Palin former West Point Chaplain John Scott, and Lindsay Graham will help give realpolitik defninition to Baptist Identity.
Land and Palin and James Dobson on one hand, Scott, Graham and Robert Parham roughly somewhere better.
Palin will be at Ft. Bragg on Monday where recent West Point Chaplain John Scott is pastor of the CBF standard bearer Snyder Memorial in Fayetteville.
Doug Carver is Southern Baptist and now Chief US Army Chaplain.
I would hope if explored properly, his views would be more in line with John Scott and Parham and Graham, than what we have come to know Palin and Richard Land on many topics.
With the recent discussions by Robert Parham at ethicsdaily.com about the dividing line between Richard Land and US GOP Senator and Southern Baptist Lindsay Graham have been particular.
As the discussion goes forward on matters from Islam and pluralism to Sotomayor and the like, good and active discussion that explores the thinking of the above could be most interesting.
Stephen,
Goodness gracious! Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but it sounds like, to you, Baptist identity is wrapped up in some viewpoint or another on secular politics. Is that the way you understand the Kingdom of God?
David:
Robert Parham; Richard Land.
Parham has had two grand essays on Land as distinct from Lindsay Graham
Here is great exploration for you to explore as exactly what do Baptists underwrite in their Cooperative Program dollars to Land’s ERLC.
http://forums.baptistlife.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7657
I think US Army chaplain Doug Carver should be brought into the discussion with former West Point Chaplain John Scott.
Framed in the the thinking of Charles Marsh and Charles Kimball, I would hope that otherwise grand folks like you and Ginny Brant would come to a fuller understanding of the Kingdom of God.
Check out the thread and Parham’s precise definition of Richard Land in this set up. Will help you toward a better Baptist Identity I would have to think.
I just got back from doing the essence of the ministry. (Multiple hospital visits)
I want to seriously comment in this thread, but first I have to say to Steve Fox that you are not close to identifying BI or its adherents.
cb
David R, we may have to form a heresy inquisition in Sioux city!
Actually, I agree with you that it is far more important to identify as Christians than as Baptists. Perhaps that is one of the distinctions between groups.
But, the simple fact is that I am Southern Baptist. We do ministry through the Southern Baptist Convention’s missions arms. And I think we need to define what that means.
I have no trouble defining the “Brick Wall” truths that are essential to Christianity – all “hills to die on”. But I have more trouble defining what truths should be seen as essential to our fellowship as SB’s.
So, while I agree with what you said, I also think that the effort to define the parameters of our fellowship as Baptists is a productive effort.
Dave,
It would be far more correct to say “hills on which to die” rather than “hills to die on.”
Just trying to be helpful since you have no hope of a national championship game.
cb
While we’re on a run, being sticklers about language, I would say that, technically speaking, we should not have “fellowship” as Southern Baptists, or as Baptists, in general, for that matter.
“Fellowship,” as I understand it, is a category to be practiced among the entire Body of Christ, and not merely one subgroup within the Body.
“Cooperation,” especially, as it relates to certain ministry projects, however, is a relevant category for us as Southern Baptists.
I think, perhaps, being careful to distinguish between these two terms may go a long way toward helping us to sort through these questions in a biblical and edifying manner.
You are right, of course, CB, but I think it is one of those laws of grammar that is changing over time.
That is one other thing we have in common. Neither of our teams will hoist a national championship trophy.
However, I did place my Yankees World Series champions Decal on my Durango today.
Now that we have gotten that out of the way, CB, how bout blessing us with a substantive definition here. What beliefs or practices are essential in our Baptist denomination/fellowship/convention/cooperation?
Dave,
You drive a Dodge?………Oh well, I guess I’ll just chalk it up to your being a Yankee fan.
Seriously Dave, I think I would like to describe BI guys in their core beliefs first and let you guys define essential practices and we can develop “who” and “what” BI guys are.
Most of the BI guys I know have spend much time in the study of theology. They read it and they seem to be able to talk about it for hours at a time. Their primary theological discipline is Systematic Theology.
They understand that the Doctrine of the Trinity is the foundational theological stone of the Christian faith. They will not compromise here one inch. (As I would imagine you would agree)
They also have a strong understanding of Soteriology. Another doctrine on which they will go to the cross over if necessary. (As I would imagine you would agree with them in most every area of that doctrine.)
The doctrine that constitutes a hill on which a BI guy will die above other well studied, theological sound Christians is Ecclesiology. Ecclesiology is the doctrine that BI guys see as making them distinctively Baptist and all others distinctively not Baptists.
What do you think so far fellows?
CB,
I also have spent quite a bit of time and thought studying ecclesiology. As a matter of fact, that may well be my area of special interest, within the overall field of theology.
Does that make me a BI guy?
David,
I agree that you have studied ecclesiology. Yet, your study is somewhat of a different perspective and I think you would agree.
To me you seem to study ecclesiology in a far more inclusive fashion, wherein BI guys study ecclesiology to a far more exclusive degree than you.
Does that make sense to you?
Now, if you will; will you respond to my observations of the core beliefs of BI guys in comment #35 and stop talking about football all the time?
cb
CB,
I’m not totally sure what you mean about inclusive and exclusive degrees of studying ecclesiology.
I would just say we have studied the same biblical texts, and a lot of the same texts of commentators of the Bible, and reached different conclusions. Perhaps that means I am “weak” in my study of ecclesiology, and they are “strong.”
GO GATORS!
David,
I would rather you not make this about you. I thought the goal was to define BI. If that is not the goal, I have made a mistake in making an effort to do so and I will gladly let you indulge yourself in yourself.
cb
David,
I said nothing about you being weak in your studies of ecclesiology. I said you had a different perspective.
cb
CB,
I am just pushing back a little on your answer to Dave in comment #35. If taking ecclesiology seriously = BI, then I am BI. But, obviously, I am not BI. I think you will need to be even more specific in your definition/description of BI.
In regard to being “weak,” I was just attempting to rag you a bit, in relation to a comment you made some time ago, stating that I have a “weak ecclesiology.”
It would be interesting, though, to hear your perspective on what particular views of ecclesiology separate BI folks from non-BI folks within SBC life.
I don’t think the questions Dave raised are a call do define the so-called BI movement within the SBC, but rather a more general call to ask what it means to be Southern Baptist.
Credobaptist? Yes, certainly.
Closed communion? Probably not.
Church autonomy? Yes
Calvinistic? No
Male-only elders? Yes
Male-only deacons? No
Dave, am I correct?
CB, the things you said in comment 35 could also be said about Missouri Synod Lutherans, or RCA, or E Free or any other evangelical group.
1) Spend much time in study of Theology.
2) Love the Trinity
3) Study Ecclesiology.
Many groups try to do that. These are the “Brick Wall” items that I mentioned above.
I agree that our differences over ecclesiology are what differentiate us from those groups.
But to say that BI is defined by a love of theology and the Trinity and ecclesiology is no distinctive.
I am also, by the way, not asking us to define BI. I am asking us to define the irreducible minimums of Baptist beliefs.
What are they?
My point in this post was that we are not the only denomination struggling to define our denominational identity. I think we need to define ours.
What is a Southern Baptist? That is the question I ask.
By the way, CB – I DO drive a Dodge Durango.
Okay. Perhaps, I was trying to highjack the post a bit.
I think there are different tracks on which to go about answering the question, What is a Southern Baptist?
1. In one sense, any church that participates in the Southern Baptist “package” of joint ministry projects is Southern Baptist (i.e. sends money to the CP, Lottie Moon, Annie Armstrong, is a member of a local Baptist association, sends messengers to the annual convention, etc.). Some churches, however, participate in part of the package, but not all. So, perhaps, from this perspective, there are degrees of being Southern Baptist?
2. In another sense, any church that affirms the BF&M may be considered Southern Baptist. If we are talking doctrinal descriptors, that is the accepted criterion. The big problem, as I keep insisting, here, is the discrepancy between the majority of the churches who qualify under track 1 as Southern Baptist, and yet, do not practice close or closed communion, as stipulated by the BF&M.
Here’s a case study to think about, though. I know of a case in Spain, where a church, which for years, was an independent Pentecostal church, had a church crisis, and after investigating different options, applied for membership in the Spanish Baptist Union, and was accepted. They did not change their doctrinal postion, but agreed to abide by the cooperative agreements of the Spanish Baptist Union, including their doctrinal statement, which is very similar to the BF&M 1963.
Are they a Baptist church? Why or why not?
David R.,
The reason I said that BI is NT Christianity is because that’s what we base our theology on…the Bible. It’s not about personal opinions. It’s about our attempt to follow the clear teachings of Scripture.
Now, would all so-called BI guys believe the same about every jot and tittle? Of course not. But, if you want to call it the theological triage system…then so be it. Of course, in order to be considered a Christian, a person would have to hold the essential, fundamentals of the faith. Thus, a person could be a Methodist and be a Christian. A person could be a Presbyterian and be a Christian. Of course.
But, in what some would call the second tier doctrines, which are still of the utmost importance, BTW; a person would need to adhere to these doctrines in order for me and many others to want to cooperate with them in starting Churches and running a seminary, etc. And, the BFM2K is a good representative of our basic beliefs…beliefs that we hold to as being very important in staying TRUE to the BIBLE and what the Bible clearly teaches. You keep asking about PPL. I have repeatedly told you that if the SBC wanted to make PPL a matter of fellowship, and said that no one with a PPL could be a missionary, seminary prof, etc. then I would go along with it. I believe that a PPL is not Scriptural, and if it’s taught that it does harm to the person’s spiritual life. But, if we do not want to make that a part of the BFM2K, and let it be not something to break fellowship over, as long as the person keeps it a PPL and doesnt try to lead others to have one; then I can live with that, too.
What makes us Southern Baptists? And, David, there’s nothing wrong with being identified as a Southern Baptist, BTW. It just shows where you are theologically. Things that make us “different” than others would be our belief in: baptism by immersion only for believers only; the Lord’s Supper being a symbollic act for believers only; our belief in salvation by grace thru faith; our belief in salvation being an eternal work of God…once saved, always saved; the Bible being God’s inerrant, infallible, inspired Word; autonomy of the local Church; priesthood of the believers; congregational rule; men being the leaders of thier home and the church; our commitment to carry out the Great Commission; our belief in the Trinity; the Holy Spirit is a person of the Godhead, and not a force, or a fuzzy power; our belief that tongue speaking is not ecstatic utterance; and there are many others..as laid out by the BFM2K. And, it’s the totality of these beliefs that set us apart as Baptists…Southern Baptists. Of course, other groups believe some of these beliefs, as we do. But, it’s the totality of these beliefs that say to everyone…they are the Southern Baptists kind of Christians.
Now, David, I can cooperate with anyone who would hold to what I said above…whether they are a part of the SBC, or not. It’s not the name, nor is it the affiliation that makes a Church a sound, good, NT Church. It’s what they believe and how they practice Church that’s important to me. I am Southern Baptist, because I believe that the SBC is the closest to the NT, than any other thing going out there. Even with all our faults and shortcomings. And, David, I am proud to be a Southern Baptist flavor of Christian. I believe that other denominations…for the most part…fall short of being what the Bible commands them to be.
David
Vol brought forward a very specific definition above, and I appreciate it. Here’s the part I refer to.
“Things that make us “different” than others would be our belief in: baptism by immersion only for believers only; the Lord’s Supper being a symbollic act for believers only; our belief in salvation by grace thru faith; our belief in salvation being an eternal work of God…once saved, always saved; the Bible being God’s inerrant, infallible, inspired Word; autonomy of the local Church; priesthood of the believers; congregational rule; men being the leaders of thier home and the church; our commitment to carry out the Great Commission; our belief in the Trinity; the Holy Spirit is a person of the Godhead, and not a force, or a fuzzy power; our belief that tongue speaking is not ecstatic utterance; and there are many others..as laid out by the BFM2K. And, it’s the totality of these beliefs that set us apart as Baptists…Southern Baptists. Of course, other groups believe some of these beliefs, as we do. But, it’s the totality of these beliefs that say to everyone…they are the Southern Baptists kind of Christians.”
Let me delineate the things that he set forward, and comment.
1) Baptism by immersion of believers. Clearly a Baptist distinctive. Many other groups practice this, but I think we give it a higher priority.
2) LS as a symbolic act. Again, a belief we hold passionately, shared by many group.
3) Fundamental doctrine. You mentioned several fundamental beliefs. Salvation by grace. Inerrancy. Trinity, HS etc
4) Priesthood of believer. Amen
5) Eternal Security. Amen. I think we still differ on whether Arminian churches can be valid and perform valid baptisms, but I agree that we are a perseverance-embracing denomination.
6) Autonomy. That is clearly an SBC distinctive.
7) Congregational Polity. There are many SBC churches today that practice elder rule. Are they not SBC? Does practicing elder rule separate one from SBC affiliation?
9)Tongues are not ecstatic utterances. I’m not sure I see the practice of tongues as anti-SBC. Often, tongues are associated with other doctrines and practices that are contrary to our beliefs, but I have known some very good Southern Baptists who practice tongues. I also think that a private prayer language is no real issue. Who cares how someone prays privately.
10) “Traditional Family/Male Headship, I have publicly agreed with this. But do we really want to tell egalitarians that they are not SBC? Do we really want to disfellowship churches that hold other positions on this issue? Just how important are we going to make these beliefs? I’m very fine with the BFM2K statement, but it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
Thank you for putting these out there.
To me, some are “Brick Wall” items. Fundamental to all Christians and not unique to SBC.
I think I agree with you on all of them, except perhaps how we apply them.
I appreciate you being specific. Gives us something to discuss.
David Miller:
Do you believe we need to Codify the BI distinctives and maybe even do this by changing the 2000 BF&M?
Tom, Baptist distinctives HAVE been codified (at least in theory) in the BF&M 2000. I am in agreement with that statement, with a couple of minor caveats.
Baptist Identity distinctives are a different matter. Perhaps my post (at least the first couple of paragraphs made it sound like this was all about the BI group. It was not. I only meant to show that we are not the only denomination struggling for an identity.
I have been public in that I disagree with some of the ideas put forward by the BI group. Usually, it is not in the doctrine, but in the application of that doctrine.
My hope here is that we will not spend all our time arguing over BI, but discussing what constitutes a Southern Baptist church.
David Rogers,
I think your two statements are on point in comment 45.
1) An SBC church subscribes to the doctrines and practices of the BF&M.
2) An SBC church participates in SBC missions.
But that gets to the heart of the question.
You and I have both confessed that there are areas of the BF&M in which we are not in complete agreement. Does that make us non-SBC. Is 100% agreement required?
In the same vein, if a church does not support SBC missions, are they no longer SBC?
As to the church that you mentioned in Spain, I think they are SBC. But I might watch them to make sure they are living that out.
In Iowa, we have seen a number of churches from other Baptist denominations affiliate with us. Some have gone on to become active SBC churches. Others have gotten in and then not felt comfortable with our ways.
When a church affiliates from another denomin, it is the beginning of a process of developing an identity.
I’m pretty sure I know where CB is. Alabama has to face the mighty Chattanooga team today and he is too nervous to comment. Those SEC schedules are so rough.
Florida has a nail-biter with Florida International today. Scary game against a might FIU team.
Bill, you are exactly right. and in general, I agree with your points. I assume you meant by the Calvinist “no” that we do not require people to be Calvinist or non-Calvinist. I think we can come from different perspectives on that. I’m assuming that is what you meant.
Dave: Yes, that is what I meant. I myself am a Calvinist.
BTW, we’ve had this conversation before, but I wonder how many truly elder-ruled churches are in the SBC? My church has a plurality of elders, but we still are congregationally governed.
I agree with you about disfellowshipping egalitarians. If we are going to disfellowship them, then we should disfellowship churches that practice open communion or are elder-ruled.
Ultimately, I believe having a female pastor to be in error, but I do not consider it an egregious error as some do. Frankly I believe premil dispensationalism to be an error also (no offense to you) as well as non-Calvinism and cessationism and barring women from the deaconate. But I don’t believe any of those are barriers to cooperation in the Gospel.
I am in agreement with the way David and Dave spelled out the doctrinal issues in comments 46 and 47 but doctrine just doesn’t tell the whole story. SB’s are passionate about missions and evangelism. I became SB when I was 12 and from very early on in my discipleship I was taught that SB’s were a people on mission. I bought this completely. This was one of my disappointments with the CR. They emphasized doctrine but did not emphasize mission- hopefully this will be corrected in the GCR. I have said for many years that I will be SB as long as SB’s are about missions. No one else talks about missions and evangelism like we do. This must stay at the forefront of all our discussions or we will end up chasing our tails around, getting our doctrinal statement correct and missing what God is doing in the world.
Oh, and a word about the BFM 2000. It is not a creed. It was designed to be an expression of what most Baptist believe right now. It was not written to be a minimal or maximal document. If we want to make a creed we need to stop being lazy and do the work to make one from scratch. That way we put in the bare minimum of the kind of Church and individual we are willing to cooperate with. I would rather we did not have such a document. I like our identity as people of the Book, and no creed but the Bible. But if we must have a ‘king’ then let us choose one wisely and in good order and not go back and forth about caveats and such things that do not help us get where we want to go.
One more distinctive that bears writing down. SB pastors have a serious problem with authority. I was a pastor for four years before coming over seas so, yeah, I know. If we do write a creed you will know all the ‘real’ SB people because they will be the ones refusing to sign and throwing a fit about being told what to do. Sorry if that offends anyone but it has been who we are, our identity, for a long time.
Amos 3:3 has been misquoted a lot over the years. It asks if two can walk together unless they agree. I have heard some say that this means that we must agree on everything if we are to walk together. This of course, is not what Amos was saying at all. He is asking if we will agree to walk together. Do we? The jury is still out but I for one pray we will continue to agree to walk together for the sake of the Gospel. If there is another denomination doing missions better than we do point them out. But there ain’t no such denomination so I implore us all not to give up our Baptist Identity- the very thing that we do best of all- keep on the mission God has for us.
Dave and David,
Did you guys even read comment #35? Especially this statement:
“The doctrine that constitutes a hill on which a BI guy will die above other well studied, theological sound Christians is Ecclesiology. Ecclesiology is the doctrine that BI guys see as making them distinctively Baptist and all others distinctively not Baptists.”
Dave BI core beliefs are nothing like this:
“CB, the things you said in comment 35 could also be said about Missouri Synod Lutherans, or RCA, or E Free or any other evangelical group.
1) Spend much time in study of Theology.
2) Love the Trinity
3) Study Ecclesiology.”
And I said nothing that should have drawn this response:
“But to say that BI is defined by a love of theology and the Trinity and ecclesiology is no distinctive.”
That is just crazy and drawn from deep space Dave.
Read again comment #35.
No never mind. It is basically the doctrine of ecclesiology that illustrates distinctive Baptist differences with other groups. And it is the distinct doctrine that makes BI guys different from many of you.
BTW, as far as ecclesiology is concerned, the BI guys are right. They are biblical in their theology of the church.
cb
David Volfan,
I keep asking about PPL because it seems to me, on this point, you are contradicting yourself.
You say that included among the things that set us apart as Southern Baptists is the follwing: “our belief that tongue speaking is not ecstatic utterance,” and then proceed immediately afterward to say: “and there are many others..as laid out by the BFM2K.”
It seems as if you are saying there are 2 different types of qualifiers for what makes one a Southern Baptist, at least doctrinally:
1. Whatever is in the BFM2K.
2. non-acceptance of PPL (or, perhaps, any other doctrine that, even though it is not in the BFM2K, goes against what I feel uncomfortable about cooperating with).
In response to the following:
“The reason I said that BI is NT Christianity is because that’s what we base our theology on…the Bible. It’s not about personal opinions. It’s about our attempt to follow the clear teachings of Scripture.”
Just about all denominations would make the same claim. No one, or at least, practically no one, claims to base their beliefs on personal opinions. What makes us different is not that we attempt as best as we know how to follow the Bible. What makes us different is that some people interpret the Bible one way, and we interpret the Bible another way on certain issues.
In response to:
“And, David, there’s nothing wrong with being identified as a Southern Baptist, BTW. It just shows where you are theologically.”
I agree that, in order to describe other people’s positions on issues and affiliations, it is sometimes helpful to apply labels which serve as a shorthand identifier of that group of positions/affiliations. This is a pragmatic question. However, whenever we let such labels raise barriers to full fellowship with other full-fledged members of the Body of Christ, they become counter-productive. While not denying the shorthand label “Baptist” as a description of my beliefs and affiliations, I am careful to not major on that label, or make anything of it beyond a “necessary evil” to help in communicating a set of beliefs and affiliations with others. The problem is that, many times, we make it much more than that; we make it something that becomes like a badge of honor to describe the essence of who we consider ourselves to be. However, I think we are to glory in Christ alone, not in a particular set of doctrines and affiliations to which we adhere.
I’ll try one more time, CB. This is not a “BI” is right or wrong thing. What are those distinctive beliefs and practices that make a Baptist a Baptist?
You say, “ecclesiology.” Great. I agree. This is not meant to be an argument over BI. I am hoping we will further debate what the essence of an SBC church is. And I think most of this comes back to Ecclesiology. Ecclesiology is where Baptists are distinct from other denominations.
But, specifically, what ecclesiological beliefs or standards are necessary to call someone a SB? I am hoping you will be specific, as Vol was above.
Vol:
You said–”“The reason I said that BI is NT Christianity is because that’s what we base our theology on…the Bible. It’s not about personal opinions. It’s about our attempt to follow the clear teachings of Scripture.”
If the Scriptures are so clear why are there so many commentaries, etc explaining these clear verses?
Not trying to fight, just asking what makes something clear for you as it relates to the Bible.
Strider, I think there are two issues: theology and missions/practice.
Truthfully, you can be identified as an SB church with the smallest of commitments. But involvement in the Great Commission first, and hopefully in the CP are identifying marks of SBC churches.
I do think that theology is important. We must continue the biblical goals of the CR.
We cannot ignore either side of this. We must be biblical in both theology and practice. “Theological” churches that ignore missions (and I have seen them) will die on the vine. “Missions-minded” churches that ignore or compromise sound theology will miss the mark as well.
I believe theology is important. But I do believe that we can get out of balance either way. I want to be part of a theologically sound, bible-believing and missions-minded (somehow, I just hate the word “missional” – don’t know why).
We need to pursue both sides of the equation.
I think you might be right, Strider, that the CR got a little hyper-focused on theological conformity and lost sight of the mission. I’m not absolutely sure, but it seems like a valid thesis.
We sort of thought that if we kept our theology pure, our missions would automatically succeed.
I think we have found that we cannot choose between theology and mission as the basis of our denominational work, but that we must balance those things and emphasize both.
For me, the most technically correct response to the question, “What makes a church Southern Baptist?” is the following (taken from sbc.net):
1. How can our church affiliate with the Southern Baptist Convention?
In order for a church to affiliate with the SBC, it must “be in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work, and be “a bona fide contributor to the Convention’s work during the fiscal year preceding” (Article III, Southern Baptist Convention Constitution).
The standard method of contribution is through the Cooperative Program, our unified method of supporting SBC mission causes, and the most common avenue for contribution is through the church’s respective Baptist state convention office. You can locate the convention office in your state by clicking here http://www.sbc.net/stateconvassoc.asp. The staff in that office will be happy to assist you.
The Southern Baptist Convention meets once each year in June. A church would be qualified to send messengers to the annual meeting during any June if it has taken formal action to affiliate (such as a vote of the church body) and has contributed to the work of the Convention during the preceding fiscal year (which ends each September 30).
And, the most technically correct response to the question, “What makes an individual a Southern Baptist?” is the following:
Anyone who is a member of a congregation who has met the requirements referenced in the last comment.
Dave,
I think you mentioned BI at least four times in the substance of the post.
Tom Parker asked a question about BI.
In comment 35 I had started to describe their focus. I qualified my intent in the same comment.
David comes back by putting the focus on him. I responded. Dave you come back with a broad brush saying everyone was interested in theology. That would be a given for a Christian group, at least I would think so.
My focus was to deal with what makes Baptists distinctive in general and BI guys distinctive in particular, thus answering Tom Parker’s question and hoping to aid you in developing your definition of what is distinctively Baptist.
I apologize for coming into the comment thread. I didn’t mean to make you nervous and to make David fill the need to spotlight his journey.
I hope you do well with your book.
cb
That should be “….to make david “feel” the need….”
But, on the other hand, maybe he did need to “fill” his need to focus on himself.
cb
CB, don’t get your feelings hurt. I am just trying to get people to discuss a simple question. What is essential to being a Baptist?
It was my impression that what you said above was not specific to Baptists – that’s kind of how discussion works. Back and forth.
If you read what I said about BI, you realize I was using that as an example that all denominations are struggling to find their identity, and to figure out what is necessary to their existence.
So, I will ask you again, CB, what specific items of ecclesiology or other theology are necessary to our existence as Baptists?
I’m going to chime in with David Rogers in #25. I identify myself as a Christian who is a member of a Southern Baptist Church, not as a Baptist. And I know I’m not alone, as I’ve heard others in my church make the same comment. I think you’ll find there’s a number of Bible-Believing Christians out there who take the same approach. Some of it indeed may be cultural (the younger generations are less likely to find their identify with an ‘institution’ than the older generations), some of it may be background (I think a number of us(me included) who got saved back in the Jesus Movement era have a distaste for denominational pride that tends to militate against finding our identity in a denomination rather than in Christ), but it’s going to exist in your congregations.
Ben, that would be true almost exclusively in a place like Iowa. In my church, we have a handful of people with SB background. They gladly support the Lottie Moon offering, Annie, and CP missions. It is hard to get them to understand the way we do things, since few of them have such a background.
If all of our people moved to other cities, very few of them would start by looking for a Southern Baptist church. They are SB only in the sense that they are members of a church that happens to be SB.
99% of my people would identify themselves first as Christians, second as Baptists, and third (or less) as Southern Baptists.
I think that outside the mainline Baptist states that is probably the norm. Perhaps that is also why this matters to me. W
CB, if you will answer my questions, I will swallow my pride and say something nice about the Crimson Tide!!!!
How can you refuse a genuine offer like that?
David R – you are right. The question is more “What is essential for a CHURCH to be identified as Southern Baptist?”
I think CB is right that most of the issues are ecclesiological in nature.
Dave – funny thing is, I’m in Metro Atlanta. Shouldn’t that be smack dab in the middle of a ‘mainline Baptist State’? Then again, I’m at JFBC, which I’m told is not exactly your ‘standard’ Southern Baptist church.
Ben, I feel sorry for anyone who lives in Metro Atlanta. Wouldn’t big cities kind of be a thing of their own?
Dave,
Baptists were birthed out of a hot furnace over the Doctrine of Ecclesiology.
Like I said earlier; It is the Doctrine of Ecclesiology that makes Baptists distinctively different.
The struggle today is not generally about the Trinity or the way of salvation, etc. But, rather it is about ecclesiology.
That is the direction I was trying to go earlier.
The Assemblies of God are struggling with Pneumatology generally. We struggle with the Doctrine of Ecclesiology in general. (Most all of our struggle of late relate to the Doctrine of the Church.)
On Baptist blogs the war has raged. Some have argued for a more strict ecclesiology. Many of them were branded in a derogatory fashion as BI. As time went on the label stuck. In some blog circles it is an honor to be called BI. In other circles to be BI is to be Anathema.
cb
My point I was trying to make in the post is that I agree with about 95% of BI. Its just that 5% we spend all our time fighting over.
For instance, we all believe that baptism by immersion is essential. I disagree with some that the overseeing church’s doctrinal beliefs are also essential.
We agree on communion. But we disagree on open/closed/close communion.
(By we, I don’t mean you in particular, but the SBC family).
We agree on congregational gov’t.(Mostly) Does elder rule negate that?
Do you see what I’m getting at?
Let me go on to say that Baptist blogs brought the struggle to identify biblical ecclesiology to the forefront. In the early days of Baptist blogs many “Baptist leaders” rebuked bloggers and declared they did not read them. Time has proven those same Baptist leaders to be liars. They did and still do read Baptist blogs.
Now ecclesiology is not just a hot topic of Baptist bloggers. It is a hot topic in the SBC as a whole and among most state conventions also. Even seminary classes are taking new approaches to teaching ecclesiology and they are spending more time with that specific doctrine than in the past.
In some ways the question in the future will not be: What does it mean to be Baptist?
Rather the question will be: What is it going to mean to be Baptist?
cb
Dave,
I saw what you were getting at from the beginning. I was trying to bring cause and effect into the dialogue.
cb
Dave – well, as a computer geek, I’m comfortable here, and fitting in fairly nicely for someone who grew up mostly in a small West Virginian city.
And, yes, Atlanta might be a bit different, as there seem to be a large number of us ‘imports’ (as opposed to native Atlantans), and that might affect the number of people who aren’t ‘life-long community members’.
Most Baptists (By “Baptists” I mean present day, post CR Southern Baptists) agree relating to the Trinity, and all other doctrines of the faith in general. There seem to be only two doctrines wherein Baptists really differ. One is Eschatology. There seems to be a freedom to believe as one wishes there as long as no one is preaching the script to the movie 2012.
It is in the debate over ecclesiology that we draw blood.
cb
Dave,
Now that I have gone around the world; let me say. You, David and others and BI guys will generally agree on the Trinity, The way of salvation, etc. You will be all for one and one for all. You all will generally die with one another on any hill over those doctrines.
Yet, over the Doctrine of the Church; You will fight one another on any hill, valley or at sea. There seems to be great disagreement among southern Baptists right now relating to ecclesiastical issues.
Dave would you agree?
cb
Yeah, I guess. I’m not sure I would say fight – since I’m a lover, not a fighter. But yes, I disagree with many things I have read (for instance) from Dr. Yarnell, or Robin or Wes and the SBC Today guys.
Not to use old terminology that brings up old battles, but I think I would have a bigger tent for the SBC than some of those guys do.
I do not see the same level of church oversight of baptism that others have proposed.
I find tongues and PPL to be much less of an issue than others seem to see it.
I see a three-fold expression of the church. Our main fellowship is the local body we serve with. But I also believe (from my study of scripture) that there is a “city-church.” We meet in different places and are distinct local congregations but we are also “the church Sioux City.” I also believe in the present reality of the universal church – the “Body of Christ.” I know that view is rejected by others.
I think we can hold different views of these things and still be in the bigger SBC fellowship tent. But it is my impression (and I could be wrong – it happened once long ago) that some on the other side of these issues want to make them “essentials” of fellowship and service in the denomination.
I’m not sure if I’m getting my point across or not.
As I understand it, the category “Southern Baptist” is not a doctrinal category, but rather a category of affiliation with an organization. Any church, independent of other factors, that is affiliated with the SBC is, de facto, a “Southern Baptist church.” Some of these churches may be dually aligned, and thus also be “x-y-z” churches.
Some churches may join together with other churches in their locality to sponsor a Billy Graham crusade. In that sense, they are also a “Billy Graham crusade church.” Or, sponsor missionaries with Wycliffe Bible Translators, and thus be a “Wycliffe church,” etc.
None of these affiliations, however, get at the root of what they truly are (e.g. their “identity”). Their “identity,” at least from a biblical perspective, is a Christian congregation that is an expression of the Body of Christ in their locality.
Some congregations (probably most, in actuality) choose to make their organizational affiliation (or their corresponding doctrinal statement) a major part of the way they present themselves to others. Personally, I would prefer they not do this. It makes a certain subset of doctrinal beliefs, or a certain affiliation, a central element in their presentation of who they are, when the central focus should be on Christ and the gospel. At the same time, neither do I see this as such a major issue that it would lead me to cut off fellowship with those who continue to identify themselves this way.
Now, if we want to take this a step further, and ask which churches should be allowed to affiliate with the SBC, I think that this is already pretty clearly spelled out (see comment #63).
A valid question, at this juncture, is whether the BF&M is a descriptive or prescriptive document.
I would, say, that for participating churches, it is descriptive. However, for denominational employees, it is prescriptive.
A good follow-up question to this would be, on what basis might the SBC legitimately disassociate itself with certain churches?
I guess this is where the phrase “in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work” comes into play. There is, no doubt, some room for interpretation as to exactly what this means.
I would also add that I believe that the SBC, as an autonomous organization, is free to draw up whatever guidelines for affiliation they choose, provided they do so in keeping with their own organizational principles (e.g. bylaws).
What this means, as I understand it, is that “Southern Baptist identity” is whatever the SBC defines it to be at the time the question is asked. It changes whenever the SBC changes its guidelines for affiliation.
Our Christian identity, however, never changes. It is rooted in the eternal principles of God’s Word.
David,
Christian is our primary identity as those who have been redeemed and placed “in Christ.”
Baptist is a theological distinction that identifies certain aspects of our theology relative to ecclesiology and other matters.
Southern Baptist is a more practical distinction, based on mission and cooperation. I’ve had lots of fellowship with BGC, Conservative Baptists and other Baptist denominations here in Iowa. I don’t know that there is anything significantly different about our theology and theirs. It is our missions program that distinguishes us.
We are Christians with Baptistic theology who associate and cooperate in missions through the SBC.
I think I’m understanding you. That SB is not a theological distinction but a practical, cooperative thing.
I really want to keep this discussion going, David. I’m less than 20% of my last post’s comment number, so I’m feeling kind of like a failure.
People say I’m competitive, but I don’t believe it.
“We are Christians with Baptistic theology who associate and cooperate in missions through the SBC.”
Dave,
Very well stated. The only amendment I would make is to spell baptistic with a small “b”. As I understand it, “Baptist” with a big “B” refers more to organizational affiliation than to doctrine.
David,
Your comment #82 illustrates what I meant by saying you are more inclusive in your ecclesiology than would be a BI guy. They would never make a statement like that. Come to think of it; I would never make a statement like this particular part of comment #82:
“Some churches may join together with other churches in their locality to sponsor a Billy Graham crusade. In that sense, they are also a “Billy Graham crusade church.” Or, sponsor missionaries with Wycliffe Bible Translators, and thus be a “Wycliffe church,” etc.”
cb
Okay, CB. I think that is correct.
Can Southern Baptists be a denomination in which these kinds of ecclesiological differences are tolerated?
The SBC has premillennial pretribbers (also known as the biblical position), postribbers, post mills, amills and some preterists lurking in the woodwork. We all coexist because we do not have a position on eschatology – other than Jesus is going to return.
Can my ecclesiology and that of the “BI” group coexist?
The SBC only needs to fine-tune doctrines we consider “hills to die on.” (on which to die?) If we say that open/closed/close communion is no biggie – great. But if we say you have to hold this position or that, then we have to define our ecclesiology more carefully.
Dave,
Is it safe to say that the “bigger tent” you speak of mostly involves ecclesiastical issues? I am sure you would not allow in the tent gay marriage, variant concepts of salvation, etc as was a problem in the past.
Here is an issue that really is not strictly confined to ecclesiology:
“I find tongues and PPL to be much less of an issue than others seem to see it.”
Yet, most BI guys would differ here with you.
As far as I can understand most BI guys would not be comfortable with the City Church Paradigm. I must say that I am still very interested in the concept, but thus far I would not go as far as to say what you say here:
“We meet in different places and are distinct local congregations but we are also “the church Sioux City.”
Also Dave, I do not know one BI guy who would deny the existence of the Church Universal. It is at this point that maybe you and others confuse them with Landmarkers. BI guys are not Landmarkers.
cb
Dave,
First let me remind you the SBC is not a denomination in the true definition of a denomination. Therefore the SBc can be somewhat more “open” than a denomination.
The eschatology issue has not yet become a problem. But, there seem to be a semi-hostile resistance toward Premil-Pretrib adherents among the more Reformed guys among us. At least, that is my observation.
You ask:
“Can my ecclesiology and that of the “BI” group coexist?”
Dave, the answer to that question seems to be one that has to be answered on an individual basis.
Some BI guys will not move one inch when it comes to ecclesiastical issues.
That has become obvious over the last three years.
cb
Some I have “discussed” with seemed to be saying that the universal church is a future thing only. Dr. Yarnell made comments that seemed to me to deny the present existence of the universal church. I may have misunderstood him.
As to your first statement – absolute agreement. As far as theology goes, I am very comfortable with building a Brick Wall around inerrancy, around the exclusivity of Christ, etc. I have NO regrets about the CR. I have had some qualms about the direction the CR leaders have gone in the last 5 to 10 years, but I believe that the CR itself was a work of God to graciously preserve our denomination.
I was part of a certain “bigger tent” movement early on in this blogging thing, but I became uncomfortable with the direction it went. I have no desire to re-”moderate” our convention.
As to the city-church idea, I maintain various levels. My primary church affiliation is with my local congregation. But we need to realize we are partners with other churches in Sioux City in a greater work.
Dave,
If Malcolm Yarnell is of the disposition you reference, I am unaware of it. Naturally, I have not read everything he has written.
I agree the CR was necessary. I also know we were wrong in personal relationships at times. And as you know, I have spoken against some things that have happened in the last few years.
If the “Bigger Tent” movement you reference is the one I think and led by those of whom I think, I must say it went far astray and went that way quickly. So much so that I sometimes wonder if some of them were ever really under the SBC tent in any way other than name only. It was by some in that movement that defined BI in a derogatory manner in the beginning of the “Baptist Blog Wars.”
I have no problem with working with other ecclesiastical bodies on some things. But, I do not consider the City Church Paradigm as you do. Of course, I do not have that solidified in my thinking either.
BI guys will work with other bodies of believers in a limited way. But they will never plant churches with them.
cb
I think we are on the same page about the “good old days” in the blogging wars.
Dave,
We have the finish of a 50 year Anniversary month for our local church tomorrow. It will be a big day all day long. Therefore, see you later. Even I have to sleep sometimes.
cb
Have fun. I’ve got to figure out something to preach on myself. Thinking of preaching from the bible and coming out against sin.
Maybe another way to look at all this is to ask this question: What changes in the BF&M, or in our common practice would cause you to seek another fellowship? Or what doctrines or practices would cause you to withhold fellowship with another church.
If a church compromises on fundamentals, I think we have to stand for truth.
If a church has a woman deacon? Woman on elder board? Woman ordained and on pastoral staff? Female senior pastor?
If a church accepts baptisms from other churches and denominations not like us, how major is that?
Open/closed communion?
If the SBC is supporting a church plant through CGA, and that plant also affiliates with Acts 29 or some similar network, should we withhold support?
Dave,
My guess is that on questions like those you pose on comment #98 we are all going to have different answers. Since the majority of us who read and comment on sbcIMPACT! share a fairly common background, though, our answers will not be as different from each other as they would if we had a broader readership, representing the Body of Christ at large.
In any case, for me, the answer to these questions is similar to the questions of when do we change local churches, and why do we choose to go to the church we go to.
All things being equal, most of us are going to choose the church whose beliefs and practices most closely matches our own. And, most churches are going to choose the denomination/network whose beliefs and practices most closely matches their own.
Sometimes, however, there are other factors that come into play, such as geographical proximity to where we live, personal relationships with those involved, opportunities for fruitful service, family needs, etc.
Also, I think the way we answer these questions will be different in a context in which there are many choices as opposed to one where there are few. If I, for instance, move to a town (such as many, for example, in Spain) where the only Protestant church is a Presbyterian church, or a Pentecostal church, I will be more flexible on my convictions than if I am in a town with 100 different evangelical churches of all stripes and colors.
If, however, I move to a town in which the only “Christian church” is a Roman Catholic parish, or a liberal Protestant church that doesn’t really preach the gospel, my answer becomes a little more difficult. Is it preferable to “stay at home” and worship with my family alone, or to show some minimal solidarity with those who at least share the label of “Christian,” and attend their meetings? What if (theoretically) I don’t sense a calling to be a church planter, per se? Do I still have a responsibility, before God, to start what I consider to be a biblical church in this hypothetical town?
For me personally, the denomination/network I would choose to affiliate with would be the one which, taking into account a combination of all the above factors, allows me to be the best possible steward of the resources God puts in my (our) hand toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission.
You get at one of the theories I work under that may or may not be true. I think the more you live and work in a Southern Baptist stronghold, the more likely it is that you prize Baptist, even Southern Baptist identity. In Iowa, there are 100 SBC churches in the whole state, and most of them run less than 50 on a Sunday morning. In my church, we have (other than church staff) about two or three families who identify themselves as Southern Baptist.
They are Christians who joined a Baptist church that happened to be affiliated with the SBC. Almost no one joined (or visited) this church because of our denominational affiliation.
When I pastored in Florida and Virginia, that ratio was very different. In Virginia, most people, even those who did not attend church, self-identified as Southern Baptist.
I am in the same boat with Dave, ministering in the same community at the “other” Baptist Church. I came to Iowa with a strong identity as a Southern Baptist, to find that it was not helpful in reaching folks in Iowa. They don’t care if it’s Baptist, they want it to be biblical. We find other works who are closely in alignment with our mission, or identity and we work together, our of survival sometimes. We work with NAMB and Lifeway and teach BF&M in 101, but we are not working with a “Baptist” Crowd. We must communicate and make disciples, not compromising who we are, but also not straining a gnat.
I think its a different world. I kinda like our world, Dan. Lunch tomorrow?
It’s about as different as you can get. Famous Dave’s, I’ll be there!
Dan,
When you said, ” They don’t care if it’s Baptist, they want it to be biblical.” In my opinion, Baptist is Biblical. So, what’s not Biblical in their opinion, and in your opinion?
David
Vol, I don’t speak for Dan, but I don’t think he is trying to say that Baptist things aren’t biblical. I think he is saying that outside SBC hotspots, people don’t care whether something is traditionally Baptist or not. They care little about the denomination or what it says.
When I pastored in Viriginia, many of the folks there (and in Florida for that matter) wanted to do “the Baptist thing” – whatever our denominational program or position was.
in Iowa, no one cares if we use Lifeway or something else. They don’t care if a program is Baptist or not. And they have little loyalty to the denomination.
Its just a reality.
Did you ever see my comment #47 – I responded to your earlier comment. Would be interested in your response.
Yes, thank you Dave. Non-Baptist people don’t care about the word “Baptist”. They hear Baptist and think “Westboro Baptist Church, Topika KS”. Many people in Iowa don’t equate being Baptist and being Biblical.
But yes, I believe that as Baptists, we are Biblical. I’m not a Southern Baptist by accident. I chose to go to an SBC Seminary. If I didn’t think it was Biblical, I would leave.
Wasn’t it predestined?
Since the foundation of the world, but that doesn’t relieve me of the obligation and responsibility of a response.
Would you guys go so far as to say Baptist ecclesiology is biblical ecclesiology?
Would you go so far as to say Baptist ecclesiology is closer to biblical ecclesiology than that of any other ecclesiastical body?
cb
Billy Graham had meeting with Sarah Palin yesterday in Asheville at the instigation of Franklin Graham.
Most appropo to the discussion I was having with David Rogers comments 26-30 in this thread.
Here is how Robert Parham is entering the playing field:
Some 18 of the 149 originally listed signatories are members of the fundamentalist-controlled Southern Baptist Convention. Two of the drafters are Southern Baptists, including Chuck Colson, the perennial right-wing spokesman. Other signatories are James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Jonathan Falwell and Tony Perkins. Among the mostly white, elderly evangelical males are a few Catholics—William Donohue and a couple of archbishops, as well as conservative Presbyterians and Anglicans.
In the grandiosity with which fundamentalists speak, Colson wrote on Friday that their document was “one of the most important documents produced by the American church, at least in my lifetime.”
“The Church must take a stand,” he wrote, adding “that’s exactly what we are doing” and exaggerating that the statement was signed by “every branch of American Christianity.”
If Colson overstated the profundity of their proclamation, SBC official Richard Land inflated its importance when he connected the signatories to the great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther, who said, “Here I stand, I can do no other.”
The president of SBC-related Union University, David Dockery, asserted that their statement was like the Barmen Declaration, a 1934 statement from the German-confessing church against Nazi Germany.
Not only was their self-assessment over the top, Colson had a three-minute YouTube statement warning about government tyranny. We are seeing “some evidences” today of “benevolent despotism,” he warned. He urged viewers to read the writings of a survivor of Nazi Germany, Hannah Arendt, who wrote “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” Colson said her “chilling book” was prophetic “in its applications today.”
Do Colson and Dockery really think they are standing against a Nazi-like government—the Obama administration? Does Land really see a statement at the National Press Club akin to Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the Wittenberg castle church door (1517) and standing up against the power of the Roman Catholic Church at the Diet of Worms (1521)?
From his stellar piece up today
at:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15222
CB,
It would be helpful to me if you could define specifically what you mean when you say “Baptist ecclesiology” (other than just saying “biblical ecclesiology”).
My take on the matter is there are various different “Baptist ecclesiologies” out there. And, some of them are more biblical than others.
But none of us knows fully now (not even in the area of ecclesiology).
“Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” 1 Cor. 13:12
Some. I will probably catch flack for it, but I don’t think the American church does a very good job as Biblical Ecclesiology. We have even screwed up the house church. To say much more would be to hijack this blog. I don’t believe we are necessarily wrong, I think God has moved us from the first century in the growth of the church, but we have missed the mark in some places. So are we closer? Eh, in mt opinion, that’s not the issue. Are we obedient? I would say fair.
David,
We have been there, done that more than once in the last three years. I am still right and you are still wrong, but I still love you and will work with you as long as I teach ecclesiology to all the new converts you bring into the fellowship.
cb
Go ahead, Dan. Hijack. I’m always interested in ecclesiology-related stuff. It gets CB talking about something other than the infernal Crimson Tide.
CB,
We indeed have had many discussions about ecclesiology.
But I don’t remember where you have ever specifically defined what you mean by “Baptist ecclesiology.”
You asked the questions,
“Would you guys go so far as to say Baptist ecclesiology is biblical ecclesiology?
Would you go so far as to say Baptist ecclesiology is closer to biblical ecclesiology than that of any other ecclesiastical body?”
I am merely answering you that, that depends on exactly what you mean by “Baptist ecclesiology.”
Do you, for example, think that “Landmark ecclesiology” is “Baptist ecclesiology”? Is it one example of “Baptist ecclesiology”? Do you think “house church ecclesiology” is “Baptist ecclesiology”? Then again, there are various forms of “house church ecclesiology.”
In order to discuss this question productively, we must be clear we are using language the same way.
David,
I believe that even with the few variances we have on a few things that Baptist ecclesiology is closer to biblical ecclesiology than any other.
BTW, I am not talking about the “American Church” here. That is basically an ecumenical term. I am not saying it is a bad term. I use it as do many others in reference to American Christians in general.
I am talking specifically about baptistic ecclesiology when I use the term Baptist ecclesiology.
Baptist were born out of a conflict about the refinement of biblical ecclesiology.
If we are not closer to biblical ecclesiology, then wherein are we lacking?
cb
CB,
Do you believe that CB’s Baptist ecclesiology is closer to biblical ecclesiology than David’s Baptist ecclesiology?
Of course you do. If not, it would not be CB’s ecclesiology.
I also believe David’s Baptist ecclesiology is closer to biblical ecclesiology than CB’s Baptist ecclesiology.
But neither one is as close to biblical ecclesiology as Jesus’ ecclesiology, or Paul’s ecclesiology.
It’s not lack, it’s over abundance, mostly in liturgy. We have compromised for the sake of comfort and materialism, we have short-cutted Discipleship, put everyone in rows, marginalized community and ministry. Now, Baptism? We do fine. Communion? Not going there. Where we have missed it is Act 2:42-47. I think we lack devotion.
Now maybe you are thinking something different when you think ecclesiology, but as far as day to day, church life, I think we have lots of gaps.
Okay, at the risk of starting a fight, I think the exchange between David and CB in the last few comments brings up an interesting point.
CB, you talk about “Baptist Ecclesiology” as if it were a monolithic, decided, established thing.
David raised the idea that there are multiple Baptist Ecclesiologies today, of varying degrees of biblical validity.
Is there a “Baptist Ecclesiology?” I’m not sure there is.
Baptism by immersion of believers? I think we all agree.
Congregational Gov’t – that is an old Baptist standard, but I think that there are a LOT of people who disagree on that.
Priesthood of believers We can’t even agree on what that means.
Communion many views – open, close, closed.
Importance of church membership? It would be nice if everyone had the same view of this, but we don’t.
I’m not sure that there is such a thing as “Baptist Ecclesiology” CB.
“Do you, for example, think that “Landmark ecclesiology” is “Baptist ecclesiology”?”
No, I do not. Baptist ecclesiology predates Landmarkism. Landmakism is an ecclesiastical abridgment of Baptist ecclesiology.
David, if Baptist ecclesiology is biblical, then the biblical concept of the house church must agree.
I do think we are yet to fully understand the biblical (First Century) house church. There are still some mysteries there. (At least for me)
That is why I am always careful to use the word “closer” when approaching this than to use such words as “identical.”
I will also tell you, David, that our dialogues have sent me on a journey to study the City Church Paradigm far more.
cb
Dave,
If there were no Baptist ecclesiology, we would not exist. We were forged in the fire of its (ecclesiology) refinement.
cb
Here it is in a nutshell.
I think my ecclesiology is biblical. I believe what I believe because of what I have studied in the Bible.
I believe that CB’s ecclesiology is biblical where it agrees with mine and unbiblical where it does not. Same with David’s. And David’s. And Dan’s. And Bart Barber. And Robin, Wes, et al. And…
I know that sounds arrogant, or whatever. But I formed my views from the study of scripture. So, I believe my view is biblical.
I think what Dan and David and I have been saying is that we do not ask ourselves what is Baptist, but what is biblical. I’m not saying you do, CB. I think perhaps we are talking past each other a little here. We are all Baptist because we identify with Baptist theology as we study scripture.
As I understand things, Baptist ecclesiology is basically biblical. I would not necessarily equate the terms, but I think they are related.
To end on a note of humility in what may sound like the most arrogant comment ever – my view of ecclesiology is still forming, and I am still learning. My views have shifted and formed in the last couple of years through blogging – especially on the subject of Baptism.
I am still learning on this. That is why I have asked people to be specific. I am genuinely interested in finding out exactly what people think the Bible says about the nature of the church.
Dan,
I could be wrong, but I think in comment #120 you are speaking more to the area of personal holiness among Baptists rather than the Doctrine of Ecclesiology.
And let me quickly say that I agree if I am correct in my analogy of your comment. We are as Baptist a long way from the NT Church/churches in submission, consecration and holiness before God.
cb
CB, as to #123, I agree.
But I think we have to define the terms.
For me, it is baptism by immersion. Communion and Baptism as ordinances, not sacraments. Priesthood of believers and soul competency. Etc.
What, specifically, do you mean? I cannot say, “I agree with Baptist Ecclesiology” until someone defines clearly and unequivocally what a Baptist ecclesiology is.
Dan, I agree with your comment #120, though I’d like to hear more specifics. Strange that we live a couple of miles apart, and communicate on a blog. Welcome to 2009.
David,
We have never disagreed here:
“But neither one is as close to biblical ecclesiology as Jesus’ ecclesiology, or Paul’s ecclesiology.”
The ecclesiology of Jesus and Paul are the absolutes because both are one and the same. They are of the mind of Christ. Paul wrote as inspired of God the Spirit. Therefore there would be Trinitarian unity in all of Paul’s writing.
That is again, why I use the term “closer.”
cb
CB, it is holiness, but a sense of cooperate holiness, which I think we lack. Call it community, call is koinonia, whatever you want, that idea of inter-dependence and brotherly love and affection. We work to conform people to the image of our congregation more often than the image of Christ, by giving them an acceptable standard of behavior. If you ask people “what does church look like”, how do they respond. “Oh, it’s about an hour, we sing and pass the plate and hear a sermon, have an invitation and go home”. That’s a liturgy of how to conduct a worship service, it’s not church. I am sure you all agree with it.
My concern in the area of ecclesiology is that we believe that we should be devoted to the Apostle’s teachings, fellowship, the breaking of bread and to prayer, but so often, we are devoted to bodies, buildings and budgets. Sometimes our function of the church is more the business of the church. We have tossed community out on it’s ear.
Now I agree with most of you guys about most of what we do in the Baptist Church. I am not ignorant of the Baptist teaching and our mode, and I believe that we have it biblically straight most of the time, in most places. As already discussed, because we are a fellowship of independent churches more than an actual denomination, there are always variances. I guarantee that the church I serve looks much different that most SBC churches. Our doctrines and ecclesiology are similar, but our mode is different. We don’t have people speaking in tongues in our service, but I know for a fact we have people who have a PPL who are members.
So, my struggle within the SBC is how do we build community in a place where we are not all Southern Baptist, but come together to worship. They did it in the 1st century, Pharisees, Zealots, Jews and Greeks, Slaves and Free came together to form this body of believers, can we? Can an eldership church cooperate with a congregational church? Can the mega church work with the baby church. Can those singing Chris Thomlin agree with those singing the doxology. There aren’t the things that we think of when we consider ecclesiology, but they are the ramifications. Our views of who can be where and do what impact the way our churches work. I have been in churches if you raise your hands in praise, you lose your chair and must stand in the back (ok, slight exaggeration). An ecclesiological view on charisma became something much more. Is that Biblical? Not so sure.
We live in a day full of pastoral burn out, pastoral abuse, and in body division. Is that Biblical? Is the way we do leadership in the standard SBC church the Biblical model? I have heard all the reasons why it is, and I’ve heard all the reasons why it’s not. Apparently it doesn’t violate my conscious too much, since I am still serving in my role, but something makes me wonder if perhaps we haven’t found a method and biblically justified it, instead of having a biblically justified model. I’ve said enough for tonight, I will comment more later.
Dan, I had a PPL once, when Arizona beat the Yankees in the ninth inning of the 2001 World series game 7. I’m pretty sure it was not heavenly.
Dave,
I relate to this statement:
“my view of ecclesiology is still forming, and I am still learning.” But maybe for a different reason than you. The City Church Paradigm is a thing that I believe could unravel many mysteries. Now, I am not saying it will change my ecclesiology as much as I believe it will confirm it, but it is still a mystery.
On another note; You and David brought up an idea of who of us is more baptistic.
Let me say I don’t know for sure who is more “baptistic”, but I do know who is more Baptist, especially Southern Baptist. Hands down it is cb. But not for reasons of theology.
It is for reason of missions.
When I married my dear millionth generation Southern Baptist wife there were a few things (lots of things) I had left out of my life story before I was saved.
When she found out how I made all of the money I still had from before I was saved, she told me I had to give it to Lottie Moon. I was so much not a Southern Baptist (I had not even read the Bible before I was saved) that I thought at the time this Lottie Moon must be some Korean lady who ran an orphanage in Korea because her name was Moon.
So gentlemen, in one day during the “Week of Prayer” for Foreign Missions I became the most “Southern Baptist” of us all when my new wife made me give all my ill gotten gain to a woman named Lottie. Later I found out she was not even Korean and never worked in an orphanage.
cb
Dan,
I long to see what “corporate holiness” would be like in a Baptist church. I wonder if we could actually have corporate holiness in our churches would we even be talking about a GCR?
cb
What I am about to say may shock some of you, but……..
I believe that Landmark ecclesiology is Baptist ecclesiology.
At least, one version of it. Why? Because all of the people who have historically espoused Landmark ecclesiology, and who do so today, self-identify as Baptists.
I also believe Gill, Fuller, Bunyan, Dagg, Spurgeon, Dargan, Johnson, Mullins, B. H. Carroll, Gambrell, Scarborough, Hobbs, Patterson, Hammett, Dever, etc., etc. have all held to one version or another of Baptist ecclesiology.
However, there have been minor differences between the views of each of these.
I believe each of us can still learn more, and improve in our understanding of biblical ecclesiology. I also believe I can learn from all of the above-mentioned men (and have), as well as the Landmarkers, in certain aspects of their ecclesiology. I have also learned certain aspects of ecclesiology from some who would not self-identify as Baptists, such as Watchman Nee, Wolfgang Simson, John Woodhouse, Alan Hirsch, etc. Hopefully, what I have learned from each of these men has contributed toward me personal understanding of ecclesiology being more biblical. Perhaps, in some aspects, though, less “Baptist.”
I have even learned some about ecclesiology from Frank Viola.
And, also Alan Knox.
I agree with what you are saying, David. That is why I’m not crazy about statements like “Baptist ecclesiology is biblical ecclesiology.” Which Baptist Ecclesiology are we talking about.
We have gone over and over these things. But I think that we are going to keep going over them as long as the SBC and blogging exists.
I think we have gone around this before, but in terms of Baptist Identity, who is better; Anne Graham Lotz and her affection and network with The Baptist World Alliance; or her Brother Franklin who seems to have less in common with the BWA than he has in common with Sarah Palin.
And how does it all break down with the link I had about comment 123 on Parham and his reservations about the latest Manifesto Richard Land has signed.
CB: Click over to my blog, I think you and our friend John Killian will adore the link I have posted on Bear Bryant
Frank Viola, didn’t he pitch for the Twins?
Mr. Fox, do you play baseball? Cause your comments always seem to come out of left field. (Dave made a funny)
“Gill, Fuller, Bunyan, Dagg, Spurgeon, Dargan, Johnson, Mullins, B. H. Carroll, Gambrell, Scarborough, Hobbs, Patterson, Hammett, Dever, etc., etc. have all held to one version or another of Baptist ecclesiology.”
Yes, of course.
Woodhouse: Why and how? How about Fosdick?
Again David, such as this is why I said you are more inclusive than BI guys would ever be.
BTW some BI guys would have trouble with Hammett and Dever and especially Gil, but you probably already know that.
cb
And I still say Landmarkism is an abridgment to Baptist ecclesiology.
David, you forgot “Miller.”
I’m getting silly. I think I’ll go to Walmart.
David,
You mention Alan Knox because you have had a seminar with him, right?
cb
One serious (?) comment before I head for some every-day low price bargains.
Ecclesiology is the study of the nature, purpose and operation of the church.
A Baptist Ecclesiology is any ecclesiology put forward by a Baptist. There are almost as many ecclesiologies as there are Baptists – some more correct than others.
So, wouldn’t Landmarkism be a Baptist Ecclesiology – just an incorrect one?
I know this is really technical. But until someone shows me a monolithic Baptist Ecclesiology agreed to by all Baptists, I think I have to come down there.
CB,
Woodhouse, because the article I linked to in a comment to David Worley above (together with the other two articles in the series) is some of the best stuff on ecclesiology I have read anywhere. Did you ever read it, by any chance? It would really be worth your time, IMHO.
Alan Knox, because his blog, for the last 2 to 3 years has consistently dealt with issues related to ecclesiology that have helped me to think more biblically (and many times, “out of the box”). I have not had him for a seminar. But, I have had the privilege of spending some good time with him and his family, as well as his church family, during my visits to Wake Forest. In any case, for anyone who wants to think more deeply about what Scripture teaches about the church, Alan’s blog is highly recommended.
I think I understand better what you mean about me being more “inclusive,” now.
I guess I would put it this way. When I heard the following poem in high school, I took it to heart:
“Read all the books upon your shelf;
But do the thinking for yourself.”
Dave,
Have you ever read “Pagan Christianity” by Frank Viola (namesake of the old Twins pitcher)? That is a book that will really stretch you, in the area of ecclesiology.
In regards to Miller, according to this article, he started out as a Baptist, so I guess he had a Baptist ecclesiology as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerism
Oh, and CB, I’ve never read anything by Fosdick on the church. Have you?
Well, that wasn’t the Miller I was thinking of, of course! It kind of upsets me. I can’t start a movement, because there already is a “Millerism.” Maybe I can go for “Davism.”
David,
I have read the books. I just do more of the second part, maybe.:-)
I was using Fosdick as a foil. I know you know why.:-)
Well, today has been without blood. (Rather strange for an ecclesiology dialogue) And maybe that is a good thing:-)
Tomorrow, let’s do an ancestral throwback and “go for the jugular.”
Dave,
If you really want The Baptist Ecclesiology of the purest order among the living; Call SWBTS, and ask for Jason Dusing. Upon getting him on the phone, ask him to schedule two hours and lunch for you at your expense with Dr. Paige Patterson.
I assure you, Dave, that after that orientation into “biblical-baptistic” ecclesiology you will agree with me that there is no living scholar living on earth today who has a better grasp of the Doctrine of Ecclesiology.
And that’s a fact Jack!!!
cb
And on your way back to Iowa Dave; Stop off in Birmingham and I will feed you the best B-B-Q in America and let you see the greatest football stadium among all football nations. The stadium of the SABANATION.
After that experience, I am sure you will be sending resumes to churches nearby. You and I can have a Grand Ole Time once you get orientated to both Baptist ecclesiology and Baptist football.
cb
CB,
Now you’ve really gone and done it.
IF you ever had any credibility, you’ve lost it now, with this comment:
“Stop off in Birmingham and I will feed you the best B-B-Q in America”
David,
I must admit that if a guy was blindfolded and fed Memphis B-B-Q at Corky’s, Leonard’s or Jim Neely’s he might become totally disoriented and think he was very close to where the Great Bear Bryant wwas laid to rest.
David, maybe you guys should do a best B-B-Q post.
cb
CB, do you have a map of the US? One would not generally go through Alabama on a trip from SWBTS to Iowa.
And whatever BBQ you guys are getting, its probably going to be from Iowa pork or Iowa corn-fed beef.
Dave,
A truly devout person, seeking true enlightenment and supper would route his flight from Fort Worth through Birmingham, then on to Iowa.
And finally Dave. Anybody can feed corn to a hog. But it takes an artist to properly feed hog to a human and it be fit to eat.
cb
CB,
I guess it is technically possible to serve Memphis BBQ in Alabama. Corky’s even does FedEx take-out.
As far as the best of the best, though, it’s hard to beat Bozo’s.
Even VolFan agrees with me on this one:
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/08/15/meaty-conversations/
Don’t you guys have one of the restaurants they named after me? Famous Dave’s
There has been a lot of meaningless and misleading discussion concerning so-called ‘Baptist’ ecclesiology. I am glad that after more than 100 comments you all finally truly defined baptist ecclesiology as a group of baptist meeting around BBQ. Even Malcolm Yarnell couldn’t argue with that! And if that is the definition, I’m in.
And I don’t know if it is still there but the best BBQ used to be Harold’s in Abilene, TX. Those old cast iron stoves from the 1930′s have never been cleaned and that is a flavor that your newer joints just can’t compete with.
I think its called fellowship, Strider.
Your not taking me seriously again are you Dave? When I am talking about Jesus I am serious the rest of the time not so much. But if I did engage your fellowship corrective seriously I would have to say that fellowship is when we meet together for each other, worship- and therefore ‘ecclesiology’ is when we meet together for God. The way some folks talk about BBQ I think we are definitely talking about worship.
No, Strider. I was making the point that when Baptists gather and food is discussed, it is considered fellowship. That is why you need double doors for a Baptist convention. Many of us struggle to enter through one door.
Wow, I leave for a little while and look where the conversation goes. Well, I have read enough of y’all to come to expect it.
CB, you are correct, if we had a sense of cooperate holiness, we would not need a GCR, which is why I feel like our Baptist Ecclesiology is flawed, that’s for giving me supporting evidence for my point.
I have also read the Frank Viola book, but I think the biggest influence on my way of thinking was one of my professors, Dr Kim from the Southern California of Golden Gate. He was involved in a house church that wasn’t the typical American house church. In this country, he have done house churches by taking a church service, shrinking it and putting it in a living room. We sing songs, pass the plate, preach a message and give an invitation. It’s not a house church, it’s a worship service that meets in a house.
I would like to see a church that runs worship services like we do Small Group. We have prayer, we have time of corporate worship though song, we have Bible Study and we have fellowship and we invite the lost and share Christ. We have all the components of what church should be. I would like to see a church that doesn’t buy a huge chunk of land and build a big building, but buys a house. That house is then turned into a church, walls moved or removed, yard paved for parking, whatever needs to be done to make it conducive. When the church grows, buy a new house. Wanna reach a neighborhood, buy a house in that neighborhood. On occasion, the whole group can rent a big hall and have a join celebration. Perhaps you have a pastor who is on staff who does day to day operations, maybe a team of part time staff, maybe all lay leaders. I have no idea of that model would work, but if you are talking New Testament ecclesiology, I think that is the closest picture.
In seminary, we were involved in a church called Hope Baptist in Ft. Worth that was organized around home fellowships. The main meeting was a home fellowship meeting which was your accountability/fellowship focus. We met once a week for worship. You were primarily a member of the home fellowship. It was a good experience. interesting.
Birmingham? BBQ? How is that possible, since I understand Ollie’s closed some years ago. Is the Golden Rule still in operation? Steve Leonatis’ (don’t remember how to spell it)? Or has someone else picked up Ollie’s mantle?
Oh and as for ecclesiology, most of the comments seem to be directed toward a cerebral understanding of it, even though based on the responses, the phrase “Baptist ecciology” still seems as slipery as a slug’s belly. Is there, for lack of a better term, an emotional aspect, one which touches the heart as well as the head? Vance Havener (one of my heros in the faith), many years ago, complained about fundamentalists who had the theology right, but had lost the doxology.
John
John, I think you are right that it is easy to get bogged down on arcane theological discussion.
However, I think someone has to do these things. Though a few members of my church read this blog from time to time, I do not teach these things much during worship services. I focus on the power of the Sovereign God at work in the lives of otherwise insignificant folks like us. (You can actually see my sermon series in manuscript form by clicking on my name above.)
The focus of the church needs to be on theology as it applies to the lives of God’s people. But I think that Christian/church leaders also need to slog through these difficult things to keep ourselves focused.
I mentioned this above – blogging/arguing/discussing/debating (even with people like CB) has sharpened my focus and theology, especially in the area of ecclesiology.
My point is that I agree that a lot of our discussion is technical and even perhaps picky. But I think there is a need for us to continue sharpening our theology in discussions like this.
Make sense?
Yes, Dan, if I had to take the essence of NT teaching about the church, and put it into one phrase, I think I would say that it is the setting in which the various “one another” commands/exhortations of the NT are carried out.
And, while I see some value in getting large groups of believers together in order to benefit from the teaching/preaching of a gifted teacher/preacher, and celebrating in worship and song our mutual relationship with the Lord, the “one another” command/exhortations are most naturally carried out in a small group setting, whether it be organized as autonomous house churches, or cell groups connected to a larger congregation.
Sounds like an ecclesiology-focused fellowship meal is in order when David is in Sioux City, Dan.
Should we invite CB?
The plane ticket to invite Strider might be a little high. Gondor is a long flight.
Sounds good Dave, Baptist ecclesiology requires food.
Dave – particularly if you’re taking Eagle Airlines.
Tickets aren’t so bad that way. Its more the time.
Question for discussion: is there anyone on the blogs who is NOT a LOTR geek?
I’m not a huge LOTR fan, but I’ve seen it more than once, so I guess I qualify.
Getting a ticket on Eagle Airlines is mostly the matter of having the right friends. It’s still much preferable to the alternative, Nazgul Airlines.
And yeah, I’m a Tolkien Geek. I even have the full 12-volume “History Of Middle Earth” series, and have read most of it.
I hate that you have to go to the top of Orthanc to catch the flight. Heights bother me.
Dave,
I certainly agree that “someone has to do these things” and “that Christian/church leaders also need to slog through these difficult things to keep ourselves focused.” I think though my point–assuming I actually had when when writing–is that perhaps we should not be so keen on establishing a division between what an earlier generation referred to as “head knowledge” verses “heart knowledge.” If the Gospel speaks to the whole person, as I believe it does, should we not take both into consideration in any theological discussion? Not that I have an answer to “how,” but this is just me thinking out loud, and wondering. Maybe this nebulous thing to which I have reference is, or is close, to what Dan called “corporate holiness.”
BTW, I think David is spot on when he says there are many “Baptist ecclesiologies.” Some of those are identified with particular subsets of theological systems (i.e., Landmarkism), and others are more profoundly influenced by culture than most of us are willing to recognize or admit.
John
Bozo’s is definitely the best BBQ anywhere, anyplace. On this, there can be no disagreement.
David
Vol is a BBQ fundamentalist.
What a long read! Hope you all find your eccesiology. BTW, before you discount some as Baptist subsets…do read more of JR Graves “Dispensations” and John Gill’s Body. Most have a lot of preconcieved notions of these men without reading them. In the area of eccesiology…priceless. I agree most decisively with Dagg and Mell on this subject.
Adieu.
GaBaptist
I think you may have misunderstood the whole point. What I am saying is that Baptist Ecclesiology is not a monolithic entity. And it is not that any of us haven’t found our ecclesiology (though it is still forming). We are trying to get at the root of what is essential to our cooperation as Baptists.
Do you have any perspectives to add to the discussion?
I sometimes wonder if we try to pin down an ‘ordained’, one-size-fits-all structure for local church structure too much. What I see in scripture looks like a simple, but flexible structure – spiritual leadership (elders et al), those who handle the practical aspects of church administration (deacons), and the rest of the congregation (for practical purposes, ministers and ministers in training – I see ministry as being handled by the church at large, not only by the ‘leaders’). Within that simple structure, you’ve got a lot of room for a lot of organizational variation and flexibility. It looks to me like the titles aren’t that important (hence the variation in titles for spiritual leadership), but the functionality is. And I sometimes wonder if a lot of ‘deacon’ work nowadays gets done by church secretaries and other similar staff.
I find the Baptist approach of autonomous churches attractive as it lends itself to the flexibility that it seems to me God has built into church structure. The remaining question is, are the Baptists going to be flexible enough to go along with that flexibility?
I’m all for looking to scripture for our practice, and local church structure is only part of ecclesiology, but I think if we approach scripture with the preconception that God is always going to have a one-size-fits-all solution, and in fact God intends some things to be more practical (personally, I think God is often far more practical than we expect the High and Holy Lord of the Universe to be), then that preconception is going to lead us off the path. If nothing else, being aware of the possibility of those kinds of preconception on our own part is going to improve our study of scripture.
Finally, real blood on the water and Yankee blood at that.
Dan said:
“….CB, you are correct, if we had a sense of cooperate holiness, we would not need a GCR, which is why I feel like our Baptist Ecclesiology is flawed,….”
Dan,
A pre 64 Winchester model 70 is a true piece of art. Yet, give that fine weapon to some guys and they can’t hit the Golden Gate Bridge at 100 yards. Put that same firearm in the hands of another fellow and he can kill pigeons at 1500 yards off of the cables of the Golden Gate Bridge all day long and never so much as smudge the paint off of the cable.
Our Baptist ecclesiology is not “flawed.” The flaw is in the understanding of some of the guys using it.
Its just like Shane told Marian. “A gun is a tool Marian. It is as good or as bad as the man using it.”
Baptist ecclesiology is a pre 64 Model 70 with a glass bedded bull barrel, chambered for a .308 cartridge. Everything else is a Red Rider B B gun.
cb
John Fariss,
The Golden Rule is still cooking. I ate at the original site just lately. It made me happy.
cb
Dan,
My wife and I started a church in the exact same manner you mention.
“….he have done house churches by taking a church service, shrinking it and putting it in a living room. We sing songs, pass the plate, preach a message and give an invitation. It’s not a house church, it’s a worship service that meets in a house.”
That happened in 1976. We were involved in another the same way 15 years later.
cb
Dave,
What exactly is a “people like CB”??
cb
People like CB = good-looking, pacifistic, shies away from conflict, weak in convictions and shy to assert opinions.
I have no idea where or in what context I said, “People like CB.” I’m sure it was meant as a compliment!
Ben Coleman, comment 180,
I think your comment is spot on. I believe there are some core principles that will not change, but I do not believe that the Bible mandates a single structure for all churches.
“People like CB = good-looking, pacifistic, shies away from conflict, weak in convictions and shy to assert opinions.”
Dave … you forgot pro-gun control, “let’s just have a dialog” postmodern tree-huggers.
(luv ya CB!)
CB, the fact that you started a house church that looked like the model I mentioned, are you supporting of disagreeing with my point? Statistically, those house churches failed, and with all the push for a “house church movement”, they have not been successful. I have been involved in a few myself, worked with a “Church Plant Movement Missionary”, and we found that if people want that style of church, they simply go to church.
I’m not going to reply to the Winchester comment, because it’s a difference of opinion that cannot be resolved. I love the SBC, but not enough to call it infallable. No, you didn’t say that, but I think many of us have heard it.
So true, Geoff. So true.
The Manhattan Declaration.
I know you fellas are dancin around BFM 2000 and such, but the the Manhattan Declaration seems to be a bigger defining issue for yall in Real Politik terms, in terms of C
P dollars underwriting the nation’s character.
Timothy George is making one more slight of hand, trying to turn around the iconic figure of MLKing like on previous occasions he has attempted with Bonhoeffer.
Baptist or not, that is a serious matter.
Would or David Rogers signed the Manhattan Declaration?
Will Anne Graham Lotz sign it?
How does David Rogers square his fellowship with Lotz and George when both are reputed to be supporters of the Baptist World Alliance.
Strong discussion of the MD at ethicsdaily.com; religiondispatches.org; and now in SBC board at baptistlife.com where Les Puryear and Wade Burleson traffic on occasion
Mr. Fox, do you have input on the ecclesiological issues we are discussing?
Actually, I’ve got an idea for a post up my sleeve that involves a response to the Manhattan Declaration, as well as some thoughts about how it ties in to the topic of Christian unity and separatism.
Stay tuned…
Have a great Thanksgiving everybody.
Hey Dave,
Just a clarification. The BI stuff is just a 19th cent rerun. Most SBCers would like to overlook non-essentials, but there are always a few who try to rein in Baptist eccesiology into a more unified system. Unlike the 19th cent., a lot of the discussions of closed communion and appropriate baptisms acc to the administrator, etc.. are foreign to most SBCers. Early Baptist life was a lot more uniformed than now.
Happy Thanksgiving to you all.
GA Baptist
I am no expert in history, but my impression from my limited readings is that these issues have always been controversial. Baptists have been a pretty diverse group on some of these issues down through our history.
For every Landmarker, there has always been someone who fought against that view. Something like a pendulum swinging back and forth.
Again, my knowledge of Baptist history does not qualify me to speak as an expert on this subject.
Dave,
Baptist Ecclesiology was pretty monolithic from about 1800-1870. The push for open communion first appeared in England, then in Northern Baptist life. Southern Baptists resisted this due to the hard work of JR Graves who was fighting the Christian Church Movement along with Methodism on the frontier. His arguments were extreme, but they eventually won over most SBCers by 1880 on this subject. Most Western SBCers still hold to closed communion in one sense or another while Eastern SBCers have been practicing a somewhat open communion for several years. In the 19th cent., open communion was allied with liberalism in the thoughts of the SBC.
Today, I think the issue of private prayer language is the fear that tongues discussion of any kind will eventually lead to tongues as a doctrine for the SBC, which most do not want to entertain. In regards to communion, most SBC churches practice it so little that a discussion of closed or open is trivial.
Adieu,
gabaptist
Dan,
Actually both of those churches are still going strong. I am just saying it worked nothing more and nothing less. I know many fail. Actually most new church starts fail no matter how they are started.
But for the sake of many church planters who have made the effort, yet saw the work fail, let me say this; Success or failure is not the motivation to start churches. Obedience is the motive to start churches. The consequences of our obedience is always in the hands of God.
BTW, You said:
“I love the SBC, but not enough to call it infallable. No, you didn’t say that, but I think many of us have heard it.”
You are right. I didn’t say it. But for the record and in case anyone would ever wonder. The last thing on earth I would ever say is or ever was “infallible” is the SBC.
The SBC and Baptist ecclesiology are actually two different things all together. And I never said Baptist ecclesiology is infallible.
Let me use the Winchester illustration again to make my position clear.
The SBC has never been a Pre 64 model 70 Winchester. I t has always been a BB gun…..and not even up the quality of a Red Rider. But as do you, I still love her, but I have never been under the illusion she was infallible. I have lived with her far too long to be so foolish as to think that.
cb
CB, it does no good for us to make comments like 185 and 187 if you do not at least feign offense.
The SBC is again ludicrous to be silent while the the Coop Program underwritten Richard Land mocks Bonhoeffer and ML King with the Manhattan Declaration.
Bruce Prescott has once again examined Land and his kind in the SBC and found them wanting.
David Rogers, Anne Graham Lotz, Wade Burleson are likewise wasting time messing with endless talk of Baptist Identity if them cannot deal with Richard Land and the Declaration.
Strong conversation at Baptistlife dot com with multitude of links there just a click away.
Prescott it appears to me is challenging the world of SBC IMpact to engage this conversation.
Dave,
Happy Thanks giving…….and to you and Geoff I say; “Bless your sweet little hearts.”
cb
Steve Fox,
I think you need to lay off to the Cranberry Sauce. I think it has fermented and you have already had way too much of it.
Happy Thanksgiving, Steve.
BTW, who will all of you folks in Fort Payne, AL be cheering for tomorrow?
cb
Dave,
Sorry to be getting into this discussion late. I realize no one may read this but felt it was an important subject and one on which Ihave strong feelings. I have been traveling for the last 3 weeks but I am now for the first time able to post responses from the same time zone as you. You have raised too many issues for me to respond to all of them at this time but your basis question about what does it mean to be a Baptist and a Southern Baptist deserves a full measured response. Your second question about how involved should Baptists be with the greater evangelical world has been a hot issue for many of us for years on the mission field.
I think you should go ahead and publish your book on Brick Walls and Picket Fences. I have more confidence in your opinions than I would Mohler’s. That being said, if we wish to define Baptist or Southern Baptists on doctrinal issues those you brought up would be a fairly comprehensive set of guidelines. I suppose the picket fence issues would be the ones that divide us from other evangelical Christian churches or groups. I would love to get into a discussion of the need for denominations in light of the quote by some that they are evil. Needless to say I am on the side of denominations and this is one issue I tend to agree with Volfan.
I like Strider’s comments and would agree with the direction he takes on Southern Baptists and doctrine versus missions support. That may be because we both are looking at this from the view of one directly involved in the support of missions. CB may remember back in the 80s Keith Parks made a statement that missions was the basis on which Southern Baptist joined together for cooperation. He was attacked vehemently by the CR hard liners for saying this. They incorrectly implied he was saying doctrine wasn’t important and that it was doctrine that was the basis for our cooperation and that formed Southern Baptists as a denomination. The problem with that is there are many churches and in fact denominations that believe exactly what we believe on the brick wall and picket fence issues but are not Southern Baptist. Strider and I have seen them in other countries. In the U.S. you have Bible churches, independent churches and other Baptist denominations. They have not joined with us to support our missions programs and are not Southern Baptists.
David Rogers said, “As I understand it, the category Southern Baptist is not a doctrinal category, but rather a category of affiliation with an organization.” David Miller said, “We are Christians with Baptistic theology who associate and cooperate in missions through the SBC.” As I remember it this is almost exactly what Keith Parks was trying to say. Members of the CR, including Adrian Rogers, opposed him for this. Keith Eitel was the most recent one to use this in has attack on Jerry Rankin and the IMB.
Dave I noticed you started this post with your obligatory statements of support for the CR when you said, “I am committed to the continuation of the Conservative Resurgence of the SBC” and also “I have NO regrets about the CR.” I find it interesting that in your posts, however, you and David Rogers make statement about PPL , cooperation with others and on other issues that in the early days of the CR would have branded you as a liberal and ostracized you from any participation in the SBC leadership. As you know, I believe the CR has weakened our denomination theologically and spiritually and especially in the area of evangelism and missions.
Ron,
Understood correctly, I do not think what I am saying here is incompatible with what my father said in response to Keith Parks.
Yes, cooperation in missions is what draws us together as Southern Baptists. And, yes, “there are many churches and in fact denominations that believe exactly what we believe on the brick wall and picket fence issues but are not Southern Baptist.”
However, the contention of my father, others who participated in the CR, and me, is that, before the CR, there were certain individuals within Southern Baptist life itself who hedged on Tier 1 and Tier 2 doctrinal issues. And, it doesn’t make any sense to cooperate in missions if you are not first in agreement on Tier 1 issues. The Mormons also believe in missions. But we are not joined in cooperation with them. Why not? Because we disagree about doctrine.
In the present BI discussions, the issue is no longer Tier 1 doctrine. It is, rather, where do you draw the line between Tier 2 and Tier 3. I am quite confident, for instance, that my father never intended the battle fought in the CR to degenerate into a battle over issues such as PPL.
As I see it, the issue where we are going to feel the most tension on this, is the issue of women in ministry. As I have stated on a comment or two here at sbcIMPACT! on another occasion, though, I don’t believe the gender issues were included as part of the CR agenda on a random basis. And, it was not just because of cultural preferences. It was, rather, because the majority feels these issues are closely tied to the underlying issue of biblical authority.
As I understand it, to the degree it is possible to maintain a strict adherence to inerrancy, and a sound hermeneutic, and at the same time, support the possibility of women elders in local churches, the greater will be the openness to cooperation with those who feel differently on this issue. I am aware of the attempts of various people to do just that. However, from my perspective (and from that of the majority of Southern Baptists), they have merely been just that: attempts.
The real issue at stake is the Tier 1 issue of inerrancy and biblical authority as the epistemogical underpinning of everything we believe, and the very message we seek to communicate to a lost world, as we join hands together in missions.
David,
At the present time my books and papers are on a boat somewnere between Asia and the US and my wife is waiting on me in the car to take off for to see our new grandson so I cannot give exact quotes but I do remember the spirit of the discussion and I still believe your statements and Davids would be in support of Parks and opposed to your fathers. Keith Parks was in no way saying we should cooperate with Mormons nor was he saying we should hedge on those indivuals who disagree with us on Tier 1 and 2 issues. In fact he worked very hard to protect us from those individuals. The issue was stated very clearly that we cooperated on the basis of doctine as opposed to missions. I don’t believe this is what you and Dave Miller are saying. The actually reason for the disagreement was that Keith Parks was seen as one not loyal to the CR therefore he was fair game to attack and belittle.
In the beginning gender issues were seldom mentioned in the CR discussions except that women deacons were stated as a sign of a liberal church. The issue of women elders or pastors was seldom mentioned because there were almost no cases where they existed.
Ron,
Could it be we are before a false dichotomy of “missions vs. doctrine,” here? Could it be that the correct solution is not either-or, but rather both-and?
I agree that Keith Parks was not in favor of an “anything goes” approach to doctrine. But, then again, neither did my father advocate a non-chalant low priority commitment to missions.
However, some were trying to use a joint commitment to “missions” as an excuse for minimizing important doctrinal considerations. A proper understanding of missions, however, carries along with it a firm doctrinal basis of the gospel we are proclaiming, and the discipleship among the nations we are seeking.
Looks like after some 200 some odd comments getting down to the nitty gritty.
Keith Parks and Anne Graham Lotz in one camp with the BWA, and the CR somewhere else. It amazes me fellow like Timothy George can sign the Manhattan Declaration, and yet be card carrying member of the BAptist World Alliance. Some of the graduates of Beeson are leading progressive in the State of Alabama and elsewhere.
Here is a grand place to start with BAptist Identity. Hope Rogers in particular and many of you others will copy and paste this link and give it careful study.
It is a much better place to flourish as a Baptist than the narrow place that has consumed most of the 200 odd comments so far in this discussion here at SBC Impact.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15126
Stephen,
I just read through the Hughes sermon you linked to. I have no real disagreement with what he says, with the exception that he seems to make a false dichotomy between the authority of Jesus and the authority of Scripture.
We know of Jesus by way of Scripture. Scripture tells us there will be many false Christs. How do we know that the Jesus in which we believe is the real Jesus? By way of Scripture.
We also know Jesus by way of the Holy Spirit. But, the Holy Spirit is the same one who inspired Scripture. So, when someone comes to us, claiming to be led of the Holy Spirit, proclaiming a different Jesus than the one described to us in Scripture, we know their claim is bogus. The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself.
We also know Jesus by way of the Church/church. Once again, though, the way we, as Protestants have distinguished between true tradition passed down through the apostles to the faithful, and spurious tradition inserted by others, is by way of the litmus test of Scripture.
Also, I would add that any organization, such as the SBC, that is going to hire and fire people, has to have some agreed standard upon which to make these decisions. For Southern Baptists, this standard is the BF&M. The BF&M does not have the same authority of Scripture. But, it is the agreed upon standard by which we, as Southern Baptists, cooperate.
We could just say that our standard of cooperation is the Bible. But, then, lots of folks, from Jehovah’s Witnesses to Roman Catholics, all claim to base their teaching on the Bible. We must have something more concrete upon which to base the practical decisions related to our cooperation. I don’t see any other way around this.
What you just said doesn’t fly.
I repect your convictions and appreciate your reply. But you are asking me to say you and those who think like you in the Baptist camp have a one up on Keith Parks, Anne Graham Lotz, the late Tom Corts of Samford and eloquence and rationale of President Underword at Mercer, lately of Baylor, and the likes of Buddy Shurden to whom Hughes gives much due.
Your view of Scripture turned its head while Pressler and Richard Land gave the United States the Presidency of George W. Bush. Wouldn’t have happenned without the CR.
Your view of Scripture has implications that are not good for pluralism as Anne Graham Lotz, The BWA, and a host of other Baptist with a High View of Scripture have explained Time and Time again.
I don’t want to get into cliche’s but the BFM 2000 is a 19th Century Document as Baptist Christians much brighter and more eloquent than myself have explained time and time again.
Thanks for reading Hughes. It is a tough thing to say one’s Father was wrong, but it is the case Adrian Rogers was wrong.
Thanks for the reply. I mean no ill will.
Hope we can continue the conversation; and it will evolve into some substantial discussion of the MD and how Timothy George has sabotaged the symbol of Birmingham and the legacy of MLKing.
Robert Parham and Bruce Prescott have done a great job establishing that fact.
Forgive me for being little scattershot here, but one of the forerunners of BFM 2000 was the circa 73 Lausanne Covenant. Francis Schaeffer bought the farm but Billy Graham did not, on the issue of inerrancy.
See Charles Marsh on that in Wayward Christian Soldiers.
Marsh will be the keynote speaker at the BJC committee NationalConference in Bham this coming April.
Maybe there sensible folks will see Bham and religious liberty for what it is in all its glory and the Best Tradition of Baptist work; unlike the vulgar notions Timothy George is advancing in a thicket your Dad was foremost in with his Role in The so called Conservative Resurgene.
Didn’t mean for this to be a polemic, but doing my best to let you know where I am coming from.
David,
I agree most emphatically with you that this is a false dichotomy and it is both-and not either-or. The false dichotomy was created by CR supporters such as Keith Eitel and a few others during the original discussion. They were trying to paint Parks as a liberal. I am not aware of your father doing this but others were.
Ron, We’ve hashed this time and time again, so I don’t know how much value there is in revisiting it. But David’s illustration above was fantastic.
We do not join together with the Mormons for missions because we believe that the faith that they believe is not the faith we believe.
I supported the CR because my professors in college – all of whom were Southern or Southeastern grads – taught a faith different than we believe. They taught a Bible full of deceit and mistakes. They did not believe in the blood atonement of Christ, the existence of the devil, the exclusivity of Christ or perhaps the deity of Christ. They had no more of a genuine faith than the Mormons do. They were Southern Baptists who worked in Southern Baptist schools to undermine the simple faith of Southern Baptist college students.
I saw that firsthand. I do not believe that most of the leaders of the moderate movement were liberal like that. But they were not willing to apply doctrinal standards to our seminaries that were necessary.
The CR was a movement of God that preserved the future of the convention. There were some sinful things done and said by leaders on both sides. But I thank God that the CR happened.
I know you were hurt by some things that happened. But I saw liberalism firsthand. it was evil. It destroyed. And it had to be dealt with.
Dave,
You started this post with an excellent topic. If I had been around earlier, I would have liked to have made more comments on the subject of Baptist ecclesiology and what our basic doctrinal beliefs are. When you make the following statements as you did in the beginning of this post, “I am committed to the continuation of the Conservative Resurgence of the SBC”, “ I have NO regrets about the CR”, and “I believe that the CR itself was a work of God to graciously preserve our denomination”, I assume they are open to discussion. If not, why do you state them in almost every post you make? I also could not escape the irony that you and David Rogers speak in glowing terms of the CR and your comments about why we cooperate was almost exactly what Keith Parks said and was attacked for by the CR leaders of his day. I also think it is important in case there are young people reading this blog that they hear the truth from someone who was there in the early days of the CR and not have to rely on the revisionist history that is put out by those who try to forget the carnal methods used by the founders of the CR.
David makes many fantastic illustrations but I did not see one that would have any relation to my points.
I am sorry for your experiences in college. I also acknowledge that there were professors at SBTS and possibly SEBTS who should not have been teaching in a SBC institution. What I don’t accept is that is an excuse to punish and slander those of us who did not share your experience and do hold to an inerrant Bible and are conservative theologically and have had nothing to do with the liberal theology you talk about. Every SBC entity I have been part of was conservative theologically in 1979 and before. This includes my church, the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, SWBTS and the IMB. Each of those institutions have been harmed by the CR you say you have NO regrets about. If the CR was about theology and not power and control and money, why were each of the institutions attacked, slandered and in some cases taken over by CR power brokers? If the CR had been about theology, CR leaders should have admitted the IMB and SWBTS have had a good record on commitment to the authority of scripture and sound doctrine and protected them from attack. SBC presidents should have made sure trustees appointed to the institutions were committed to support and continue the outstanding record they had. Instead they appointed trustees committed to attacking their leaders and undermining their programs. Owen Collins and Bill Hancock come to mind. Show me where I am wrong!
You say,” I do not believe that most of the leaders of the moderate movement were liberal like that. But they were not willing to apply doctrinal standards to our seminaries that were necessary.” I don’t know who these moderate leaders were but the conservative leaders of my state convention, the FMB and SWBTS were willing and had applied doctrinal standards to those institutions and it made no difference to the leaders of the CR because they were only interested in power and control and jobs for their supporters. I know your statement is not true of SWBTS and probably not true at some other seminaries.
You say you saw liberalism firsthand and it was evil. It destroyed. And it had to be dealt with. I have seen immorality, slander, dishonesty and covetousness first hand. It is evil and has destroyed much of a great denomination. It has needed to be dealt with. Why have you and other supporters of the CR looked the other way, ignored it and made excuses for it and been afraid to deal with it? The root cause of the problems we face in the SBC today is that our SBC presidents have failed to carry out their responsibility to appoint theological conservative, qualified, honest people to serve as trustees. Instead we have seen adulterers, thieves, racists and slanderers put in places of authority over our missionaries and seminaries. And that is just the cases documented in Baptist Press. There is much more that could be said. When our missionaries were called heretics and liberals by CR appointed trustees why were our SBC presidents and other CR supporters not willing to speak up in our defense? It was because the CR is not about truth or theology.
You say you support the CR based on you experience in college. Tell me why I and thousands of others such as myself should support the CR and believe it was about theology based on our experience. I believe the SBC would be more conservative theologically today if Winfred Moore had defeated Charles Stanley in the 80s or if Richard Jackson had defeated Jerry Vines. Both of these men were solid theological conservative who would have appointed conservatives instead of the political appointments made by Stanley and Vines. We see the results of those appointments today in the loss of membership, baptisms and financial support for our missions programs and the need for a GCR.
Dave, the obvious proof that the CR was not about theology is that if it had been it would have united us instead of divided us. 99% of Southern Baptists would have no problem with supporting an organization dedicated to conservative theology or the authority of scripture. Instead the SBC has been divided and crippled. We saw early on that the CR was about ego, greed, power and control. The shame is that for 30 years the CR leaders have spent their time and energy attacking other Christians instead of joining us in fighting satan and proclaiming the Gospel.
Ron:
Great points, timely and well positioned.
I hope you will look at the Hughes piece on Baptist ID about comment 200 above. I link it in one of my posts.
David Rogers said he didn’t find much there with which to disagree.
None other than Randall Lolley has said he sees in David the Son, a more gracious temperament than that of Adrian, the Father.
Would be interesting as I have stated before to have the likes of David Rogers, Anne Graham Lotz, and Harry Dent’s daughter in a 10 day seminar with the likes of Bill Leonard Buddy Shurden and such.
I kinda think that some of them would say their Fathers made a big boo boo in their role in the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC.
On a similar note I think you will find Tom Friedman’s opinion piece of yesterday on the bad narrative, too many otherwise Muslims of good will have bought into, or don’t have the will, courage to confront.
What we are dealing with in the David Miller and others who fall back on the “wayward” proff in the SBC as reason for the CR; what they fall back on is “bad narrative” similar to the one that is creating havoc for us all as we confront radical Islam.
There is no question in my mind that the SBC has plateaued in the last few years. But I think that those who opposed the CR have wrongly taken the last few years as proof that the CR somehow caused great harm to the SBC.
I think that is flawed logic.
1) For several years AFTER the CR, the SBC showed good numbers. Did those numbers validate the CR? if they did not, why do the spotty numbers now somehow invalidate the CR?
2) You and others who opposed the CR, or those who oppose current leadership in the SBC act as if the SBC was hanging in balance or dwindling to nothing. The statistics show that we are plateaued. While there has been a small decrease in some numbers, it is in no way a sign that the SBC is on the verge of death.
3) When you compare the SBC to the health and growth of the CBF, which many of the moderate leaders went to form, we don’t look too bad statistically.
4) When you look at national trends, the difficult numbers of the SBC are put into perspective. A national recession. A leftward turn of the public mindset on issues which we cannot compromise. An increasing disloyalty to denominations in general.
It just does not make sense to say, “All of the problems with the SBC today are the fault of the CR.” It smacks of the loss of perspective that results from bitterness, a prosecutorial attitude.
It seems clear to me that people like Stephen rejoice at any failure in the SBC. He is like a democrat analysing the Republican party. Whatever is bad makes him happy. Is that the road we want to walk?
So, here we are – 30 years after Adrian Rogers was elected. I think it was a good thing. You don’t. I will evidently never convince you the CR was a blessing. I have not been convinced that it was a great evil.
So, do we continue to fight with bitterness over the past, or do we look forward from here to build on what we have done?
Won’t we be better off if we just come together in a Great Commission Resurgence that will take our conservative denomination forward into the future?
• But I think that those who opposed the CR have wrongly taken the last few years as proof that the CR somehow caused great harm to the SBC.
• THE CR LEADERS ARE GOOD AT BLAMING OTHERS BUT CANNOT ACCEPT BLAME FOR THEIR OWN FAILURES.
I think that is flawed logic.
1) For several years AFTER the CR, the SBC showed good numbers. Did those numbers validate the CR? if they did not, why do the spotty numbers now somehow invalidate the CR? FOR THE FIRST FEW YEARS WE WILL STILL RUNNING ON THE MOMENTUM OF BOLD MISSIONS THRUST AND THE WORK OF THE CONSERVATIVES WHO WERE LEADING OUR CONVENTION BEFORE THE CR TAKE OVER. IT TOOK ABOUT 10 YEARS FOR CR TRUSTEES TO CONTROL ALL OUR ENTITIES AND THEN BAPTISMS, GIVING, AND THE SPIRITUAL HEALTH OF THE SBC BEGIN TO DECLINE.
2) You and others who opposed the CR, or those who oppose current leadership in the SBC act as if the SBC was hanging in balance or dwindling to nothing. The statistics show that we are plateaued. While there has been a small decrease in some numbers, it is in no way a sign that the SBC is on the verge of death. THANKS TO THE STRENTH OF OUR CHURCHES WE ARE STILL LIMPING ALONG. IT IS A SIGN OF HOW STRONG WE WERE BEFORE THE CR TAKEOVER THAT WE CONTINUE TO FUNCTION. IT IS IN SPITE OF THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CR.
3) When you compare the SBC to the health and growth of the CBF, which many of the moderate leaders went to form, we don’t look too bad statistically. COMPARING THE CBF TO THE SBC BEFORE THE CR TAKEOVER IS LIKE COMPARING PRUNES TO ORANGES. THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP. IT TELLS US NOTHING ABOUT WHAT THE SBC WOULD LOOK LIKE TODAY IF THEOLOGICAL CONSERVATIVES HAD REMAINED IN CHARGE INSTEAD OF THE CR POLITICIANS.
4) When you look at national trends, the difficult numbers of the SBC are put into perspective. A national recession. A leftward turn of the public mindset on issues which we cannot compromise. An increasing disloyalty to denominations in general. EXCUSES
It just does not make sense to say, “All of the problems with the SBC today are the fault of the CR.” It smacks of the loss of perspective that results from bitterness, a prosecutorial attitude. I DON’T BELIEVE ALL OF THE PROBLEMS ARE THE RESULT OF THE CR BUT THE CR IS THE MAJOR FAULT. I AM NOT BITTER. I AM JUST REALISTIC AND HONEST IN MY APPRAISAL OF THE CR.
It seems clear to me that people like Stephen rejoice at any failure in the SBC. He is like a democrat analysing the Republican party. Whatever is bad makes him happy. Is that the road we want to walk? IT IS SIMILAR TO THE WAY CR LEADERS LOOK AT THOSE WHO SPEAK THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR ORGANIZATION. THEY TWIST THE FACTS TO TRY AND PROVE THEIR FALSLE CLAIMS.
So, here we are – 30 years after Adrian Rogers was elected. I think it was a good thing. You don’t. I will evidently never convince you the CR was a blessing. I have not been convinced that it was a great evil. TO USE THE WORDS OF JERRY JOHNSON, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE BLIND AS A MOLE TO BELIEVE THE CR WAS ABOUT THEOLOGY AND NOT POWER AND CONTROL.
So, do we continue to fight with bitterness over the past, or do we look forward from here to build on what we have done? I AM WILLING TO BUILD ON THE FUTURE BUT WE MUST LOOK HONESTLY AT OUR PAST IF WE ARE TO CORRECT THE MISTAKES.
Won’t we be better off if we just come together in a Great Commission Resurgence that will take our conservative denomination forward into the future? MANY OF US HAVE HAVE PRAYED FOR A GREAT COMMISSION RESURGENCE FOR YEARS. UNFORTUNATELY A COMMITTEE PACKED WITH CR MEGA CHURCH PASTORS AND CONTAINING DANNY AKIN WHO THINKS OUR STATE CONVENTIONS ARE BLOATED BUREAUCRACIES IS PROBABLY NOT CAPABLE OF LEADING US TO WHERE WE NEED TO GO. HOW CAN WE COME TOGETHER IF THOSE OF US WHO HAVE NOT SUPPORTED THE CR ARE EXLCUDED FROM EVERY LEADERSHIP POSITION BY THE SBC PRESIDENTS.
I just don’t see a resolution to this. you are so set in your hatred of CR and its leaders, I don’t see how we can resolve our positions. I am sorry for whatever hurt was inflicted on you to cause the extreme disdain and disgust you seem to feel.
I don’t know all the leaders, but I think your words about them as a whole come pretty close to being slanderous. Were there bad apples? I assume so. Were wrong things done? of course.
But I just think you are consumed by hatred for the men and the movement. I don’t know how we can rationally discuss something that seems to be so emotional for you.
You will not hear any reason in support of the CR or those of us who believed in it. You will not believe that any good was done by them or through them. Look at the tenuous position you take. All the good things are leftovers of the moderate leaders. all the bad things are the fault of the CR. Really? the previous leaders were all good and the current leaders are all bad? That is just not reality, Ron.
I think you are wrong. I think you are making false accusations against some choice servants of God and I think you should guard your words a little more carefully.
I don’t really know the source of your anger, but I do not believe that anger is productive. We are where we are. I believe it is a better place than we would be at if the CR had not happened. You, of course, disagree. But here we are.
We have to move forward. Those that cannot move forward should probably move on.
Ron,
I would love to engage you on the topics that we discuss on these blogs, and hear your ideas on missions and ministry. But as far as I can remember, every comment you have ever made on this blog or others has been to trash the leaders, the motives, and the mission of the conservative resurgence.
Can we talk about something else? There is a great big world out there and God is still at work. Can we not discuss something other than your hatred of the CR?
Dave Miller:
What if what Ron West and others like myself feel is not hatred of the CR but a heart broken for what was done to others in the name of Christ. You want to move on but there is much repentance that must be done for the damage the CR did.
You also said–”Those that cannot move forward should probably move on. ”
Do you ever think about how many, probably millions have already moved on and you suggest more move on?
Tom,
I have only posted once on this topic and have not followed all 217 comments mainly because I am not qualified to speak in the detail as most of you, however, the “moving forward” statement, when there is a repentance issue, is serious to me. I do not know the issue with the CR but if they have done something requiring repentance then moving on is the worst thing we can do. I am fighting this same thing as a layman in local churches within the small town I live in. Everyone wants “to just move on”, “put it behind us” when there is known sin. This may be the MAIN thing that is causing the whole of the SBC to be anemic (means “lack of blood”). When the body is anemic it is weak. I believe we see the weakness in our denomination due to this one way we deal with sin within. Politicians do this continually and I refuse to be connected with their methods of operation.
For someone to act like the liberals/moderates were the poor, little, helpless, innocent victims of the big, bad, mean CR is absolutely ridiculous. Do you honestly think that there werent a lot of liberals/moderates being mean and ugly? Do you honestly think that none of the liberals/moderates werent doing things that were mean and ugly? I know they did. I heard them speaking in the halls of SBC meetings. I heard the way they talked about CR leaders, and really, anyone involved in the CR. A friend of mine went to Southern Seminary back in the day, and he said that they ran Dr. Adrian Rogers down bad, and many of them even nicknamed him “the Devil!” Dr. Adrian Rogers!
Did people act ugly during the CR? Yes. Did both sides act a little ugly at times? Yes. Did some people go overboard and do things that were underhanded and dirty? I’m sure that a few probably did.
Was the CR necessary? Absolutely. Do I thank God for the CR? Absolutely. If I had to do it all over again, would I be involved in the CR? Absolutely.
If it were not for the CR, I am absolutely convinced that not only would things like liberation theology, egalitarianism, homosexuality and abortion as ok, and evolution be taught in our colleges and seminaries; but also, the very nature of God would be questioned on many points. There would be a denial of the miracles of the Bible, and the accuracy of the Bible would be questioned, and there would probably be a serious discussion about universalism…with the SBC leaning towards it.
I thank God that he raised up men such as Judge Pressler, and Dr. Patterson, and Dr. Vines, and Dr. Adrian Rogers, and many others who had the courage and faith to bring our SBC back to the Bible and sound doctrine. And, if the CBF type Churches would all pull out and form their own denomination tomorrow, it would not be too soon for me.
David Worley
And Tom, if all the CBF type Churches would leave the SBC tomorrow, it would mean that we would lose a little in membership and money. But, guess what? We dont care about that. Sometimes you gotta trim and cut limbs out of a tree before it will grow stronger and prettier. So, let the numbers fall if it means the SBC is going to be sound in doctrine and faithful to God.
David
007:
Let me be clear I adressed my comment to Dave Miller and not you.
I need to be clear. I think there were flaws in the CR – and I said so at the time.
1) there was an unfortunate tendency to assume that someone who sided with the “other side” on political issues must actually be suspect in their theology or lack integrity in their Christianity. It became an us-vs-them thing.
2) I have no doubt that some of the men who led the CR operated out of ego and selfish ambition.
Any movement led by men is going to have flaws. The early church had its share of bad eggs. It is a reality.
I think there are a few things that Ron, Tom, Stephen and others are stuck on that they should admit.
1) there is a tendency among some to demonize all who were involved in the CR – assigning motives, assuming character and slandering the entire movement.
How do you know the hearts of all these men? What gives you the right to stand as judge? You judge and condemn the leaders of the CR and their integrity. I think you do so falsely. But none of us should be quick to judge.
Before you say, “well, the conservatives did the same thing to the moderates,” I will admit that. It does not excuse it. And I confronted conservatives about it – at the time.
It is a sign of anger and undue passion when you paint the “enemy” as all-evil all-the-time. That is just not reality.
2) the ultimate question is this: was there a genuine problem with liberalism in the SBC that needed to be dealt with? My experience (and the experience of MANY – a majority – of others said there was. We dealt with it and for that I am happy. Could we have done it differently? Perhaps. But it needed to be done and it was.
3) As Vol said above, I think Tom, Ron, Stephen and others engage in a fantasy that reinterprets history. “The SBC was forging forward with Bold Mission Thrust, led by a godly and kind group of wonderful conservatives ready to take the SBC to dizzying heights, until the horrible, sneaky, angry conservatives, who desired only power and had no heart for evangelism, theology or missions violently took over.”
Rubbish. Yes, conservatives engaged in rhetoric that was inappropriate. But go back and listen to the horrible things that entrenched leaders in the SBC said about Adrian Rogers, PP, the Judge and others. It was awful. In my memory, the things said by moderates to slander conservatives were far more extreme than those said by the conservatives.
As someone said, “you are entitled to your interpretation of the facts, but not to make up the facts to fit your interpretation.”
4) I was involved in the CR. I was not in leadership, but I was in Virginia during much of the height of things and so I was there. I read and listened to leaders on both sides.
A denominational division is never pretty. Did it need to be done? I believe it did.
When I said, “Move On”, I am talking about a small cadre of bloggers who will discuss nothing other than the evils of the CR. it is not healthy to become obsessed by a perceived evil done to you in the past.
I have seen this in a divorced couple. One person moves on through the pain to forge a new life. The other side gets bogged down in hate and anger and hurt and spends the rest of their life trying to justify their anger.
I have a man in my church like that. He was done wrong by his wife. Every week after my message, he will come to me and tell me how that applies to his ex-wife. His whole world revolves around the wrong done to him by his wife.
I see that in some folks who are CR-fixated. In that line, I say, “Move on.” If you were hurt, forgive. Extend grace. The SBC is what it is. Either we are going to move forward, or not. But if you cannot move forward with the SBC, find another faith fellowship you can move forward with.
There is too much going on in this world to continue fighting the battle day after day, week after week, year after year.
Here’s what I do not understand. Why do people stay in the SBC when all they do is trash it and its leaders? If the moderates had won and the liberals at SBTS, MWBTS, and SEBTS had stayed in charge, I am pretty sure I’d be E Free, or Bible church or Conservative Baptist or BGC or something else today.
One prominent blogger puts up post after post delineating how horrible and awful the SBC and its leaders are. If the SBC is what he says, why stay?
I’m not issuing a “love or leave it” edict. No one in the SBC has that right. But if you hate it so much, why stay with it? I just don’t understand.
So, Tom, Ron, others who are so critical of the SBC in its current iteration. Why do you stay a part of something you think is so wrong? So guilty of sin? So shamed by its recent past.
Dave Miller:
Simple answer for me. I do not hate the SBC. I have 35 years of my life invested in the SBC and you or no one else will force me to leave.
No one is trying to force you to leave. Is you will read my comment #223 you will see that I said that.
But I have never heard you speak a good word about the SBC, its leaders or its direction. If I was part of an organization I couldn’t say a good word about, I would probably go elsewhere.
So, Tom, what is good about the SBC that makes you want to stay?
Dave:
You said–”But I have never heard you speak a good word about the SBC, its leaders or its direction. If I was part of an organization I couldn’t say a good word about, I would probably go elsewhere.
So, Tom, what is good about the SBC that makes you want to stay?”
I believe there is a movement in the SBC to make corrections to where the CR has brought us. This too me is good.
BTW you said–:If I was part of an organization I couldn’t say a good word about, I would probably go elsewhere.”
That is the difference between you and I, I am not leaving. Too many have already left the SBC instead of staying and holding you guys that are in charge accountable.
Why is the SBC denomination run differently than the local assembly is? Scripture doesn’t give only one man (the pastor) the overseeing rule (CEO) of the entire local church. Why is it different on a local basis and not within the denomination structure? Do we organize the kingdom work like a worldly business? I think not. Our identity may need to begin with a similar structure as the local church and then mix in the levels of doctrine that identify us.
Tom, I am interested to know, do you think the CR should have never happened, or just done differently? What about the history do you loathe so much? I wasn’t involved, I just know what I have heard, read and been told. I would like to hear your version.
Bruce, I think I like what you are saying (if you fleshed it out with a little more detail, I’d probably like it more).
Tom said, “Too many have already left the SBC instead of staying and holding you guys that are in charge accountable.”
That is the first time anyone has ever mistaken me for a “guy in charge” in the SBC.
Tom, I think you are misunderstanding me. I’m not telling you to leave. I am just saying two things:
1) I am weary of that small group of bloggers (you would be included) who make everything we discuss another example of how evil the CR was.
I think you will admit that I have engaged you and we have never had the kind of angry exchanges you have had with others on my side on this. I try not to do that. I’m not angry now.
But I just don’t think everything is CR related.
2) I have not heard you or Ron or several others say anything about the SBC except how awful it is and I don’t understand why you would stay in it on that basis. That is your decision and you don’t have to justify yourself to me. But I just don’t understand it.
3) If you are trying to hold people accountable and make (in your view) a positive impact on the SBC, I would only say that you need to change your methods.
Have you ever known someone who just complained all the time? Eventually, you stop listening to them, even when they have something good to say.
If you want to make a change in the SBC, my suggestion (which you didn’t ask for…) would be to stop looking at the past that angers you and start looking toward the future. What do we need to do from here? Where do we need to go? How do we make this thing work?
If the answer is “undo the CR” then you probably aren’t going to get anywhere. I would not be a part of a denomination that doesn’t stress inerrancy and the fundamental doctrines of the faith.
So, here I lay down the gauntlet, Tom. What changes does the SBC need to make to go forward and prosper?
Vol, I think the CBF is what we would have become had the CR not taken place. That is not a place I wanted to go.
Dan:
It should have been done differently.
Tom, that is true with much in life, but I am not any less confused. What should have been done differently?
Tom, re 232, I do not completely disagree. We needed to hold the seminaries accountable to doctrinal standards. Perhaps it could have been done differently. I’m not sure.
Certainly, many of us could have behaved differently.
Tom, I am hoping for a forceful answer to my question at the end of comment 230. I think we can have a productive discussion.
Thanks, Dave. (Comment 229)
I hope it relates to my comment #227. The Baptist denomination needs to be set up as if it is part of the body of Christ, not a business. Both the church and the denomination must have identical flow charts. Each level must have that presence of pastoral type leadership, to me. That is how we are “shepherded” through the worldly system at each level. If we have not the system that has prayer and bible study in each level we have not a system; we have a worldly business. If we are kingdom people we must maintain kingdom processes at each level of our system. A reform is necessary at this point and we need to seek that at all cost, even to the point of separation, if necessary. But separation is not the goal.
I do want to say that we must recognize the spiritual gifts of each person in our system, too. If your gift is prophesy you are responding to the system correctly. Even though we may not receive prophesy the same way they did in Jesus day we respond with the same Word of God as the prophets did. We speak the Word prophetically to those whose actions are contrary to what God has said in His Word, whether Liberal, Moderate or Conservative. The Word is the Word of God as if He spoke directly to the ones with the gift of prophet. Never should we say that we do not need the gift of prophet or say the prophet must move on. We must hear the prophet and recognize that God has spoken through them, too. All the gifts must function to keep the whole body pure and holy.
That’s my heart according to what I know about scripture.
As was said in Eddie Murphy’s Nutty Professor: “Somebody Call my Name”
I think it was Dave Miller in comment 213
One of my bottom line points is my friend David Rogers read the Hughes piece on Baptist I’D and didn’t find much at all to disagree with.
What I am looking for now is an honest discussion between DAvid Rogers, Anne Graham Lotz, Callam of the BWA Wade Burleson, Charles Marsh whose worshipped with Peace Committee’s Charles Pickering about that time; let’s have an honest updated conversation about where everything is now and let’s bring Richard Land’s work with James Dobson and Karl Rove front and center and see where the SBC is now.
Until then for those of you who care to look I will continue to hold Harold Bloom’s Treatment of the CR in the 93 The American Religion is most honest and insightful exegesis of the CR to date, and his investigation of Resolution Number 5 at the 88 San Antonio Convention rings true like the Gospel.
And Richard Marius as early as Dec 81 Esquire was quite prophetic as well.
And don’t we remember when Pressler walked off the set of Bill Moyers’ interview Christmas 87.
Ain’t no fools here, brothers.
Look again at Hughes as DAvid Rogers was kind enough to do; and do look at the kind words I said about Rogers just a few hours ago in the comments at http://www.bteditor.blogspot.com
David Miller:
You said:”Vol, I think the CBF is what we would have become had the CR not taken place. That is not a place I wanted to go.”
Do you and others ever think about how slanderous it is to make the above statement? Born again believers that used to be a part of the SBC before the CR, leaving or being left by the SBC were supposed to go where?
You make the above statement and I will make the following statement–The SBC would be much better off if the CR had never taken place.
Thirty years later the SBC is trying to revive BOLD MISSION THRUST.
Now, you and some others will immediately dislike the above statement, but I likewise dislike it when you and others say without the CR we would have become the CBF.
Neither you and I can actually prove our above predictions.
We were becoming what the liberal denominations now are before the CR took place. Liberals/Moderates were in complete control of everything SBC. WE WERE ALREADY BECOMING THE METHODIST AND PRESBYTERIANS AND EPISCOPALIANS. Good grief, Charlie Brown. I was there. I saw it. I heard it. Dave was there. He saw it. He heard it. CB was there. He saw it. He heard it.
Dont try to rewrite history.
If the CR had not happened, then there would have been a mass exodus. The CR happened, and there was just a little trickle exodus.
David
I think we are beginning to go in circles. I don’t think anyone things the CR was bad, there is just disagreement to if it was done properly. The liberal thrust of the SBC needed to be removed. I don’t know how you do that without causing some hurt. This is not pure academia, this is faith. Does anyone set out to become a heretic, or a liberal, or a stumbling block? What do you do when that happens? Pruning is never pleasant for the vine. Was there a better way to handle it? Probably. Instead of moving forward however, I see many of the CR method opponents re-living history, making the same mistakes. I think that was Dave’s point about moving on. No use to re-live history over and over. We are in the same fight, causing the same division. To what avail?
Dan:
Please define–”Liberal Thrust.”
The methods of the CR left a permanent stain on the SBC and getting over it aint going to work.
Denying the inerrecy of scripture, open theism, anything associated with the Jesus Seminar.
Getting over it, no. Learning to forgive like Christ forgave, that’s a start. We can forgive the pagan, but not our brothers and sisters. Doesn’t seem very New Testament to me. the testing of the metal comes when you are wronged, and no one asks for forgiveness, will you still give it?
Tom, you are right, our interpretations of recent history are not likely to come together any time soon. We will have to accept that.
Here is my question to you. I am genuinely interested in your answer. Actually, Ron West, if you come back by, the question is to you as well.
Where do we go from here? You have said you are not going to stop being SBC. Fine. How do we fix the mess you believe we are in?
Dan Barnes:
You said:
“Denying the inerrecy of scripture, open theism, anything associated with the Jesus Seminar.”
Who were these thousands and maybe millions of SB who denied the inerrancy of scriptures? Don’tt know about the other two items you mentioned.
Just because someone would not mouth the words–”I believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures” was a way used to ruin the lives of even if it was one person–too many people.
It became the litmus test. I say it was a tactic.
That word inerrancy does not have the simplest of definitons.
That little word “inerrancy” became the vehicle to destroy many people’s lives in the SBC.
It was said they did not believe THE BIBLE.
I say it just was not and is not that simple.
I am not going to argue semantics, definitions, and to be honest, I wasn’t there. I didn’t interview, I didn’t ask, and frankly, in 2009 (almost 2010) it doesn’t matter. I can’t undo it. So what do you want Tom? You want me to say I’m sorry? Ok, I’m sorry. I would like to hear your answer to Dave’s question. What next?
Dan:
You said–”I am not going to argue semantics, definitions, and to be honest, I wasn’t there”
Who is wanting to argue? Them little things like semantics and defintions happen to mean a lot. But it is ok if you don’t want to discuss them. Just stick your head back in the sand and continue on.
Why the hostility, brother? Thanks for bringing this “discussion” to an end between you and I. You were not there, so I guess it really does not matter. You really do not care what happened to people during the CR because you were not there. I wish you well.
I’m not being hostile. There is no hostility. I am not mad. And it’s not that my head is in the sand, I am only 33, I wasn’t there. It’s not a lack of caring about them, it’s a question of what to do now.
I wish that blog posts didn’t have this underlying since of emotionalism tied to it. I simply want to know what will make things right in your eyes.
I am going to challenge you once again, Tom. You can ignore me if you want, but here is my challenge.
You have condemned the CR. Fine. What do we do now? What is your solution.
Wouldn’t you agree that criticism is not correction? So, I understand you criticisms even if I do not understand them.
Now, give me your idea of a solution. That was the intent of the post – not to argue about the past but to focus on the future.
What does Tom Parker say has to happen to correct the problems he sees in the CR?
That is my question Tom, and my whole point. What do we do NOW. I don’t know what happened then, I wasn’t there, I can’t make a judgment. I have limited info. I have no solid data to go on, just opinion. What I do know is where we are now. What now?
Gentlemen,
I would think that a group of you who disagree with the whole need to get together and come up with a unanimous answer or question and approach those who you are in disagreement with to seek out their answer. The approach must have a final decision. If they disagree, make a statement of disagreement and separate yourself from them and head in a different direction. There is nothing wrong with being independent or separate if they are wrong and your congregation agrees. Make your faith known. Make sure your church is backing you and then approach the issue. If you have to separate, then everyone is in agreement. We need to let them know that there is something more important than unity under “compromise”.
Bruce, I have certain “irreducible minimums” for any denominational affiliation. I have been Southern Baptist all my life. I will probably die a Southern Baptist. But if the SBC strays from certain fundamentals, I would no longer feel comfortable affiliating and would go independent or look at another denom.
1) Inerrancy. If we don’t agree that the Bible is true and is our ultimate authority, we have no basis for fellowship.
2) Fundamental Theology. Jesus is the only way. Salvation by grace with no mixture of works. Blood atonement. etc.
3) Great Commission focus. If we are not about the GC (in deeds, not words) what good are we?
4) Baptistic general outlook. I don’t think we are the only ship in the sea, but this is who we are. If you don’t believe in Baptism by immersion, fine. I can welcome you as a brother, maybe join for some evangelistic efforts and but not partner with you in church planting and missions.
I could probably add some things, but these are the basics.
Tom, I’m going to challenge you again. You have criticized strongly. Now, what’s your solution?
Bruce:
Who is suggesting unity under “compromise.”? Where are you getting that? I for one would suggest no such thing. I even have things I would not compromise.
Dave Miller:
You said–:” Inerrancy. If we don’t agree that the Bible is true and is our ultimate authority, we have no basis for fellowship.”
Does someone have to mouth the words–I believe the Bible is inerrant to believe in inerrancy?
Solutions for the SBC–I believe we could easily increase missions giving to the Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong offerings if the SBC would make it clearer what these two ladies did as missionaries.
In the current environment of the SBC I see their names being used but not the fantastic stories which are the background to these two wonderful ladies. I do not believe this would be the case if their names were Lot Moon and Andrew Armstrong.
I don’t care if you use the word inerrancy. But why not?
Do you believe that the Bible is true in everything it affirms?
If someone believes the Bible is wrong in any area, I cannot feel good about that.
I care about the CONCEPT of inerrancy and the absolute authority of scripture – in word and in practice.
As to Lottie and Annie – I wouldn’t say that this is the denomination’s fault, but the churches. There are a LOT of materials out there about these ladies. But churches don’t make use of them. I try to.
That’s a good start. Anything else?
More specifically – what is your view of scripture. Forget the word inerrancy and the political controversy related to it.
Dave Miller:
I believe the Word of God and do not believe it to be wrong
in any area.
Another suggestion for the SBC–their needs to be more input from the SBC for the yearly convention. I believe the pool of people that attend the Convention is way to small to make decisions for the others.
Dave,
Agreed. We stand for and support fundamental biblical truths. Even though we are set up to function locally we have to support a very manifold spray of libral/moderate views. I do not like that and would prefer to see that the investment of my tithes and offerings support my fundamental beliefs. If not, we might as well mix with every other denomination and non-denomination. There is something about being like minded within our core beleifs. If we should not separate we should be able to designate our support and offerings to what we strongly believe. If it can be set up that way we could see where most of us stand. Additionally, what is not best supported would be left to fend for themselves. That would tell us more about who we really are as Baptist.
Tom, that has been a constant suggestion by some – the idea of online participation or regional sites. It is certainly something worth discussing as technology gets more prevalent.
I would say several things about that.
1) In polling, they interview 1000 people and predict the voting of all of America. Do we know that the voting or the decisions would change if we included people from all over.
2) I think there might be some advantage to having those who are knowledgeable, and who care about the convention enough to travel and attend, make the bulk of the decisions.
3) There is an old principle (biblical or not, I’m not sure) that God moves in the gathering of believers. So, the reason most churches don’t allow proxy or absentee voting is the idea that you need to be there to seek God and discern his will together. Obviously, that’s not how it always goes. But that is the ideal.
4) You hate to think of something like this, but regional or internet voting would open things up to voter fraud, wouldn’t it. I could register all 10 of my messengers and then make their votes for them. How could anyone tell if there are ten people here in Sioux City, or just me voting 10 times?
Just some thoughts. Implicit (if I understand you) is the idea that the convention would make different decisions if more people got involved.
I’m not sure. There may be ways to make this work as we go forward.
Chiming in late here:
I personally believe the Bible is inerrant. However, I quit having that debate long ago. I think the real issue behind the inerrancy debate is authority. I personally know that many people on the errant side are really just looking for a way for the Bible not to be authoritative. And I know many in my own camp who though they fight about how true the scriptures are never live them out or obey them. So to both sides, the issue now is authority.
Tom,
Compromise is a concept of finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms—often involving variations from an original goal or desire.
When something changes from the original and good men do nothing, what is that called?
I am a strong believer of the operation and fuction of the Spiritual gifts within the church. If someone is gifted to address a compromise of truth we should back them and support their efforts. They are gifted and commissioned to do what they do and a vital part of the church. We cannot ask them to move on or accept something that thier spirit cannot accept. I, for one, can see the compromise of truth within the church. By confrontation, I find myself in the same position as Jeremiah and Noah; I have no converts. Yes, we must know how to speak to people and how to properly relay the information without cramming it down their throat, however, we must also stand firm if our knowledge and understanding is true and right. By not responding, we are basically accepting what has been incorporated in a compromise. If we do not continue to address any and all of the ideas that break down the truth of Gods word we are compromising whether we think we are or not.
While I appreciate the suggestions, I haven’t seen a solution to a problem that is so large it requires the amount of negativity that has been posted. Tom, you told me to pull my head out of the sand, yet the solutions are more info about Annie Armstrong, and proxy voting. Am I missing something?
Dan:
It is just best that I not attempt to have a discourse with you because your tone of voice is a turn off. I truly offered some legitimate suggestions that I believe would allow us to go forward. But you do not see them as suggestions to forward. Fine. We are millions of miles apart in understanding.
I said your head was in the sand because you did not want to learn from the past as it relates to the CR–just that simple and accurate in my opinion.
Know you want buy it but I’m really not trying to be negative.
Tom, I am not trying to be accusatory or negative, and I am sorry if it has come across that way. My point about not being there was simply that I can not judge the hearts or views of those on either side in the CR, because I wasn’t there. I understood from you that many were tossed out of he SBC offices because they would not affirm the vocabulary used by the CR of inerrency. Right? My point was simply that I could not judge the position of those individuals, I was not there. Maybe they believed in inerrency, but didn’t want to use the CR definition. Maybe they rejected inerrency, I don’t know. I wasn’t there.
My question is, in our estimation, is there not a more serious and grievous issue in the SBC aside from the mission offerings?
Lastly, you can’t hear me. you don’t know me. Please don’t make inferences concerning my “tone of voice”. That is more a reaction to your view on how I am attempting to communicate, when in reality, that is not accurate. Please don’t put me in that box. If you don’t wish to dialogue with me, then you have that right, but (in my calmest voice) please don’t attempt to dictate to me how I am speaking.
Rastis,
I would agree in general with what you have said. I just haven’t come up with a better word than inerrancy to describe my position, though it has all these negative connotations.
I think you are right about one thing, though. How we treat the Word is more important than what we say about it.
Anyone who says they believe in the inerrancy but does not submit completely to the authority of scripture over their lives, who compromises its truth, or who adds human rules to its perfect message is not really an inerrantist.
Tom, I know Dan better than I know you, though I’ve blogged with you often. I think you might be misreading his intent.
For what its worth…
You know the problem! The lag on this typing window. If i was a wise man, I would type it in WORD and cut and paste. If I sound inpatient, it’s this silly lag on this text box. Anyone else have it?
“Anyone who says they believe in the inerrancy but does not submit completely to the authority of scripture over their lives, who compromises its truth, or who adds human rules to its perfect message is not really an inerrantist.”
Couldnt agree more!
Even nancy Ammerman and Bill Leonard had some reservations about the tone of some of the remarks and assertions in Harold Bloom’s treatment of the SBC in the American Religion.
Even so I challenge David Miller and David Rogers with as much an investment as they have in the history of the SBC of the last 30 odd years to give Bloom a careful read.
There is more truth in there than they may be able to stomach; but lot there to chew on.
I am looking forward to Charles Marsh lectures for the Baptist Joint Committee in Bham this coming April. Marsh, the nephew of Fisher Humphreys, one of the pivotal figures to interview Pressler in the heart of the CR; will certainly see Bonhoeffer in a different light than Timothy George; Bonhoeffer a Saint to whom Bloom makes stinging reference at CR and Inerrancy’s expense in The American Religion.
Easy to get a used copy of Bloom’s sterling work for 5 bucks and up easy google search.
Miller and my friend David Rogers have no excuses.
Hope to see you post a Review and discussion of Bloom on SBC early in 2010 here at SBC Impact
And Stephen, I would recommend to you “The Truth in Crisis” by James Hefley which gives a lot of the history and background of the CR. You might find it interesting to read SBC history from more than one perspective.
Stephen:
What is the exact name of Bloom’s book?
Hefley devoted several pages to me in his 88 San Antonio edition of CR Series.
I’m quite familiar with the 60′s and 70′s activity of fundamentalism in the SBC. In most libraries like Samford and Baylor there is a collection of books in the BX 6400 shelves. I have read almost all of them and am referenced in the footnotes of two, the one by Morgan and the book the Rise of Baptist Republicanism. I think I have some footnotes in Hankins book on Baptists and Babylon.
David: Bloom is out there. You share a passion for the subject. I cannot see why you couldn’t make time for his 50 some odd exquisite pages on the SBC over the Holidays so we can take this chat to the next level as it were.
Excerpts from Bloom’s exact title The American Religion and I quote:
C.3.2.2 Bloom on “Biblicism” (the Southern Baptists as an example)
[Bloom 222-223]
…The overwhelming urgency (and viciousness) of Southern Baptist Fundamentalism surpasses all other American instances of that errancy, and makes it shockingly similar to Iranian Shiite Fundamentalism or the worst excesses of the Neturei Karta in Israel. In a most grievous way, the strength and uniqueness of the Moderate Southern Baptist tradition, as codified by Mullins, involuntarily helped produce the furious anti-intellectualism of Criswell, Pressler, and the other representative leaders of the now dominant Fundamentalist faction of the Southern Baptist Convention. The mystical distrust of language in the Moderates, with its attendant repudiation of theology, is reduced by the Fundamentalists to a total devaluation of all language and all thought. Even as Fundamentalists insist upon the inerrancy of the Bible, they give up all actual reading of the Bible, since in fact its language is too remote and difficult for them to begin to understand. What is left is the Bible as physical object, limp and leather, a final icon or magical talisman. To read Criswell or any other Fundamentalist clergyman on the Bible is almost a literal impossibility, at least for me, because they are not writing about the text, in any sense whatsoever of text, or of that text. They write about their own dogmatic social, political, cultural, moral, and even economic convictions, and biblical texts simply are quoted, with frenetic abandon, whether or not they in any way illustrate or even approach the areas where the convictions center. They are quoted also as though they interpreted themselves and were perfectly transparent in their meanings-
It seems heartless to blame the Moderate Baptists for any aspect of this absurdity, but no Southern Baptist (as such) seems to be much at home with or in language. Theology depends upon analogies, arguments, metaphors, all of which enforce the difference between words and the realities they represent. Fundamentalist Baptists never even seem to realize that the Bible is in the first place language. But Moderate Baptists, being sincere and pragmatic Enthusiasts in their unmediated relationship to Jesus, tend to despair that the unmediated experience they have of Jesus ever can be represented in language. We thus have the paradox that the Fundamentalists resent or ignore language, while the Moderates at best are ambivalent towards it, and probably even fear it, since they do not wish it to mediate Jesus for them.
Christian Fundamentalism essentially is a North American phenomenon; except for the United States and Canada, it has had an indigenous life only in Ulster. Its other worldwide manifestations tend to be exported from the United States. Yet I cannot regard it as anything but a parody of what I have called the American Religion. Its spiritual content, to the religious critic, is difficult to locate. This was not always so; there were some serious intellects involved in later nineteenththrough earlier twentieth-century Fundamentalism. Today, there are none, and yet Fundamentalism threatens to become almost a synonym for Evangelicalism in contemporary America. Partly this is caused by media overreporting, and by the plain shock experienced by our upper-middle-class public each time they find themselves yet again allied with lowermiddle-class Fundamentalists in the support of Reagan, Bush, and their party. The moral agenda of the Fundamentalists is rather drab, and, like Bush, generally reduces to waving the flag and the fetus at us as though these constituted a single entity.…
[Bloom 228-230, 232]
….American history provides the useful example of the bigoted nineteenth-century political party called the Know-Nothings, which is a highly appropriate name for the dominant reactionaries among the Southern Baptists. It is especially applicable because they know nothing at all, including the Bible, which they carry about but appear never to have read. Real Fundamentalists would find their archetype in the formidable J. Gresham Machen, a remarkable Presbyterian New Testament scholar at Princeton, who published a vehement defense of traditional Christianity in 1923, with the aggressive title Christianity and Liberalism. I have just read my way through this, with distaste and discomfort but with reluctant and growing admiration for Machen’s mind. I have never seen a stronger case made for the argument that institutional Christianity must regard cultural liberalism as an enemy to faith. Machen reviewed E. Y. Mullins’s Christianity at the Cross Roads (1924) with a rugged empirical attack on Mullins’s characteristic personalism and mysticism. What remains the Moderate Southern Baptist vision of the Resurrection, an intensely emotional confrontation between the Baptist Soul and the resurrected Jesus, was decried by Machen as an evasion. Either Jesus was resurrected, as a bodily fact, or he was not. Termed by George M. Marsden a commonsense follower of Sir Francis Bacon, Machen also reminds me of the boldly realistic Dr. Samuel Johnson. One can see Machen refuting Mullins in the style of Johnson refuting Bishop Berkeley, with Machen rebounding from kicking the great stone rolled aside from the tomb of Jesus. But if Machen, a scholar and an intellect, is rightly called a Fundamentalist, then I must insist that Wally Amos Criswell and his swarm be called something else, and Know-Nothings will do very nicely.
The background of the Know-Nothing coup at the Southern Baptist Convention of 1979 goes back a very long way, but I will pick it up, in Marsden’s wake, with arguments conducted in America a century before that, between premillennialists and postmillennialists. Postmillennialism had dominated the country until the end of the Civil War, and was particularly identified with our major theologian, Jonathan Edwards. Our age was fulfilling the prophecies of the Revelation of John the Divine, and at the end of our time would come the thousand years pervaded by the Holy Spirit, after which Jesus would return. But in the 1870s, a premillennialist drive began, with the growing sense of a new dispensationalism, which deprecated our era, denounced supposed progress, and reaffirmed ultrasupernaturalism. The dispensationalists, who became authentic Fundamentalists, first circulated the term “inerrancy” in regard to the Bible. The Know-Nothings of Nashville and Dallas have taken over the term, but originally it had a factual, indeed an empirical meaning. God had created both the cosmos and Scripture, so each would manifest a freedom from any error in design. The Bible, like the universe, would yield everything to a Baconian search of the facts. Gresham Machen inherited this argument, which he developed with great force. His dispensationalist or premillenarian condemnation of American culture as a Babylonish liberalism had a strong factual basis in the United States of the 1920s. Whatever we think of this today, we ought never to confuse it with the Know-Nothings who assert they are its heirs but are nothing of the kind. Marsden rightly insists that Fundamentalism was primarily a religious movement and only peripherally a social and political matter. But, as he added, that was Fundamentalism up to 1925, and not the movement of 1980, when his book was published. The tragedy of the Southern Baptist Convention is the result of a purely political and social conspiracy that still masquerades as a religious movement. Its reductive anti-intellectualism reminds one of the Spanish Fascism of Franco; the Know-Nothing Baptists are the heirs of Franco’s crusade against the mind, and not the legatees of Gresham Machen. But Fascist has never domesticated itself as an American term, so I will continue to employ Know-Nothing as the accurate counter here.
The pietism or near mysticism of Southern Baptist experiential faith does not provide much worldly defense against a Know-Nothing crusade. No version of religion that stakes everything upon a personal friendship with Jesus is going to educate its followers against conspirators. Mullins was a remarkable religious writer, but no prophet; he did not foresee the authentic decline in American and Southern culture that made Criswell not only possible but inevitable. The Bible is the most difficult of all difficult books. The general decline in the ability to read nearly anything in the age of television has made the Bible almost impossible to read for all except an elite. Consider then the relief that the Baptist KnowNothings brought with them as they stormed the Convention in 1979 and afterwards. You no longer had the burden of reading the Bible for yourself. Criswell would do it for you, and would assure you that its prime meaning was its inerrancy. That required no interpretation, but only assent, an assent without grammar, understanding, or even coherence. Ellen Rosenberg, who is grimly and respectfully quite funny on this matter, quotes a Southern Baptist church bureaucrat as saying: “We hold together in the Spirit, not around words.” There is the crux; if you listen to an audio tape by the venerable Criswell in which he purports to interpret a biblical text, you hear, not an exegete, but someone who has not yet realized that the Bible is written in words. The Southern Baptist distrust of language, disconcerting enough in Mullins, becomes a positive resentment, almost a hatred of language, in the KnowNothings. The obscure, perhaps permanent, fear and dislike of language in so many working-class Southern Baptists makes them the inevitable victims of the Criswellite Texans. Their inerrant Bible, they are assured, was not so much written by God or by inspired prophets, as it was created by God. Creationism, I am now convinced, is only secondarily directed against the ghost of Charles Darwin. It is directed instead against all those who might deny that the Bible is a vast, solid object, like a cliff or a First Baptist Church in a Texas city. Neo-Fundamentalists want a densely substantial inerrancy, a truth beyond language, beyond ambiguity, beyond any possibility of refutation. Their ancestors were drenched in the Bible, twice-baptized with every immersion in its pages. Very few of them could pass the most elementary sort of Bible quiz, for the real meaning of “inerrant” is now “unread.”…
This results in an impossible situation for Moderate pastors attending a Southern Baptist Convention. How do you argue against Know-Nothing ministers, many of whom border upon functional illiteracy? Frustrated by eleven previous inerrant stampedes, most of the Moderates simply stayed away from the 1991 Convention, and are unlikely to return in their lifetimes. Once you eliminate the misleading word “Fundamentalism,” the true dilemma of the Moderates is clarified. You can argue against dogmatism, which is the traditional enemy of the Southern Baptists in the shape of Roman Catholic doctrine. But how can you argue with an ignorance stubbornly proud of itself? Soul competency, religious liberty, the priesthood of the believer: what can these mean to a Texas inerrantist, whose true inheritance is dispensationalism or Premillennialism…?
…The exaltation of soul competency and the emphasis upon the priesthood of the believer necessarily made for diffuse organizational structures. When the Pressler-Criswell Know-Nothings plotted their takeover, they accurately counted upon very little inherent organizational resistance. Where nearly all are acreedal, it proved relatively easy to begin imposing creeds, while calling them something else. Added to all this was the Convention’s tradition of affirming unity, at whatever cost, in order to avoid schism. Themselves the consequence of a schism with Northern Baptists, the Southern Baptists had an ancient fear of the possible consequences of dividing again.
Though the Moderates represented nearly half of the Convention’s membership, they are very aware of how difficult it will be to create an entirely new denomination. After their eighth consecutive defeat, in 1986, they formed a rather tentative grouping, the Southern Baptist Alliance. In 1991, grimly cognizant that this was insufficient, they tried again with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Unless this links up, in time, with Northern Baptists (the American Baptist churches) or with one of the African-American Baptist groups, it may wane rather quickly. Leaving the Southern Baptist Convention is an emotional wound, but presumably more and more Moderates will come to realize that the Convention increasingly is being transformed into a wholly different faith from the one set forth by Mullins. Since the Know-Nothings have inherited nothing from the tradition except for its triumphalism, their obduracy, racism, antifeminism, anti-intellectualism, and plutocratic politics will only increase, and will drive out many more Moderates. But the dilemma of most Moderates will continue. They are Southerners and Southwesterners, a nation apart, and uneasy at yielding up regional heritages. More crucially, their mystical personalism has far more in common with African-American Baptists than with Northern Baptists. My surmise is that an entire generation will have to pass before there is an enormous exodus from the Southern Baptist Convention. And yet it must come, even if it affects the children of the Moderates more fully than the current Moderates themselves….
End Quote
From this link:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/mschindler/C/american%20religion.htm
Stephen,
If you could find me something a little more objective and irenic to make your point, I might consider investing the time to read this.
But, skimming through this sample you paste here demonstrates clearly that Ammerman and Leonard had good reason for their misgivings about this book.
R-A-N-T
David Rogers:
I got a smile out of your facetious use of “irenic” but context is everything in reading Bloom.
You have to read with an understanding of his opening chapter explaining what he means by religious criticism.
I was listening to your Dad on the radio in Upstate SC on Monday coming in from family Thanksgiving there.
For a while it was like I was listening to good sermon at my Grandfather’s church outside Rome, Ga in the 60′s; it was good preaching and I think he was getting at the truth of the text telling the story of one of the OT Prophets.
He made one assertion that I found laughable, but that was not the point and my Dad often made laughable assertions while preaching.
Your Dad’s romance with the Scripture came through and that is the point. I think in the right conversation with Bill Leonard, me and you, even Harold Bloom would concede as much to Adrian Rogers.
But the use of inerrancy and the monumental political outcroppings of the SBC CR I am convinced Bloom is more right than wrong and that is where we could have the discussion in January if you will look at the book.
His line on Bonhoeffer (I don’t have the book in hand at the moment) is just too pregnant for all Timothy George and Mohler’s shenanigans with the recent Manhattan Declaration.
Marshall Frady, Billy Graham’s early and I think most insightful biographer to date, came back to Furman before his untimely death in 2003. I would still love to have and I think it would be good fortune to be in my right mind and you in yours, to have in Upstate SC go over with you and Ginny Brant (Dent’s daughter; maybe Steven Miller could stand it for Frady) and a couple Furman faculty, particularly who quoted and held in high esteem John Calvin in the Marilynne Robinson understanding of him; would love to have the good fortune to have a three day civil conversation about all this.
In lieu of that I guess I have to hope you turn up a copy of Bloom and read in context and maybe we can further explore in January or so.
And or you prepare a way now, make room on your calendar to come to Bham and join me and Timothy George, Charles Marsh and Fisher Humphreys for Marsh BJC lectures in April at Samford in Bham.
If you can commit, I will do what I can to get Hugo Black’s grandson Stephen to come over from UBama to introduce all, all around; though I do not speak for any of the above.
I do hope you saw the kind words I said in your regard at http://www.bteditor.blogspot.com a few days ago.
I don’t think he was being facetious, Stephen.
Stephen,
Dave is right. “Irenic” is a perfectly good word on its own account, independently of who else may have used it in other contexts.
It seems to me you are continually referencing the work of others here. While I can see that there is a place for this every now and then, it would be helpful if you would provide some of your own thoughts directly engaging the actual subject matter of the post.
Brothers:
Maybe we have exhausted everyone’s sense of humor for the day so I tread lightly.
I bring the kitchen sink to this discussion with my wide range of references cause as we all know what happenned in the SBC in the last 30 years was no small thing and had enormous implications for the character of our Great Nation and its course, not to mention the Kingdom of God.
I cannot write off what George Truett, Martin King and Stewart Newman did just to name a few just because Criswell and Adrian Rogers, Pressler and Patterson had a difference of opinion.
Bloom adds great insight into the matter.
I don’t know how else to say it.
He brings much more gravitas to the subject than our friend James Hefley.
I thought you would liked my anecdote about your Dad’s Monday sermon on the radio and memories of my Grandfather.
Maybe not.
Even so hope other things are well and we all maintain a little ireny (pun and mispelling attempted and intentional)
Stephen,
Peace
I did enjoy the anecdote about my dad and your granddad.
And, I read your comment at Baptists Today Blogs a couple of days ago.
Stephen,
With all due respect, as much as I’m able to have in this situation, I only had to read a few sentences of your long quote from Bloom’s book to see that he is an idiot, and he has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about. He’s also obviously coming from a very biased point of view. I think we can all guess which bias he’s coming from as we read the quote.
After reading Bloom’s quote, I want to emphasis my “Hallelujah, praise God for the CR” declaration.
David
007:
You said:”With all due respect, as much as I’m able to have in this situation, I only had to read a few sentences of your long quote from Bloom’s book to see that he is an idiot, and he has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about.”
Is it really necessary for you to call this man an idiot? Have you personally administered an IQ test for this man and know that his IQ is so slow as to qualify as an idiot(–in your words)as an idiot. I myself would not label him that, but it appears in your quest to put this man down because of his anti-cr position, you have to personally insult his intelligence.
I would think as a PASTOR you would be more sensitive than this, but I guess not.
Tom,
I re read this….thought about what I said…and, I have to say that I was probably a little bit too nice in my comment #278. I should have said it more sternly, but I held back.
I dont have much respect for liberals, who try to put down the Word of God and God’s men; and who try to rewrite history to fit their warped perspective.
David
007:
Thanks for continuing to show your true colors. As someone recently said–”you are being inapproriate, 007.”
So you think calling someone an idiot is appropriate for a PASTOR to be calling someone else?
I do not think there are many people who in “your books” is not “liberal.”
Personally I think you engage in a lot of rewriting of the CR to met your ???? perspective.
A friendly reminder of our commenting “standard” #1:
“Please exercise grace and humility when making comments. We understand that there will be opportunities for healthy debate from time to time. But please keep your comments focused upon the issues in question. Please do not attack, slander, or malign any individual. If you step outside the bounds of Christian honor and dignity, you will be warned. We sincerely hope that we will never have to suspend any commenting privileges.”
Let’s consider this a general warning to everyone for the time being.
http://www.sbcimpact.net/standards/
David Rogers:
Are you warning 007 and me or just me?
Thank you, David
As David said, and I concur – it is a gentle reminder to everyone that we are here to discuss, not to call one another names and exchange insults. To whomever that applies, let it apply.
Tom, I went out of my way on this comment stream to ask for your positive comments on what should be done. I appreciate that you gave those. Lets either let the comment stream die or go back to making positive suggestions for the future of the SBC.
How does that sound?
David Miller:
007: Said to
Stephen,
With all due respect, as much as I’m able to have in this situation, I only had to read a few sentences of your long quote from Bloom’s book to see that he is an idiot, and he has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about. He’s also obviously coming from a very biased point of view. I think we can all guess which bias he’s coming from as we read the quote.
After reading Bloom’s quote, I want to emphasis my “Hallelujah, praise God for the CR” declaration.
David
Is what 007 written above acceptable by SBCimpact commenting guidelines?