Who Loves You?
Topic: Humor| Written by: Paul Littleton|Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Southern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Southern Conservative Baptist or Southern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Southern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Southern Baptists of Texas Convention or Baptist General Convention of Texas?” He said, “Southern Baptists of Texas Convention.” I said, “Me, too!”
Southern Baptists of Texas Convention Baptist Faith & Message 1963 or Southern Baptists of Texas Convention Baptist Faith & Message 2000?” He said, “Southern Baptists of Texas Convention Baptist Faith & Message 1963.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:49 am
To the administrators of SBCOutpost: thank you for making it so that the author of each post is now displayed on the website itself.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:00 am
I second Matt. Thanks for adding the author line!
March 12th, 2008 at 8:16 am
You are welcome…
March 12th, 2008 at 9:02 am
A long time ago at a seminary far, far away, I realized that it was very difficult to deal with people who, if they asked you if you believed a list of one hundred things and you said “I believe 99 but have trouble with this one,” concluded that you were a heretic with whom they could have nothing to do.
March 12th, 2008 at 9:07 am
The parable explains my departure from the SBC in 1990
March 12th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Very true of many. However one can substitute many things for the BF&Ms. Dispensationalsim, Covenant theology, Calvinism, Arminianism, etc.. I know that is part of your point. But my point is that many in our churches call Patterson a heretic because he has different views on women and their leadership roles. So you could just put that in their also. BTW that goes either way or vice versa. The Patterson camp does the same thing.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Cool! The SBTC is now accepting the BF&M of 1963. That is something new. One of the “different” things they were doing, from the BGCT, was making churches that wanted to join them sign onto the BF&M of 2000. Maybe they have seen the error of their ways. Good on them, I say!
Tim
March 12th, 2008 at 10:55 am
I don’t buy it. Maybe we are sticklers on some things, but we do have a lot of diversity in our churches, and even our seminaries. We have an openly Calvinistic seminary in an arminian denomination and were going to try to elect the proto-calvinist President until he went and got cancer. We do have people who pray in tongues (We just won’t pay their salary with CP funds) we have amillenialists, premillenialists, fundamentalists, dispensationalists, etc…it seems to me we have a lit of theological diversity, in more liberal denominations they excommunicate you if you refuse to ordain/accept homosexual pastors (see J.I. Packer’s current struggles). Maybe someone out there has more experience in other churches but it sure looks like we’re more diverse (definitely) than the mainline protestant denominations, and probably more than other “evangelical” denominations like PCA, EPC, EPFree, etc.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Robin,
The irony is that, while this post is nothing more than a story that I got from a (non-Baptist) friend in an e-mail, and I slightly changed some of the labels, this is exactly what has happened in our denomination. Ask some of the missionaries who affirmed the BFM 1963 but did not affirm the BFM 2000 why they are not still on the field.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I see a big difference between refusing to pay someone’s salary and declaring them a heretic. We wouldn’t support R.C. Sproul, Ligon Duncan, or even John Piper as missionaries either, but I think that as a denomination we have plenty of fellowship with them.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Ah, but would we have fellowship (and would we work beside for the cause of Christ) more moderate-type Baptists, such as CBF and NBC and ABC folks?
March 12th, 2008 at 11:23 am
RE: my previous post (#11)–it should have said “fellowship with.” My grammar is neither inerrant nor infallible.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Shemei,
I was a missionary who did sign the 2000 statement. I can understand not supporting Sproul or Duncan as missionaries because of infant baptism, but if John Piper joined a Southern Baptist church for one year, why not support him? What keep shim from being appointed if he moved his membership?
March 12th, 2008 at 11:52 am
I enjoyed the humor of the joke, but I agree with some of the posts above.
The idea that the SBC is this monolithic, conformist denomination is hardly true. We have demanded conformity on inerrancy and fundamental doctrines of the faith. We have demanded conformity on baptism by immersion of believers. And we have set down a few other guidelines (some I don’t actually agree with).
But the concept of enforced conformity on all things has been, in my experience, a myth promulgated by critics of the convention - but not based on truth.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Paul, I still know how to laugh at myself and my “family.” Well done. I laughed out loud at this one.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Dave,
BTW: Even after all the “battles” and “wars” for the Bible, you will not find the word “inerrancy” anywhere in the BFM. So, it seems we do not demand conformity on “inerrancy,” only one of many possible definition of “divinely inspired” and “totally true and trustworthy.”
March 12th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Emily,
While you are correct that the word “inerrancy” does not occur in the BFM, even in the 2000 version, I think it is fair to say that the phrase “truth, without any mixture of error,” which was present in earlier versions, is now interpreted to mean “inerrancy.” I dare say that someone who does not affirm that interpretation of the phrase would have a hard time being hired by an SBC school or agency. But I’m not really on the inside, so I welcome correction on that.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
“But the concept of enforced conformity on all things has been, in my experience, a myth promulgated by critics of the convention - but not based on truth.”
Dave, I gotta disagree with you on this one. I watched Molher’s (anger report) speech to the convention and a few things stuck out at me. One is that I think Mohler very much wants enforced conformity of secondary doctrines for professors and perhaps as a creed for the convention but I do not think he would admit that.
He can say it is about primary doctrine but that has already been settled by the CR. We are now onto secondary doctrines.
What concerns me is that there is a ‘group think’ mentality within the academy now that is either not allowed or is afraid to debate interpretations of secondary doctrines. There has been a conformity of beliefs at SBTS on several secondary doctrines within the Academy and this does not produce good scholarship. It does produce good foot soilders, though.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Bill,
I think the fact that Piper believes people baptized as infants should be allowed to join his church and/or receive communion would disqualify him from receiving support from the SBC. I could be wrong, but churches in Missouri last year lost their funding because they partnered with another agency that didn’t believe in prohibition.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Don’t forget to give the professional comedian Emo Philips credit for originating the basic template for this joke. I heard him tell it back in the early 1980s; he just used different denominations. The punchline was identical.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
It’s far easier to justify division than it is to practice unity. We often forget that the command in John 15 to “Love each other” leads directly through John 16 into the high priestly prayer.
Many times our divisions look to outsiders as unloving. I guess we can spend a lot of time trying to explain why they’re not. But wouldn’t it be easier to find reasons to unite instead of insisting on reasons for division?
No…come to think of it…the word easier shouldn’t be in that sentence. Perhaps the word “obedience” is formally more correct.
Greg Harvey
March 12th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
It would be just as funny if we switched the 2000 BFM and the 1963 BFM.
You can see this performed on You Tube by a very strange Christian comedian. I can’t remember his name.
dwmiii
March 12th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Dave,
You said “We have demanded conformity on inerrancy and fundamental doctrines of the faith. We have demanded conformity on baptism by immersion of believers.”
I think I WISH the denomination was close to what you are saying here. However, the BF&M 2000 goes well beyond this and claims that everything in it [including a section on “Peace and War”] is “essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.”
I think what happened was that there was a bunch of conservatives who were “fired up” over inerrancy who ended up voting for a confession in 2000 that was an overstatement in the light of Baptist tradition.
Grace
Benji
P.S. Trying to find now “Peace and War” in the First London, Second London…:)
March 12th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Greg,
I think you are right, the only difference is what direction we would move toward for unity. I, and I suspect most other younger Baptists would want unity with the PCA, EPC, conservative Episcopals, etc. in one big lovely “group” before we had it with moderate or liberal baptists.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I’m reminded of my former church, Sojourn Community Church in Louisville, where we were kicked out of the local moderate/liberal baptist (we used it as our meeting place on Sunday nights) church because of our views on homosexuality and were welcomed with open arms by a local mennonite congregation because they were interested in reaching the trendy part of Louisville for Christ. I’d rather have that mennonite church in my denomination than highland baptist anyday.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
“highland baptist”
Shemei, would you believe that beautiful old church was once a very vibrant and godly place when I was a kid? It makes me angry what has happened to it everytime I pass it.
March 12th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Benji, I don’t disagree that some extraneous stuff got in the BF&M. I think it was sometimes out of fear, and sometimes a reaction (overreaction?) to cultural events and movements.
Emily, those statements you made are synonymous with inerrancy teachings, not in conflict with it.