A Time To Be Honest
Topic: Resolutions, Uncategorized| Written by: Paul Littleton|Seeing as how most of us are in Christian ministry one would think that the time to be honest would be…well…just about any and every time, though in these days being honest may get you branded a malevolent spirit being. But I digress.
Friday morning, May 2nd, Dr. Steve Lemke, Provost at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, sent an e-mail encouraging various faculty and staff to consider the Barber/Yarnell Resolution on Integrity in Church Membership. He certainly did not suggest that they should sign their names to it. He simply stated his own support and offered it to them for their own support if they might be so inclined.
Of course, Tom Ascol has proposed a similar resolution for the past two years and it has been rejected both times. The arguments against Ascol’s resolution have been quite stellar. In Greensboro the official stance of the Resolutions Committee was that we should keep unregenerate people on our church rolls for their prospect value. And a majority of the messengers in session said: “Amen.” Undeterred Ascol submitted his resolution again at last year’s meeting in San Antonio. There it was argued before the messengers that to adopt such a resolution would infringe upon the local church’s autonomy. And a majority of the messengers in sessions said: “Amen.”
Now, I do not know what information other than that Dr. Lemke may have. Perhaps the only other information he has is his own interpretation and opinion of events. Maybe he spoke with some of his colleagues and got a sense of their thinking on this resolution. Maybe Dr. Patterson wasn’t the only one who had a throng of over 500 asking, “What did we just vote on?” But in his e-mail he expresses his thoughts about why Tom Ascol’s resolution twice failed and it had nothing to do with prospects or local church autonomy. It had, in his estimation, everything to do “largely because of its wording and because the person who proposed it is associated with pushing a narrow theological agenda.”
Now, I don’t begrude Dr. Lemke’s opinion about either the wording of the resolution nor what he thinks of Tom Ascol’s theological agenda. It is apparent from the Barber/Yarnell resolution that there are at least some who object to the wording of the Ascol resolution to the extent that, while they believe in the principle behind the resolution, they believed it should be worded more appropriately. From recent online discussions it appears that the offensive language has to do with the subject of repentance. Again, I do not begrudge that opinion, though I may not agree with it.
What I do begrudge, however, is that these objections have never been presented to the messengers. Instead we get this nonsense about leaving lost people on our rolls for their prospect value and that this resolution infringes upon local church autonomy. In other words, the arguments at the convention have been dishonest.
We all know this. I’m quite confident that those making those silly arguments very quickly regretted making them. In two years I have yet to read one person, one blue blood, one died-in-the wool Southern Baptist born, Southern Baptist bred and when they die Southern Baptist dead who has publicly defended either of the arguments made before the convention. Who in their right mind would? I’m pretty sure that if you stuck a gun to their heads today you could not make those members of the Resolutions Committee make either of those arguments again today. Well, maybe if you stuck a gun to their heads. Or perhaps it would only take the resolution being presented by someone with an unpopular “theological agenda” once again. I mean, God forbid that we should pass a resolution presented by a Calvinist. It pretty much doesn’t matter the topic, it would almost certainly result in a loss of missionary zeal if we were to do that.
Let’s be honest. The only agenda Tom Ascol has in presenting this motion is to call the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of our past dishonesty in how we count ourselves and be more faithful in that area as we move forward. Dr. Patterson has expressed that very same agenda in his recent First Person article and Dr. Danny Aiken did as well in a recent interview with the Biblical Recorder. It seems that whatever Tom Ascol’s agenda is here it is one that is shared by other prominent men in our convention.
But the agenda Dr. Lemke is obviously referring to is the Calvinist agenda. What that has to do with this resolution is quite a mystery, unless you want to accuse Calvinists of being historically more concerned with regenerate church membership than those who are not quite so Calvinistic in their theological leanings. But I’m pretty sure that the Calvinists would wear that badge with honor and I can’t for the life of me think of a good reason a non-Calvinist would be proud that they have not been as careful in maintaining a regenerate church.
Put that way it appears that the rejection of the resolution the past two years has been for little more than to stick it to Tom Ascol and his “agenda.” Let me say again, if that is why his resolution has been rejected the past two years I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with are the public (and dishonest) games we have played in the convention so that we don’t come off looking mean or ridiculous. Oh, wait. We have come off looking ridiculous.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Instead we get this nonsense…
The pitiful part is that such words pass my mouth, under my breath, upon contemplating a seemingly ever-greater number of subjects addressed by the SBC.
There are days I begin to think that there simply ain’t no cotton-pickin’ end to it.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:26 am
I agree. The dishonesty is the ugly part of this. Why didn’t the vocal/public opponents of the earlier resolution just say this then? Why didn’t those on the Resolutions committee give this as a reason for not recommending a vote both years?
The dishonesty and lack of integrity (oddly one of the focus’ of Ascol’s resolution) at the highest levels in this convention should shame us all. Why do we expect blessing?
May 12th, 2008 at 7:29 am
What’s so wrong with having a less polarizing person deliver a resolution/motion so that it receives broader support? As I recall, didn’t the Convention pass the Garner motion rather than the Burleson motion or Cole motion?
I don’t think the ACP resolution is against Ascol, but rather is FOR getting the resolution passed.
As for the Convention itself, there are many who will remain against the language of the resolution no matter who presents it.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I seem to have missed some of this debate. Someone answer here:
1. Who on our churches’ rolls is lost?
2. How have our congregations been dishonest about their church membership rolls?
It seems to me: each name on our membership rolls has a story attached; it being fairly impossible to have joined a Baptist church–even one with low expectations for members–by accident, it appears that any existing problem would result from leadership ignorance and not from congregational dishonesty. It may be that our non-resident members are unsaved–seeming to give evidence of not desiring to stay connected to the local church or even to be found; still, there is a story accompanying each name–part of the story took place at the head of a church house aisle.
Almost no Southern Baptist churches (relatively speaking) are organized to integrate their members well into the life of the Kingdom and the church; the result, for the type of purposeful people-groups that churches are, always is a less-bright future (appears to be proving true for the SBC). How are the rest of us doing at: integration, motivation, adaptation, and goal-achievement?–We otherwise really are talking about ourselves in this blog posting.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:19 am
You know, I was watching Expelled, the new Ben Stein movie. It was interesting to watch an Oxford professor say something very similar in regards to darwinism/intelligent design. He said something to the effect:
I would like to think that most of us believe the science has created our worldview (meaning evolution). However, the more I see these guys, the more I understand that their worldview has impacted their science. If we could just admit our biases, we could have a real discussion on the issues.
Should we conclude that as well?
May 12th, 2008 at 9:22 am
It’s Akin, not Aiken.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Chris,
Paul was just wishing he had seen Clay Aiken in Spamalot like I did. He’s a big fan!
Just kidding Paul…
May 12th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Having served on the 2006 Resolutions Committee in Greensboro, please allow me to make an observation.
It is never helpful to assign motives to our brothers and sisters. The deliberations of the 2006 committee had nothing to do with Brother Tom’s reformed theology or the assignment of some ulterior theological motive. I know Tommy French (2006 chairman) and Gerald Harris (2007 chairman) personally. I have only spoken to Tom Ascol one occasion by phone and it was most pleasant. I have no reason to imply that either of the three was telling a lie before the convention’s messengers. And frankly, neither does anyone else.
Granted, Dr. French’s comment about the “prospects” was unfortunate. The comment flowed from a committee discussion about church membership versus Sunday School enrollment. Dr. French was concerned about someone interpreting the resolution as encouraging churches to cull or purge Sunday School rolls. He is a believer in the evangelistic thrust of the Sunday School. Whether you agree or disagree with that concern (I did not), my point is that Tommy French does not believe we should leave unsaved church members on the membership roll in order to win them to Christ. His statement at the podium was an inaccurate assessment of the committee’s deliberation. Even though I understood the context and intent of his statement, I still disagreed with it. But my disagreement with him does not make him “dishonest.”
I was not on the 2007 Committee chaired by Dr. Harris. He is one of my dearest friends in the ministry and I admire him greatly. I do, however, disagree with the committee’s concern that the passage of this resolution would infringe on local church autonomy. Resolutions by their nature are non-binding and do not affect the local churches’ autonomy one way or the other. But this concern was also raised in committee discussions in 2006. I disagreed with this line of thinking then and I still do. But I believe those who raised this issue were sincere in their expression. My disagreement with them does not make them “dishonest.”
In 2006, there were those who believed that the motion to insert “10 percent language” into the Ad Hoc Committee’s Report to the convention infringed on local church autonomy. I did not see how inserting the word “encourage” into the report violated church autonomy. The convention’s messengers could have still nominated and elected any person they desired without respect to his/her CP giving. For me there was no autonomy issue. Two former SBC presidents spoke against the motion and raised the issues of cooperation and autonomy. I love and respect both of those men but I disagreed with them on this issue. But my disagreement with them does not make them “dishonest.”
My point is some messengers view autonomy differently than I do. If the Resolutions Committee said it was concerned that the proposed resolution infringed on church autonomy then I believe they had that concern. I disagree with them. But my disagreement with them does not make them “dishonest.”
If we sat down over a cup of coffee we may find we are in agreement over the merits of a 2008 resolution. We will not be in agreement over the assignment of sinful motives to the chairs of past committees or the committees’ membership. The assignment of motives (on either side of the discussion) violates the law of love, is an exercise in futility, and does nothing to further an otherwise-worthy cause.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:10 am
The problem lies squarely at the feet of the pastors of SBC churches. Sorry, guys, but it does.
“Membership” doesn’t report itself. Members we cannot even find don’t phone in their numbers to the ACP. That’s done by the local pastors, and we collectively have pastors reporting that something around 8 or 9 million people we cannot even find are members of their churches, and hence of the Body of Christ. And when I read Hebrews 13:17, I’m getting the idea that the SBC and the ACP are not going to have to give an account for those people, you the local elders are.
To admit there’s a problem is to admit that the local pastors have a problem. No WONDER the motions didn’t pass. The voters were mostly pastors, right?
The REAL danger in this, and I cannot tell you how strongly I feel about this, is that the motion will pass this year, without the “repentance clause”, and then the local churches won’t do anything about it. THAT will simply add hypocrisy to the menu from which we’ve chosen.
Paul, if this comment is out of line, please delete it (and I DO mean that). I just don’t know any better.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Whoops .. I got so carried away I forgot to say what I started out to say. I’ve known people who were SO sick, that they were not strong enough to endure the only medicine which could help the disease. The treatment would simply kill the patient.
That may be the case with the SBC.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Thank you Mike Stone. IMO, the biggest problem with SBC Outpost is that its writers and many of those who comment too often assign motives to those who take any action or position with which they disagree.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:40 am
It’s all really simple- if now the powers to be are OK with some form of roll changing it is simply there to help muddy the water for the argument about SBC decline. When during next 10 years we have a deline they will always be able to say the Barber/Yarnell resolution will be there to blame, not the truth- we are in decline.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Bob,
If the resolution comes out of committee, why not offer an amendment to add the repentance clause?
I’d vote for it.
Blessings,
Todd
May 12th, 2008 at 11:05 am
“Friday morning, May 2nd, Dr. Steve Lemke, Provost at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, sent an e-mail encouraging various faculty and staff to consider the Barber/Yarnell Resolution on Integrity in Church Membership. He certainly did not suggest that they should sign their names to it. He simply stated his own support and offered it to them for their own support if they might be so inclined.”
And so the “campaign” is in full swing. It is simple politics. hijack the issue and make it your own.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:05 am
When last years attempt failed, I called a friend who was on the resolution committee and asked why the resolution wasn’t even considered by the committee. He told me that these committees are funny things (and he personally didn’t desire to serve much longer on it) and shared that the ultimate reason is that the committee shies away from any resolution that they know is going to be controversial. It wasn’t because of church autonomy (they knew quite well that resolutions are non-binding). They simply didn’t want to get into the discussion and knew sparks might fly. So they coward and took it off the table. That is why it failed to make it out of committee. As to the reason Tom was not successful when he tried to get it considered from the convention floor, it’s simple. All it takes is one or two strong personalities to get people fired up against it or a “leader” say something opposed from the stage and the thing is toast. They should never let anyone speak for or against a motion or resolution from the stage. People are influenced by that appearance of power and always vote for the guy on the stage. No matter who they are.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
@ Mike Stone:
Thanks for your comment. When I say that the discussion at the convention has been dishonest I am not assigning motives to the two past chairmen of the Resolutions Committees. My comment about their statements is that I believe they were very poorly thought-out. The first, in Greensboro, simply sounded exactly as everyone has now taken it. Whatever your deliberations were within the Committee were not privileged to the Convention as a whole. As one sitting in the convention hall I can only tell you how it sounded from there and Sunday School was never mentioned during the debate on that resolution.
As for the second, in San Antonio, I simply do not understand how the argument about local church autonomy could be made. If it were a reasonable argument then it would effectively eliminate any resolution being passed and I attend the convention with the general assumption that those who have been selected to serve on the various committees (and especially the Resolutions Committee) understand how Southern Baptist polity works.
But all that being said, I don’t doubt that those two men were being honest. I simply don’t think the convention as a whole was being honest. It is clear from Dr. Lemke’s e-mail that his reasoning for opposing Dr. Ascol’s resolution had nothing to do with the reasons given from the floor and when you listen to the rather extensive debate on the resolution from the San Antonio Convention Dr. Ascol’s narrow theological agenda was never brought to the floor, nor was the objectionable wording mentioned in any of the debate. When Dr. Yarnell spoke against the introduction of the resolution he mentioned what it did not say, but there were no objections to what it did say.
I guess my questions is: where was Dr. Lemke during the discussion? Where were those who shared his concerns for the wording of the resolution or Dr. Ascol’s theological agenda? According to his e-mail that was the primary problem with the resolution. Let’s just be honest about that. Dr. Lemke was honest in his e-mail. I’m asking why we haven’t been equally honest in our public debate on the issue.
We can be up-front with our colleagues in an e-mail but we aren’t so up-front in the public debate on the convention floor. When I say we I’m speaking of the convention as a whole.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
@ David:
I agree with you…all except for the very last sentence. This post isn’t about what I do or do not think about the resolution. It is about how we have debated this resolution and whether or not we have been up-front with the real reasons we have opposed it.
If Chris Hilliard is correct then it appears that an additional reason for opposing it is because of its controversial nature. If, however, that is how the committee(s) has(have) felt about the matter why don’t they just say so? Why make arguments that sound so silly or that make no sense in the context of what a resolution means and has meant throughout the history of our convention? I think the man from Louisiana who spoke against the introduction of the resolution in San Antonio was confused about that matter, but a person who has been appointed to that committee shouldn’t be. If they don’t know that resolutions are by nature non-binding on anyone (including the local church) they should either not be sitting on that committee or someone who knows better should instruct them better about their task as a committee member.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
@ Todd B.:
No, the ACP resolution is against Tom Ascol’s resolution. One of the principle authors of the ACP resolution is Malcolm Yarnell who spoke against Dr. Ascol’s resolution at last year’s convention.
Dr. Yarnell could have spoken in favor of the resolution and then offered to amend it from the floor once it was introduced to the convention. Instead he chose to oppose the introduction of the resolution itself. That’s certainly his prerogative and I’m not suggesting that he had any nefarious motive behind it.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Bob,
You nailed it. Repentance is the key on this issue. It starts with pastors who must have the courage to face the issue and lead God’s people to address it (unlike the resolutions committee).
Mark
May 12th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Question: In conversations with other folks, I have heard a suspicion raised against Tom Ascol’s resolution.
The focus on repentance is seen by some as a need to embarrass and humiliate current SBC leadership.
In this climate where some are passionately, almost pathologically opposed to Dr. Patterson and others in the current SBC leadership, could this be a motive?
I read the two resolutions. They seem to be saying almost exactly the same thing. SBC churches should have regenerate membership. Is anyone really opposed to that?
It makes me wonder if there are other motives working here.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Please answer this question..
How would a Calvinist (or whatever you want to be called) minister rightly determine if a member is regenerate or ready for Baptism?
May 12th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Howie,
I think the Southern Seminary bookstore carries paperback copies of the Book of Life.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Paul,
You say, “I’m not suggesting that he had any nefarious motive behind it.”
Yet, you have indeed assigned motive. In your original post you suggest that the reason behind the rejection of resolution is: “to stick it to Tom Ascol and his ‘agenda’” and that those who have opposed the motion are playing dishonest games.
I have no idea what the reasons are for opposing the resolution beyond what people have said publicly. If I am going to err, however, I would rather err on the side of giving godly men the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming improper ulterior motives and dishonesty.
I am perfectly willing to support either resolution or both (I prefer Ascol’s). However, let’s make our cases on the merits of our arguments rather than unsubstantiated assumptions.
–Todd
May 12th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Here is the way it seems to work, as I was trying to illustrate in the last post:
If opposition to the leadership arises and they point out inconsistencies, relativism, or what appears to be dishonesty, they are just mistaken and should not assign motive. Basically, very little that is done by Convention leadership can be called wrong. It’s like trying to pin jello to the wall. It just won’t stick. It is all just a disagreement and we should look the other way and cooperate and send in our money for the sake of the gospel.
Yet, when it comes to tertiary biblical issues, everything is cut and dried and there is only one way to see things (e.g., IMB policies). If you disagree with the leadership, you are off the team and there is no way that cooperation can happen. But, um, still send your money.
It appears that on doctrinal issues we have become ideologues, but on character/ethical issues, we have become relativists - the truth is relative to whatever position we find ourselves in. As I read my Bible, that perfectly describes the condition of the Pharisees.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Todd B,
The nexus of this post regards Dr. Lemke’s e-mail. Cascading throughout the post are references to Dr. Lemke’s position noting Tom Ascol’s narrow theological agenda. You chose one statement based on Dr. Lemke’s position accusing Paul of assigning motive to those on the Resolutions Committee. The sentence reads, “Put that way it appears …”
One would have had to be asleep in a PhD seminar on a Southern Baptist Seminary Campus to miss the great fear of “resurgent Calvinism.” Why some met at Ridgecrest to see just how those for and those against could share the same denomination with the intent to share the Gospel.
For Paul to suggest Dr. Lemke would be touting an undercurrent in the Convention of fear toward Calvinism is not assigning motives but describing where we have lived for the past few years. We had two Seminary Presidents debating Calvinism in Greensboro - well, yes, the agenda for that one changed, but the hall was filled for the potential “smackdown.” We have had not a few leaders in the SBC voice concern over the influences of Calvinism.
The argument of the post was not about assigning motives but suggesting an honesty needed to rectify our antagonisms along any number of lines.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
@ Todd B.:
The first quote was in reference to Dr. Yarnell. The second was in reference to Dr. Lemke. But then you knew that, didn’t you?
It is not assigning motives to Dr. Lemke to quote from his e-mail where he cites Tom Ascol’s “narrow theological agenda.” Now, at which point do you separate a person’s agenda from the person? Wasn’t it you who previously wondered what would be the harm in someone “less polarizing” submitting the resolution? Apparently you have a hard time dissociating the person and the person’s alleged agenda. That being the case where did I err in saying that opposing Dr. Ascol’s “agenda” is a point in sticking it to him? Perhaps the words I used were too sharp for some tastes, but the meaning is all the same.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
“How would a Calvinist (or whatever you want to be called) minister rightly determine if a member is regenerate or ready for Baptism?”
Same way you determine if the leadership is regenerate.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Paul and Todd,
A few comments:
First, my mentioning the Garner motion is not an advocation of this approach but rather an attempt to show that this approach is neither unprecedented nor necessarily objectionable. To me, the content of the resolutions is more important than the personalities who present them.
Second, Paul, your quip “But then you knew that, didn’t you?” calls into question MY motive and honesty. The quotation from your original post was drawn from the summary paragraph where you seem to extrapolate the comments of Lemke to most who opposed the Ascol resolution. It read to me as if you were calling into question not just Lemke’s motive and honesty, but to the resolutions committee and those who opposed the resolution. I am not trying to pick a fight with you. I am merely calling for more civility in our SBC politics. If I misunderstood you, I apologize.
Finally, Todd, my PhD seminars have all been quite stimulating and impossible to fall asleep in
Blessings,
Todd
May 12th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
“It appears that on doctrinal issues we have become ideologues, but on character/ethical issues, we have become relativists - the truth is relative to whatever position we find ourselves in. As I read my Bible, that perfectly describes the condition of the Pharisees.”
Funny you mention this. A friend of mine sent me this the other day in reference to ignoring the behavior of our leaders:
I recently heard Dr. Paul Martin of the Wellspring Center in Ohio teach. He pointed out that there were 210 Scriptures in the Bible dealing with false teachers, abusive shepherds, Pharisees, etc. Of those Scriptures, this is what each verse is concerned with:
99 verses (47%) concern Behavior
66 verses (31%) concern Fruit
24 verses (13%) concern Motives
21 verses (10%) concern Doctrine
It’s hard for me to process the rebukes to ignore behavior, fruit and motive in favor of doctrine when this is exactly what the Word of God teaches us to do. ”
You know, ignoring behavior of our leaders because we like their view of doctrine is a form of political correctness we don’t want to admit.
You will know them by their fruit. Again, I ask, just what is it we think is fruit?
May 12th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Mike Stone:
Never met you and don’t know who in the world you are, except that you served on the Resolutions Committee.
Thanks for providing the insight. I am going to take it at face value.
Hopefully the focus on convention business will be on the merits, not suspected motives.
Good luck to you.
Louis
May 12th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
@ Todd B.:
I apologize for the “But then you knew that, didn’t you?” remark. I allowed my frustrations with this issue to get the best of me and you got the brunt of that. Again, I apologize.
I will admit that I think it is very likely that there are those who have served on the Resolutions Committees who may share Dr. Lemke’s concerns for Tom Ascol’s “agenda.” It is difficult for me, in the context of the public statements on this issue, to believe otherwise. When prominent men like Johnny Hunt, Jerry Vines and others make very public statements against Calvinism and when that issue was mentioned from the platform in Greensboro, even by Bobby Welch, we all know that it is not simply some fringe issue. Do I think that there were those on the Resolutions Committee who shared Dr. Lemke’s perspective? Yes. But even if there weren’t, Dr. Lemke himself says that was a primary issue for him and I simply think it is inconceivable that he is alone in that. In fact, with all of that “Calvinist bashing” that has taken place in our convention over the last five or so years I think it is likely that there are quite a few who would agree with him.
But what I’m saying is that if we are going to make public statements about our disagreement over this resolution our public statements should match our private statements. They do not. In fact, our public statements have been nonsensical. Even Mike Stone, who served on the Greensboro Resolutions Committee has in this very comment thread expressed his regret for the public argument that was made. Why? Because we all know that the objection in Greensboro made no sense. Neither did the one in San Antonio. But now we have an argument that makes sense. Dr. Ascol has a “narrow theological agenda” and because of that - even though it is unrelated to the resolution - we oppose his resolution.
I can buy that one. But the Resolutions Committees had two opportunities to give their best arguments against the resolution. In San Antonio they even had advanced warning that the resolution would be brought to the convention floor if it did not make it out of committee. Dr. Ascol published his resolution and his intention on his blog. They had lots of time to formulate a good rebuttal. Instead, the argument they made would effectively eliminate the resolution process itself. When people bring forward arguments that do not sound well thought-out it becomes easier to believe that there were deeper issues at play.
I suspect Chris Hilliard’s friend hit the nail on the head: it was too controversial an issue. And I’m fine with that reason, by the way. But if that’s your reason, just say so.
You know, the more I think about it I do think that they were not being completely honest about their reasons for not bringing the resolution to the floor, because I don’t think that the compelling reasons for not doing so had anything to do with prospects or with local church autonomy. I just don’t. As I said previously, no one is defending either of those arguments today. No one has defended them since they were made. If either of those arguments held any water then no one would be signing their names in support of either Dr. Ascol’s resolution or the Barber/Yarnell Resolution. But go to their websites and you will see dozens of people publicly supporting one or both of them, including at least one who spoke against Dr. Ascol’s resolution last year along with a whole bunch of names we would all recognize. Is the wording somehow so different that now neither of these is a threat to local church autonomy? No. It is not about a threat to local church autonomy because no resolution ever is.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Mike Stone,
Please let me ask you a question. Since you were in on the discussions around Tom Ascol’s resolution in 2006 can you tell us what the committee’s one overriding reason was for not bringing the resolution to the floor? You have expressed well what Tommy French’s concerns were, but you have not said that his reason was the reason the committee did not bring the resolution to the floor. Please tell us, what was that reason? Was the committee’s concern, in fact, the one that Tommy French expressed from the floor of the convention? Were there multiple reasons? Did one stand out?
Thank you in advance.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Thank you for the return apology, I appreciate it.
It will be interesting to see what all goes down at the Convention, whether either resolution or neither comes out of committee. If I had to make a prediction, I would guess that the Yarnell/Barber motion will make it out of committee and that someone will offer an amendment that adds the repentance language back in. Whether that amendment passes is anybody’s guess.
Please hear my heart here: My frustration with the Outpost is that I often agree with the agenda you present, however, too often you come across as cynical and questioning of the honesty and integrity of those with whom you disagree. This, I believe, is why the outpost lost much of the broader support it once had. I believe that you (and the positions we are fighting for) would gain a more wide and sympathetic audience if the debate were less antagonistic and confrontational.
On the specific issue of Yarnell’s motives behind his version of the resolution, I would highly recommend his comment on SBCToday: http://sbctoday.com/2008/04/30/a-resolution-worthy-of-support/#comment-3719
Listen to his heart in this comment. I believe he is sincere.
Blessings,
Todd
May 12th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
rsc said,
I recently heard Dr. Paul Martin of the Wellspring Center in Ohio teach. He pointed out that there were 210 Scriptures in the Bible dealing with false teachers, abusive shepherds, Pharisees, etc. Of those Scriptures, this is what each verse is concerned with:
99 verses (47%) concern Behavior
66 verses (31%) concern Fruit
24 verses (13%) concern Motives
21 verses (10%) concern Doctrine
It’s hard for me to process the rebukes to ignore behavior, fruit and motive in favor of doctrine when this is exactly what the Word of God teaches us to do. ”
You know, ignoring behavior of our leaders because we like their view of doctrine is a form of political correctness we don’t want to admit.
You will know them by their fruit. Again, I ask, just what is it we think is fruit?
________________
This is absolutely right and should be a post in and of itself. We are in a situation in the SBC where the leadership is saying that behavior regarding how we treat one another does not matter, or it matters relative to the one who engages in the behavior. Whoever has power decides what the truth is in any given situation. The center is broken and we are flailing around in many different directions, but those who are in power decide which truth is applicable. Yet, Scripture tells us not to be like the pagans who lord it over those under them. It tells us to serve. Scripture tells us that you will know a tree by its fruit. Again and again, the Scripture points to behavior, character, how we treat one another, etc. Yet, SBC leadership seems to ignore this and exchange it for platitudes on being “conservative.” We have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and we are bowing down at the idols of “Baptist Identity” and “Conservatism.” We are being given over to what we worship because it doesn not seem to be Jesus - at least in our dealings with one another. I believe that conservative theology is good and it is what I believe, but it is not enough to just say that you believe it. You have to live it as well. That ethic seems to be in short supply and it is alright with everyone.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
This ordeal sounds a lot like congress when legislation is universally accepted. The opposing party wants to make sure it comes across as being THEIR effort.
Concerning the repentance issue, the Barber/Yarnell resolutions sounds a lot like settling out of court. In other words, let’s go ahead and take care of the matter as long as we don’t have to publicly admit guilt.
As I’m reading some of these posts about the difficulty of assigning blame for bloated rolls, I’m wondering what is the excuse for the blatant disregard for biblical teaching on church discipline? I’ve been personally made aware of three cases of marital infedility among members of three SBC Atlanta metro area megachurches by people directly involved in each situation. In all three cases, though there was no repentance by the offending party, nothing was done. The excuse of choice seems to be “We want to keep them within arms reach of the grace of God.”
In one case, the man was disciplined by a PCA church and simply ran down to the nearest SBC concert hall. His disheartened children made this very well known Pastor aware of the situation and initiated a contact from the disciplining church. The Pastor’s response was, “We’ll keep an eye on him.” Get this. He ended up serving in the church.
I’m sorry, but I get really disgusted when I hear suggestions that the SBC is made up of a bunch of swell guys who’ve just made a few mistakes. I didn’t even know what the SBC was until I moved to Georgia from Illinois 19 years ago, so I had no preconceived ideas. What struck me right from the beginning was the astounding culture of denominational arrogance. I’ve decided to stay within it (as a layperson) because I believe God is working, but sometimes I wonder if I should have been helping plant other churches in the area.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Maybe the most recent President nominee Les Puryear well keep it real.
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=28036
May 12th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
McKissic to nominate Puryear.
Greg Harvey
May 12th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Todd B,
Ethics matter. When what is stated does not line up with what is practiced one consequence is a measure of cynicism. Expressing discontent with patterned responses is to some dishonor and to others a call to account.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Paul,
I will share my personal thoughts on why I did not vote for the ‘06 resolution. I will not seek to speak on behalf of the committee for 2 reasons. One, we agreed to confidentiality regarding our discussions. Two, it’s been nearly two years. Even though I am only 37 I don’t trust my memory well enough
My response is a good bit longer than a normal comment. It may need to be reformatted. I do not post often so this is somewhat new for me. Is there another place I can send it to you? Personal email?
May 13th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I recall making a commitment to the confidentiality of the group discussion. I know that such a commitment creates angst in some circles of SBC life but that was a commitment I made so I will honor it. So let me answer your question by telling you my concerns with the 2006 resolution. You may reasonably assume my comments were part of the committee’s discussions but I will leave the group discussion itself in confidence.
There are 2 broad reasons I could not personally support the resolution in 2006. One was the resolution itself. That is a longer discourse and is one that has already been debated in the blogosphere. I do not know that I would add anything new to that discussion.
So after some thought, I have decided to limit my response to the EVENTS surrounding the 2006 SBC itself.
When the committee first began its deliberations via conference call Dr. Johnny Hunt was the presumed “establishment” candidate for president. Of course by the time the actual meeting rolled around he was slated to nominate Dr. Ronnie Floyd. Both were pastors of so-called “mega-churches” whose attendance versus membership ratios were being criticized in various places in the SBC blogosphere. Those statistics were not my primary concern.
Frankly, I am not sure they are much different from the average “small” church. The large scale of their churches gives a more negative perception of those stats. A church of 20,000 members averaging 5,000 in attendance is no worse than a church of 200 members averaging 50 in attendance.
My concern was that in the first presidential election since the real birth of blogging, I did not want to see the committee put forward a resolution that had the potential of being perceived as an endorsement or criticism of any specific announced candidate. I did not assign that motive to Tom Ascol but I thought it was not the best timing for this resolution for that reason. Some may feel that was the very time to pass the resolution. If so we will have to agree to disagree.
There were also proposed resolutions supporting the Cooperative Program. I was not in favor of putting these resolutions forward for the same reason. For the first time in several years the CP giving of the candidates was a first-tier issue. Submitting a resolution on the matter could have given the false impression that the committee as a whole was favoring one candidate over another. I will say that Dr. Frank Page, a member of that committee, abstained from all discussion of the CP resolution. His withdrawal from the conversation was a testament to his integrity.
Some readers may consider it ironic that I am the messenger who brought a proposed motion to strengthen the Ad Hoc Committee’s report on the CP by reinserting the 10% language. I felt that strongly about the CP issue. But I was equally convinced that it was not the year to bring forth a resolution on the subject since the issue was being raised in the presidential election. As firm as I was in my personal opinion, I did not feel it was the place for committee action. I expressed my sentiment as a private messenger during the EC report. The convention expressed its sentiment and we moved on.
Likewise, I was not in favor of putting Tom’s resolution forward in 2006. I did not want to run the risk of being perceived as supporting or opposing (at the committee level) the election of a particular candidate.
I repeat; I do not believe it was Tom Ascol’s intention to criticize either Dr. Hunt or Dr. Floyd. In fact, Tom told me that was not his intention so I am confident of that. But that perception was part of the reality that was the 2006 SBC.
I also brought a personal experience to the committee room. I had recently written a guest commentary for The Christian Index called, “You Can’t Spell SBC President without a C and a P.” Forrest Pollack borrowed my title for part of his nomination of Dr. Page. Despite the fact that my article intentionally stayed away from personal attacks, I was accused of performing a “hatchet job” and of “slandering” Dr. Floyd. And those accusations came from my FRIENDS! That incident gave me some personal insight into the inability of people to separate otherwise-legitimate issues from personalities. I did not want to see that happen with Tom’s resolution.
If the amendments I recommended (to the resolution itself) had been considered in 2007 I believe I could have supported its passage.
Be it therefore finally RESOLVED
In conclusion let me say, unless a person has had the responsibility to serve on this committee it is difficult to understand the full scope of the committee’s work. Resolutions by their nature are born out of current events. The committee must carefully weigh the substance of the resolution against its potentially false perceptions in light of contemporary issues within the convention and the culture.
For example, a resolution entitled “On Entity Heads Using a Private Prayer Language” would not merely be a controversial resolution about PPL. It would be a resolution for or against Dr. Rankin’s leadership at the IMB. (I do not mean to open a can of worms with that illustration but that example is easy to see). I am simply saying that sometimes the committee may agree with the substance of a proposed resolution but not agree with the potential perception that the resolution is criticizing an individual within the convention.
No doubt we could go back and illustrate the failure of the 2006 committee to perfectly perform that task, due in no small part to my own imperfections. The same could be said of every committee in every year because our committees are staffed by imperfect people doing their best to serve the Lord and Southern Baptists.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
It has been a while since I posted here. A while back I determined to be a part of a solution rather than to be a part of division and rancor for no purpose. Our Brother Mike has caused me to pause for a moment.
Mike, I do not believe that the body you served had or has any bad intention. It is a great thing to be asked to serve, it is great to serve, and all that should be asked is that one serves to the best of their ability under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
I do want to speak for a moment about an issue which I consider ill advised for any body, agency, or individual to do. That is for the sake of expediency and peace to set aside a worthwhile issue that needs to be settled and dealt with in the open.
It is high time that our convention of churches openly decide many issues of true importance. They cannot be settled if those in control of the discussion believe that to even open up debate will cause division, or that the perception will be that it will support one set of politics over another. The issues then never die, never settled, and will always remain a sore spot that will erupt into even more discontent and disunity than those dear folks wanted to avoid. As Mike said, the Resolutions Committee deals with issues contemporaneously. For those reasons he articulated and probably a few more this most important resolution has died a couple of deaths in succeeding conventions. If passage in 2006 was delayed for the reasons that Mike stated, has those particular reasons dissipated any? Have we less contention now than in 2006? While the reasoning is noble, the reality is just pushing back the inevitable with further division and rancor that is now 2 plus years old.
I would submit that unless conflict and dissension is dealt with openly, honestly, in the presence of the people and God, it will never be dealt with appropriately. I’m from Missouri - we have lot’s of problems because of this very issue.
Rob
May 13th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
One small church near where I live, which has about 20 attenders on a good Sunday, has, according to the National SBC website, 200 “members.”
Another, which has about 40 attenders on a good Sunday, has 600 “members.” The larger church has been around since the late 40’s or early 50’s. I’m pretty sure that these people actually did join the church at one time or another; I’m also pretty sure that the only people taken off the roles are the ones who moved their letters to another church, asked to be taken off, or somebody in the church knew that this person died. I wonder how many dead people are “members” there? (Or, for that matter, how many dead people are “members” of our convention. Talk about Southern Baptist Dead!)
May 13th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Mike,
I appreciate the context you’ve given and your own journey through the process of serving on that committee. In fact, I would be very happy if I were to discover that the reasons you have given for personally opposing the resolution were the very same reasons the resolution was not brought out of committee. I say I would be very happy not because I agree with those reasons or because I disagree with those reasons. I would be happy because they are well thought-out reasons and because you have articulated them well.
But I’ll repeat again, that I believe it would have been more honest for the committee to give those reasons to the convention than any they have publicly presented in two years. And that is why I titled this post “A Time To Be Honest.”