SBCOutpost

If you are reading this, you are probably aware that I posted an anonymous open letter from an SBC seminary professor to the trustees of Southwestern and Southern seminaries on Wednesday.  Since I had to be out of town at a retreat which lasted from Monday morning until Thursday mid-afternoon, and then I had to travel home, I asked for no comments here or on SBC Outpost, where it was re-posted.  So, I left town to go to where I essentially had no computer access, assuming that would be the case, as well as having assured my anonymous professor friend there would be no comments allowed.

Imagine my shock when I found out that Outpost decided to take comments, in spite of my clear request not to do so.  Interestingly, though, my anonymous professor friend took it better than I did–except for one part–and, in regard to this, I completely agree.

When he noticed the comments, he actually took the criticism, including about anonymity–as well as the later obligatory “drive-by” from well-known Conservative Resurgence mouthpiece, Hershael York–quite well, except from those people related to Outpost.  Read the rest of this entry »

The following is re-printed from Boyd Luter’s personal blog. The professor who wrote this post has given permission for this post to be re-printed here on SBC Outpost.

*******

I am very pleased to welcome the following opinion piece by a respected professor whom I have known for some time in one of our six Southern Baptist seminaries. Because of his fear of reprisal, I have assured him of complete anonymity as long as he chooses not to reveal his identity.

I have not told him what to write in any way, shape, form or fashion, nor did I know what he was going to say after he contacted me with the idea to do this until he submitted it. He has chosen for his thoughts to go public in this venue to most effectively voice his concerns about things of which he has extensive ‘up close’ knowledge in the academic arena of the SBC. His piece is published without any editing on my part.

Unfortunately, since I am the liaison here and I will be out of town when this is posted, neither he nor I will be able to take comments. However, if the Lord prompts him to say more or He gives other professors a voice in regard to these, or other important issues, comments are a real possibility, though each writer would have their own say-so in the matter.

Please note: This sort of guest posting is barely even a work in progress (i.e., it’s a new idea and I don’t really know the best way to handle this). But, if it develops, I hope it would be a forum for voices not heard otherwise.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE TRUSTEES OF SBTS AND SWBTS

From a Current SBC Seminary Professor Read the rest of this entry »

(Note: I am out of town Monday through Thursday this week and will be unavailable to take comments on this post and the one on Wednesday. Sorry! We can catch up on the comment front next week.)

For all the wonderful things that can be said about Abraham, “the friend of God,” we still must admit that he had serious flaws, which provide insight into the fact that his family was dysfunctional. A classic example is that he passed off Sarah as his sister twice, many years apart (Genesis 12:11-20; 20:1-18). That means that Abraham did not really learn anything from his grievous error. Since he managed to get out of both crises in good shape, he apparently saw no need to change.

Not surprisingly, Abraham’s son, Isaac, pulled the exact same stunt with Rebekah (Genesis 26:7-11). Then, Rebekah and her ”playing favorites” son, Jacob, deceived Isaac in regard to Easu’s blessing (27:1-40). In the next generation, suffice it to say that the dysfunctional exploits of Jacob’s sons could fill many pages of commentary and analysis.

Then there was David, “the man after God’s own heart.” Talk about a mess: his marriage to Michal–his affair with Bathsheba–his killing of Uriah. What an incredibly dysfunctional soap opera! And, did you ever notice how, one way or another, his children, Amnon, Tamar, Absalom and, eventually, even Solomon ended up in situations that resembled the besetting flaws and sins of their father?

Is it mere coincidence that the Scriptures in Genesis and 2 Samuel follow straight through from the father’s sins to the similar sins of the children? There is a zero possibility of that. Instead, we are to observe that there is a cause-effect relationship at work. Unless a person is very conscious of the parental figure’s impact on him or her, then works very concertedly to “break the cycle,” there exists the strongest likelihood that history will repeat itself. Read the rest of this entry »

(Author’s Note: I have been accused of arrogance in regard to what I wrote in my last posting. But, the Lord knows my heart. Whether the following will make any difference on that front in the attitude of the person(s) in question is unlikely. However, the following perspective is what has happened in my life and does represent the current spiritual vantage point from which I write. It is also, word-for-word, what I had written and, since I hadn’t finished it earlier, planned to write in this post.)

The “God the Holy Spirit” section of the BFM2000, following the 1963 BFM, says simply: “[The Spirit] cultivates Christian character… .” Now, that is quite a mouthful in very few words, but there is absolutely no explanation as to what is meant by “cultivates Christian character.”

So, in my ongoing commitment to properly honor authorial intent, I turned to Herschel Hobbs’ The Baptist Faith and Message (Convention Press, 1981 ed.) for insight, since it is the “closest to the horse’s mouth” commentary on all things BFM1963. Unfortunately, it wasn’t much help. Read the rest of this entry »

As various SBC leaders have recently withdrawn their original endorsements from SBC Outpost, I would respectfully offer two responses: 1) I believe they are well-intentioned in what they are trying to accomplish (i.e., “peace,” as in an absence of other than peaceful things being said in the SBC blogosphere), even if amazingly short-sighted; but 2) There is some notably fallacious thinking taking place–or, at least, inaccurate expression of what may be well-intentioned thinking.

To what am I referring? It has to do with unproven assumptions concerning what constitutes Christ-like and Christ-honoring communication. Read the rest of this entry »

As with my previous posts, if you would like to leave a comment, please do so at my personal blog here. Before you do, please read this.

*******

Recently, I wrote a seven-part series called “Issues Inside and Outside the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.” After I laid out my series conclusions, I received a kind comment from David Rogers, which I will cite below.

But, before doing so, I am going to reproduce the final part of the conclusions from the BFM2000 series (in which I also focused on the progression from the 1925 and 1963 versions, to the 2000 reworking):

“Where only a generation ago, the BFM was considered–at least for the most part–a ’still life picture,’ if you will, it is now anything but. Please carefully ponder the following descriptions of what the BFM2000 has become in the era of increasing Conservative Resurgence (CR) control of the SBC: Read the rest of this entry »

This post is the eighth in a series that has appeared here.  In order to keep comment hijackers at bay comments will not be allowed on this post here at SBC Outpost.  If you would like to leave a comment, please do so at my personal blog here.  Before you do, please read this.

*******

There is a distressing double standard at work in the Southern Baptist Convention today and it manifests itself in various ways.  Recently, there has been a fair amount of debate regarding the obviously opulent–it’s no longer whether, just how outrageous–lifestyle of at least one Conservative Resurgence leader.  As bad as it is that some take advantage of their positions to live like SBC royalty, I don’t think that sort of thing, though highly embarrassing (at least it should be to the trustees who “rubber stamped” their benefits packages), is the worst part of the double standard.

What is?  The spiritual double standard.  Let me lay it out for you. Read the rest of this entry »

SBC Outpost regularly requests that Guest Authors provide articles for publication. Dr. Boyd Luter is writing in just such a capacity. Dr. Luter is Pastor of Comal Country Church (SBTC), Canyon Lake, TX and Adjunct Professor of New Testament and Theology at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Liberty University. He is a graduate of Mississippi State University and holds the Th.M. and Ph.D. degrees from Dallas Theological Seminary.

Luter has published eight books and 20 journal and periodical articles, in addition to his contributing chapters, entries and segments to a number of edited essay collections, biblical, theological and apologetics dictionaries, study Bibles and Bible translations and paraphrases. He has edited three commentaries for Christian Focus Publications’ Mentor series and has written a weekly religion column in a local newspaper for nearly seven years.

“A text without a context is a pretext.” That’s one of the most basic ongoing evangelical hermeneutical principles in existence and the reason is obvious: Taken out of context, words can be made to mean almost exactly the opposite of the intent of the author, which has happened innumerable times in church history.To minimize the tendency for such eisegesis (i.e., reading your own ideas into the text) to win the day, recent thinking has filled in the gaps in an attempt to have a comprehensive exegetical procedure. Where once evangelicals spoke of “historical-grammatical exegesis,” it is now more common to hear of “historical-contextual-syntactical-grammatical exegesis.” You see, exegetes have recognized the “atomizing” (i.e., fragmenting, with no sense of the whole) tendency of focusing on word studies and technical nuances of grammar. In other words, “you can’t see the forest for the trees”—unless you have a map of the forest in mind while working your way through the trees.Much has been claimed in regard to the meaning and practical significance of the recently passed Garner BFM2000 Motion without much careful “historical-contextual-syntactical-grammatical” exegesis of its meaning forthcoming. And, make no mistake! It must be done… by the trustee boards of all the SBC entities, if nobody else, because they are the ones to whom the motion, which embodies a very specific recommendation, was made.

So, let’s take a careful run at “exegeting”/expounding the Garner BFM2000 Motion. The exact wording of the Garner Motion, according to the Baptist Press Convention story by Michael Foust on June 15, 2007, is: “The Baptist Faith and Message is not a creed, or a complete statement of our faith, nor final or infallible; nevertheless we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention.”

Read the rest of this entry »

SBC Outpost regularly requests that Guest Authors provide articles for publication. Dr. Boyd Luter is writing in just such a capacity. Dr. Luter is Pastor of Comal Country Church (SBTC), Canyon Lake, TX and Adjunct Professor of New Testament and Theology at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Liberty University. He is a graduate of Mississippi State University and holds the Th.M. and Ph.D. degrees from Dallas Theological Seminary.

Luter has published eight books and 20 journal and periodical articles, in addition to his contributing chapters, entries and segments to a number of edited essay collections, biblical, theological and apologetics dictionaries, study Bibles and Bible translations and paraphrases. He has edited three commentaries for Christian Focus Publications’ Mentor series and has written a weekly religion column in a local newspaper for nearly seven years.

“You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

(John 8:32, HCSB)   

I preached the passage in which this verse is located on July 1. It has been gnawing at me ever since. This is why.

Once upon a time, I shortsightedly viewed this as strictly and only a salvation verse. In fact, Jesus said it to those who had already believed in Him (8:30-31), in the context of talking about discipleship in relation to perseverance in His word (8:32).

However, even though He was addressing those who were believers in at least some initial sense, it is striking how much resistance He encountered with this line of discussion. His believing hearers opposed the very idea that there was anything from which they needed to be freed (8:33). In answer, Jesus clarified that every person who ever sins — which is certainly true of everyone writing and reading this blog — is still enslaved to sin, whether we admit it or not (8:34).

As we find out in moving through the passage, Jesus’ hearers are under the false impression that their bloodline from Abraham (8:33) and their adherence to the general Jewish belief in the one true God (8:41) somehow insulated them from sin’s enslaving ability to mask the truth, even in the life of a believer. As Jesus makes very clear, they were dead wrong, and to argue otherwise is a viewpoint that originates with the “father of lies” (8:43-44).

Bottom line here: Even as relatively mature followers of Jesus Christ, we still need to know and act upon “the truth” to free us from unconscious slavery to false perspectives that inhibit our discipleship. It is only when we face the truth, embrace it and live it out that true spiritual freedom comes about progressively in our lives.

I can think of at least seven “truths” in regard to aspects of ongoing SBC controversies which we must face, embrace and act upon, if we are to be “free” from self-deception and “free” to move on to a consensus focus on what the Lord wants done in the time ahead. They follow in the chronological order of their occurrence or when they should occur in the future:
Read the rest of this entry »