SBCOutpost

One of the central issues in the SBC revolves around the penchant for oppositional thinking. Simply put one is either for us or against us. This statement lifted from the words of Jesus seems to settle down on human relationships and relational configurations so that we find both sides claiming the will and way of God. For instance, what have in some quarters been referred to as “establishment bloggers” assume any call for accountability nothing but disrespect and an attempt to wrest power from those who have led in the CR/Takeover in/of the SBC.

For too long we have had “sides.” For Southern Baptists to refer to factions as sides seems a bit oxymoronic when we will all admit that where three or four Southern Baptists are gathered there are four or five opinions in their midst. Some analysts may view the recent MBC Annual Meeting as “repudiation,” and it may well be. However, what would it mean if it were a signal to those on both sides that lines in the SBC are surely subject to the tide. We talk of lines in the sand but if you have ever watched the tides come in and out, you know quickly lines change in the sand.

It is interesting one time contributor and “owner” of SBC Outpost, Michah Fries, chose the title for his MBC reflections as “Quake at the Lake.” Certainly he notes this is an “overheard” reference, but to select that for your blog reporting signals the presence of fault lines and sides. Micah reports on the goings on in a series of posts laced throughout with references to those of differing positions in the MBC. This is not criticism but reflection. There is little mistaking the tactics and patterns of Roger Moran are not favored by most here at SBC Outpost. We are glad for the shift in leadership away from such legalistic factions-creating personalities. It was interesting to note Micah offered clarifying words regarding statements made by Interim Exec. Tolliver, presumably in his “red meat” sermon.

While it would be interesting to hear a debate between Roger Moran and Darrin Patrick, I for one hope Darrin will decline. You see this would play to the oppositional thinking present in the SBC and we are not in need of further polarization but of a third way. Yes, a third way must include exposure of the egregious leadership errors chiefly illustrated by taking care of the “good old boys.” So, before you, dear reader, think this is a slap at the matters Ben Cole continues to raise on this blog, read again. No one is interested in re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic (read, SBC). Rather, in answer to an oft asked question about the “vision” of some at SBC Outpost, note this author considers it necessary to move beyond the structures and systems that continue to propagate the current climate. Do not attempt to obfuscate with concern for inerrancy or your favored view of the atonement.

We tire of guilt by association evidenced by Roger Moran’s diatribes against the likes of the Acts 29 Network. We are weary, though sympathetic, of the “what took you so long” by those who left the SBC long ago.

I will take the actions in the MBC as indication those interested in cooperation are waking from their slumber. Nothing could be more promising than to think in Indianapolis we may experience this same sentiment. Could we stand in the same way as the SOC and eschew angry men desirous of leadership in the SBC who want to continue to narrow the parameters of cooperation and fellowship? May it be so.

In 1997 Barry Levinson directed, Wag the Dog. The plot-line followed a President accused of infidelity who with the help of a spin-doctor and a Hollywood producer created a war as a diversion. It seemed then an implication of former President Clinton. We all do this. When pressed with our own failings and frailty it is easier to seek a diversion to avoid the necessary accountability required of great leadership. Especially for those leaders considered “statesmen.”

For some time some have trolled the Outpost looking for opportunities to subvert the point of a given post. A couple of recent tactics include obfuscation and revision. Evidence? One recent commenter noted how reform minded the originator of the Outpost was. It goes something like, “When Marty was in charge of the Outpost ….” How soon we forget that it was Marty who broke a number of stories and offered some of the most precise critique of the current direction of the SBC. In the first post-Marty iteration of the Outpost, it was Marty who offered a post titled, “Liar, Liar Pants on Fire.” Revising the intent of the Outpost to make it anything but the call for accountability and asking for an ethic that matches the rhetoric and use Marty in the process is revisionist history meets blog-town.

Obfuscation? Calls for accountability now fall under the heading of attack. A recent post noting the prayer meeting offered for Dr. Patterson prompted by the GCC at the last Executive Committee meeting included a reference to the well documented criticism of Jerry Rankin by Paige Patterson in satirical form,

And in turn Paige Patterson, who did not set any precedents himself in criticizing Jerry Rankin, led in a time of Prayer for Jerry. Or maybe not.

The strike-through introduced an edit noting the reason for the comment. Here is the text re-posted,

[Edit: OK. Sarcasm aside. I genuinely hope this is a move in the right direction. I know that in the past Paige Patterson has done things that have resulted in the straining of his relationship with Jerry Rankin. His criticisms have not been public, though the private nature of those criticisms have, in my opinion, been even worse because I doubt he would have done in public what he has done in private. It has been credibly alleged that Dr. Patterson has gone so far as to attempt to undermine the leadership of Jerry Rankin through the IMB board of trustees. Just read about a year’s worth of Wade Burleson’s blog starting in November or December of 2005.

I would also contend that their appeals for civility are selective. When it was Russell Dilday in 1992 I didn’t hear Al Mohler or Paige Patterson gathering entity heads to rally support and call for prayer. If they are right to do this now, were they wrong not to do so then? It gives the appearance (at least to me) of protecting one’s self and one’s own interests. In mail correspondence I had with Dr. Patterson a couple of years ago he even forwarded to me copies of his personal correspondence with Dr. Dilday leaving me the distinct impression that it was his way of saying, “See, I really am the good guy in all of this and he is the bad guy.” I still have those letters, by the way.

Now, I’d be more than happy for Dr. Patterson to just come right out and say that he thinks it is wrong for anyone to criticize Jerry Rankin. I would be thrilled to see him call for the Great Commission Council, or the Executive Committee, or the faculty and student body of SWBTS, to gather around Jerry Rankin and pray for him and profess to the world his unqualified support for him. But I’m not holding my breath. I think it is telling that SWBTS has such a noted emphasis on foreign missions, yet according to their own chapel archives the head of the worlds largest missions-sending agency, our own International Missions Board, has not spoken in a single chapel service at Southwestern Seminary at least since the Fall of 2005. That may not be rock-solid proof to anyone, but isn’t it at the very least odd, if not tragic? Al Mohler has spoken at SWBTS, multiple times. Chuck Kelly has. Danny Aiken has. Richard Land has. Jeff Iorg has. But the president of the IMB has not.

I’m really not trying to make too big a deal out of this, but if I declared that associational missions was going to be one of the driving forces in our church and I never had our own DOM come speak I can tell you that our congregation would get the hint real fast and I can assure you many of them would be asking why I didn’t have him come and if there was a problem between us.

So of all the people asked to pray over Dr. Patterson the one asked was Jerry Rankin. Now I do see two really good things in that. One is that if that relationship is, in fact, strained there is nothing more than that sort of submission that will really go straight to the heart. Perhaps the GCC wanted Dr. Rankin to say the prayer as a way to get them to “kiss and make up.” I don’t know. But I think it would have also spoken volumes had they in turn asked Dr. Patterson to publicly pray over Dr. Rankin, who has taken his own measure of criticism, much of it directly or indirectly from Dr. Patterson himself. Instead it comes across to this observer as a way of “teaching Jerry a lesson.” I grant that many will have a different take on that. Fine.

At the end of the day my hope is that an event like this will not end up being form over substance. If Al Mohler and the GCC want people to lay off of Dr. Patterson then they should also expect Dr. Patterson to lay off of others, whether the words are coming from Dr. Patterson’s own mouth or from the mouth or pen of a subordinate. Malcolm Yarnell is permitted to speak negatively of LifeWay research and by implication the researchers. Keith Eitel is allowed to write a paper critical of the IMB and by extension its leader and distribute it to the IMB trustees. If the expectation is that we all sit back and declare that all is well in Zion then we must all sit back and declare that all is well in Zion.

And I expect that to mean that our entity heads will not speak negatively about SBC Outpost either.]

Noting documented incidents calling for accountability cannot be termed an attack unless of course one wants to play Wittgensteinian word games. It is interesting to note at this point that it seems using the bully pulpit still plays. Listen in to Dr. Patterson at SBTS in chapel on Tuesday. Interestingly when looking for illustrations for actions appearing to stem from an unregenerate church member, he cites suing a brother in civil court. Since this is so rampant in churches it is little wonder this rose to the level worthy of illustration. (Dr. Patterson does note rampant divorce, child abuse, abuse of women, and upheaval in churches over insignifianct matters.) No mention of gossip. No mention of a lack of love. No mention of abuse of power. No mention of child sexual abuse. No mention of gluttony. No mention of the rampant consumerism runamuck in the Church. No mention of leaders sniping at leaders. No mention of the kinds of things noted in nearly every list of works of the flesh in the Scripture.

Obfuscation? Dr. Luter has been ripped from comment threads to blogs for posting an anonymous letter from an SBC seminary professor. The Outpost castigated for poor journalism. Yet, in a post wherein this author reported the response of five upper level administrators to the question of the substantive truth of the professor’s contentions no one dared comment (save the reference to the Paul Debusman event at SBTS). Charge the Outpost with tabloid journalism but when given the opportunity to defend Al Mohler these men did not. Attacks or clarification? Attacks or an attempt to ascertain whether it would be good for Trustees to investigate? Attacks or an attempt to discredit anonymity?

One commenter interjects the Outpost intends for its contributors and those like-minded to gain power. Read this carefully, this author simply longs for those in whom he trusted the issue was the Scripture in the CR would acknowledge a failed pragmatic ethic. Anything less is “wagging the dog.”

The SBC Executive Committee gathered for a totally impromptu, unplanned, and unscripted exercise of spiritual solidarity this past week in Nashville, TN. Unbeknownst to anybody, especially Paige and Dorothy Patterson, the Great Commission Council invited the First Couple to the ExComm platform for a season of prayer and hands-laying-on. Our hidden cameras captured the session of solidarity, and SBCOutpost is pleased to show the kind of reciprocal commitment, charitable collaboration, and harmonious fraternity enjoyed by a caucus of our seminary presidents.

One wonders if the description of one large entity may be applied to another. Just  prior to the vote, in Spain, - and yes, the formal vote came the following year but the efffective move came in Seville, that resulted in the withdrawal of  the SBC from the BWA one leader in the SBC referred to the BWA as a, “Byzantine” organization. According to Merriam-Webster’s Online when the word “Byzantine” is not capitalilzed it refers to,

4 often not capitalized a
: of, relating to, or characterized by a devious and usually surreptitious manner of operation <a byzantine power struggle> b : intricately involved :

Since the other definitions make little sense regarding the use of “byzantine” when applied to the BWA as a negative adjective, I am  left to conclude this would have been the definition referenced. Everyone is entitled to their  evaluation of a given organization. Apparently this view won the day.

The question of this post is whether or not we may apply the same descriptor to the SBC. Some may recall the Baptist Identity Conference at Union University. Mike Day offered a perspective on the dupication of efforts when the work of local associations, State Conventions and SBC entities is considered. He used his own experience in denominational work  to point up ways we could be more efffective.

Reader Brad Brisco, D.Min student studying missional ecclesiology, alerted SBCOutpost to a book recently discussed relating to the effectiveness of denominations and judicatories (those organizations utilized by other denominations). A couple of quotes which may spur readers of the Outpost to explore the book more include,

The problem with denominations is that they want to shape the mission around their polity, rather than shape the polity around the mission. The latter view is the spirit of all the founding fathers and mothers of every denomination, while the former is the sorry state of every denomination today. The lack of mission urgency in North America means that denominational leaders think they still have time to develop modest, incremental strategic plans to tinker with polity, and time afterwards to then go about mission. The truth is just the opposite. The eternal destinies of individuals do not allow such laxness.

And,

Our current polity systems usually enfranchise those people who are the least able to lead while tying the hands of the most creative and able leaders. This statement assumes that the most able leaders are still around after any brief exposure to how religious bodies function. Our polities allow the managers, administrators, and politicians who understand complex bureaucratic systems to become the leaders in congregational, judicatory, and denominational life. In the meantime these systems weed out those with entrepreneurial and leadership skills. These people for the most part leave and create their own ministries or shadow organizations that go around the bureaucracies created by our polities.

Critics will immediately assume SBCOutpost considers denominations to lack viability moving forward. Contrary to this “reader-response” move, the question begging to be asked may be phrased, “How will the SBC move forward?” We may point to continuing efforts and solidarity behind the Conservative Resurgence. That too would miss the point. How will the SBC move forward networking with local congregations? The question is not, ‘How will churches move forward for the benefit of the SBC?”

The question is an attempt at self-critique. “How may we be more effective networking together for the Kingdom as a denomination moving further away from the historical rationale for the existence of such cooperative beaucracies?” (One might consider the historical retracinng of denominations in America described in Craig Ven Gelder’s essay, “Understanding the Church in North American,” found in The Misssional Church,edited by Darrell Guder.

… of organizatinoal reconciliation between batpist Christians in America in this generation.

(In 1985 our family moved to Dallas to attend Seminary. We visited a number of churches. A good friend suggested I visit a church in far southwest Dallas. Not a year later, I was asked to serve on staff of this church and would do so for three years while finishing the M.Div. at SWBTS. Dr. Rick Davis served the church as pastor. He would become my mentor. Now more than 20 years we continue to mentor one another. Rick served in evangelism as the Evangelism Director for the BGCT before moving to FBC, Brownwood, TX. I have asked him to write from time to time as an “Interested Outsider.” Rick writes at Aintsobad.)

I was invited to a wedding. A friend’s daughter is to be married. He said to me, “You may not wish to come. They are using an SBT church for their wedding.”

SBT stands for Southern Baptists of Texas, a convention split from the old BGCT structure to maintain closer ties to the old SBC structure. A known BGCT guy like me is on thin ice when in an SBT setting. Of course, with my recent habit of questioning the BGCT leadership, I am on thinner ice with them.

Perhaps I should take up ice fishing. At least then there is the promise of some reward when one punches a hole through the surface.

Sigh. I remember when a friend’s daughter’s wedding involved finding where they were registered, buying a place setting and getting to the church on time for cake. There are so many considerations these days.

I am going to the wedding, of course. Friends are friends.

Maybe that is the hope. Friend are friends.

I will not sign your SBC 2000 BF & M in order to do business with you.

You will not cross my CBF inclinations to commune with me.

Ok. I get this.

But, when a person has a heart attack, don’t the little blood vessels immediately start to try to put out feelers to get things back together and heal the organ? Maybe the bigger, blocked vessels never operate the same again. Perhaps the organ itself has damage. Still, the little vessels can help the body function, despite the heart damage.

Reach across the aisle. Perhaps there is a hand extended to you. Maybe neither of us can see it because of the haze of battle smoke.

(In 1985 our family moved to Dallas to attend Seminary. We visited a number of churches. A good friend suggested I visit a church in far southwest Dallas. Not a year later, I was asked to serve on staff of this church and would do so for three years while finishing the M.Div. at SWBTS. Dr. Rick Davis served the church as pastor. He would become my mentor. Now more than 20 years we continue to mentor one another. Rick served in evangelism as the Evangelism Director for the BGCT before moving to FBC, Brownwood, TX. I have asked him to write from time to time as an “Interested Outsider.” Rick writes at Aintsobad.)

I have the papers sitting around here to sign up for the Episcopalian priesthood, the Methodist pastorate, the DOC ministry and one, I think, that would allow me to join a coven. I keep them the way we all used to keep typed resignation letters in our files to sign each Monday, so we could throw them away on Wednesday.

Let me spare you the clichés of the old SBC churches who nurtured and nourished me. They are gone, as gone as gone can get, quite because of some changes in them and many, many changes in me. I can cherish their memory as I do memories of my father’s big old Ford car. I would not drive one and I would not go back to the same old SBC type church of my childhood.

Let me skip over most of the usual platitudes about how the state conventions and local associations meet our needs better and more effectively than national conventions once did for us. My local association does what my state convention does for me. They hold endless, poorly attended old model meetings to appear busy, issue updated but hopelessly outdated mission statements and ask for another one per cent of my budget. Read the rest of this entry »

One of the basic questions facing Southern Baptists concerns how we determine those with whom we will cooperate. In a day gone by cooperation may have inferred consensus. That is, a diverse group gathers and determines on what basis they will agree to work. Some consider the only way competing groups may meld is to force compromise. The basic issue then becomes what is the core for cooperation. At this point in a given group the dominant members assert their will and note cooperation will occur on their terms. Now dominant may not be solely a matter of numbers. We have all been in groups where dominant meant personality rather than, “we have the numbers.”

What happens when diverse groups come together for the cause of the Gospel? Good conversation partners illustrate the difficulty we face when practically working through our positions. By good conversation partners we mean those who take the time to listen rather than plan what to say while the other person is talking - or in the “blog” world of commenting, “typing.” We also mean conversation partners willing to consider their own position with humility. I found Sam Storms’ article regarding the conversation partners who participated in, “Together for the Gospel,” a worthwhile read. (HT:WB)

Much may be made of what makes us Baptists. (No dear critic, we did not forget our “Baptist Distinctives.”) Greater time should be spent with what makes us Christian. We may stand confident we are Baptist Christians, but when Baptist Christians, Southern Baptist Christians, begin sounding as “gatekeepers” to the Kingdom of God we have moved away from the center to the fringe. You will need to read the entire article to grasp the value of the following quote (A caution to “quote miners” - be sure to practice good hermeneutics.),

Jesus himself made it clear that the cup represented or pointed to or in some sense embodied “the forgiveness of sins” that would come from the saving efficacy of his atoning death (Matthew 26:28). In 1 Corinthians 11:26 Paul echoed this truth by telling us that every time we celebrate the Lord’s Table we “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” In other words, the Eucharist is a dramatic, visible, vocal enactment of the gospel itself. It stirs our hearts to meditate on Christ’s redemptive work and is designed to stimulate the mind to reflect on the significance of all that he achieved on behalf of those for whom he died.

My question, then, is this: How can we claim to be “together” or “united” for the sake of the gospel and turn away a brother or sister from the very expression and proclamation of that gospel that is so central to the life and testimony of the church? What does this prohibition say to the world around us? What must they think of our professed “togetherness” or “unity” when the elements of the Eucharist would be withheld from a brother such as Ligon Duncan?