SBCOutpost

Wow, it has the feel of a dusty room. We have taken a broom to a few cobwebs and sat down for a chat - even if over the Internet. Contrary to some popular notions, we are brothers and not simply alter egos of the same person. God, in his infinite wisdom and humor called us both into the ministry. We were both raised in a very conservative Southern Baptist Church by conservative parents. We graduated from a Southern Baptist university and a Southern Baptist Seminary. Between us we have five degrees from Southern Baptist educational institutions. We have and continue to serve in our State Convention and Local Associations. We likely represent two of the more infrequent writers over the past couple of years here at the Outpost. Yet, on occasion our own posts stirred quite a fuss. We believe conversation is a gift of grace that for whatever reason generally devolves into an attempt to control another person’s opinion. We tend to speak past one another in our denomination - and that has included us. We believe dissent is a good thing - were it not those who think church history began with the Reformation would be without a foothold. The big question is, “What is going on with The Outpost?” Join us for a conversation that may lead to just what may come here in this dusty old room some would prefer to refer to as the Outhouse, though Jerry Grace already owns that one

Todd: Hey, Paul, do your remember the Lifeway message board for Young Leaders?
Paul: That old thing? I’d almost forgotten!
Todd: Was that your first foray into any message board?
Paul: Not really. I’d been to the old forums you used to have on your church website and I’d spent a little time in the forums at theooze.com, but I’d never really gotten as involved in those as I did on the LifeWay forum.
Hey, isn’t that where we first ran into some guy named Marty Duren?
Todd: In fact it was. I even remember a bit of push back I gave Marty and you know, he pushed right back!
Paul: Marty? Pushy? Naw!
Todd: I know. Today most reading the Outpost have “sainted” dear old Marty and think some of the posts here have been too critical. Wow, should they go back and read some of those old posts.
You know. I remember Steve McCoy thought the un-moderated messages boards at Lifeway did not allow for good conversation. I think that is at least one of the things prompting the creation of Reformissionary. Or using Reformissionary as a place for better conversation anyway.
Paul: Right. I remember that early on I went by the handle “Semper Reformanda.” What was yours?
Todd: I think I went by Elihu. In fact, do you remember being considered “wonder twins” on those boards. Who was that who dubbed us so?
Paul: I think that was ol’ Travis Hilton. He went by THilton and at first I thought he might be related to Robert Tilton.
But you know, he called us wonder twins because we had both made a commitment early on not to be anonymous, but to own our thoughts and words.
Todd: That’s right. You know, it is easy to form opinions by simply reading words. I remember a call from Travis last year. We enjoyed a good conversation. We will not agree on everything, but it was a nice call and hopefully we both saw the other differently than before.
Thinking about Steve and Joe Thorn. I remember when they both determined to let others work for any kind of reform in the SBC … do you remember the funny pic of them pretending to be at the SBC in San Antonio?
Paul: Yeah. And it seems like the list of people feeling that same way keeps growing.
I’m pretty sympathetic to those thoughts myself these days.
Todd: That reminds me of a call from Marty. He had read some of the things I had written and assumed I had at least one foot out of the door.
The more we talked he understood that some of us were willing to be Southern Baptist for a variety of reasons but that did not mean the same kind of blind loyalty once offered when we thought the “Baptist” battle for the Bible was all that was in play.
I remember we talked and agreed to go to Greensboro. My first SBC since Dallas a number of years ago.
Paul: It was my first SBC ever.
Todd: We met lots of people for the first time there - Ed Stetzer, Marty, Steve, Joe, Ben Cole, David Phillips, you may remember others.
I had not seen Dr. Chapman since my last BWA meeting. We enjoyed a good conversation in the hallway.
Paul: Yeah. We also met Alan Cross, Kiki Cherry, Les Puryear and the now infamous Rick Garner.
Todd: What a tawdry band!
Paul: Indeed!
Todd: I cannot speak for everyone, but I sure hoped we would see a greater connection with what we said we believed with what we practiced as a denomination. It seems these kinds of feelings always get glossed in the talk that evangelism cures our problems … seemed to me like we would run the risk of evangelizing schizophrenic disciples … those who could articulate what we believe but let the pragmatic rule the day …
even it that meant bending what we believe to suit
Paul: That was my concern from the very beginning. I remember our friend Rick Davis once asking me what I thought of SBC politics. I told him that I thought the parties on both sides had often acted in a “pragmatic” way - to the hurt of the other. In fact, I remember telling Travis on that old LifeWay board that a pastor friend had publicly objected to the way Russell Dilday was fired at SWBTS and some of the conservative ground troops began publicly telling everyone he was a supporter of abortion and homosexuality.
When Travis herd that he told me that he knew who I was talking about and that that pastor had a change of heart.
I knew immediately that we were talking about two different people and that only proved to me that this was not an isolated incident.
But, as I told Rick, I believed a lot of that had gone on with both sides. However, the conservatives had won on a platform of the authority of the Bible and that made it that much harder for me to accept those “pragmatic” ways of winning.
I even sent a letter saying so to one of our seminary presidents. His reply was that I should just be glad that we weren’t living in the days of Luther where we burned the losers at the stake.
Todd: Now that is what I like to think about. Bet that same President who would refer to Luther would not consider sharing a German beer with him were he living today.
Paul: Ha! Not a chance!
Todd: We quote for convenience.
Any way, let’s get back to that Marty fellow. You know I read in recent comments how Marty, Micah and Darrin had been sorely missed here on the Outpost. Read the rest of this entry »

Many of you are aware that SWBTS has a website of theological and historical resources available for instructing the church along with other SBC entities in Baptist principles and thought. If you need to know how to write a book review, what Malcolm Yarnell thinks of the LifeWay study on Private Prayer Language, why Bart Barber believes you should support the Southern Baptist trustee system, what Dorothy Kelley Patterson thinks about women pastors, or a number of other subjects, there are white papers for one and all.

There you can also access the Southwestern Journal of Theology and various historical resources. One such resource is a paper entitled Seven Guidelines for Church Planting Which Reflect Baptist Ecclesiology, Submitted for consideration by the North American Mission Board and the International Mission Board from the Theological Studies Division, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. It is a brief two pages and proclaims itself to “detail the historical interpretation of Scripture by Baptists as embodied in articles 6, 7, and 8 of the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message.”

There are seven guidelines mentioned all of which are of importance in church planting both here in the states and overseas. I think it is safe to assume that following these guidelines would lead to a “true” church plant - a church reflecting all that is necessary to be considered a good Southern Baptist church filled with members who would generally be qualified for service in various capacities within the Southern Baptist Convention. However, this document guarantees no such thing.

Of particular note is point number five related to baptism. Certainly this point does, in fact, agree wholeheartedly with the Baptist Faith and Message. However, both are silent on the requirement that the administrator of a person’s baptism must believe in “eternal security” or that the candidate themselves believe such a thing, for the baptism to be “valid.” It appears that our NAMB and IMB church plants could follow the Baptist Faith and Message along with these guidelines developed by the best theologians from SWBTS and yet produce members who may well be unqualified to become missionaries sent by our own missions sending agencies.

Curiously this paper is also lacking a statement preventing a church from having members who believe, teach and/or practice a Private Prayer Language.

Further, there is a white paper at baptisttheology.org written by Dr. Thomas White entitled, What Makes Baptism Valid? In the section on The Meaning of Baptism there is no mention that a belief in eternal security is required for the baptism to be valid. Dr. White does state that, “The proper meaning is essential to proper baptism. Does the recipient have to understand everything in theology? No. However, the subject must understand that baptism is not salvific, grants no additional grace, and does not insure sinlessness. Because the subject must understand, the subject cannot be an infant. The subject should also accept that baptism is the public profession of faith, identification with Christ, and the door to the local church.” All that, but no requirement that the subject believe in eternal security? How strange. [Even more strange is his contention that it is “unwise” for baptisms to occur in a seminary. Perhaps he has not spoken with his President.]

Dr. White also discusses the proper administrator of baptism. In this section he twice states that the administrator does not determine the validity of the baptism. In fact, he argues that to say otherwise is to fall into the error of Donatism. Nevertheless, care should be taken in who administers baptism, but apparently not so much care that it is necessary to explicitly require that the person baptizing, nor the church sanctioning the baptism, believe in eternal security. This seems to be a rather odd omission in light of the policies guidelines now in force at the IMB. Apparently the quality of the theologians at SWBTS falls short of the quality of the theologians on the IMB board and at Mid America seminary.

So a Southern Baptist missionary/church planter could follow to the letter the practice outlined in the guidelines and white papers produced at SWBTS and still produce members who are not good enough for service with NAMB and/or the IMB. Are these guidelines lacking certain necessary provisions, or could it be that our mission sending agencies have made essential what our own theologians have not declared essential?

A couple of years ago as I would travel around the Baptist blogopshere I regularly ran across the comments of a guy that always seemed to say what I was thinking.  I met Alan Cross in Greensboro a couple of years ago and then was privileged to spend some time with him in Arlington, Texas for a couple of days and we got to hang out in San Antonio as well.  Alan is the real deal and many of you already know that.

Alan’s son Caelan has battled cancer for most of his very young life.  The last reports we’d gotten were all very encouraging - the cancer was believed to be gone.  It may be back.  You can read the details here.

Whether you think Paige Patterson is the embodiment of all that is wrong with the SBC or all that is right in the SBC, whether you think Frank Cox would be a wonderful president or whether you have your reservations, whether you live and breathe convention politics or hope the whole thing implodes, spend a few moments putting all of that in the context of the life of a two-and-a-half year old battling cancer and pray.  Pray for Caelan.  Pray for Alan.  Pray for his wife Erika.  Pray for their kids and their parents.  Pray with their church and pray with their friends.

May God grant Caelan life and health in the power that raised Jesus from the dead.

Recently the boys over at SBC Yesterday Today (just a little humor, boys. Don’t get your blood pressure up) made a proposal that when the time comes for Jerry Rankin to retire from the IMB the convention should look to a pastor to lead our great missions organization into the future. In light of that proposal I would like to suggest one of my own.

Let me first of all say that there are many things for which we can be grateful in regards to Dr. Paige Patterson. His best work may well have been in pulling Southeastern Seminary out of the miry pit and setting its feet on a solid rock. While there are things with which he and I would disagree - such as whether or not a woman can teach theology to men (and it seems to me that women regularly teach theology to men in the music and education departments at SWBTS even today - and if they do not then they should be fired) - nevertheless, he aided in the rescue of the SBC from a liberal drift and helped to set us back onto a squarely conservative path.

One of these days Dr. Patterson will retire from SWBTS. When that time comes I hope that the trustees will give full consideration to hiring a president who has no long-term educational experience. Read the rest of this entry »

Or, Why I Don’t Think Al Mohler Needs To Be President of the SBC.

By the way, I have no idea what Ben Cole thinks of an Al Mohler Presidency. I know only a little more about what my own brother Todd thinks about an Al Mohler Presidency. I have a pretty good idea about what I think of it. I am not on a crusade. But we do have this little blog and one of the purposes of this blog is to write about Southern Baptist news and events. You don’t have to agree with me. Go to Wordpress.com and get a blog for yourself and write about why you think Al Mohler descended from Mt. Sinai and is the most important figure in evangelical Christianity today. That’s what blogs are for.

But don’t be surprised, or offended, just because I give my reasons for thinking that Al Mohler is a great seminary President, that he’s done a wonderful job at Southern and that, aside from what I think are some, at best, quirky views on childlessness, an exit strategy from public schools and embryonic manipulation, that he does a fine job representing a good, conservative Christian perspective on Larry King, but that he would not make a good President for the SBC.

My first reason is that it is a clear conflict of interest. I realize that many will say that it has been done before and men acted without prejudice for their own interests. Fine. I might be inclined to agree. But the possibility that one might not give in to his own self-interest does not mean that the conflict of interest does not exist. It clearly does. It is the very definition of a conflict of interest. Al may be far above giving into acting on such a conflict of interest, but it is a conflict all the same. In addition, I think it is clear from at least one entity head who recently served as President of the SBC that such a conflict is almost certain to be acted upon. There are numerous examples of how Paige Patterson’s Presidency was just such a case. The very fact that SWBTS is involved in a law suit and the trustees, many of whom were recommended by the nominating committee that Patterson himself appointed, remain publicly oblivious to the fact speaks volumes to me. That trustees who elected him President of SWBTS are now administrators at SWBTS seems to me to prove the conflict was more than one of appearance. I suspect that Dr. Patterson has benefited both professionally and personally from his time as SBC President in many ways due to decisions he had some control over while serving as President.

No, the Kingdom of God has not been destroyed because of it. Souls are not eternally perishing because Paige Patterson served as President of the SBC. But it was a conflict of interest. Any entity head serving as President of the SBC is a conflict of interest. I often wonder how many of those who are so enamored with Paige Patterson would respond if Jerry Rankin were going to be nominated for SBC President. Are we really to believe that no one would suggest that it was a conflict of interest? By the way, I greatly appreciate Dr. Rankin and believe he would serve well as President of the SBC, but if he were ever nominated I would oppose his nomination for the same reason. I believe we should avoid even the appearance of a conflict.

A second reason I will not be supporting Dr. Mohler for SBC President is that I do not believe he has the disposition for that position. I’m not saying he would blow up the convention, but my impressions are that some of the qualities that have made him good at giving Southern a “makeover” would be detrimental in a more diverse organization such as the convention at large. Dr. Mohler seems to me to be a fairly focused individual. He’s not simply been focused on putting together a broad faculty at Southern, but a very specific sort of faculty. I’m not talking “broad” in the sense of broadness on the liberal/conservative spectrum. I’m talking broad in the sense of “representative of most Southern Baptists” broad. Not that there is anything wrong with the Southern faculty. I lean in a reformed direction myself and I don’t mind that Southern is heavily Calvinistic. Since we have six seminaries we can afford to have a Calvinistic seminary, a Fundamentalist seminary, a multi-campus seminary, etc. Choose which one fits your need. But if Dr. Mohler were to apply the administrative approach he has used for Southern on the SBC as a whole then we may well have a recipe for deeper conflicts ahead.

Third is his lack of a commitment to any sort of personal involvement in international missions. I don’t care that he’s not been a career missionary. I don’t believe that is or should be a requirement. But when 50% of all CP monies along with another $150 million dollars from our local churches goes toward international missions I would want to know that the man who can take the time out of his schedule to visit with Larry King on a regular basis and the man who can blog so prolifically has also made it a priority to set aside time every five years or so to go and see what international missions is all about first-hand. And if he desires to lead a convention which boasts the largest missions sending agency in the world I would want to see that he has a working knowledge of that agency down to the street level in Bujumbura or New Delhi or Nairobi or Bishkek. Somewhere. Anywhere.

[editorial footnote: for those who want proof I’ll expect that every time you’ve heard someone on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, FoxNews or your local paper make the statement, “A source reported on condition of anonymity…” that you completely disregard those statements believing that either a) the one making the report is simply making it up, or b) the anonymous source is simply a liar. Give this whatever credibility you wish. You can see what sort of credibility I give it. You don’t have to like it or agree with it and I could care less. Feel free to ignore this entire point if you wish because when you complain in comments I will ignore your point as well.]

There may well be other reasons, but those will have to wait for another time. I don’t dislike Dr. Mohler. Years ago, before the formation of the SBTC, the BGCT put together a study committee to examine its relationship to the SBC entities. I remember one of the members of that committee telling me that of all the seminary presidents only one was not an empty suit - Al Mohler (at that time most of the current presidents were not serving in their current capacities, so this is no reflection on them). I didn’t know any of those other men, so I will withhold any personal judgment in that regard. But it instilled in me a respect for Dr. Mohler that remains to this day. My views are not some personal vendetta and I’m not out to “get” him. I hope that Southern is blessed with Dr. Mohler’s leadership for many years to come. Whatever his faults may be it seems clear to me that he has done a fantastic job leading Southern. I just don’t think he’d be a good fit serving the SBC as her President.

This morning I received word from the SBTS IT department that they have not blocked SBC Outpost on the SBTS campus. However, it appears that access has been denied by our server to the student network at SBTS. The faculty network has been able to access the Outpost, but the student network has not.

It is possible that one of our cantankerous commentors who got banned was from Southern Seminary - or at least posted the comment while using the Southern student network and in banning their IP we unknowingly banned the whole student network.

I apologize to Southern for whatever implication those who have trouble understanding provisional “if…then” statements may have drawn from the original post and any lack of clarity in my own writing which may have led to that sort of thing.

We are certainly glad to know that Southern remains open to the free exchange of ideas among interested Baptists and we are working to resolve the issue on our end.

[Update: In response to my apology offered to Southern Seminary I received this as a part of the response: “For my personal account, your apology is accepted without reservation. I do wish we could have averted the issue beforehand, but I am pleased that we had the opportunity to redistribute the grace which we have been freely given.”

I am thankful that graciousness and forgiveness still exist in the Southern Baptist Convention and at Southern Seminary, even if it doesn’t always exist in other places among us.] 

In the spirit of Christmas cheer the editors of SBCOutpost have gathered various SBC luminaries to perform for you a Christmas song wishing you blessings for the holiday season. We hope you enjoy this and will play it to family and friends as you celebrate the joy of the season.

12 Days of Christmas

Cough! Cough! [He brushes away the cobwebs around here.]

In February, 2005 Time Magazine named Richard Land one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America.  What we here at SBC Outpost would like to know is: who exactly does Richard Land influence?  Does he influence you?  In what way?  If you’re a balding pastor are you wanting to know who did his hair plugs for him?  If you are fashion-challenged are you wanting to know where you can get your own pair of two-tone wing tips?  If you have an eating disorder are you curious about his secrets to a robust figure?

Ok….those last few comments were just silly and can be ignored.  We don’t want a bunch of humorless whiners complaining in the comment section about how mean we are.  But seriously, what was the last thing you heard or read from Richard Land that influenced you and how did it influence you?  Of all the people we would expect to be influenced by Dr. Land we would think it would be involved and informed Southern Baptists.

There are those who have been warning against the increasing spirit among us to narrowly define the terms of our cooperation as Southern Baptists. Critics cry “poppycock!” One example that has occasionally been given is the issue of Calvinism in the SBC. In case the example that Florida Baptists received anti-Calvinistic literature/media with John Sullivan’s blessings isn’t sufficient we now offer exhibit “b”. A letter has been drafted by the DOM of Oklahoma’s Arbuckle Association and sent to members of the SBC’s Executive Committee, the Executive Director of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma and the Board of Directors of the BGCO recommending that the topic of Calvinism not be considered a legitimate topic of debate or disagreement among faithful Southern Baptist, but that it be actively and publicly opposed.

Ah, the spirit of non-cooperation at work. If you are a Southern Baptist Calvinist it is once again time for you to duck.

[HT: The ever-ducking Tom Ascol]

Evangelicalism in general and the SBC in particular may be at a crossroads.  We can already see the rift in our own convention that the blogosphere has exposed.  People who’s theology is not six inches apart are polarized over a variety of lesser things, mostly politics of either a denominational or governmental sort.

The pages here at SBC Outpost reveal that all too often.  The things that divide us can be seen in posts about global warming and presidential portraits.  In a denomination of [ahem] 16 million - give or take nine or ten million - we can see reflections of evangelicalism as a whole.  The question is: where will the future take us?

There are those who advocate a return to the good old days.  Bring back John Dagg.  Resurrect 18th Century Associational church life.  Let us be what we used to be.  Re-establish the old landmarks [snort, snicker - pun intended].

Opponents of this view warn that it will lead to obscurantism.  First we’ll become like Independent Baptists, railing against cultural evils to ever-shrinking crowds as we develop a “remnant” mentality awaiting the second-coming so that God can rescue us from this great big mess.  Then in twenty years we’ll become like the Amish.  Cute.  Odd.  And irrelevant.  Proponents see it as the only way to be faithful.

There are others who advocate a new day.  Recognize that the SBC/evangelicalism has never been as homogeneous as it is being portrayed and rally around those things which are essential and with which we all can agree.

Opponents of this view warn that it will lead to a slippery slope into the well-worn path already cut out by mainline denominations.  First we’ll talk about cooperation, then poverty and AIDS, then we’ll give up on the Bible and adopt an anything-goes ethic.  Proponents see it as recapturing the main thing - the gospel.

Bill Leonard warned that this sort of rift would lead to a splintering of the SBC.  The New York Times suggests evangelicalism as a whole may be right there with it.

Are these our options?  Does anyone care whether we come together or not?