SBC

IMB Trustees Back Off Burleson

in , ,

A bit of breaking news.  TheFlorida Baptist Witness is reporting that the executive committee of the IMB's trustee board, "will recommend at the board's March 20-21 meeting in Tampa that trustees reverse a Jan. 11 motion asking the Southern Baptist Convention to remove Wade Burleson of Enid, Okla., as a trustee."

Here's more...

IMB trustee chairman Thomas Hatley of Rogers, Ark., told the Southern Baptist TEXAN the committee determined the matter of disciplining a trustee could be handled internally. Burleson has vocally--and allegedly improperly, according to the trustees--opposed the board's action to establish new missionary candidate criteria.

[...]

Misinformation disseminated through informal weblogs caused confusion in the minds of some Southern Baptists, Hatley said. He said he hopes a detailed accounting of the timeline and rationale for those standards will help separate those issues from the matter of Burleson's personal conduct as a trustee and answer questions that have arisen.

[...]

Since November, Burleson’s blog and several others have maintained frequent discussion of the issues. Many of the blogs include feedback from online readers rallying to the embattled trustee’s defense and calling for a large turnout at the annual meeting of the convention in Greensboro June 13-14 to vote against his proposed removal.

With the initial wave of e-mails and letters opposing the action against Burleson subsiding, Hatley told the TEXAN that he was beginning to receive many letters expressing appreciation for the stand taken by trustees.

The policy on private prayer language regards the habit to be outside the norm of Southern Baptist practice and states that candidates holding to the conviction or practice eliminate themselves from consideration. The guideline--not a policy--related to baptism expects candidates to have been baptized in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view it as sacramental or regenerative and embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer. In contrast to the misinformation circulated by critics, both the policy and the guideline feature an exception clause that allows for review by appeal.

Here's the BP article.  (HT: Tom Ascol)

IMB Policy Change on Baptism

in ,

If you are in the SBC or are interested in keeping up with the discussion and disagreement on IMB policy changes, you need to be reading my other blog: Missional Baptist Blog.  Be sure to get into the comments as well.  We now have Hershael York posting to defend the changes, Ergun Caner giving him a "high five," and Tom Ascol pointing out that this policy tells our forefathers they weren't wet in the wight way.

MBB Posts...
Hershael York Likes the IMB Baptism Policy
Ergun Caner, IMB Policy
Ascol on York

Erwin McManus and Denominational Headway

in , , , ,

What do you think about Erwin McManus?  Just an open question for anyone who has read one of his books, heard him speak, been to his church (Mosaic).  I've appreciated his ministry and writings.

Baptist Press has an article today on McManus and a class he taught on leadership at GGBTS.  It's a nice introduction to him if you don't know much about him.  He will be preaching at the SBC Annual Meeting Pastor's Conference in June.

I really like McManus' approach to the SBC, in that he makes his noise with his church, his books, his speaking and it's a "building" mentality and not just tearing down.  It's all gospel and mission and zeal for Christ.

Brokeback Baptists

in ,

Mark Driscoll has a nice post on Al Mohler's appearance on Larry King Live.  He includes several of Mohler's quotes from the show, which are very good and generally humble.

By the way, I remember being in a conversation with Dr. Mohler and other students one time and he was explaining how hard it was to appear on shows like King's.  It demands very quick reactions, and you need to speak and not mess up or you will be quoted all over the place.  I have said before that I think Al Mohler is specifically gifted in ways that make his TV appearances come off well. 

If you don't agree, please wait until at least Monday to blast me.  Make it a high-priority task in your Treo.  I need a break.

Russ Moore, Blogging, and Revolution

in , ,

Today Russ Moore has written a short article/blog post called "The Spiritual Danger of Blogging" (also posted at Mere Comments).  He has some important things to say, things that we as bloggers need to hear.  To be honest, I think he aims this post at me (though I drink mochas). 

I've encountered many blogs run by the sort of "self-righteous" and "cynical" people that he mentions.  Strangely, most that I have encountered have been run by Calvinistic inerrantist reformed-types (who I doctrinally side with) who think a doctrinal statement is the bottom line of righteousness.  They typically spend a lot of time finding errors in the doctrines of others, defending anyone who holds the same doctrines they hold no matter what they say, finding people with any connection to something bad and broad-brushing them into the heresy camp, and looking for sins in the culture to preach against.  It's a deadly lot and I have run among the "angry Calvinist" number before.

Though Russ seems to emphasize the bad bloggers (he may be a bit cynical about bloggers, I think), he also points to a good group of bloggers out there.  My fear is that his group would be the kind who always tow the party line, and link to the "right" places, and vote straight party ticket.

I've found many good bloggers too, but I would think they would be a different sort than Russ'.  I like the bloggers who don't draw extra-biblical lines of fellowship.  They are willing to speak truth even when it costs them connections they may need in ministry.  They point out the dangers Jesus points to (like legalism) and not the ones that legalists point to (like alcohol).  The bloggers I like are the ones who like Jesus so much that they realize how messed up they are and how great grace is.  I like bloggers who are interested in a Kingdom that God builds, and who would have no problem watching our institutions and kingdoms die when they cease serving God's desires.  Sounds delicious, doesn't it?

Ultimately Moore seems to miss something.  He writes, "But, let's be honest, blogs also tend to give a microphone to a kind of deadening cynicism and blind self-righteousness in the guise of taking on self-righteousness, legalism, and what-have-you."  Sure, we all would agree.  That happens too much.  All of us who blog have certainly from time to time held on to our "rightness" too tightly because being wrong isn't fun.  But this sort of self-righteous blogging that Moore speaks of rarely makes a ripple in the blogosphere, let alone beyond it. 

And Moore's quote can just be as easily be turned around.  The guise could be on the other side, just as it was with Jesus who seemed to criticize the religious power brokers the loudest and sharpest, not the little guy who was "self-righteously" attacking legalism.

In other words, I seriously doubt the big problem with blogging is that some of the "self-righteous" ones are getting a hearing and hurting the big boys.  I think it is much more likely that if any bloggers are getting loud enough to actually create a stir among the power brokers, those power brokers would try to find a way to combat the bloggers.  The odds are stacked against the bloggers and for those with power, position and notoriety.

And isn't this what we see with Luther and the 95 Theses?  He was an annoying gnat to the institution for questioning what they were doing.  Then some started to agree with him which created fear among the powerful, and an attempt was made to silence him (something that can't be done in the same way to bloggers, which elevates fears among the powerful today).  But Luther continued on as a flawed man who didn't do it all right, but who in the end was faithful and led a revolution of biblical proportions.

While I'm not able to remove the lint from Luther's belly button (and I'm more likely to lead a revolution for P.F. Chang's), I'm more hopeful about real change happening in the SBC after reading Russ' post.  It's a sign that the message of 'necessary change' is getting out.  God help us.

SBTS, the Abstract, and Local Church Autonomy

in ,

I removed my post with the same title because the commenter I quoted has given a correction and apology. 

I was very concerned with the ramifications if the original comment were true, and as I said in my post I wanted to hear from those who knew if this was really the deal.  I did and it wasn't. 

I've also received emails from a couple of friends who are trustworthy, and at least one was concerned this was gossip for me to post.  Thought this might be a good opportunity to discuss blogging and gossip.  I think it's a good question to ask, but I don't think it was gossip.  If I were to simply spread the info as if it were true, yeah, it's gossip.  But I was removed from the situation and admitted that I didn't know and wanted someone "in the know" to comment.  In a way, I may have helped this to get off the gossip mill, but I don't know.

Any thoughts on that?  I'm happy to apologize if I'm wrong.  I'll apologize anyway because I love the people at Clifton (who I was intending to defend if this were true) and I love Dr. Mohler. 

An Open Letter to SBC Seminary Students

in ,

To All Students in SBC Seminaries,

I am a Southern Baptist pastor and I ask you to indulge me for a moment.

My wife and I were converted our first Sunday in an SBC church in Carbondale, IL and were baptized together at an SBC church in Denver, CO.  We have been members of several different SBC churches: a couple with less than 100 in attendance, a couple with over 1,000 in attendance, and one with over 10,000 in attendance every weekend.  We have never been a member of a non-SBC church since our conversion.

I have a Master of Divinity from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY with some of those hours earned at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.  In the SBC churches I've belonged to I've served in volunteer capacity in evangelistic ministry and started prayer meetings at two different churches.  I've served as an intern with collegiate ministry in a large church, as an associate pastor of discipleship at a church plant, as a missionary to international students at the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky (through Baptist Student Unions), and now as the pastor of a church in Woodstock, IL.  I've taught a 4-5 year old children's Sunday School class, youth groups, college students, and adult Sunday School classes.  I've preached and taught at churches on the topic of missions and reaching international students in the U.S and I preached a revival.  I've been to a couple of SBC Annual Meetings (Indy and Nashville) and preached at my local association's annual meeting.  I've been to Ridgecrest, NC for an IMB Missions Week and my wife and I were considering on going overseas to a Muslim country until our oldest son was diagnosed with autism. 

I've shaken the hand of Jerry Rankin, heard O.S. Hawkins respond to "How are you?" by saying "I'm blessed," and have an autographed autobiography of Jimmy Draper.  I've heard Roy Fish tell a class on evangelism to "Put THAT in your Calvinistic pipe and smoke it."  I've peed next to Danny Akin while he told me stories about the ethics class he took under Paige Patterson.  I've had Ken Hemphill (cowboy boots and all) and his wife Paula in our Fort Worth townhouse for brownies and ice cream.  I've had many conversations with Al Mohler, including one about an episode of Prairie Home Companion. 

I say this to say that I've lived and breathed SBC for more almost a decade, and I have never been so frustrated with who WE are. 

I believe this is a crucial time for our convention that will determine whether we will ever have a good reputation with outsiders (1 Tim 3:7) and a real impact on our culture (Mt 28:18-20, Acts 17:6).  And I believe the most crucial group of SBC'rs right now are not those in power, nor those serving on trustee boards or important committees.  The most important group of SBC'rs right now are our seminary students.  Those who have the chance to get this Titanic steered clear of disaster.

I ask you as a seminary student to consider the greatest poison in our convention, fundamentalism/legalism.  If you don't like me, or think that my use of "fundamentalism" or "legalism" is misguided, please think about what's been happening.  The IMB policy issues and the continued push for alcohol abstinence by SBTS leadership and Jack Graham (to name two) are symptoms of a convention concerned with power, control, and extra-biblical rules and righteousness.  We are structuring ourselves to avoid "sinners" rather than eating and drinking with them (Lk 7:34-35, Mt 9:9-13).  We are looking less like Jesus and more like Pharisees with every decision and direction.

This is a crucial time for seminary students to open their Bibles and see what Jesus and Paul and Moses and David say about the important theological and cultural issues of our day.  We need to read about the Pharisees while looking in the mirror.  We need to see holiness not only as list of "don'ts," but as "do's."  Instead of just feeding from our leaders we need to search the Scriptures like Bereans (Acts 17:11).  Listen and learn, but do so with great discernment.  I believe as John Piper does that legalism is a far greater danger than drunkenness.  That principle is crucial for our convention right now far beyond alcohol.

Our seminaries are creating a new generation that mirrors the ones in power.  Oh sure, they'll let you sing more choruses and new hymns.  But as one who has been in seminary and sucked at the breast of SBC values and who has now gained some distance and insight through a couple of years of teaching and preaching through books of the Bible, I believe that we must have a breakout generation of young leaders who will take the best the SBC has (heritage, mission, etc) and let God reform us into something much better. 

We need to be better evangelists who aren't looking to repackage for the Gospel but rather looking to better understand and live the Gospel.  I think we need to remember that we are to truly be in culture, not looking down on it, and not avoiding it.  I think we need to remember that working for justice is a biblical idea, not a liberal one.  I think we need a resurgence of love for and creation of art as reflecting the imago dei.  I think we need better seminaries that aren't just telling us what we should think, but rather are teaching us how to think through Scripture and know The Spirit.  I think we need an ethic based on biblical boundaries and biblical liberties.  As Derek Webb has sung, it's much easier to follow a new law rather than be sanctified through learning to live out our freedoms and liberties.

I ask you my brothers and sisters in Christ to consider whether now is the time that we need to break the mold so that our next generation of churches won't merely reflect an older SBC culture.  We need to be His people today, in this age, to this culture with an eternal Gospel that never changes.  Culture war thinking won't get us there.  Extra-biblical rules won't get us there.  It's going to take a generation of God-seekers who infiltrate the culture with the love of Christ and fight spiritual battles rather than tongue-lashing those who need redemption.

I would love to dialogue with you here about this, and please pass this on to your seminary friends as well.  I won't be popular with many people because of this letter, but I feel like it's necessary for my conscience and for our convention.

Grace and Peace.

Steve McCoy

Keeping Our Eye On The Ball

in ,

Among SBC circles things have been buzzing. 

The IMB has passed what I consider to be extra-biblical policies.  An IMB trustee (Wade Burleson) is facing removal from the board, and he happens to strongly and publicly oppose the new policies.  Some young leaders who have not been to the SBC Annual Meeting are planning to go to vote to keep Wade in as a Trustee.  This is an important time to work for change in the SBC.

But here's my fear.  We may take our eye off The Ball.  "The Ball" is not Wade Burleson and it's not the IMB and our mission organization.  It's not the upcoming Annual Meeting.  It's the Gospel. 

I'm not going to get into debates on whether supporting Wade or the IMB or whatever is supporting the Gospel.  So please don't go there.  I'm supportive of Wade and believe this is an important time. 

I simply want to encourage everyone who is gripped by this controversy to keep your eyes primarily on your local church, your local community, and the Gospel that has been entrusted to you (2 Tim 1:14).  Satan's joy will come when we exchange the primacy of The Gospel for anything else, even something as important as getting our mission board and convention in order.

SBC, IMB and Wade Burleson

in ,

For those in the SBC or interested in SBC issues, Wade Burleson, Oklahoma pastor and IMB trustee, is facing a vote for removal as a trustee.  You can read what Wade says about it on his blog.  I also recommend you keep up with it on my other blog, Missional Baptist Blog. 

This may be the most important year in some time to attend our annual convention in Greensboro, NC as Wade's fate as a trustee will be voted on by SBC'rs in attendance.  I will be there.

Warning to 'Emerging Church'

in ,

I learned recently that John Hammett (SEBTS prof of theology) delivered a paper at The Evangelical Theological Society meeting a couple of weeks ago on the Emerging Church: "An Ecclesiological Assessment of the Emerging Church."  I don't know if it's online anywhere (it's online now) but he has kindly emailed it to those interested in reading it.  So I have it on my desktop right now, but I haven't read it yet.

Baptist Press has picked this up as a news story: "Baptist Scholar Sounds a Warning to 'Emerging Church."  Here are a few snippets.  I've pointed out a couple of things in bold.

The leaders of many "emerging" churches echo McLaren’s claim, saying that traditional churches must change or die. Hammett, however, charges that this type of approach is overly simplistic. Many so-called "traditional" churches, he said, are reaching people by simply teaching the word of God and sharing the Gospel, he said.

[...]

Hammett also criticized emerging church leaders for letting cultural concerns over postmodernism drive their agendas, rather than being driven solely by Scripture.

"Key leaders of the emerging church affirm that they love, have confidence in, seek to obey, and strive accurately to teach the sacred Scriptures," he said. "I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of these leaders, nor the reality of their commitment to Scripture. But in reading their material in books, websites and articles, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the concern to respond to postmodernism is what is really driving the movement.

"It seems that the central problem with the emerging church ... is that in its zeal to respond to postmodern culture in a way that is evangelistically effective and personally and ecclesiologically refreshing, they have not yet carefully critiqued postmodernism," Hammett continued. "Without such critique, there is a real danger that the movement will appropriate elements of postmodern thought that cannot be integrated into a genuinely evangelical Christian worldview."

[...]

While the emerging church’s desire to engage a lost culture is admirable, Hammett said, they should do so with caution and a willingness to learn from traditional churches, not with a willingness to uncritically accept postmodernism.

"The more desirable alternative is for all churches to engage the culture, with a zeal to understand its questions and to speak its language, but also with a resolute willingness to take the posture of Christ against culture where biblical fidelity requires it," he said. "This challenge of thoughtful engagement with contemporary culture lies before the emerging church and all branches of evangelicalism."

A couple of thoughts...

1. I wonder if Dr. Hammett sees the difference here between a desire to understand and reach a culture influenced by postmodernity and uncritically accepting postmodernism.  These are very different things.  And if I read him right, I think Dr. Hammett hasn't distinguished these ideas.

Maybe he speaks this way because he thinks EC'rs muddle the line?  Maybe so.  I wouldn't fight over that claim.  But as he assesses the movement he needs to be clear on the difference.  Though I have no problem saying some in the EC are too accepting of postmodernism, there are many who are simply trying to reach a culture that has been influenced by postmodernism.

2. He says churches need to have a "willingness to take the posture of Christ against culture where biblical fidelity requires it."  What does he mean?  I'm increasingly skeptical over the intentions of statements like this one.

Critics of the EC may wonder if my skepticism is based in an unwillingness to see what's wrong with the culture because I would rather speak of love and grace than sin and judgment.  That's not my point at all.  I'm skeptical because of the 'culture war' mentality of much of evangelicalism, and of the SBC in particular.  I think it's the wrong approach to culture, it always has been, and the EC in large part is looking for a way to be the Church without scolding the culture.

Again, I'm fine saying the EC has created new problems at times in this area and in other areas.  But I think a non-scolding approach to culture is a better approach, not a lesser one, and I'm curious to learn whether Dr. Hammett's quote above is intending to hit on this topic.

I appreciate Dr. Hammett and the other scholars and pastors who are working hard to understand the EC and approach it in a conversational way.

Complementarians Complimented

in

I love this.  Al Mohler and Mark Dever stand in line to get Maureen Dowd to sign her new book. 

It's not every day that you get to meet the leading feminist columnist for The New York Times. Ms. Dowd did not disappoint. She was clever, winsome, and glad to sign a copy of her new book, Are Men Necessary? When Sexes Collide. The book is important in several aspects, and I will publish a review in an upcoming commentary.

Ms. Dowd, whose caustic wit ranks with Dorothy Parker, demonstrated her sense of humor in signing her books. After I introduced myself, she wrote a message right under the title question: Are Men Necessary?. She wrote to me: You are! For Dr. Dever she wrote: Absolutely!

Well, it's not every day that two complementarian evangelical men get their existence affirmed by Maureen Dowd. It's true -- these are strange times.

Logical Conclusions of Teetotalers

in

I'm preaching on Psalm 82 this Sunday.  It is about justice and the consequences of not fighting injustice.  I want to express my thanks for a great illustration to Alabama Southern Baptists (my denomination) who are helping hurricane victims in Florida by NOT giving out free water because it has been provided by Anheuser-Busch and has "Budweiser" on the label .  Read this snippit as I go punch a wall...

Hurricane victims who wanted water had some difficultly finding it at a relief station in Clewiston Friday. The volunteer group running a supply center doesn't like the company that donated the water, so they decided not to give it to those in line for help.

Twenty-two pallets of the canned water, distributed free by beer company Anheuser-Busch, bears the company's label – and members of the Southern Baptist Convention refused to hand it out to those in need.

Resident lined up for miles to receive food and water at the distribution point. But the water was left on the sidelines by the Alabama-based group.

"The pastor didn't want to hand out the Budweiser cans to people and that's his prerogative and I back him 100-percent," said SBC volunteer John Cook.

The SBC felt it was inappropriate to give the donation out, and they weren't happy when NBC2 wanted to know why.

"Why do you want to make that the issue? That's not the issue. The issue is that we're here trying to help people," Cook said.

No one disagrees with that, but the Red Cross says Anheuser-Busch is also trying to help.

The water has been available all along, but the SBC volunteers set it aside and few people knew it was available.

(HT: SBC Outpost)

Lifeway to Get Rainer

in

Rainerthom_1If the trustees agree with the committee, then Dr. Thom Rainer will be the new Lifeway president.  ABP has broken the story through some leaked info, and it seems pretty solid.

Rainer, currently the Dean of the Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism, and Church Growth at Southern Seminary, has written a number of books and, I think, is bound to be a fantastic leader at Lifeway.  Honestly, I wasn't anticipating such a good pick.  Congrats to my Lifeway buddies.

Mohler and Emerging Church

in ,

While I was on vacation Al Mohler decided to put up two consecutive articles on the emerging church: part one and part two.  I think he was trying to slip them past me. :)  My responses are intended to be reflections on what I read, not a response to him or a rebuttal. 

As others have noted, Mohler spends most of his time rehashing much of Don Carson's book on the emerging church (ec).  That's fine, and much of what Carson says is helpful.  But in Mohler's articles, like in most anti-ec stuff, it comes down to what McLaren says vs. historic Christian doctrine.  That's a bit unfair.  There's room for a discussion on McLaren and doctrine, but let's just not imply that McLaren speaks for the ec.

I guess what I'm thinking is that for Mohler and Carson all their critique of the ec is based on their critique of postmodernism, as if the ec is about a wholesale commitment to being pomo.  I understand the idea of being ec as being aware of postmodernism in culture and communicating clearly in their vernacular.  I could be wrong, and am happy to discuss this.  I also know that not all ec'rs have the same convictions on this.

So Mohler will say things like...

By denying that truth is propositional, Emerging Church theorists avoid and renounce any responsibility to defend many of the doctrines long considered essential to the Christian faith.

I'm happy to admit that some in the ec have greatly downplayed propositions, but mostly in response to an evangelicalism that wrongly has made propositions the truest truth.  The Bible is the truest truth we have and proposition are a way of verbalizing theology as we study the truth.  More on propositions in a bit.

Mohler writes...

I am constantly confronted by young pastors who identify themselves with the Emerging Church movement but deny that they associate themselves with the aberrant theological impulses and outright doctrinal denials that characterize the writings of the movement's most well-known and influential leaders.

I completely agree with D. A. Carson when he reflects: "I would feel much less worried about the directions being taken by other Emerging Church leaders if these leaders would rise up and call McLaren and Chalke to account where they have clearly abandoned what the Bible actually says."

I think the issue is that Mohler and Carson take everyone sympathetic to the ec and make them McLarenites who must deny the heresies of their highly exalted leader.  Who says you can't be sympathetic to the ec and disagree with McLaren?  Mohler and Carson have worked hard to broadbrush here, but I just don't see it.  They want clean lines at all times dividing the good and bad, the true and false.  But the Reformation included some fuzzy boundaries for a while, didn't it?  We need to be aware that it's okay for things to be fuzzy for a while on some things (not all) for real change to happen.  And even Mohler admits that evangelicalism needs to look at changing.  More coming on that below.

Let me say that it would be nice to hear Mohler rejoice that some ec'rs are happy to reject what's wrong with some theology the ec.  Why not give these young leaders credit?  Why not be excited that there is evidence that bad theology isn't just being swallowed by ec'rs?  Why not see this as evidence that Mohler and Carson's determinations on the ec as this postmodern, truth-denying, proposition-denying, foundation-denying community is not exactly what they thought?  I would think this would make Mohler take a fresh look and wonder if his initial assessment of the ec is less than right on.

Mohler finishes the final post with....

The real question is this: will the future leaders of the Emerging Church acknowledge that, while truth is always more than propositional, it is never less? Will they come to affirm that a core of non-negotiable doctrines constitutes a necessary set of boundaries to authentic Christian faith? Will they embrace an understanding of Christianity that reforms the evangelical movement without denying its virtues?

This is the first thing Mohler has done that I know of where he actually seems to want an answer.  I hope that is his intention, because until now I think he has worked so hard to scold that he is losing any influence he had.  Here I think he is more helpful.  I think the questions are good.

At the same time, the tables must be turned. Will evangelicals be willing to direct hard and honest critical analysis at our own cultural embeddedness, intellectual faults, and organizational hubris?

Fantastic.  Finally the concerns of the ec are being addressed by one of the most eloquent spokesmen of the evangelical world.  With that, I think Mohler's articles deserve to be reread and reheard and reseen with a little more openness because he is taking the pointing finger of judgment and turning it at least a little bit inward on evangelicals. 

Shoot, more like this and we may actually get somewhere.  This is the best of Mohler we have on the ec to date.