Does Cooperation have Boundaries?

As we end this Memorial Day season and enter into summer with Father’s Day approaching quickly, I want to remember someone that had a huge impact on my life.
The picture you see today is one of my late Father, Bob Roe Rogers. There are some things about Daddy’s name you need to know. First, his name was not Robert or Bobby–it was Bob. Second, he did not know where my late Grandmother found the name Roe, and neither does anyone else. We just know that was his name. My Daddy went to be with the Lord on June 17, 2001–Father’s Day. I will never forget leaving my office heading to the Worship Center and hearing the phone ring. I knew Daddy was sick so I did something I usually do not do on Sunday mornings at the office–I answered the phone. It was Mama telling me that Daddy had entered Heaven. I told Mama that we would leave right away as we had a 4 hour drive in front of us. She told me to go ahead and preach the message because she knew that Daddy would tell me “let the dead bury the dead”. So I preached! It was hard, but I knew that my Daddy was one that would not allow anything to hinder the Word of God going forth.

There is something else that you should know about my Daddy. He only had a seventh grade education. My Grandfather died in the spring when my Daddy was in the seventh grade. Why is the season important to this story? My granddaddy was a farmer and in those days you borrowed the money from the bank in the spring and paid it back in the fall, when you sold the crops. When my granddaddy died the bank came in and foreclosed on the loan. What this meant to my Daddy’s family was everything was sold at auction. They got just enough to pay back the bank and then my Grandmother began renting and had no skills to make an income. Therefore, my Daddy quit school because he was the oldest male child at home and began working with other farmers to make money to support the family.

This part of my Daddy’s life made a huge impact on him. We never purchased anything that we could not pay for with cash. With his attitude towards banks we never owned a permanent dwelling until I was 16 and I am the next to youngest of 5 children. The permanent dwelling was a mobile home that we set up in a trailer park. We moved from one rental house to another about every 4 or 5 years as I was growing up. When I was 18 Daddy finally found some land we could purchase and he moved the mobile home to that piece of property, giving our family a permanent location that we could call home.

We may have moved from house to house but we did not change churches. Why? Because Daddy was led to a saving knowledge into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ behind Harris Chapel Baptist Church. Wherever we moved the location of the church was something that always was discussed in the decision to move. Daddy loved the church and he loved serving in the church. It was this love that caused many nights of prayer, tears, and even disagreements.

I will never forget the late 60’s and early 70’s around the Rogers’ household. It was a time of picking up other kids in the community and taking them to church. It also was a time of Interim Pastor’s, usually from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Our church would find some of the Professors to serve as our Interim until we could find a Pastor. It was in one of these times that Daddy was serving on the Deacon Board. An Old Testament Professor was serving as our Interim and Daddy found some disturbing news concerning him. It seems that Daddy read some of this particular Professor’s writings where the Professor called into question the validity of some stories in the Old Testament. Daddy asked him about it in a Deacon’s meeting and the Professor said something to the extent that with a seventh grade education you are just ignorant of these matters. The Deacons allowed this response to stand as the basis of truth, but also spread across the congregation that my Daddy was ignorant. I can still vividly remember witnessing my Daddy being castigated and derided by those that we thought were our friends. When approached by Daddy about their disregard of privacy on the matter, they expressed their desire to get along with the Professor because he was one that could really help our church in the convention. His suspect theology did not need to be questioned because he really was a good guy. He was arrogant, but he really was very intelligent, and besides, someone with a seventh grade education should not be questioning someone with a PhD. Besides he held a theological degree from an elite school of theology.

Fast forward to today.

The Right Left-leaning Reverend Dr. Benjamin Cole has called to the attention of the Spooky Fundamentalist Reverend Robin Foster his grammatical error of verb agreement here pertaining to a resolution on glossalalia. If this were all that he did, I would have not even considered posting this article. I would have taken it as just Ben being Ben. However, he took it a step further here. Some, especially those who made light of the grammatical error in the comment stream, may say that it was a joke and I should take it as one because I have joked about the Round Table meeting here and the Holy Spirit Conference here. However, if one will read my post compared to the Right Left-leaning Reverend Dr. Benjamin Cole’s latest meandering taunts, one would find me joking about our differences and the Right Left-leaning Reverend Dr. Benjamin Cole excoriating the error as rural baptonics. It is one thing to call attention to a mistake, but to capitalize on that mistake in order to malign the argument as “brainlessness and recklessness” is not debating the issue. It is putting someone down in order to make your part in the debate more favorable to those watching, in this case, reading. You no longer debate the issues but you destroy and malign the character of the ones you are debating. By doing this you set cooperative boundaries. This type of debate says; “I will cooperate as long as you go along with what I believe.”

Conclusion

This brings me to the point and conclusion of this post. It appears that in the mind of the Right Left-leaning Reverend Dr. Benjamin Cole this resolution by Brother Robin Foster should not see the light of day. However, our mutual friend and Brother in Christ, Dr. Dwight McKissic has put together a resolution on glossalalia that I suspect the Right Left-Leaning Reverend Dr. Benjamin Cole had a part in drafting and believes should hold the attention of the convention. There have been others that argue if Brother Robin’s resolution comes forth and is passed it will cause them to leave the convention. However, if Brother Dwight McKissic’s resolution comes forward and fails they probably will stay. (?)

Whether the Resolution Committee allows either of these to come to the floor is still the key. However, if one does make it to the floor before the convention, I suspect we will debate the issues based on Scripture not whether verbs and subjects agree in tenses. The Southern Baptist Convention has for her backbone rural churches. If the Right Left-leaning Reverend Dr. Benjamin Cole believes putting down the rural churches is wise, I believe he will be mistaken.

Isn’t it amazing that many of the voices that are advocating Cooperation with no boundaries (New Baptist Covenant) are the same voices saying they will draw the boundaries on a doctrine they believe to be third tier? There are some (and I am one) that believe the doctrine of glossalalia is third tier and should not be considered as something to break fellowship over but if we are speaking of cooperating in order to plant churches it would move to second tier. The simple reason would be that we are no longer speaking about merely fellowship we are now speaking of pooling resources in order to plant churches. Let me say this like I said it to my church this past Sunday. I do not believe that you have to be a Southern Baptist to get to Heaven. But if I believed there was another denomination that was closer to the New Testament than Southern Baptist, I would not be a Southern Baptist. When speaking of cooperation others draw the line. In a comment stream on Brother Robin Foster’s blog Brother David Rogers said; “It would send a message that people, like me, with continuationist beliefs, are really out of step with the SBC, and, as a result, it might be best for all that we seek other channels of service.” This statement coming from one that has openly affirmed the tier system concerning theological doctrines.

There are boundaries for cooperation that everyone has. If Private Prayer Language is a third tier doctrine, (I have not been convinced that it is a Scriptural Doctrine) then why is it such a big deal if the SBC passes a Resolution concerning it? Why would one feel “out of step” with a denomination that interprets a doctrine that one believes is third tier differently? It is surprising that those who say third tier doctrine should not keep us from cooperating are the very ones saying if this doctrine is not interpreted in a continationalist theological view, they will not cooperate.  Doesn’t it also seem strange that some seem offended by the rural mindset of some Southern Baptist–the very mindset that founded and grew the convention they say is headed in the wrong direction?

A Group of John Brandrick’s

Much has been made of the May 17, 2007 meeting of some bloggers with Former President Carter. You can find comments here here here here here and here. Some of these are in favor of the New Baptist Covenant and some believe there should not be a discussion as to whether Southern Baptist should accept an invitation. Of course, if you are a reader of this blog you know this author is one of the later.

Purpose of Post

I do not desire this article to be a re-hashing of my disagreements with the theological uncertainties of those leading the event. It is neither my desire for this article to dwell on the questions of the reasons former President Carter chose the bloggers he chose to get the word out. I can understand a certain link to readership volume, but these bloggers report that; “we were asked specifically to contact a couple of Southern Baptists to request them to speak during the plenary sessions.“ These bloggers were not asked to invite the SBC, it would be good if they would inform their network of friends, but they were not acting as representatives of the SBC. Their main reason for this meeting was for these bloggers to contact a couple of Southern Baptist requesting them to consider speaking at the event. Who knows who these speakers are, other than the bloggers and the organizers. Why couldn’t the organizers of the event contact these Southern Baptist speakers themselves? The answer to this question brings me to my intent of posting today’s article.

Who is John Brandrick?

John Brandrick is a man that is living in England. He was informed over a year ago that he had pancreatic cancer and there was no cure. He was told by the Physician that he only had approximately one year to live. The result of this diagnosis, for John Brandrick, was to quit his job, give away his earthly belongings, and go on vacation. He spent his life savings and accepted the vanity of living life on this earth without God. After a year and no chance of dying there was another diagnosis. It became apparent that John Brandrick only had an enlarged pancreas, something that is not life threatening. Problem with the missed diagnosis is that John Brandrick only has a black suit, white shirt, red tie (his burial garments) and an empty house to his name. You can read about his plight here and here.

What Warning can be Heeded?

John Brandrick has no one to blame for his situation but himself, and according to reports he accepts his share of the responsibility. However, he feels the Physician and Hospital should accept some fault in his plight. (Can you not see the looks on the faces of those in the Legal Department at the Physician’s Insurance Company? “We are being sued because the man is living!?!?”)

While I agree John Brandrick is the one to blame for his predicament, I also see some responsibility with the Physician and Hospital. If the proper diagnosis had been delivered John Brandrick would still be employed, have his earthly possessions, and his life savings. He took the diagnosis at face value because he trusted his Physician. The steps after the diagnosis are his responsibility, but he takes the steps based on his trusted Physician’s word.

It seems that with the New Baptist Covenant, member churches in the SBC are being asked to do the same as John Brandrick. We are being asked to trust the word of others and sell out all that we stand for in order to get along with others that do not desire to get along with us. This, we are being asked to do with no cautious reaction to what the future holds if those that are hosting the gathering are wrong in their words. We are being asked to do this by some in the SBC that have openly stated we are heading in a direction that will destroy the convention if we do not change. Is this the direction they desire us to move?

Why would we be asked to do such a thing? More on that in the next post.

The warning we need to heed is a simple one. What in Sam Hill is wrong with them joining us? We did not leave the 18 that met in that room in January of 2006, they left us. If there is truly a desire to feed the starving, minister to the homeless, and welcome the stranger the SBC is already doing these things. Why not come and join us in this endeavor? You know as well as I. Those forming this organization do not have the same theological beliefs and they will not change their theological beliefs in order to cooperate with us. But, they are asking us to overlook our theological beliefs in order to cooperate with them.

What is the New Baptist Covenant?

Much has been said about the SBC putting pressure on Govonor Mike Huckabee to back out of the Gathering that former President Carter is organizing for January, 2008. Some have stated he should not back out, while others seem to believe that the SBC forced him to back down. When you are a politician you do things for political reasons. It seems that expediency is the rule of the day and therefore, your motivational standards are constantly questioned. I do not know why Gov. Huckabee stepped back but I trust his words, because he has not done any flip-flopping that I know of. Besides, he made the Governor’s Mansion a double-wide at one point in his administration. Does a man that would move from the Governor’s Mansion into a double-wide appear to be one that is concerned about what others may think of him? I don’t think so.

For me it has nothing to do with politics. Never has, never will. For me it is all about doctrine. Can I, as one that believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, unite with someone that does not believe in the Scripture’s inerrancy in order to present Christ? That is the question and the answer is a clear no. If one does not believe Genesis 3:16 how will they believe John 3:16?

Some are saying that we may not believe the same but we should let bygones be bygones and get together because we can do more together than we can apart. I would agree that we can do more together than we can apart. We call this the various state conventions. We call this the disaster relief unit of the SBC. We call this the Red Cross. We call this the Salvation Army. We call this Samaritan’s Purse. We call this, well, you get my point. The organizations that do great jobs at feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, caring for the sick and the marginalized, and welcoming the strangers among us already exist. Why would we need another organizational gathering in order to get together?

New Baptist Covenant

One blogger has stated it this way; “It was my clear understanding that the New Baptist Covenant was not supposed to be about politics, and in the minds of the organizing committees, I think that was and is the goal.” Okay, let’s look at the New Baptist Covenant. First, I asked the above quoted blogger if there would be a agreement that those convening this gathering would sign entering into a formal covenant. Of course the answer was that it was not discussed. This lack of discussion on the issue be it due to a lack of time, or any other reason seems to be a discussion that should be necessary. If one is being asked to be part of the New Baptist Covenant, what exactly is it one is covenanting? Also, with it being a New Baptist Covenant, what does this Neo-Baptist look like? What is outlined in this new covenant? Second, if the New Baptist Covenant is not about politics, why are so many politicians invited? If it is not partisan politics, then where were the Republican Baptist that were asked to speak in the planning stages?

So what exactly is the New Baptist Covenant? You can read about it here. It seems that Dr. Bill Underwood, President of Mercer University, and former President Jimmy Carter convened about 18 Baptist leaders to discuss how they could transcend their differences. As I look at this list of 18 I must ask; what are their differences? Surely Dr. Kirby Godsey does not have such differences with Dr. Daniel Vestal that they have to meet with other Baptist in order to air them out. Also, does Dr. Bill Underwood have such diverse understanding of theology with Dr. Marv Knox that this meeting was really necessary? Let’s face it, these original 18 people do not have such deep divides with one another that cannot be overcome with just a phone call. And they certainly do not have such differences that they cannot do ministry together. Many, if not all, of the 18 are already involved in ministry together through the Baptist World Alliance and the CBF.

These 18 found themselves in a room together rallying around unifying factor of numbers in order to say they speak for Baptist. Dr. Underwood said as much in his ABP interview following their January 2007 meeting. They brainstormed and came up with the idea to sell this political organization by telling everyone that; “we can do more together than we can apart and we can do this only if we overlook doctrine”. Allow me to point you to the purpose of this covenant.

They specifically committed themselves to their obligations as Christians to promote peace and justice, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, care for the sick and the marginalized, welcome the strangers among us, and promote religious liberty and respect for religious diversity.

What does this New Baptist Covenant Say?

There was a lady that helped me early in my ministry and I will be forever grateful to her. She has gone on to be with the Lord and what an encouragement she was to me. As a single pastor she revealed to me the way to involve myself in the causes that would help others. I helped her as she did all she could to establish abstinence based education for the public schools. Her name was Mrs. Ann Fraizer. Sister Ann taught me that when you see a statement like that you have to decipher the buzz words contained within. The late Dr. Adrian Rogers said one time in a sermon, people use the same words but they use different dictionaries. Notice with me the phrases.

Promote Peace and Justice–This phrase, when fleshed out, in my opinion, will not allow anyone to confront anyone else about their need for a savior. Do you remember the uproar when NAMB said we needed to target Jews for salvation? The SBC was accused of hate mongering. You can look out in this New Baptist Covenant because anything that offends does not promote peace. Also, hate crimes will be the rule of the day. When this group of Neo-Baptist get together they will promote every special interest group you can imagine. Let me just say that when someone is killed in cold blooded murder it is a hate crime.

The Marginalized–This, according to what I have seen through various news accounts, has gay and lesbian written all over it. I am not saying that we should not minister to gays and lesbians, but I am saying the type of ministry this covenant will call for is not sharing Christ with them. It will be for accepting the gay lifestyle as a legitimate act of Almighty God. This group will advocate that you will be able to be Christian and maintain a promiscuous same-sex lifestyle.

Respect for Religious Diversity–This phrase points to other religious faith groups that are not Christians. Religious Diversity, appears to this writer, to mean you can believe whatever you would like and still be accepted as on your way to Heaven.  You have already read the many documented statements by President Carter about Jews and Mormons. I will not delve into that arena. Another Blogger has documented evidence concerning another of the original 18 that has revealed their lack of clarity pertaining to the exclusivity of salvation being in Jesus Christ here. This particular phrase will be the loop hole that places the Bahia faith, or the Muslim faith in the same context as Christianity. It is clear that Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God. However, this phrase will allow for that statement to be made. If one, that is a convener of this New Baptist Covenant, tries to share Jesus with someone from these other faith groups they will be in violation of the covenant.

Conclusion

For me, it has always been theological. It is not about politics at all. When the SBC placed an updated Baptist Faith and Message in 2000 before the convention some of these same voices yelled the loudest. As a matter of fact our former President Carter presented an open letter to the world saying he no longer was a Southern Baptist. He followed that letter up with an interview where he said; “I can no longer be associated with the Southern Baptist Convention.” Also, former President Carter, in his address to the CBF at their 10th General Assembly stated how he has successfully brokered peace efforts between warring countries, antagonistic ethnic groups and rival political factions around the world, but noted that he had little success in attempting to bring conservative and moderate Baptists together. Why, pray tell, would the SBC in general, and former President Carter in specific, now desire to form this group of Baptist in order to do what we are already doing?

Where is the Prophetic Voice?

Many voices are vying for the ears of those in Baptist life. Today we will lay to rest the body that encased a voice that cried from the wilderness of Lynchburg, Virginia–Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Dr. Falwell certainly was not popular with the crowd that just wanted things to stay the same and that we should live-and-let-live. The way John-the-Baptist spoke to the Pharisees is the way some Christians felt Dr. Falwell spoke to the world. Say what you want about Dr. Falwell, he certainly had a prophetic voice and it will be sorely missed in the world.

The Bible

As those that believe the Bible as inerrant, we turn to see what the Bible says about a prophetic voice. I am reminded as I enter into this endeavor of a former Prof. who said; “The problem with the church today is that she is a non-prophet organization.” How true this seems to be sometimes across our convention.

Let’s first speak about the prophetic voice of Moses. In Numbers 16 Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, who were Reubenites, desired to perform the work that God had assigned to the Levites. Moses spoke prophetically against Korah, Dathan, and Abiram then led those in the congregation that followed God through Moses out of danger as God divided the camp. Had it not been for Moses’ prophetic voice but also his prophetic leadership of action, the entire camp could have been lost following the voice of three false prophets.

Let’s look at Gideon’s prophetic voice. Gideon was chosen by God to be the Judge of Israel. He built an alter calling it YHWH Shalom–The Lord of Peace. He then tore down the altar of Baal and built an altar to the God of Heaven and sacrificed there. The men of the city saw it the next day and became afraid. What did Gideon do? He put together an army of 300 and led them into battle. What a prophetic voice through actions and attitude.

Time and space do not permit me to follow all of the prophetic voices. Notice the voices of prophecy in the early church; Peter, James, John, Paul. All had a word from God and delivered it unashamedly. They not only spoke a prophetic word, their actions followed through in that word.

The SBC Today

Which brings me to today. I know that many in SBC leadership believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God. That is not in question. I also do not believe there are any in SBC leadership that believe the SBC is heading in a direction of doom. I know that many in SBC Leadership came through the Conservative Resurgence and stood up and spoke out about their desire to see the convention evangelize the lost. There was a time in the convention that many in leadership today spoke against the social gospel and how it would be the ruin of the SBC if it were to prevail.

What am I asking in this post? Where are these voices now? Why do we need to hear these voices? While some are asking that we pray for the Great Commission to be advanced (something we all do), others are asking that we participate in advancing the Great Commission with one that has publicly removed himself from the SBC. Some are saying, and others agree that the SBC has overemphasized her commitment to winning souls for Christ.

If Southern Baptists would commit to issues of social justice with the same rallying cry that founded the Cooperative Program for the task of world missions — namely that we can do more together than we can apart — we might find the good and pleasant blessing promised of God when brothers dwell together in unity.

A Call to our Leaders

I do not intend this post to question any in leadership as to their commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture. This is not to question any in leadership as to their commitment to the SBC. However, there has now been presented on the horizon a New Baptist Covenant and some in the SBC believe we should be involved. here here and here While another appears to advocate that if the one who led the meeting will do what he said, we should be involved. here

While Dr. Patterson has clearly issued a clarion call in the prophetic voice we all need, that voice is muffled with all of the brash shenanigans being thrown at him from the stock yards surrounding Fort Worth. Where are the voices of those that spoke so boldly and loudly during the Conservative Resurgence? Where are the voices of those that consider him a hero of the faith and were instructed by him to stand and boldly proclaim truth? Yes Dr. Rogers is now living in his eternal home. Yes Dr. Criswell, is kicking up gold dust and Dr. Homer Lindsey is having a shouting good time. But, as a pastor that believes this book I hold in my hand Sunday in and Sunday out crying; “thus saith the Lord” and have based my entire ministry on evangelizing the lost; I need to hear the prophetic voice of our leaders.

I believe that hills need to be chosen over which we need to die. I understand the traits of a leader is to be disciplined, make priorities in one’s life, develop trust, and to effectively cast a vision. I understand that to make an impact as a leader one must understand the reasons leadership is important, I must understand not only how influence works, but one must also understand how to extend influence and how to make one’s leadership last. All of these things about leadership I grasp. However, I still must ask; WHERE IS THE PROPHETIC VOICE OF OUR LEADERS.

In the Bible as Moses’ voice faded off of the scene, Joshua’s voice became just as strong and prophetic.  With the SBC form of Moses passing from the scene over 1 1/2 year ago, that that remain in leadership must speak to the camp until God brings Joshua to the forefront.

What Gospel do we Preach?

In Galatians 1:8, the Apostle Paul encouraged the church at Galatia against accepting anything that was added to the Gospel of Christ as the Gospel. Paul had to deal with a group of Judiazers that infiltrated the Church at Galatia and were adding circumcision to the Gospel. Paul said:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. NKJV

As you know, “any other gospel” is understood as “any other form” which means the Gospel that has to be wrapped up in something in order to make it acceptable. While I certainly understand the need to build relationships and also realize that you have to earn the right to ask probing questions, I also know that Paul had only one hearing before King Agrippa and he took his best shot then. Paul teaches us some things about the Gospel as we traverse this nomadic life God has called all Christians. First, he teaches us that we are not to add, or accept the addition, of anything to the Gospel. Second, he teaches us that we should be ready at all times to present the Gospel regardless of the etiquette for statesmen as offered by Cicero. As Paul stood before King Agrippa and the Noble Festus, I cannot see from Scripture that the writings of Cicero were something he had in his mind.

With this in mind, I have been troubled lately about the direction some would like to take the SBC. I have always been open to dialog and try to be reasonable in my reactions and responses to some shenanigans. However, this latest group gathering is one that concerns me greatly. Let me first say that I do not question the conservative credentials of anyone in that group, except the one that sat at the head of the table. I also would like to add that before this revelatory meeting, I could work with anyone in that group, again, except the one that sat at the head of the table. I am not saying that I cannot now work with those at that meeting, but I am now a bit more cautious.

The meetings of this group of pastors is their business and they are certainly free thinking, grown individuals, that can make their own decisions. But to come out of a meeting like this and then post that others will question your character, theology, and commitment to the SBC paints anyone that says anything negative about this meeting as questioning one of these three areas. Therefore, let me say that I believe these four pastors to have the kind of character that when they say something you can count on it. I do not call into question the theology of any in this group. As far as I know they are conservative in their view of the Scriptures. I know CB Scott is. Which brings me to the next broad brush stroke, their commitment to the SBC. I am sorry, but after a meeting with former President Carter, I have no choice but to question the commitment to a SBC, that is what she is today, because of the Conservative Resurgence. When you meet with a man that does not clearly explain the gospel he preaches, you are meeting with one that preaches another gospel. We are warned in Jude about these types of false teachers;

1 6. These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage. NKJV

The Conservative Resurgence was about the inerrancy of Scripture. However, the Scripture’s inerrancy was clouded by what was becoming more and more of a social gospel. The witness of sharing a testimony of the power of God in your life based on a Scriptural presentation of God’s ability to change your life was not prevalent before the Conservative Resurgence. However what was prevalent was social issues that would help people “see Jesus” in us. One of the leading institutions in this “social gospel” was in Louisville with the Carver School. Some may argue that the Billy Graham School of Evangelism is at Southern. I would concede that argument, but the Billy Graham School of Evangelism was not at the forefront of SBTS and SEBTS did receive her first Conservative President from the School of Evangelism. However, the social gospel was in the forefront of missions at our seminaries and thus in the SBC. Some may argue that SEBTS had a Professor of Evangelism under the moderate administration of Dr. Lolley. While SEBTS did have a Professor of Evangelism, he did not come until the 80’s. I grew up around Wake Forest, NC and I can tell you that not one time did any evangelism group go out from the Seminary. Many times there were social outreaches, like feeding the hungry, clothing the homeless, etc. etc. Everything pertaining to evangelism was about, what we referred to around home as sandwich evangelism. This type of evangelism did not clearly share the Gospel. The Conservative Resurgence came about because the SBC believed; “If the gospel being preached came from a flawed Bible, it was no gospel at all.” (Baptist Battles, p.111) Those who came through the Conservative Resurgence believed in personal evangelism. Seventy-four percent of those who identified themselves as Fundamentalist said they “share the plan of salvation whenever [they] get a chance.” (Baptist Battles, p.111)

Evangelism has always been the dividing line. Today’s SBC, whether it is practiced or not, believes in a life style of moral standards because they desire unsaved people to notice their distinctive Christian life. They desired this because when they told others about Jesus their life would reflect such. However, this kind of personal evangelism was not enthusiastically received and championed by those that left and began their own Denomination/Fellowship. Those that left the SBC were seen, and still are viewed, as ones that will not succeed in missions because they lack the commitment to Scripture or the missionary zeal. The reason that the SBC has chosen not to cooperate with those of that theological stripe is because we cannot agree on the driving mantra that is contained in this statement; “If we can agree on what we want to do together, we do not need to worry about agreeing on what we believe.” (Baptist Battles, p.112)

Fast forward to today.

What is the significance of the meeting that is unashamedly reported here and here? My Daddy had a saying, if you wake-up a sleeping dog you are likely to get bitten. This divide between our former US President Jimmy Carter and the SBC is a huge divide. See here for proof of this statement. He is still calling into question the things going on in the SBC and he no longer considers himself a Southern Baptist. That is like someone moving their membership from your church but still ranting over decisions your church makes.

While, as I said earlier, my questions have nothing to do with the character or theology of those that chose to attend this gathering. I do question the commitment of those that openly state the future of the SBC is in jeopardy if we continue down the same path. However, they chose to not only meet, but make public their desire to partner with a group that clearly do not hold to the same 1st tier doctrines as we Southern Baptist. While former President Carter may say he believes in the exclusivity of Jesus, he will also tell you that Mormons worship Jesus. We are not speaking about partnering with a group in order to pool resources to help rebuild New Orleans. We are not speaking about partnering with a group in order to pool resources to help feed the poor. These, I am certain are part of the mandate. We are speaking of partnering with a group in order to more effectively share the Gospel. This group shares a social gospel which is no Gospel at all.

The scars caused in the SBC are deep and have healed, but it seems that some are trying to pick the scab that will only cause further bleeding and pain. If this is the direction the group that met on May 17, 2007 desire to see the SBC move, then yes, I do question their commitment to the SBC. If members of that group do not desire to see the SBC move in the direction former President Carter desires, then they need to clearly state that also. However, I am saddened that one appears to have stated his support. Do I pray for the Gospel to go forth? Certainly! Do I pray for a false Gospel? No, I do not. Scripture encourages us to pray for others that are presenting Jesus Christ, regardless of their motives. It does not encourage us to pray for those that present a false gospel.

Jerry Falwell–Walking the Streets of Gold!

According to the media, you can read it here, Dr. Jerry Falwell went home to be with the Lord today.

As I was preparing this article, I received a phone call from the Statesville Record & Landmark. I was asked by the reporter about Dr. Falwell’s ministry and my take on what this means. As I told the reporter, I believe that the Evangelical world has lost a leader. This will place a void in leadership in the evangelical world in a remarkable way. Many, I believe will begin to jockey for the next step-up to be the new voice of the Evangelical World. I also told the reporter that the only difference between Dr. Falwell and other preachers that I know is he had the ability to get his message out. That ability was nothing else but the sovereign hand of the Lord.

I prayed for the Falwell family and also for Liberty University. I invite you to do the same.

What kind of impact do you believe this will have on the Evangelical World?

Explain Consistency!

Dr. Tom Ascoll will once again place a resolution on regenerate church membership before the SBC in San Antonio. This resolution is something I can support and plan on raising my ballot in support when it comes to the floor. This article does not question Dr. Ascol’s consistency of the resolution. However, I must ask if regenerate church membership applies only to those we cannot find with an FBI search warrant. What about those members that we have on our roles that are dabbling in open sin?

I remember when the book Purpose Driven Church first came out. I was attending SEBTS and it was required reading in one of my church growth classes. It received mixed reviews from my classmates. The gambit ran from; “this is the best book that has ever been written on church growth”, to “the author does not advocate preaching on sin”. I, personally felt that the book was very well thought out and personally looked at, and even tried to float some of the ideas. However, as you know, Purpose Driven Church is not something that you can take bits and pieces of and make it work.

While I have always tried to be fair in my assessment of varying situations, I have found myself in sort of a quandary on a particular issue with Dr. Rick Warren. I remember hearing Dr. Warren speak at a previous convention and he said, “whenever he gets discouraged he goes to a baptism.” He then left the podium and we say baptisms that were filmed for about 2 minutes then he returned to the podium to resume his message. Then he would say something similar to the above statement and do it again. At the end of that message I decided that we would begin filming baptisms in the church I served. Of course, that idea floated like a lead balloon. While I am not one that advocates bigger is a sign of God’s blessings, I do believe that Dr. Warren is a man of God and desires to follow Him. Thus my quandary.

What is this quandary? You can read about it here. It seems that Dr. Warren has a member that is a world leader in the entertainment industry, Mr. Rupert Murdoch. Why does this create such a quandary? While I do believe Dr. Warren believes the Bible, it appears that he is relegating his responsibilities as a pastor to hold accountable members in their spiritual growth–something he openly advocates–to the back burner. What is this open sin that Dr. Warren needs to hold Mr. Murdoch accoutable? According to the article it is the launching of business adventures into the hard core porno industry.

This is not some business that Mr. Murdoch has purchased and this porno business is just some small entity. As one news report on this back in December, 2006 says; “But BSkyB has been secretly expanding its activities in the growing business of pornographic television with its wholly owned 18+ Movies offering. The company has also been entering into partnerships with companies that broadcast pornographic television channels on BSkyB, such as Sport XXX Babes, XXX Housewive and Playboy.” From reports of this expansion, it appears that porno is a specific industry that Mr. Murdock is expanding into.

Why is this such an issue? Dr. Warren has referred to himself as being Mr. Murdock’s Pastor. Read what Dr. Warren said in a September 2005 interview; “I had dinner with Jack Welch (former chief executive officer of GE) last Sunday night. He came to church, and we had dinner. I’ve been kind of mentoring him on his spiritual journey. And he said to me, ‘Rick, you the biggest thinker I have ever met in my life. The only other person I know who thinks globally like you is Rupert Murdoch.’ And I said, ‘That’s interesting. I’m Rupert’s pastor! Rupert published my book!”

Dr. Warren now has the responsibility to call into accountability Mr. Murdoch for the appearance of hypocrisy. As a matter of record, Mr. Murdoch’s presses against rivals has used porno as a battering ram to gain the advantage. “For years the Murdoch press has labelled rival newspaper baron Richard Desmond a pornographer in articles charting his business which has included pornographic magazines and TV channels.” How much more hypocritical can one get?

Dr. Warren has an undaunting task ahead of him if he is to remain true to his understanding of sin and confession. As recently as May 1 Dr. Warren writes; “Sin is to be confessed only as widely as it affects others. Private sin requires only private confession to God. Personal sin that involves others requires interpersonal confession to the people involved. Public sins (those that affect a large group of people in our congregation) regrettably must be dealt with publicly as a warning to others.” What more public sin is there than owning a business geared toward porno?

I believe that if Dr. Warren does not begin implementing Matthew 18 principles with Mr. Murdoch, preachers all across the south owe the tobacco industry an apology.

What do you think?