The Hypocrisy of Endorsements!

Every day I examine my life in order to strive to maintain a walk of consistency. Many times I say things that counter that consistent walk and thus become guilty before God of hypocrisy. It is at such times, just described, that I have to ask and receive God’s forgiveness and then I move on. I am the first to admit that I see hypocritical things in my life that I have to deal with. This term hypocrite, we all know, came out of the Greek drama where actors were called hypocrites because they wore a mask to play a part that was not really who they were.

In a post on SBC Outpost, we see that one of the contributors, and originator, of the blog called Dr. Patterson a liar. As was pointed out to me in the not so distant past, a liar means that you have a lifestyle of lying. It does not mean that you mis-speak on something that you truly thought was the truth, it means that you intentionally live a lifestyle that constitutes lying in order to gain an advantage. The article clearly tries to point to such in Dr. Patterson’s life. Because this contributor has placed this on the news organization’s website blog, Dr. Patterson has now been labeled a liar by the entire group of people behind SBC Outpost. (This group does this with no fear of retaliation from Dr. Patterson for libel. Why? They know that Dr. Patterson still believe 1 Corinthians 6.) Not only do those who are contributors to this news organization gossip mill hold responsibility for labeling Dr. Patterson a liar, but also those who have endorsed signed onto their cause.

Here is where the endorsements scream hypocrisy. These entity heads, plus the President of the Southern Baptist Convention, have endorsed signed onto a cause to get rid of Dr. Paige Patterson as President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. First, let me say that I disagree with the direction that the SBC Outpost guys desire to take our convention. By the public endorsements, we have now been told by the President of the Southern Baptist Convention, along with other men whose salaries are paid because my church gives to the Cooperative Program, that these endorsers have a desire to push the convention in a direction different than that of the framers of the Conservative Resurgence. Guess what that means on the local church level as my church begins budget planning? Also, guess what that means when the next literature order comes due? And, guess what that means for Lottie? Isn’t it amazing that the endorsement of our Executive Director and convention President came one year after the convention voted to ensure that those holding office as trustees should come from churches that have a goal of 10% of their undesignated funds? If the convention in Greensboro would have known about the, now seemingly, planned prayer meeting after the Presidential election in the suite of the very ones that on Wednesday Morning argued for the free use of alcohol, I believe the vote would have been different for Dr. Page.

Another hypocritical act in the endorsements concerns Dr. Patterson’s publicly stated intentions regarding his actions on Dr. McKissic’s chapel message. Dr. Patterson pulled Dr. McKissic’s sermon from being presented on the website at SWBTS because he spoke against the actions of a sister organization. Dr. Patterson respects anyone’s right to free speech. Dr. McKissic’s right to believe what he believes about Scripture is not the issue. I believe I remember somewhere, sometime Dr. Patterson acknowledging he is a continuationalist in his theology. Dr. Akin freely admitted his position to the entire SBC in San Antonio, and if you remember Dr. Akin received his theology sitting at Dr. Patterson’s feet, thus there is a high probability that Dr. Patterson will fall into the continuationalist camp. Dr. Patterson would not allow that message to go forth for a number of reasons, and the public chastisement of a sister entity coming from a sitting trustee was, as I remember, the main one he noted. We now have the President of the IMB, the very entity Dr. Patterson openly took harsh statements and character assassination for trying to protect the operational integrity of said entity, endorsing a group of journalist bloggers that consists of some who have privately and publicly called for Dr. Patterson to be relieved from his position at SWBTS.

In the rule of fairness, I am being told that endorsements are no more than a blurb on a book cover. Two responses to that argument. First, SBC Outpost is not a publishing organization, neither are they a news organization. Remember their “Breaking News“? Ask Pastor Robert Jeffress if he will give them an endorsement. He may, who knows! Endorsements are more than book blurbs. If that is the case, what Seminary Presidents have endorsed this group of journalist bloggers? Has the presidents of any of our seminaries been contacted? Why were they not? Was Dr. Patterson contacted to endorse this illustrious news organization group of bloggers?

The endorsers can try to say what they like, but it is as clear as the nose on your face that there is a group of leaders jockeying for position, in order to be the voice of the SBC’s future. That, my friends, is not how the SBC has operated in the past. The Conservative Resurgence did not come about because there were irreconcilable differences in the tight circle of moderate leaders. Those who led the Conservative Resurgence did not try to woo and encourage moderates to sign onto their movement.  The Conservative Resurgence came about because the PEOPLE IN THE PEW recognized the leaders of the seminaries and other entities were not heading down the road of focused Baptist Distinctives but were trying to lead us down a road of fuzzy “Baptistic” Dissimilarity. Guess what? Inerrancy of the Scripture is just one distinctive for which the people in the pew fought. These same people in the pew have not lost their sight and they still remember that the fight then was for the Baptist distinctive of inerrancy of the Scripture–JUST ONE OF MANY BAPTIST DISTINCTIVES. These endorsers can endorse all they like but they fail to remember the words of one of the Conservative Resurgence past leaders–A skunk by any other name still stinks!

A Review of; Theology of the Church

I have received my copy of Theology of the Church. I did not realize it, but according to Olive Press, it is the first systematic theology book published by B & H Publishing Group. I have not had the opportunity to invest the time needed to dive into the deep waters of this book, but I plan to do so soon.

If you have not received a copy, I encourage you to do so. It is a little pricey, but most academic theology books are. However, from what little I have had time to glance through it does not read like most academic books. It is by no means an easy read, but you do not need to get a degree in theology in order to understand the principles. In the mean time you may desire to follow a two part post, here and here, of an interview Dr. James Hamilton did with two of the three editors, Dr. David Nelson and Dr. Peter Schemm. Great insights for how to tackle the various disciplines needed to read such a book of this magnitude. Also, there are some suggestions of how to implement an atmosphere of theology among church members. One drawback in the interview is where Dr. Nelson makes application by illustrating how he trains his children. It got a little preachy, but Dr. Nelson is a preacher, what else should we expect? :>)

When We Talk; Let’s Get Real!

For all of your Football enthusiast, I just wanted to push the envelope a bit.

I know there are some who are chomping at the bit for the season to begin. However, I just wanted to give you Alabama fans something to reminisce about as you look to the upcoming season with Saban.

Back in the Saddle!

I have just completed the catching up on being away from the internet for a week. What was news last week is now only a whisper. One thing that I can truly see has taken a life is The Camel Method. Dr. Bart Barber here, here, here, and here is doing a great job of reviewing this method. Please note that Brother Bart began by reading the original book and commenting on it then he moved to the revised book. I encourage you to read the method and note the discrepancies in the Camel Method.

Brother Les Puryear has introduced us to a new blogger. Dr. Boyd Luter has entered the blog world and I would like to welcome him. I have only skimmed his post on Trustees and Accountability. I plan to read it, in depth, as soon as I can finish my chores around the house.

One story about vacation and I then must get to work. I stayed in a camp ground in the foothills of North Carolina. It was located approximately 50 miles from my home. Gail, Rebekah, and I stayed and played all week long in a setting of woods, bugs, frogs, and deer. On this past Monday our neighboring campsite was invaded by a person on a 35 foot 5th wheel being towed by a 4X4 GMC. As I saw this camper coming in I noticed his license plate–TEXAS! Yes he had the biggest camper. It had three slide-outs and made my 28 foot motorhome look like a pop-up. :>) We got to know the family very well and it was a blessing to know them That is the one thing about camping that I encourage you to investigate. Dr. James Dobson has reported that camping is one common denominator of families whose children are productive in society. I am not saying that it is a sure-all to keep your children from straying. However, it does provide great family times. I wish you could have heard some of the prayers of Rebekah and how she longed for this time together.

Well, I am officially back in the grind.

I Am On VACATION

The scenes you see here are from the promotional brochures. I am not entering the Phriday Photos. I am GOING ON VACATION!

We are heading out camping and will be in and out. I will not be able to maintain a presence in the blog world therefore this is my last post until we return. We are excited about getting away and look forward to a great time with our family. Pray for our safe travels and a great time of rest.

May God shower His Blessings on YOU ALL. For you southern rednecks (CB, Bob, Ben-BHH) YA’LL. :>)

Are Southern Baptist a Society or a Convention?

As I perused my daily blogs, I came across an interesting article here. Dr. Tony Cartledge, outgoing Editor of our state paper, links to this article. It is an article that Dr. Bill Leonard, Dean of Divnity School at Wake Forest University, appears to have originally authored in 1993 where he reviews Landmarkism in the SBC. In Dr. Leonard’s article he seems to advocate a quasi-societal form of denominational governance. This quasi-societal method would allow everyone to choose whatever fit their fancy. I will not address here the flaws and strengths of such a form. However, I would like to turn my attention to the definitions of a Society and a Convention in order to make a comparison.

The following definitions come from Dr. Leon McBeth’s, book The Baptist Heritage.

Society

The society…requires no extensive denominational machinery or approval for its work, maintains more local control, and has the advantage of a committed membership. Those not interested in the society’s cause simply do not join. To its adherents, it also seems to protect the autonomy of the churches. However, the society plan does not enlist the involvement of churches, seldom builds denominational identity and loyalty, and makes overall denominational planning and correlation difficult.

Convention

The convention plan tends to enlist the churches, build denominational identity and loyalty, and allows correlation and balance between the various causes sponsored. Its adherents feel it preserves the autonomy of the churches, though it does call for a degree of centralization. However, at times the convention plan proves cumbersome since the whole body must deliberate and decide on all kinds of work. Problems arise when some voting members have greater interest in one cause, like foreign missions, and lesser commitment to others. This sometimes leads to rivalry as leaders seek to enlist support for the causes they represented. In general, the convention plan calls for more denominational machinery. The convention plan emphasizes the denomination more, and it creates more denomination to emphasize. (p.348)

Dr. McBeth also spoke of the characteristics of each and made a clear point to say that while conventions were made up of churches, usually from a selected geographical region, societies were made up of individuals.

Dr. Bill Leonard, in his above referenced article, held for his premise that the SBC had a center. Those controlling the center were the ones controlling the convention. Dr. Leonard goes on to state that the SBC center had always been tolerant of factions as long as it was not extreme factions. He used for his example the faction caused by Crawford Toy and contrasted it with J Frank Norris. It is interesting to note that while Toy was removed Dr. E.Y Mullins hired Dr. W.O Carver, who according to Dr. Leonard, held views on Scripture similar to that of Toy.

While Dr. Leonard and I will not be together on many theological issues I do commend him on something he apparently could see back in 1993. He wrote;

it appears that the real problem of the American denominational future involves the issue of identity. The denominational mechanisms that shaped identity and enabled traditions to be passed on to succeeding generations are fast breaking apart or addressing only one of the multiple subgroups. Perhaps the most essential questions for Southern Baptists are: When all is said and done, what will remain that is discernibly, historically Baptist?

I agree! If Dr. Leonard’s thesis of a center is correct, and I suspect it is, and if that center is what keeps us from wandering too far left or too far right, then I suspect the major problem within the SBC would be one of Baptist Identity. This identity within the context of the SBC is an identity rooted in Scripture and actualized through a convention form of governance. For an example of a convention form of government moving to a society form, notice the CBF and other splinters that have formed since the Conservative Resurgence. They say they cooperate but they have taken on a form that allows for everyone to pick their pet projects and support that themselves. I do commend the CBF on their cooperation but everyone knows if there is something they do not like they just stop sending money to support it. Also, that is the reason they are able to report the churches as they do. They are looking at this from a societal method instead of a convention form of governance. They report churches as their supporters that clearly are not supporting the CBF. They do this because one member of that church has given funds to them and listed their church. They do not see the church supporting them they see the individual giving the money. Remember a society is made up of individuals not churches. Is this a fair reporting of the numbers? It depends on who you ask.

Notice how the society form has crept into the SBC. Many in the current debate have spoken of forming something that will enable support of missionaries with a PPL. Then the individual pastors may lead their churches to re-direct some of their IMB support to support those Missionaries with a PPL. We have had a statement from the EC adopted that some say is a maximum and others say is a minimum guide for agencies establishing doctrine. Those that advocate it being a maximum insist this vague statement says something it never was intended to say. Thus they find a cause that individuals can rally around. This screams society over convention.

Conclusion

What does all of this mean for the SBC? For me, it reveals where I may differ with others. That disagreement is embeded in the understanding of how the SBC operates. I disagree somewhat with Dr. Leonard about the center of the SBC when he says; “That center was grounded in southern culture, denominational programs and a theology specific enough to be identifiably Baptist but general enough to permit the presence of various sectarian subgroups.” While the southern culture and denominational programs are recognized in the convention, I believe the denominational program did more to projecting the convention forward to what she is today than southern charm. However, I agree with Dr. Leonard that specific theology is something that kept the center glued together. But, I would go further and say it was the main issue that kept the center glued together. This Baptist specific theology is what I believe to be somewhat missing in our SBC center today. We appear to focus more on a general theology that allows for the various sectarian subgroups.

Our center needs the glue of specific Baptist Identity which keeps us moving in a convention form of government. If we continue to loose the specifics of Baptist theology the glue of our center will change from super glue to the glue on the back of sticky notes. Once this happens we then acquiesce to a society form of government–something we came out of when we left the Triennial Convention in 1845.

A Matter of Public Record

In a recent comment string found here, you will see that I have made some very harsh statements concerning a Brother in Christ. Allow me to say that the comment calling Brother Paul Littleton a “wormy little man” was used as my reaction to his jumping into the middle of a disagreement between Brother Micah Fries and me. I should not have called him that and I in no way intended anything of harm toward him. In this comment thread you will also see where I called him a “liar”. That is another adjective that should not have been used. I do not believe that Brother Paul has a lifestyle of lying and the negative indication I leveled with that word I ask forgiveness.

I have spoken to Brother Paul Littleton about this issue and while he and I disagree on many other issues, I still believe him to be a Brother in Christ. I have placed this post here without allowing comments because two Brothers have spoken and we have agreed to now walk forth in Christ.

Stealth Christianity?

Many remember when the Stealth Bombers were the talk of Washington. It seemed that we had a plane that would now fly without being seen on radar. This plane was the rave of all the intelligence world. From the intelligence that created the Stealth Bombers came more ways to get into the enemy’s world without being discovered.

Which brings me to an evangelistic tool, and the only one I have knowledge of, authorized by the IMB to present Christ to Muslims. This tool is known as “The Camel Method“. Some have given great reviews of the method here, here, and here, while others present this method as less than adequate to accomplish its goal–presenting a clear Christian Gospel to a lost world of Muslims here.

And this brings me to the reason for the post. Jeremy Green has made a tremendous contribution to the blog world by posting Dr. Malcom Yarnell’s, seemingly, email correspondence with Brother Kevin Greeson and Dr. David Garrison. These two men are author and sponsor respectively of The Camel Method. It is interesting that when you go to the IMB resouce search link to The Camel Method they show it is not available. Maybe it is out of stock and the IMB needs to update their stock.

However, Dr. Yarnell does a tremendous job of presenting a clear reasoned response to the huge failure of The Camel Method of presenting a clear gospel message to the Muslim world. I will say one thing and then ask that you read Dr. Yarnell’s memorandum in its entirety, before responding. No one should ever ask a Muslim to change their culture any more than one should ask a Jew to change their culture. However, the Gospel clearly is in opposition to the mind set of a Muslim. Just like the Gospel is in opposition to the Jewish view of the Messiah. However, Christianity was born out of the Jewish culture and Scriptures. Christianity was not birthed from the Muslim culture or the Koran. Using the Old Testament in order to evangelize the Jew is not the same as using the Koran to evangelize the Muslim. Why? The Old Testament is the Word of God, the Koran is not. Using the Koran to evangelize a Muslim would be much like using the Baptist Faith & Message to convert a lost redneck. I compliment Dr. Yarnell on a great analysis and clear presentation of the deffiencies of this Stealth Evangelism.

Concerning the EC Statement Adopted

In a letter to the Alumni of SEBTS. Dr. Danny Akin stated the following.

Dr. Danny Akin–Follow-up on SBC Convention

Along with my fellow seminary presidents, I believe the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is a solid theological confession to guide us. It is not an exhaustive statement, but it is a sufficient statement. It, along with the Abstract of Principles, will continue to give theological direction to Southeastern. This is what our convention reaffirmed on Tuesday evening. Barry McCarty, our chief parliamentarian said to me at the airport following the Convention, there was no understanding that this motion was asking our agencies to do anything different than what we had been doing. It was a reaffirmation, not a re-direction. In that context let me say this. Your seminaries are not interested in theological witch hunts. At the same time, we will not be ostriches with our heads in the sand. If we spot a teaching that possesses a danger to our churches or will compromise our ability to fulfill the Great Commission, you can rest assured that we will withstand it with all our might.

Many are saying that the Presidents of the seminaries are not in agreement to what the EC Statement said. I say; Prove it!

I asked Dr. Akin in the SEBTS booth approximately 1 hour before the Alumni luncheon a question. I told him that as an alumni I did not desire to place any bad light on SEBTS if there were any disagreement with the conventions decision. Therefore, would it be okay if I asked him to give his understanding of the vote on the EC Statement. He responded; “I will tell you to get the video of Dr. Mohler’s report, because you will hear the same thing from me.” Also, many do not realize where Dr. Akin was during the discussion of the EC Statement statement. Allow me to tell you. He was running down the isle behind Dr. Mohler trying to get to the microphone.  Brother Robin Foster will verify that because he was sitting around the microphone they came running to.

I have called this to the attention of many because Dr. Akin’s seminary report, while focused more on what was happening at SEBTS than Dr. Mohler’s on SBTS happenings, stated the same thing about the EC Statement as Dr. Mohler’s report. However, some have stated that I just disagree with their understanding of Dr. Akin’s report.

Dr. Akin has made it clear the BF&M is a statement that is sufficient to be a guide for the SEBTS Trustees. But, you have to read the full transcript, he stated the Abstract of Principles were sufficient also. Therefore, he cannot be using the word sufficient to mean the BF&M is all that is to be used.

As we all noted with interest, Dr. Akin affirmed his position as a continualist. That is nothing that should alarm anyone. I personally hold to a different position, but Dr. Akin’s position is one of a personal belief. Therefore, the issue, when speaking of tongues, is not continuationist vs. cessassionist. Neither is the issue, when speaking of the EC Statement, Dr. Chapman’s vs. Dr. Mohler’s interpretation. The issue has always been; what will the people-in-the-pew of the SBC allow?

Open Dialog?

It seems that the new and improved SBC Outpost is not only new and improved, but it is now censoring material that will not make the authors appear in a favorable light. It seems that Dr. Greg Welty posted a comment in disagreement with Brother Alan Cross’s article on Gnosticism. It seems that comment is still awaiting moderation. Read about it here.

Should we call the contributors at SBC Outpost back to their news release? Here is the money quote from that news release.

Intentionally designed as a bridge for the diverse constituencies of Southern Baptist life, SBCOutpost.com will bring together denominational executives with rural pastors and church planters, missional pastors with traditional pastors, seminary theologians with Sunday School teachers, and field missionaries with their prayer partners.

Oh, I know what it is. Could it be that bringing seminary theologians together with Sunday School teachers really is what they are trying to do, and there had been no Sunday School teachers that contributed. I do not think so. Brother Bob Cleveland commented at 7:58 am, so as a Sunday School teacher he could have been brought together with a seminary theologian. Maybe Dr. Welty’s article was harsh and delivered a character assassination toward an individual. However Brother Ben Cole at 8:41 am attacked, not only Dr. Mohler, but those that agreed with him and then turned his vitriolic pen toward Dr. Phil Roberts.

Dr. Greg Welty posted his comment at 11:42 am and it has never been released from comment moderation. I encourage you to read Dr. Welty’s comment and see for yourself this truth. If dialog is truly what those at SBC Outpost desires, then why censor dialog?

So this is journalism that reports the news? PUHLEASE !!!!