What are Missions?

How would you define the word “missions”? According to Wikipedia there exists a clear definition agreed upon and written by a group evangelical scholars back in 1974. This group of scholars was led by Dr. John Stott. That definition basically says missions is centered around church planting and evangelism. The 1974 conference is known as the Lausanne Congress and was organized by one from the great state of North Carolina, Dr. Billy Graham. In the Lausanne Covenant it clearly points out that missions is not centered specifically on social actions.

The Lausanne Covenant, in statement #5 entitled Christian Social Responsibility, clearly says; ” nor is social action evangelism“. Some would have you believe that housing the homeless, feeding & clothing the poor, providing safe havens for the abused are missions. I agree, as Christians, we are under obligation to do all that we can to accomplish these humanitarian needs. As the Lausanne Covenant goes on to say; “Although reconciliation with other people is not reconciliation with God. . . nevertheless we affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty. For both are necessary expressions of our doctrines of God and man, our love for our neighbour and our obedience to Jesus Christ.” Therefore, if Christians sacrifice evangelism at the altar of social ministry, we are not performing the Great Commission. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) calls Christians to go into all of the world and make disciples. Making disciples is seen when people are evangelized and churches are planted.

Where we are Today

We are living in a society today that Christians are defining missions in every different way that you can imagine. We can purchase cold drinks, candy, and hire a clown to go with us in a neighborhood pass out these drinks, give out candy, and make people laugh. Therefore, as long as we tell people that we are from a certain church and invite them to come to a church we have done missions. I am not sure if I can call that missions as much as I can call that inviting someone to church.

I believe, in the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, we have the difficulty we have because we are not in agreement on the definition of missions. I also wonder to myself, but I am not at the point to defend this position, if this is not also the reason we have the disagreement we have in the Southern Baptist Convention. Missions, as defined by the Lausanne Covenant, is evangelism and church planting. If what we do is not part of a plan to present the Gospel in order to either plant a local church or grow an existing local church, we are not doing missions.

That is what I believe the Bible teaches about missions. What do you believe?

What has NC Conservatives Accomplished?

Very Much indeed!

In North Carolina we are one of the very few state conventions that have cooperated together with churches that support the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Have I agreed with everything the state convention leadership has done? Not really. Have we tried to cooperate with the leadership at our schools and other entities? Certainly, we have.

Brief History

North Carolina has a unique set-up as to the appointments for various committees. On the national level our SBC President has appointive powers solely. In North Carolina the President and the Vice Presidents serve as a committee nominating, not appointing, persons to serve on the Committee on Committees and Committee on Enrollment to the Board of Directors for their approval. Therefore when you elect a President in North Carolina the task is not complete until you also elect as least one conservative Vice President. These two should be able to get conservatives elected to the Committee on Committees and once that happens the Committee on Committees will in turn nominate the Committee on Nominations. The Committee on Nominations is responsible for nominating the persons for the various Boards that serve our agencies and the Board of Directors (Convention Trustees). In the Board of Directors for the convention there are various committees, called groups. It is in this Board of Directors that change can be implemented. However, the real catalyst for change lies within the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is made up of the President and both Vice Presidents of the convention along with the President, Vice President, and Secretary that are elected by the Board of Directors and also other Chairpersons of various committees and groups of the Board of Directors.

North Carolina was firmly in the hands of moderates until 1996. It was during that year we elected Dr. Greg Mathis and Dr. Kenneth Riddings as President and 1st Vice President respectively. However, though we had a conservative majority in the officers, we still had a moderate majority in the Board of Directors. Dr. Mike Queen served as President of the Executive Committee, thus Dr. Greg Mathis had to be careful about his nominations because the Board of Directors could over-ride his nomination with nominations of their own. When Dr. Mathis was elected it was called the Greg and Mike show. And show they did. Dr. Mathis proved the old adage that conservatives are mean and uncooperative was not true. Dr. Mathis worked well with all of the moderates and as a result of working with them North Carolina elected Dr. Mac Brunson as President and Dr. Mike Cummings as 1st Vice President. When Dr. Brunson went to First Dallas with over a year left on his term, Dr. Mike Cummings stepped up and continued working with moderates in order to accomplish a stated objective–return North Carolina to cooperate with the work of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Today in North Carolina

We are in a situation where many of those who disagree with the direction of the BSCNC are pulling out of the convention. This situation would not be so bad if it did not affect the very agencies that we all have supported for years. The agencies of the convention do not have a majority of trustees that agree with the direction of the convention, thus they are making noise to leave. Those who lead these agencies know that North Carolina Baptist at large will not agree to enter into a court battle. Neither do I believe we should. The agencies and institutions appear to be using this to their advantage. They are changing charters, without the knowledge or approval of the convention, and then requesting to choose their own trustees. If the convention votes not to allow them to choose their own trustees then they will leave anyway and say they have the legal authority to do so because their charter was changed. This is basically what happened with the Baptist Retirement Homes of NC (BRHNC). We are still trying to work out an alternative with this institution. This group changed their charter after the 2005 convention and then informed the BSCNC in 2006 that they would be choosing their own trustees. When it was investigated, it was revealed the institution had already changed their charter to choose their own trustees. They changed this charter because the 2005 Nominating Committee rejected some trustee nominations because they were in churches that were affiliated with and promoted the Alliance of Baptist. I do not know if the Nominating Committee’s actions affected any trustees for the BRHNC, but that is one area discussed in the debate at the convention. From my vantage point I see the leadership of BSCNC trying hard to cooperate with all of the agencies and institutions, but some are just not willing to cooperate.

The Baptist schools have already moved away from the BSCNC. We are told that it is not a divorce, as some here say it is not. However, Dr. Bruce Martin a conservative in our state disagrees here. Our universities worked out a deal with the Executive Leadership Team of NCBSC and thus they will be choosing their own trustees after three years. Our budgeted level of giving to these institutions will decrease each year accordingly.

Women’s Missionary Union-NC

We have seen this coming for the past 16 months. It first began with WMU-NC desiring a change in the term used to describe their relationship with the convention. They desired to change the term from “auxiliary” to “cooperative partner“. You can read here, here, here, and here, for the coverage of this issue. While I know the WMU-NC had every legal right to do what they did, I only question the ethics of such a move. Ladies in my church complained to me that they did not see anything like this move coming.

Where Does this Leave Us?

We are in a situation in North Carolina that seems to be where some conservatives desired to be back in 1996. I remember at a Conservative Carolina Baptist meeting in the fall of 1996 Dr. Greg Mathis, candidate for President, answered many questions from those present. In that meeting the late Dr. Mark Corts settled the minds of many who desired to leave and begin another convention in the state. There were some that kept this threat until there was another giving plan established in the budget. When this giving plan became reality the call to begin another convention fell on deaf ears.

What has been gained by conservatives for their years of struggles and tongue biting in order to cooperate? When the moderates were in leadership we were told to stay with it because it is better to cooperate than to try and leave. We cooperated and sent our children to schools that taught much of what we did not agree but knew that one day we would be able to implement, through the trustee system, a more balanced teaching. We cooperated and sent our aging parents to BRHNC only to find out that our retirement homes do not belong to Baptist. We cooperated and listened to the ladies in our church promote an organization that has systematically made changes that placed the power in the hands of 30 women. Now these ladies we heard promote WMU-NC are asking how decisions could be made like this without including them.

Conservatives have accomplished what we set out to accomplish–move BSCNC back to support of the Southern Baptist Convention. We are also heading toward more support being given to Southern Baptist through the CPMG. However, there seems to be unrest with those agency and institutions that are still affiliated with us. They change their charters and leave and then paint our leadership as the ones unreasonable. Exactly where do we find ourselves? We are now in a position that we need to either fish or cut bait. The kind of fish we have been catching, as we cast a wider net, is mainly sting rays. They travel so gracefully and look so beautiful in their element, but will send a shard through your heart when you least expect.

We Mean Utilitarianism Not Cooperation=WMU-NC

When I was growing up, I was in a church that constantly pushed missions. The ladies in that church were WMU to the core. They certainly overstepped their stated objective many times, but the end result meant missions would go forth. Therefore, not many of the Deacons were too excited when they had to approach the WMU about their violation of church calendar scheduling and the likes. Many of these men would respond; “well it is for missions and how can you argue against promoting missions.” Or, my favorite, “we do not want to upset the women.” I learned, growing up in that church environment, three principles that have served me well as a Pastor today. Principle One, don’t cross the WMU Director. Principle Two, don’t cross the WMU Director. Principle Three, don’t cross the WMU Director. As you can tell these three principles are exaggerations. However, what I observed as a child in this environment was that the WMU Director could and did make life difficult for everyone if she did not get certain things when it came to this organization.

Here in North Carolina we had a brew-ha-ha start 16 months ago. It began innocently enough as our Women’s Missionary Union-North Carolina (WMU-NC) decided they needed to change a phrase that defined their relationship with The Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (BSCNC). The phrase changed from “auxillary” to “cooperative partner”. Many in North Carolina Baptist life decided it was not worth arguing over and thus decided to allow the Executive Director to work through the issue with the WMU-NC Director.

It seemed this controversy escalated when it was noted that hiring practices were being violated and had been for years. The WMU-NC saw the BSCNC Executive Director as merely signing paperwork in order to place WMU-NC employees in the BSCNC payroll. The BSCNC Executive Director saw it has his fiduciary responsibility to be involved with the hiring of WMU-NC employees. The WMU-NC countered with documents from a 1997 Executive Board vote detailing that the WMU-NC is autonomous of the BSCNC. What does all of this mean? Who knows, but I do have some observations and questions.

It seems that the WMU-NC is operating from a utilitarian point of view. Simply put utilitarianism says “the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome“. Here in NC we have struggled for years with moderates within the convention. As conservatives we have tried hard not to push people out but to remain resolute in our stands that we were in support of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) while maintaining a spirit of cooperation. Thus, the conservatives never left to form their own convention here in NC. The WMU-NC appears to be driven by a desire to receive funds from, and partner with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of North Carolina (CBF-NC). They are not able to do that with their charter, as they are listed as an auxiliary, thus the change to “cooperative partner”. However, they still desire to be part of the North Carolina Missions Offering, which if it is fully funded they receive a little under $900k, which is the largest percentage amount in the NCMO. It seems all can tell the driving desire to continue in relationship with NCBSC.

Here is why I believe the WMU-NC is operating from a utilitarian mindset. Does the WMU-NC believe they have done anything wrong by changing their charter without any input from the BSCNC leaders? The WMU-NC would probably respond with a resounding NO! If you or I respond by questioning their reasoning for their answer they will point to the good of missions and how they will be able to expand that work by partnering with other “like minded Baptist” here in North Carolina. However, it is wrong for an auxiliary organization to change their charter without input from the very organization of which they are the auxiliary. Also, I question the decision of the Executive Committee in 1997. I do not remember changing the status of the WMU-NC to an autonomous body coming before the convention. It may have and was passed, but I do not remember it and cannot find any account of it. Utilitarianism says that it may be wrong to do this but if everyone feels good about it, then morally it is alright. We therefore begin making decisions based on what makes us feel good instead of what we have spelled out as right and wrong.

Our state paper’s new editor, Norman Jameson, deals with this issue on his blog. In the comments section I thought some very well reasoned arguments carried the day. One person by the name of David commented that a lack of accountability is the issue. By the WMU-NC making this move they are removing their accountability from North Carolina Baptist Churches to a small board of directors. By WMU-NC board of directors voting to remove themselves from under the umbrella of the BSCNC as an auxiliary, they have no accountability to the churches of North Carolina. Another visitor by the name of Janet commented that if the WMU-NC wants to leave then they should go. She also calls on the BSCNC to set up a group to carry out the task of the WMU-NC.

This latest level of contention is sad. The WMU-NC is not just leaving the building, it seem they are leaving North Carolina Baptist. I do wish them well, but I can tell you that I will be meeting with my WMU leadership to set the record straight. I would like to ask a couple of questions. If you are in North Carolina, how are you going to respond to this situation with your WMU? If you are not in North Carolina, how would you respond to this type of situation with your WMU? What does this mean for the NCMO? Would you designate that everything go to all of the other missions except WMU-NC? I do pray that we in North Carolina weather this storm. I also want to ask the leadership of the BSCNC a question. Can you tell me what we as conservatives have gained by saying we now have conservatives in leadership? More on my response to that question in a later post.

Pray for Oklahoma

I do not know about how it has been where you are but here in NC it has been dry.  I received this from one of my church members on Sunday.  It has been so dry here in NC that the Baptist have begun sprinkling, the Methodists are passing out wet wipes, the Presbyterians are giving rain checks, and the Catholics are praying for the wine to turn into water. :>)

Seriously Oklahoma has been seriously hit by a tropical depression that grew stronger.  I just saw a video of a helicopter rescue.  My prayers go out to those out there.  I pray God will be real to them in a special way as Oklahoma Baptist and others come together to minister to those affected.

What are you Preaching on Tomorrow?

It is Saturday morning and I am sitting here running through my blogroll. It seems we are all fried by Fries’ departure from Outpost. (Just a play on words, nothing intended.)

At any rate, I was looking over my sermon earlier as is my usual custom for my Saturday AM quiet time. Hosea is where I find myself as I am preaching through this book on Sunday mornings and Hebrews on Sunday evenings. I find what I am about to do very hard. I know there are others that will parse every word that I will place out here. :>)

I find myself at Hosea 8:1-14 and I am preaching about the rejection of those whose desires are not centered on God. The title of the message is Sowing the Wind The theological foundation is one of worship. In this text I ask the question; “What are the desires that are seen in a person’s life that reveal he or she has rejected God’s covenant?” This rejection is seen in a desire to workship, a desire to be worthy, and a desire to wander. I am looking forward to preaching this message as it is truly burning in my heart.

On Sunday evening I am preaching from Hebrews 11:8-19 on the subject Faith to Surrender. The title of the message is Promise for the Trial. I ask the question of the text; “When we speak of surrender, exactly what do we surrender to do?” The text reveals that we are surrendered to searching and to standing. We are surrendered to searching by listening to God’s promise, living by God’s promise, and looking for God’s promise. Our surrender to standing is seen in the thrill of standing, the testimony of standing, and the test of standing. Now, some of this message may look familiar if you follow Dr. Jerry Vines. Some of his bullets fit in my gun, so I am going to shoot them. It is not his gun that I am using, because I built the gun, but I certainly can use his bullets if they fit. :>)

What are you preaching tomorrow? I would like to know. It may be that I can use your bullets sometime. :>) Leave me a basic outline in the comments and let’s discuss it, or you can feel free to discuss mine.

Inconsistency Or Chicanery

As we move from summer into autumn here in NC we will experience a drabness in our foliage. It seems that we did not get enough water and because of this drought situation we find ourselves missing much of the beauty that makes the NC Mountains famous. There are some that say too much water causes the leaves to change later and therefore never exhibit the beauty of the colors in the process of that change. While others say that the slackness of rain makes the leaves change earlier and thus causes the changes so quick it makes for a beautiful scene. Which is correct? I do not know. Are these differences of opinion a result of inconsistent data? Or could this just be chicanery on the part of the tourist industry to get tourist to plan trips earlier in order to begin the tours earlier and thus bring in extra cash?

This brings me to something that I have witnessed in the blogging world. It seems that we have been a witness to either inconsistency or chicanery.

Inconsistent is described as: not satisfiable by the same set of values for the unknowns.

Chicanery is described as: deception by artful subterfuge or sophistry.

What have I seen in the blogging world that causes me to ask this question? I can point to many examples, but will use only a few. First the Endorsements at SBC Outpost. These Endorsements were removed at the decision of one person. It appears that the removal of these endorsement statements removed the endorsements of the individuals. Here is where the question of inconsistency or chicanery comes to light. Is it inconsistency or chicanery on the part of the endorsers of SBC Outpost to allow their endorsements to be pulled after they went public without publicly expressing something about the action? If it is inconsistency, where one feels the endorsement is still valid but not listed, then the endorser needs to clarify if the endorsement is still valid. If it is chicanery, where one feel the endorsement appears that it is not valid but in the endorser’s mind it is, then the endorser is guilty of trying to trick SB.

Second, is the in the arena of pastoral moves. We all now are aware that Dr. Jefress is the new pastor at FBC Dallas. However, we also are aware this was made public before either FBC Dallas members were aware of whom the committee was preparing to present, or FBC Wichita Falls was told by their pastor. This was debated in blogland as just “scooping” a story that was going to be released by a secular news organization. However, some of the very ones releasing this information did not seem to be aware that one of SBC Outpost’s leaders was leaving his present ministry to begin in a staff position in Enid Oklahoma. While neither FBC Dallas, nor FBC Wichita Falls had the luxury to hear about these changes from within the confines of their own membership, Parkview Baptist and Emmanuel Baptist were able to announce a transition that should go smoothly because it was presented in a proper manner. If what happened with the scoop is inconsistency then those involved in reporting these items should issue an apology to FBC Dallas, FBC Wichita Falls, and Dr. Jefress. If this is chicanery then it is easily spotted when the secular media turns to these “scooping” individuals in order to further a cause against SBC Institutions.

Also, and the last one to which I point, did you see the issue of silence? This blogger, referencing this post, pointed to the silence of SWBTS when someone seeks information. From both articles it appears that the authors believe it to be due to a serious, possibly law-breaking, matter for SWBTS to remain silent. IOW, SWBTS has seriously broken the law and their silence is the proof seems to be the implication. According to the SBC Outpost article because people are now being referred to a lawyer there must be something wrong. However, when I ask a question concerning a statement here the author responds humorously here. When I press the matter here he responds with silence here. If the author was afraid that I was seeking information because I desired to use it in a legal battle that I have instigated against him this type of action would be considered inconsistency. However, to become silent when the only thing requested were the more than half-dozen names he said “had no clue about Klouda’s forced removal, much less the reasoning behind why a unanimous action of the Board of Trustees needed to be ‘corrected’ ” screams chicanery. Some may not see it that way, but they need to stop and think. SWBTS is under scrutiny like it has never been before. Dr. Patterson is battling constant threats of legal actions against him and the seminary. Then the very person who has encouraged the lawsuit SWBTS is facing accuses him of hiding something by his silence, but when asked to name names instead of placing things out there as gossip, this person refuses to do so . . .

Oh, speaking of chicanery. Remember the issues raised by Brother Wade over Mrs. Debbie Brunson being nominated to the IMB from Florida? Remember his difficulty was not with Mrs. Brunson but the fact that she had been there less than a year and there were many more people in the great state of Florida that had served longer than she. I remember it and, to his credit, the story was pulled from his blog. His reasons? To be honest, I never really understood his reasoning. However, I believe if you will look at the appointments of the current President of the Oklahoma Baptist Convention you will notice a person on the Nominating Committee that violates the very principle that Brother Wade raised with Sister Debbie Brunson. Brother Art Rogers was in Oklahoma for less than a year when the Presidential appointments were named to the Nominating Committee. Brother Art is a great man of God and I do not question his ability to serve. However, is it inconsistency or chicanery for Brother Wade to remove his article concerning his disagreement of Mrs. Brunson and remain silent concerning Brother Art? (I do not know the exact timing of the president’s appointment of Brother Art, but if I were a betting man I would bet $1k to a doughnut hole it was shortly after Brother Wade removed his article.) Also, you will notice that Brother Todd Littleton has been placed on the committee. Now I understand that Brother Todd has been in the state longer than a year. However, it was in 2005 that a member of the church Brother Todd is pastor wrote this article where the church member stated he was done with the SBC. His basis for quiting the SBC was established as something his pastor told him. Is it inconsistency or chicanery for one to lead people to quit the SBC but serve in a position to nominate people for positions in a state convention that supports the SBC. Allow me to ask the Oklahoma Baptist Convention if it is inconsistency or chicanery for the convention to appoint a pastor whose church members have publicly advocated not sending money to the SBC and point to their pastor’s leadership in making this decision?

Let me close by saying that I could care less where the Lord leads our Brothers and Sisters in service for Him. I am excited that people are able to serve Him through the denominational agencies and I support the leadership of those in their positions. Here in NC we have great leadership as I am sure Oklahoma has as well. However, it seems that many of the issues being thrown out castigating the agencies and our leaders come from either inconsistency or chicanery. Which would you say?

A Definition of Orthodoxy

It is a commitment to the faith of the church universal in contrast to the distinctive views of particular theological traditions or the opinions of private persons–Dr. David Dunbar (The Missional Congregation-Part 3, Missional Journal July 2007, Vol. 1 No. 6)

I honestly need help here. It seems that Orthodoxy is now being defined as belief without theology. In fairness to the author of the blog article here he says; “I recommend the article as it speaks to the current divide within the SBC and might bring some clarity to those who mistakenly think that those of us who seek some level of reform in the SBC don’t care about orthodoxy or theology.” From what I see this very statement is in disagreement with the article.

In the article, Dr. Dunbar says; “Orthodoxy suggests a measure, a standard, by which to evaluate our beliefs.” He seems to advocate that the Scripture is the beginning point. Everything seems in accordance with a view everyone could grasp. I agree that we should evaluate everything on the basis of Scripture. But Dr. Dunbar seems to negate his thesis when he makes this statement; “The last suggestion I would make is that a broadly recognized confessional statement like the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed give us a good start at defining what it means to be orthodox.” He appears to advocate two beginning points. While Dr. Dunbar’s second beginning point may be correct in the Presbyterian movement, it would not sit will within Southern Baptist churches. There are two reasons. First, it would not sit well because this Nicene Creed came out of an Ecumenical Council. While I can agree with the doctrines of the Nicene Creed, one also needs to grasp that there were seven Ecumenical Councils that most Protestants look to in order to make decisions of orthodoxy. No one council dealt with every issue of orthodoxy. I disagree with the ecumenical mindset that seems to be present in Dr. Dunbar’s discussion. He seems to relegate everything to the councils, and his interpretation of orthodoxy. Second, Dr. Dunbar speaks from a creedal bias and appears to be pointing to returning to a creed. Presbyterians are creedal people, Baptist are not!

Dr. Dunbar then takes his turn at pointing to a defect he sees in the evangelical world. He refers to it as Combative Orthodoxy. Here is the place that, I believe, points to the heart of the matter within SBC life. Brother Paul Littleton advocates Dr. Dunbar’s position in his article on the SBC Outpost. It is in this comparison of the SBC “infighting” to what Dr Dunbar believes was the demise of the Presbyterian church that he presents issues, which Dr. J. Gresham Machen battled. His reference gives the appearance that liberal theology really did not exist and Dr. Machen began this movement for some other reason and then he references the SBC. Brother Paul Littleton seems to reference this article based solely on the fact that Dr. Dunbar’s argument is strengthened when he mentions the SBC.

Let me close by giving my analysis and then asking a question. Dr. Dunbar’s thesis breaks down in the fact of what the Presbyterian Church in dealing with today. I had lunch with a seasoned saint couple on Thursday. He is one of our leaders here in NC whose wife went home to Glory some years back. She is new to Baptist life as she and her husband, who passed away sometime back, were Presbyterians. She spoke to me about the heart break she is experiencing as she watches the church she brought her family up in being inundated with Liberal theology. From her report to me, Dr. Machen seemed to have a clear vision of the future before his death in 1937. Also, if we stick with Scripture for our Orthodoxy, then Dr. Machen has been proven to be a Prophet of God.

Another analysis I would like to point out deals directly with the SBC issue. It seems that some in the SBC desire to make an issue out of Calvinism. Brother Littleton points to this article, which states something that is not true in the SBC. Dr. Dunbar states, “labeling and exclusion continue around debates on Calvinism, the role of women in ministry, the legitimacy of “private prayer language. . .“. Here is another breakdown in the thesis. At our flag ship seminary our president would consider himself Reformed in his theology. While over at Midwestern Dr. Roberts, while I am not sure of his personal beliefs, had for his Doctoral Thesis Continuity and Change London Calvinistic Baptists and The Evangelical Revival 1760-1820. This book points to the Evangelical Revival and its affects on London Calvinistic Baptist. Thus, where is the exclusion of Calvinists? Also, the role of women in ministry is a buzz phrase that just does not ring true. Many try to paint conservatives that hold to the scripture in this area as rednecks that walk around with wife-beater T-shirts and has tobacco juice running out of the corner of their mouths. Conservatives within the SBC are not combative in this issue. We defend our points but combative, we are not. Many will say that we do not allow for outside interpretations on this issue. SBC Outpost has used women to post from this perspective, and I do appreciate their desire to do so. However, when a challenge exists to the interpretive method employed, notice who becomes combative in the exchange with Jeff R. Young. As to PPL that Dr. Dunbar refers I respond the way on preacher told me. You will find throughout history that Southern Baptist have been Calvinistic, Arminian, and even moderate, but you will not find them being Charismatic. Many will respond that PPL is not Charismatic Theology. I only know that you will not find any theologian discussing PPL before 1900 and then you are hard pressed to find any teaching on this doctrine outside of Charismatic Theology before 1970.

There are many differences that exist in SBC life. I believe Brother Littleton exhibits what is at the heart. Our Brother refers to many theologians he heard quoted as he grew up in an Independent Baptist setting. I, on the other hand, grew up in a Southern Baptist Church and I cannot remember hearing about Charles Hodge, or BB Warfield. I did hear about Hershel Hobbs, W.A. Criswell, Billy Sunday, Vance Havner, Dwight Moody, E.Y Mullins, Dr. Manly Beasly, and my favorite but not well known outside of NC, Dr. Charles Howard. What am I saying? I believe there is a generation coming along that does not know Joseph, neither do they remember Joseph.

Allow me to close with my question. Who determines orthodoxy and how we practice these orthodox beliefs? Southern Baptist or Ecumenicist?

What is Ethical?

In the recent month there have been publicized moves of Pastors from one ministry to another. In this post a mega-church pastor’s move was publicized as a “scoop” of newsworthy proportions. This release of confidential source information was defended, quite well I may add, by those those releasing it. The definitive argument for me had to do with it being news and releasing it earlier than anyone else would not stop it from being news. I have to agree, an early release would not stop it from being released. I do not doubt that the Dallas Morning News knew what was about to happen. But, I do question if they would have released their story if SBC Outpost had not released it first. One will never know.

However, that brings me to another question. Is it ethical to release information of such magnitude, when the person involved has not had the opportunity to tell those in his current ministry setting? Then you have the question of the proper timing in telling those in your current ministry setting. When should a pastor inform his current ministry about his being viewed and engaging in ongoing talks with another ministry? Also, another question roams at the surface that begs an answer. How ethical is it for one that reports on others being “outed” before they tell their congregation, to have the luxury of his own news organization keeping silent on an issue just because it entails one of their own?

I celebrated my first full year on the current field of ministry on July 15, 2007. I remember when I was in conversation with the Pulpit Committee and the struggle I had about telling my former ministry. After prayer and advice from other trusted pastors and lay people, I decided to wait until I received the vote from the church calling me. I remember one particular conversation during this time. It was a conversation with a pastor’s wife as she was serving on the Nominating Committee of The Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (NCBSC). I was being nominated to serve as a representative on the Board of Directors in the NCBSC and told her of my situation. She expressed that if I accepted they would present me and then if I moved out of the region to just inform them and they would replace me. Her advice was that I did not know what God was going to do until He did it. I agreed with her advice then and I agree today. While a pastor may sense a freedom to move, he does not know that God has told him to move until God tells him. Therefore, I decided to wait until I found out what the church calling me would vote before I told those in my ministry setting. It worked out and no one “scooped” me. I had the pleasure of sharing this with the Godly people that supported me and loved me. We went through many trials in our former ministry and formed deep bonds of friendship that are still sweet to this day. Our relationship was not tainted in any way because the Godly people in our former ministry read it in a newspaper or somewhere on the internet.

As you can tell from my experience, I believe the pastor should have the luxury of telling his congregation when the pastor deems the timing is appropriate. What do you believe? Why do you believe it? As you express your thoughts let us know if you are a lay person or you are in a paid staff position.

Do you ever feel this way?

While perusing my usual blog rolls, I ran across this interesting and humorous tidbit. Brother Dennis Long, a pastor in Apex, posted it as a Monday morning feeling. However, I would like to hear your thoughts on this subject. So, as my Brother Wes Kenney would say; You supply the caption. Brother Steve Grose, I am especially interested in a caption from you. :>)

Pray for a hurting Church Family

It was reported today here that a local Youth Minister, Christian School teacher/coach was arrested for inappropriate sexual conduct with a student. Pray for Jason Gillespie and his family. This is a sad situation. However, we must remember that one is innocent until proven guilty. Also, pray for the victim in this situation. This is a student that placed loads of trust in those that hold a place of authority. If the charges are true, this victim has been scared for life. Also, pray for this church as they deal with the after-math of this ungodly act.