Everybody wants to Build a Bridge

UPDATE: SBC Today has requested the use of this article.  I have allowed them to use this article over at that site.  Therefore, I have turned off the comments.  If you would like to comment feel free to do so at that site.

My late father would always offer me sage advice when I was growing up. Whenever I would come home telling him about a deal that was too good to be true he would respond; “If it is too good to be true, usually it is.” Or he would say, “In this world, the only thing worth having that you get for nothing is salvation.” On every occasion I would come home with various ideas and run them past him, he would always interject wisdom into my thought process. On one such occasion I was home after completing my military active duty requirement and had the availability of a GI loan through the VA. I was part of a group of five trying to figure out how to open a junk yard business. Each one, it was agreed would put up $10K and with the total $50K we would begin our own business. Neither of us knew anything about the car business or the junk business. We did not have a business plan and we certainly did not know anything about purchasing land and the restrictions that would be placed on us in the early 1980’s concerning the environment. Neither of the five of us did any research other than how we could come up with the money. I talked this over with my father and he gave some wise advice to me at that time. I can still hear his words ring through my ears as I write this article. He told me; “Tim, before you jump on a band wagon, you need to know where it is heading.” It is these words that I want to echo in this article.

In 2007 at the Union University Baptist Identity Conference, Dr. Tom Rainer delivered a paper on “Evangelism and Church Growth in the Southern Baptist Convention”. In the follow-up to this conference he wrote an article entitled On Building Bridges. His thesis was on how we as Southern Baptist needed to build bridges, I believe, to each other within the convention. I never saw where he advocated that we build bridges outside the convention. I did see two things in the article that did concern me a bit. Dr. Rainer stated there were defined groups at the conference and implied, by a personal story at the conference, that these groups did not desire to mingle or exchange ideas. I was at the conference and I went to a bloggers reception where I exchanged greetings and ideas with Brother CB Scott, Brother Ben Cole and Dr. Dwight McKissic. I left there and went to a reception in the SWBTS area and exchanged ideas with Dr. Malcolm Yarnell along with Dr. and Mrs. Paige Patterson. To be fair to Dr. Rainer, there were more than likely some that were afraid to be seen with others, but I did not get that feeling. I hung out with Brother Wes Kenney and Brother David Worley, gave a ride to the conference to Dr. Ed Stetzer, and had great dialog with Dr. Dwight McKissic. The other concern I had from the article was this statement; “But it seems as if we just can’t stop fighting even though the battle for the Bible is over and won.” I believe we would all agree that the battle for the Bible will forever be at our door. If we ever concede this battle is over, we certainly will have a bridge from Neo-Orthodoxy that leads back into the convention defined as something other than what it is.

In San Antonio we were greeted with a packet of material that contained the booklet, pictured on the left, that advocated Building Bridges. These bridges I cannot comment on as I confess I never have read the booklet. I only present this picture because it is something that some of our leaders are advancing and advanced hard at the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Rainer in his report, once again spoke about Building Bridges, but this time he referenced the foundation on which the bridge should be built. That foundation is something that we all can agree on. But, did he really need to advance the thought that we needed to build this bridge on the Bedrock of Christ? If, as he advanced in his previous articles, the battle for the Bible is over should we not presume any bridge built has as its foundation Jesus Christ? I am not questioning Dr. Rainer’s passion or his purpose. I want to be on that bridge that he desires to build. But, I believe there needs to be some reassessment from him as to his assertion that we throw caution to the wind because everyone in the SBC is a Bible Believing inerrantist. Dr. Rainer is a Godly man and each time I hear him in a presentation I am challenged and moved to seek more of God. He makes excellent presentations and does his research well. I would not be anywhere close to being able to carry his water. However, on this point of Building Bridges I believe he needs to reassess his position.

Enter the next Building Bridges stage. In November 2007 we had a Building Bridges Conference at Ridgecrest where Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and The Founders Ministry converged to make presentations concerning Calvinism within the SBC. This was a wonderful time and I enjoyed getting to meet new people and also interact with others I knew. It was at this conference that I renewed my acquaintance and began a friendship with Brother Travis Hilton. Dr. Ed Stetzer had jokingly referred to this conference as “The Revenge of the Nerds“. We had scholar after scholar making presentation after presentation. Some you could follow and some I still go back and listen to the audio, but to no avail. It seems that this conference advocated Building Bridges to the Calvinist within our convention. It was at this conference that Dr. Danny Akin introduced his new baby, The Great Commission Resurgence. Thus, if I understand this bridge that he advocates we build, thi bridge is extended to the Calvinist and it will lead us to a Great Commission Resurgence. If this is what Dr. Akin means then I am 100% on board.  It was refreshing to see Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, Dr. Bart Barber, and Dr. Tom Ascoll stand shoulder to shoulder to put some teeth in Resolution #6 at this past convention.  I believe we cannot begin advancing the Kingdom of God until we stop fighting among ourselves. But if he means we build bridges outside the convention to join forces for planting churches because we want to plant more churches then I believe caution and clearly defined road signs need to accompany the traversing of this bridge.

Well, now we see another Bridge that a group of Baptist want to build. In the annual Cooperative Baptist Fellowship gathering, their platform is Building Bridges. What originality. Their bridge, I do not believe, will be built on the same bedrock as the other bridges I have directed us. According to this article a presenter at this conference has questioned the very Deity of Christ. I know that CBF has a statement that they do not promote ideas the individuals presenting promotes those ideas. CBF, for some strange reason, believes they share no responsibility when a presenter presents a heretical view. Smyth & Helwys has taken the BP reporter to task because he inadvertently presumed they were the publisher of the book. Why wouldn’t he presume such? Smyth & Helwys sponsored the workshop and promoted the book during the General Assembly. Smyth & Helwys also is hosting a book-signing for Killinger at its booth in the resource fair. All of this to ask; Where is this bridge going?  Will this bridge intersect within the cloverleaf of bridges already being built?

It seems that everyone wants to build a bridge to somewhere, but no one is telling us where the bridge is heading. Neither is anyone telling us what we are trying to connect by building this bridge. Let me add that I do not believe these various bridges that I have presented will end up connecting. I do not want to believe that the bridge Drs. Ranier, Akin, Dockery, and George has pointed us to will be connected to the bridge the CBF is advocating. However, with all of this construction going into Building Bridges, we need to be very careful that the band wagon we are on doesn’t get mixed up in a cloverleaf of bridges and we get confused as to what road the bridge takes us down.

Convention Assessment

Well, it has been about a week since we voted in Indianapolis for a new president. Dr. Johnny Hunt overwhelmingly was elected our new president. I look forward to seeing how God will use him in the coming two years. It is already rumored that a couple of Florida pastors names are being floated to see how the response is for the next full election cycle. But, who knows, maybe Dr. Hunt will take a page out of the late Dr. Adrian Rogers’ book and only serve one year and allow Dr. Mohler to place his name back in the ring next year in Louisville. I have not heard anything to that effect and I am not trying to start a rumor, but it would be interesting. Would one not agree that Dr. Hunt has seemingly received the mantle of Dr. Rogers? It would appear that if the trustees reverse their policies after Dr. Hunts meeting with them, that the mantle has truly been passed.

On other convention matters, the resolutions that passed were certainly ones that spoke to the needs of the convention. The Charlotte, NC paper picked up a report from Religious News Service. The story found here speaks about the numbers being debated which spoke mainly about the resolution on Regenerate Church Membership. It seems that in that report the reporter made reference to another resolution that was passed on The Equality of Ethnic Representation. This resolution was a joint effort between Dr. Dwight McKissic and myself. I am a little concerned with Roger Oldham’s response in that article. I do not want to pass judgement on his response because I understand that sometimes a misplaced quote is not what a person communicated. However, if the quote is an accurate quote, it would seem that the Executive Committee sees nothing wrong with no minority representation on the Executive Committee staff because minorities are represented in other entities. If this is what they are saying then trustees should take a serious look at this. But, as I have already stated, I want to believe the quote is a misplaced quote.

Brother Bill Sanderson made a motion that called for us to identify Broadway Baptist as not being in friendly cooperation. I am glad to see this take place. One thing I do not understand is why a motion had to come from the floor of the convention to deal with this issue. It is clear from the debates that ensued around that situation in Texas that we certainly have a church that is not in cooperation with the Convention because their actions affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior (SBC Constitution Article III.1). With that in the constitution, it just is not clear why messengers have to make the motion from the floor before the convention can deal with it. One thing noted in the response to this motion was that Broadway Baptist did not send messengers to the convention. If the church is following the lead of the pastor that implemented the ‘openness’ policy there at Broadway, we can expect a request to address the convention next year.

On another matter that I did not understand was the motion for the Executive Committee to revisit our relationship with the Baptist World Alliance. If this motion comes through the EC and a motion is presented to the convention, I will only have one question. What will we do with Dr. Welch? I mean, isn’t that what he is supposed to be doing. I believe he gave a great report of trying to build bridges to Baptist on an international scale. He seems to be covering his position and building the foundation for a world wide network.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the convention. I am excited to be a Southern Baptist and look forward to the future as we cooperatively allow Jesus Christ to reach the world through us.

Johnny Hunt–SBC President

What a pleasant surprise.  First ballot and Brother Johnny Hunt walked out of the election process as President of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Everyone knows that I endorsed Brother Frank Cox and that was something that I felt led to do and I kept my word.  I knew that either Brother Johnny or Brother Frank would make an excellent president.  I beilieve that Brother Johnny is the man for the postion as the convention as spoken.  I believe he will do a tremendous job for three reasons.

First, Brother Johnny did not come from Baptist Blue blood.  He has been used by God tremendously and, let’s face it, he does not need the SBC.  Brother Johnny was elected on the first ballot by a 52% of 5800 ballots.  That is the number of people he preaches to every Sunday AM.  He has a heart to the SBC not become some elititst status.  I believe that he will do all that he can to keep us focused on the lost.

Second, Brother Johnny mentores many younger pastors and promotes healing for hurting pastors.  In a convention that has been diagnosed as too gray haired, he will be a fresh voice.  He reaches out to younger pastors and has mentored many through his Timothy/Barnabas schools.  He is known across the convention as the mentor of younger pastors.  He also helps those that stumble along the way with his City of Refuge ministry.  God has used him to put that ministry together and he also has done much to encourage pastors that are hurting in their ministry.  I can personally tell you that he has always returned my phone calls.  I have never called his office and left a message that he did not call me and take time to hear me ask questions.

Third, Brother Johnny has pastored churches in various stages in his ministry.  He has a humble attitude about himself.  As I came walking through the convention hall, he stopped speaking to about three people to call to me and greet me with a warm handshake and hug.  Brother Johnny remembers you when he meets you. 

This convention seems to be shaping up to be one that is a convention of unity.  This unity is seen in the first ballot win of Brother Johnny Hunt.  I praise God for this direction and look forward to what the next two years hold.

A Joint Resolution

The following resolution is one that I sent before the deadline to the Resolutions Committee. I presented this resolution after a time of grapplying with the issue.  Allow me to present a brief history and then I will present the resolution.

In a comment thread on another blog the issue of race was being discussed.  In that discussion my Brother Dwight McKissic made a statement that caused me to think very deeply.  Brother Dwight said that on a recent visit to the Executive Committee building he noticed a very strange phenomenan.  As we traversed the hallways he was moved by the lack of minority presence.  Thus, he inquired concerning the highest ranking African American.  He was told that the highest ranking African American was the head custodian.  I openly argued that I trusted the hiring process that Dr. Chapman has in place at the EC.  However, deep inside I had concern that we had no minority representation.  It is not that we had little, but we had no minority representation.  The comment concerned me because I know that I went to school with some very bright African Americans.  One Brother and I studied for tests together and he usually had a much better grasp of the material and his grades reflected his intellect.  He is now employed in our state convention. 

Before anyone thinks this is solely about African American minorities, it isn’t.  As a convention we have many minority churches but in leadership we have few minority voices.  After much prayer and wrestling with what to do, I contacted Brother Dwight with the possibility of presenting this resolution as a joint venture.  He helped me word it and we came to a consensus of statement in order to ask that our leaders begin to pray.  We just want them to do what I did.  Look at the landscape and pray about what God would have us do.  This is not about quotas.  It is about finding God’s people–red, yellow, black, and white–to fill the positions of leadership.  This leadership could be in the committees, or in the employment positions.  Just pray about it as you look to fill the positions is the action called for in the resolution.

On Equality in Ethnic Representation

 

WHEREAS, In 1995 Southern Baptist expressed a commitment to eradicate racism in all its forms from Southern Baptist life and ministry; andWHEREAS, we have committed ourselves to be doers of the Word (James 1:22) by pursuing racial reconciliation in all our relationships, especially with our brothers and sisters in Christ (1 John 2:7), to the end that our light would so shine before others, that they may see (our) good works and glorify (our) Father in heaven (Matthew 5:16); and

 

WHEREAS, Southern Baptist publicly express our gratitude to God for his reconciling grace, and reaffirm our intention to love our neighbors as ourselves, denouncing in strongest terms every expression of racial and ethnic prejudice, discrimination, and hatred; and

 

WHEREAS, According to Lifeway there are 2,416 African American churches and 684 missions, 1,307 Hispanic churches and 1,665 missions, 583 Korean churches and 27 missions and 137, Chinese churches and 71 missions affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention; and

 

WHEREAS, there is among our minority Brothers and Sisters an emergence of strong leadership, pulpit ability, administrative capability, and denominational, theological, and scriptural fidelity as is represented in the Baptist Faith and Message; and

 

WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention does not appear reflective of this racial diversity among her entity heads, employees, the various boards of trustees, executive and cabinet level leadership to any significant degree. Therefore be it

 

RESOLVED, That  the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, June 10-11, 2008, express our appreciation to entities seeking to address a balanced representative of minority leadership; and be it further

 

RESOLVED, That we urge our entity leaders, working under God’s timing and at their discretion, to help resolve any imbalance of minority representation within their entity; and be it finally

 

RESOLVED, That we encourage our President and all committees to identify ethnic leadership from within the Southern Baptist family to serve on boards, committees, and programs of the Southern Baptist Convention so as to reflect more completely the oneness in Christ we share as a denomination and as a witness for our Lord everywhere and with everyone.

Accountability–What does it Mean?

When I was growing up there was an unofficial extension of my mother and father’s house guidelines.  I could be at school and a teacher would see me doing something that was no good and he/she would respond; “I know that your mother and father would not approve of that.”  I could be at the grocery store with mama and on another isle playing and one of our church members would see me and say; “You know better than to do that.”  On many occasions our neighbor’s would call mama and daddy at work to tell them about a visitor at the house that just dropped by to see my sisters.  Our house rules were that no one was to be at the house when mama and daddy were at work.  I still remember being 25 years old and the guilt I felt about bringing a date by the house while mama and daddy were out of town on vacation.

Which brings me to my point.  One blogger here has advanced the IMB guidelines to another level in the argument.  It has been tried before, but it did not gain traction.  However, with the new petition being signed, it seems that we are ready to relieve ourselves of accountability we as Southern Baptist enjoy.  The argument now being advanced seems to paint the IMB Board of Trustees as a conglomerate of uninformed “large corporation” personnel that have no respect for the local church.  Notice the terminology:

In many denominations, what the hierarchical leaders say goes, as they are in authority over the churches. The SBC is organized on the principle of local church autonomy, meaning we recognize no authority over a local church except for Jesus Himself, and that all of our missional agencies utlimately answer to the church congregations they serve.

That quote reveals a flaw understanding the role of the local church.  While your church may allow for a baptism from say a Presbyterian congregation, my church will not allow that and we require the candidate for membership to be re-baptized.  The author of the above quoted blog reveals a level of understanding that if his local church authorizes it, it is the duty of the IMB to accept it.  It seems that the writer fails to remember the IMB screeners are from other local churches.  Their fiduciary responsibility is to the other 39,999 churches that also are owners of the entity.

This new policy has placed the board in the position of dictating to local churches what constitutes a legitimate Christian baptism. With the intense specificity required by the new IMB rules, the churches from which potential Southern Baptist missionaries emerge are now subject to extra-biblical management practices which undermine the authority of the local church.

This above quote is from the petition for change itself.  Please note the separation of the “board” from the IMB.  The entire petition is rife with language that deliberately separates the BoT from the IMB.  Houston, we have a problem.  When we begin separating the actions of a group from the entity they were elected to hold trust, we have a serious flaw in organizational understanding.  If we use, for the sake of argument, this logic let me point you to the logical conclusion.  Since those elected to the positions of Trustees come from local churches, and since they oversee actions from a local church perspective, then those signing the petition are saying their local church is not accountable to other local churches.  I do not believe these signatories would say that.  However, using their logic of separating the BoT from the entity of the IMB begins this slide on the slippery slope.

I asked in the last comment thread a germane question.  I asked; what would it take to place this issue of the IMB guidelines behind us?  The answer I received was eye opening indeed.  Nothing short of the Trustees reversing their decision.  Here in lies the problem.  We have local church people serving in positions where they have to decide on issues based, not on one churches practices, but on over 40,000 churches and their standard practices.

It all comes down to this.  As a local church you decide whose baptism you will accept and whose you will not accept.  That is the autonomy of the local church.  When you decide to enter into a partnership venture with other local churches you release your autonomy for and submit to the accountability of all churches within the partnership.  When a candidate has been rejected because of a baptism standard, that is not your churches autonomy being violated.  It is the accountability of all churches being actualized.

Why Now?–Updated

I received a phone call last evening from Brother Allan Blume.  He wanted to personally answer the question for me.  As a result of his answers I am updating this post in order to present it as fairly as I know how.  He has assured me of a couple of issues.  First, the petition was only put together approximately three weeks ago.  It was conceived by Brother Allan and some others as a result of Rodney Hammer’s resignation being the straw that broke the camel’s back.  It seems that while Brother Allan’s wife, Sister Pam, was serving as an IMB Trustee she became better acquainted with Brother Rodney as well as other Regional Leaders.  Brother Allan stressed to me that he has received numerous emails as well as Sister Pam from other Missionaries on the field that have a fear of these new policies.  He said that it has been two years now and these policies have produced negative results. 

As to the comments that I made concerning the connections of Brother’s Allan, Steve Hardy, and Sister Pam with Brother Wade Burleson.  In those comments I tacitly implied that there was a connection between this petition and Brother Wade’s silence.  Brother Allan has assured me that he has not spoken to Brother Wade concerning this issue, and also Brother Wade has broken his blogging silence by commenting at Baptistlife.com that he knew nothing of this petition coming forth.  I accept their words on this as I know Brother Allan to be truthful in his comments.  As to the signing of the MD, I have only stated that as a truth.  You can follow the link to that site in the article and find both Brother Steve Hardy and Sister Pam Blume’s signatures. 

In all fairness, Brother Allan Blume has been open with me and did give me a deserving chastising for not contacting him, Brother Steve, or Sister Pam if I wanted to know; Why Now?  For any offense caused to any of the three of them, I apologize, and private phone conversations will be initiated by me to personally express my apology.  As I spoke to Brother Allan, I am still confused as to the reason for this move because as I have always known him I have always been instructed in NC, that we work through the Committees and Trustee Boards.  He said that he knows others who have tried to work through these channels but without any success.  He informed me that he saw no reason for this petition to stay as just a petition.  I was informed that he did not know if anyone was going to make a motion at the convention.  I expressed my disagreement that this matter should come to the convention floor because it completely undermines the trustee system.  However, if the petition comes to the floor in the form of a motion, may it be in a clear up or down vote and not some generically worded motion that will leave us all guessing as to exactly what the convention has said.

I remember as a small boy I was caught by one of our ’statesman’ deacons doing something that I was not supposed to be doing. He corrected me and then told me that the incident would only be between the two of us. Our church was going through some turmoil some time later and my father was taking a strong stand about the veracity of Scripture. In the midst of the argument, this ’statesman’ deacon revealed how he had corrected me doing the misdeed and how my misdeed would provide proof that my father lacked integrity because he did nothing to stop me from doing it. As a matter of fact, my father did not even know anything about it and thus it made him unfit to fill the position that he had as a deacon. My father responded to him; Why Now? He basically asked if the ’statesman’ deacon knew about this all along, why had he not said anything before now?

Which brings me to this mass revelation that is being presented as a statement for change at timetochange. Many of the signers on this document seem to come out at at time that really does not make sense. Or does it? There is more to this document than just people that believe it is time to change. I say this for three reasons.

First, many of the original signers are former trustees. Notice the number of the ‘former trustees’ listed beside the names. As trustees they were able to provide leadership using the trustee system, but now that they are not trustees they are evading the system. Some that I know as former trustees would have the heads of those that would pull something like this. There are some that have blocked conservative advances here in North Carolina, not because they are not conservatives, but because they insist that we remain within the system. The late Ted Stone worked strenuously to remove various giving plans to return to one giving plan only to be thwarted because he would not work through the committee and trustee structure.

Second, some of the original signers are also original signers of the Memphis Declaration. Venture over to this link and see the signatories and make a comparison. You will note that back in 2006 these signatories were adamant about the need for change and joined our Brother’s Burleson and Cole in their quest for changing the landscape of the SBC. Well, they used the guidelines and then signed a statement in order to place their personal desire before the entire SBC in order to get themselves in positions of influence. Of course you have noticed a quiet from them in the past month. Now this statement comes out and their names are strangely absent. However, notice the connections through the Memphis Declaration.

Third, many of the original signers are also old enough and know enough about SBC politics to remember that NAMB already has these same guidelines, except they call them policies, in place. If this is about the Baptism guidelines I would have never even looked at this the second time. However, these men and women have added the PPL guidelines and that shocks me. NAMB has had policies in place. Dr. Bob Pearle, an IMB Trustee in 2005 quoted in an article concerning the NAMB policy;

Quoting from NAMB’s personnel policy, Pearle read, “‘No person who is actively participating in or promoting glossolalia shall be appointed, approved or endorsed by NAMB. This includes having a private prayer language.’

Dr. Pearle was on the BoT that approved the original policies and he knew about the NAMB policies and quoted them in 2005. If this group is so concerned that the IMB guidelines are holding back qualified missionaries, then where is their voice concerning the NAMB policies?

Well, we have been debating this issue ad nauseum since 2005 when these issues were presented as something that they were not. We have these people all saying they are concerned and desire to see the IMB change these guidelines. If this is such a disgusting issue for this group of people, I only have one question. WHY NOW?