Headlines like the Disney boycott or refusing to distribute free water from Anhaeuser-Busch post- Katrina do absolutely nothing to promote the gospel. I’d much rather my denomination made no headlines, but preached the gospel and saved souls and stopped lying about membership stats.

a hearty amen.

stephen lee cavnesss last blog post..submit a topic/question

Like Dokimadzo, I am concerned for how some of the headlines the SBC makes can affect our gospel witness, while totally disagreeing with him on the individual issues. Headlines like the Disney boycott or refusing to distribute free water from Anhaeuser-Busch post- Katrina do absolutely nothing to promote the gospel. I’d much rather my denomination made no headlines, but preached the gospel and saved souls and stopped lying about membership stats.

I think there are indeed those who need to hear what you are saying, however, there are many fellowships within and among Southern Baptist churches that indeed display this kind of Christian love. So, YES, I do think that is often the case. Anecdotally speaking, I have experienced this kind of love in the last three churches of which I have been a member. I also experience that in my own State Convention. I just got back from our annual meeting and 50th anniversary celebration in which I was warmly greeted by Christian brothers and sisters, received and gave encouragement , and performed state business in a spirit of Christian brotherhood. There may be some politics in our Convention, and there are more than a few unhealthy churches around, but all is not gloom and doom and we need more people who will believe in the church and our Convention. I, for one, want to be one of those people. God is still doing great things in and through Southern Baptists.

Blessings,
Todd

Todd B.s last blog post..Evangelism Bullet Points — Reminding myself

Please forgive me for correcting this anachronism, but I don’t think you can call the BFM “the primary organizing document of the SBC,” since it wasn’t adopted until 1925 and the SBC has been around significantly longer than that. But that’s beside the point that I want to make. All I want to say is that all pressure that has the appearance of coming from the denomination does not need to be seen that way. People have a sense of loyalty and identity as Southern Baptists, and it’s hard to leave that kind of thing behind. But know one can force a person by external means to believe something that he doesn’t agree with. I kind of think of it this way, an association’s ability to “expel” a church for deviant doctrine is no more of a threat to congregationalism than church discipline is a threat to liberty of conscience–and church discipline is clearly NOT a threat to liberty of conscience.

I have discussed with others the possibility of starting an alternative fellowship. But, even if that eventually takes place, do we set ourselves up as Southern Baptist along side the existing SB churches here? We might be able to find sponsers. We should be free to associate or disassociate formally, but may we also, disassociate as SB, informally? Will we have to meet certain qualifications, or no such as ecclesiastical determinations, like those concerning baptism? The fact is the SBC operates as an ecclesium with rules of admission, and disciplines as such, when it is motivated to do so by its own self preservation. And, even though we might believe SB to be a name that can be freely and broadly applied, the SBC would not allow it informally. Not because it has any authority to do so (even though some claim it does have as has been made clear), but merely by fiat. I would direct you to the BFM itself, the primary organizing document of the SBC. You will find no authority reserved to itself to disassociate simply by the fact that it denies itself ecclesiastical authority: XIV. Cooperation; 2000 BFM. The same section alludes to the fact that the SBC considers itself not merely a convention but a denomination. The introduction to the BFM contains this: “Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches.” Is this not true? Of itself also? Then, left undefined as to what this means, the example of homosexuality or any other doctrine is non sequitor. It simply does not matter what the Convention believes is right or wrong, for it allows for so called “soul competency,” and “liberty of conscience,” and no authority to discipline even by exclusion. Again, left undefined these mean nothing, and the only actions the Convention can take are through authoritarian fiat, majority vote. Any claim to biblical authority is defacto, null and void. Any appeal to it is assertion that there is no freedom of doctrinal defection. And, while we honestly hold that no one can be required to believe anything and acknowledge competency, Scripture allows no such freedoms. So, the common man expects that the church will define what the Scripture means. By defining any doctrine, the SBC, immediately establishes what the BFM denies.

As Jason said- “The SBC is more than just another organization to give to. For most churches it is the only organization they give to because it is their denomination, and that in itself is defining. ”

Which is the truth. No matter how the BFM descibes the SBC itself, and no matter how the SBC may assert its pride in claiming not to be a demomination with no ecclesiastical authority or proscriptive and prescriptive doctrine, those outside and inside, you know the dummies on the street and the dummies in the pews, see it quite differently, and quite rightly. They see it as a denomination and its resolutions and central confession as definitive, ecclesiastical.

I have to correct a misstatement of mine. The church I am attending is PCA, not OPC. Not much difference.

Now, you think I have found the SBC here to be “unique” and think that I have miscontrued the SBC via internet. I would ask you this, churches and individuals who make up the mainstream of the SBC that have harmed others by their actions and statements, such as Page, Billy Graham, Jack Graham, the Caners, et ceter, et cetera, are not accountable because there is no such SBC authority, and because of their clout they get away with their it, right? Who is to condemn their actions when such condemnation eventuates is mere opinion? I do not think that my situation here is a isolated as you believe. I have known both love and the hypocrisy. Sadly, it is the leadership for the most part, that seem to think that they are above reproach. The man in the pew is mostly uninformed by them (the leaders). The why is that church discipline only extends one way, from the political power downward. My situation is not much removed from the problem endemic in the convention, believe it or not. It is testified to by the unsupported attacking of people, it comes in the form of conferences aimed at attacking those who have doctrinal disagreements, by policies unilateral implemented by administrative arms of the SBC, by tactics carried out aimed at undermining the history and doctrinal foundations of the SBC by those who think that might makes right and knowing facts is dangerous. Call it cynicism if you like, the Convention is in trouble and faces splits upon social and doctrinal lines. The formation of an alternative association by secular politcal interests can only mean to some that they believe that the SBC is monolithic and unapproachable. They have taken your advice, “if you don’t like it leave,” and their leaving in mass. If we maintain the politicization that has come to characterize the Convention, we will face more of the same. Over against that is the establishment of means of address. Such as, how does any entity address The BGA and their ecumenism or B. Graham’s universalism and his statue despite it, or the Molinist movement? If a university will not sanction one of its professors for teaching heresy, shouldn’t those who pay their salaries be able to do so? And who at the convention level condemns the actions of the FBC, the TBC, for political tactics aimed at “enemies of the faith” who are brothers in the SBC? How is it that this can abide, except power politcs driven by money? And that being the case, SBC’ers like Carter and Gore, are all the more motivated to split with the dummies that will follow them. Do not be naive. The conservative resurrgence may have vaulted the conservatives to the fore, but it has also exposed the soft underbelly of the political nature of the Convention. We will see, as the climate gets more stormy, we will see, if Mohler’s support for presidency doesn’t more so expose it.

Anyway, God bless you all, also. May God bring us unity according to truth. The SBC is truly a remarkable machine for evangelism, and it is truly my hope that it survives the coming divisionalism that politics breeds.

Sorry for the shameless plug for my own blog

– Todd

If your local association is as bad as you say, then I am sorry. I have served in local associations where there is a sweet fellowship among churches and pastors. I serve in a state whose leadership is godly and has no desire for power or self-aggrandizement. We have had disagreements, and in the end continue to love each other and work together.

The attitudes you describe are not as prevalent in the Convention as you imagine. If you are basing your judgment on the cynicism of the blogosphere, you are getting only one side of the picture. I have been as frustrated as the next guy at some of the recent trustee decisions, but I do not let my difference of opinion degenerate into ad hominem personal attacks like some other bloggers. Some of the men with whom I disagree are the same men whom I consider role models of Christian leadership and maturity. Sure, the Convention isn’t perfect. It’s made up of redeemed sinners. But, on the whole, those who have positions of leadership are godly, humble servants, who are trying to serve the Lord. (See my post here: http://bemywitnesses.blogspot.com/2007/12/toward-continued-cooperation-in.html) And, no matter how wrong the Convention leadership or association might become, they still have absolutely no authority over your church. Go to a Convention some time and see for yourself. Every motion at the Convention that even HINTS at telling churches what to do is ruled out of order.

As for being Southern Baptist over another kind, I for one appreciate the diversity that is allowed and embraced in the SBC. We are not monolithic and are, again, free to be who we are in our given context. So I will remain SBC and will continue to defend it. I hope you will one day know the brotherhood and Christian love I have experienced in the SBC.

Blessings!
– Todd

You missed my point. All what we say we are is all good and fine. But, it doesn’t exist and because it doesn’t it is a good sounding idea, but impossible to implement with policeable means. What it devolves into is the fractured system that threatens its own demise.

I for the most part do not cosider that the entire mentality or structure needs revamping, but as is clear from many, changes in its accountability systems do.

I too was a Christian long before a SBCer. Unfortunately, it took fifteen years to find out that for all the frills and excitements, the smiles and the platidudes, were surface realities. I found it true locally, and over the past year found it to be true across the spectrum of the SBC on the internet.

What we see of the SBC is no minor player globally. But, what good is it, really, if what it accomplishes is personal agendas? If we are only a shell, only a cooperative body in which it really does not matter what one believes or does, then what are we? Who cares if the SBC is pro-family? Anti-abortion, conservative biblically? If it does not matter whether someone comes or goes, and it does not matter if the Convention level leadership is sound or has integrity? What we have become when we are perceived of as just another Christian religious organization, as just one of thousands of social work organizations with no true message. Try to manage your family with the nonchalant attitude of, “if you don’t like it leave.” You will find that your children will indeed leave, and your spouse too, and you will have no one to blame but yourself. Tell them if they do not toe the line or you will kick them out of the family, and see what they will do. Now, I don’t care if anyone thinks that the family model is not the way a convention works, it is Paul’s teaching on the relationships in the Church, regardless.

Yes, we can operate according to an egalitarian self affirmation, but it will always result in oppression and rebellion simply because it is by nature antinomian. The end of that though is death.

Maybe I was a little sloppy in my last post. Ownership of property is a benefit of congregationalism, over against episcopal forms of government. I should recognize that Presbyterianism doesn’t necessitate denominational ownership. But I still contend that there is NO ecclesiastical authority that the SBC can wield against a church. A threat of expulsion is not an exercise of top down authority. The pressure that is on a church under that threat is purely internal. If a church (like the one in my example) wants to ordain a homosexual, they have already left the confessional bounds set by the cooperating churches. They pull themselves out. All that the Convention can do by expulsion is to publicly point out that the church has already chosen to leave by virtue of their practice.

I also should be clear on the terminology of presbytery. I ‘m a Baptist so I’m not as familiar with the technical terminology used in other denominations. What I should have probably said was “session” or “general assembly.”

I’ll close with a question, if you are by conviction a Baptist, but you cannot find an SBC church that is “trustworthy,” why don’t you and the other baptists just plant a baptist church rather than attend an OPC church? That’s one thing that I really don’t understand? If there truly is no church in your area that agrees with you on such important matters, and you have plenty of people who are in agreement with you, plant a church!