An Open Letter to SBC Seminary Students

To All Students in SBC Seminaries,

I am a Southern Baptist pastor and I ask you to indulge me for a moment.

My wife and I were converted our first Sunday in an SBC church in Carbondale, IL and were baptized together at an SBC church in Denver, CO.  We have been members of several different SBC churches: a couple with less than 100 in attendance, a couple with over 1,000 in attendance, and one with over 10,000 in attendance every weekend.  We have never been a member of a non-SBC church since our conversion.

I have a Master of Divinity from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY with some of those hours earned at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.  In the SBC churches I've belonged to I've served in volunteer capacity in evangelistic ministry and started prayer meetings at two different churches.  I've served as an intern with collegiate ministry in a large church, as an associate pastor of discipleship at a church plant, as a missionary to international students at the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky (through Baptist Student Unions), and now as the pastor of a church in Woodstock, IL.  I've taught a 4-5 year old children's Sunday School class, youth groups, college students, and adult Sunday School classes.  I've preached and taught at churches on the topic of missions and reaching international students in the U.S and I preached a revival.  I've been to a couple of SBC Annual Meetings (Indy and Nashville) and preached at my local association's annual meeting.  I've been to Ridgecrest, NC for an IMB Missions Week and my wife and I were considering on going overseas to a Muslim country until our oldest son was diagnosed with autism. 

I've shaken the hand of Jerry Rankin, heard O.S. Hawkins respond to "How are you?" by saying "I'm blessed," and have an autographed autobiography of Jimmy Draper.  I've heard Roy Fish tell a class on evangelism to "Put THAT in your Calvinistic pipe and smoke it."  I've peed next to Danny Akin while he told me stories about the ethics class he took under Paige Patterson.  I've had Ken Hemphill (cowboy boots and all) and his wife Paula in our Fort Worth townhouse for brownies and ice cream.  I've had many conversations with Al Mohler, including one about an episode of Prairie Home Companion. 

I say this to say that I've lived and breathed SBC for more almost a decade, and I have never been so frustrated with who WE are. 

I believe this is a crucial time for our convention that will determine whether we will ever have a good reputation with outsiders (1 Tim 3:7) and a real impact on our culture (Mt 28:18-20, Acts 17:6).  And I believe the most crucial group of SBC'rs right now are not those in power, nor those serving on trustee boards or important committees.  The most important group of SBC'rs right now are our seminary students.  Those who have the chance to get this Titanic steered clear of disaster.

I ask you as a seminary student to consider the greatest poison in our convention, fundamentalism/legalism.  If you don't like me, or think that my use of "fundamentalism" or "legalism" is misguided, please think about what's been happening.  The IMB policy issues and the continued push for alcohol abstinence by SBTS leadership and Jack Graham (to name two) are symptoms of a convention concerned with power, control, and extra-biblical rules and righteousness.  We are structuring ourselves to avoid "sinners" rather than eating and drinking with them (Lk 7:34-35, Mt 9:9-13).  We are looking less like Jesus and more like Pharisees with every decision and direction.

This is a crucial time for seminary students to open their Bibles and see what Jesus and Paul and Moses and David say about the important theological and cultural issues of our day.  We need to read about the Pharisees while looking in the mirror.  We need to see holiness not only as list of "don'ts," but as "do's."  Instead of just feeding from our leaders we need to search the Scriptures like Bereans (Acts 17:11).  Listen and learn, but do so with great discernment.  I believe as John Piper does that legalism is a far greater danger than drunkenness.  That principle is crucial for our convention right now far beyond alcohol.

Our seminaries are creating a new generation that mirrors the ones in power.  Oh sure, they'll let you sing more choruses and new hymns.  But as one who has been in seminary and sucked at the breast of SBC values and who has now gained some distance and insight through a couple of years of teaching and preaching through books of the Bible, I believe that we must have a breakout generation of young leaders who will take the best the SBC has (heritage, mission, etc) and let God reform us into something much better. 

We need to be better evangelists who aren't looking to repackage for the Gospel but rather looking to better understand and live the Gospel.  I think we need to remember that we are to truly be in culture, not looking down on it, and not avoiding it.  I think we need to remember that working for justice is a biblical idea, not a liberal one.  I think we need a resurgence of love for and creation of art as reflecting the imago dei.  I think we need better seminaries that aren't just telling us what we should think, but rather are teaching us how to think through Scripture and know The Spirit.  I think we need an ethic based on biblical boundaries and biblical liberties.  As Derek Webb has sung, it's much easier to follow a new law rather than be sanctified through learning to live out our freedoms and liberties.

I ask you my brothers and sisters in Christ to consider whether now is the time that we need to break the mold so that our next generation of churches won't merely reflect an older SBC culture.  We need to be His people today, in this age, to this culture with an eternal Gospel that never changes.  Culture war thinking won't get us there.  Extra-biblical rules won't get us there.  It's going to take a generation of God-seekers who infiltrate the culture with the love of Christ and fight spiritual battles rather than tongue-lashing those who need redemption.

I would love to dialogue with you here about this, and please pass this on to your seminary friends as well.  I won't be popular with many people because of this letter, but I feel like it's necessary for my conscience and for our convention.

Grace and Peace.

Steve McCoy

Comments

[blake w]

Steve,

Thanks for the letter. I will be at Southern in the fall. There is a lot of tradition in the SBC that irks me. I am already preparing to be fed some of it in seminary. It should be an interesting ride.

[Jason Sampler]

Maybe the best post I've read from you so far, Steve. Thanks. There is much good in our seminaries, but there are also some rules that cross the line from being biblical to legalistic. Not sure if your letter will change anything, but I'm grateful that you are speaking your conscience.

[Richard Bailey]

Perhaps some encouragement from Edwards's "The Kind of Preaching People Want" in The Salvation of Souls:

"So if ministers were sent to tell men how they might gratify their pride, how they might obtain honor and advancement among men, how they might get above such and such of their neighbors that they now with an evil eye see to be above them, this would be more pleasing by far than to have ministers tell them how they may become the children of God and hereafter sit with Christ in thrones and be crowned with glory (63-64)."

A few other passages from that sermon are fitting, but, in the end, my friend, the point is that saying what is needed isn't always popular.

[GJ]

As a seminary student for a year now in Louisville, I haven't been fed legalism directly. I did however attend the forum on alcohol and understand the issues that have been arising lately.

God willing, Christ's love with shine through any mirk we create. My prayer is that we avoid creating more mirkiness within the denomination and instead offer a mirror-shined vision of the gospel for our generation.

Thank you Steve for the letter and your kind heart. God bless.

[paul]

It's funny you write this letter because I was about to email you a couple questions concerning Southern. My wife and I are about to move to Louisville in May and begin classes in June, God willing. I grew up SB in Corbin, Ky. Our pastor always made us feel guilty for drinking, dancing, or talking to anyone who believed in evolution. His way to godliness was not delighting in the glory of grace, but grabbing our bootstraps, voting republican, and not asking too many questions. He was always quick to make men's hearts a matter of bad politics or social injustice.

We are in need of Christ-centered cultural interaction. America's culture and values are wrong in many ways; nevertheless, we still live here. You're right in commissioning future ministers to engage the culture with scripture. Watch God change us, instead of rules or guilt. Our society needs Christ, not super-spiritual Christian might.

We are not to be conformed to this world, but that is a reason why we should be in it. Until God takes us home, we live to magnify Christ and not created social taboos.

[Paul]

Sounds like we need to form an FA recovery group (Fundamentalists Anonymous).

[Marty Duren]

Good job, Steve.

Good, good job.

I hope it finds it way into the inbox of every seminary student that we have.

[steve carr]

I'm not an SBC pastor, but I found your comments well-said and thought-provoking.

I admire that fact that, instead of fleeing from the denomination you disagree with, you're willing to stick with it and stand up for what you believe. I believe the great task facing this generation of pastors will be the reformation of our denominations, calling them back to Scriptural authority. It will be tough, but it needs to be done.

[Canticles]

Thank you for this post. I'm a recent graduate of SWBTS and have grown increasingly frustrated by recent decisions of the various entities of the SBC. I will point my friends in this direction.

[SBCboy]

I think your view of conservatives in the SBC betrays a great lack of historical perspective. The SBC has just begun to shed its neo-orthodox and Roman Catholic ecumenical desires. There is plenty of blatant compromise of the gospel and the inerrancy/authority of scripture in the SBC. Instead of focusing on these core issues and working from the ground up, you want to move from 0 to 9 without going through the steps of 1-8. I don't know how else to say it. You need to do things step-by-step and these "fundamentalists" you decry are crucial to continuing the good steps that have been taken already. You're willingness to hook up with youre Emergent pals who deny inerrancy is turning the clock back. YOU are part of the problem brother. You want biblical reform but you hold hands with those who espouse heretical views. Biblical reform will happen when you get your act together. In sum, 1) you want the benefits of a biblical denomination without working to build a foundation, 2) you should work to remove basic problems such as gospel compromising ministries and 3) you yourself are making the reform you want more difficult by making heretical Emergents look like your buddies.

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks for some encouraging comments. Much appreciated and needed right now.

SBCboy, a few questions. Do you have a name? I'd like to know it. My name is out there, so please put yours if you want to talk. Who are my "Emergent pals" who deny inerrancy and hold "heretical views?" What are those "heretical views" and which ones hold them? What do you actually know about the "foundation" I'm building in the SBC? Please elaborate.

In response to your points...

1. Says who? What a silly and completely false statement.

2. Any ministry, entity, school or person who pushes legalism is a "gospel compromising ministry." I find many conservative SBC'rs are unable or unwilling to grasp that point. Have you read any of the Gospels lately? By standing against legalism I'm doing precisely what you claim I'm not doing.

3. I'm buddies with Jehovah's Witnesses, atheists, agnostics, drunks, weirdos and Texans. I'm guessing you mean more by the word "buddies," like that I "hold hands" with them. What do you mean by that? You aren't very good at being specific. What are you trying to say I'm doing wrong? Please be specific since you know so much about me. Thanks.

[justin sok]

Steve -
As a baptist seminarian to be, I am moved by your letter and join you in affirming its biblical foundation, and cultural precendent. This is a message much needed for many baptists.

[Nick P.]

Thanks Steve.

[Kevin]

Great insight Steve. It's interesting to see when those in power don't like our views they start calling people names. Keep up the great work.

[Adam Winters]

I once told you that some issues weren't worth dying for in SBC life. But I'm becoming more convinced that Piper's conviction that legalism being more dangerous than drunkeness is true. I'm a student of Baptist history and have done special studies on Southern Baptist confessionalism. The precedent has always been to refrain from mandating whatever is not explicitly clear in Scripture, thus preserving the autonomy of the local church and the conscience of the individual believer (within reasonable guidelines, of course). These new IMB developments are clearly breaking precedent and few of my SBC heroes have spoken out against this trend.

I think it's about time I make a more deliberate effort to stand up for the gospel, not the repacking of it but the understanding of it. I believe I'll start with some letter writing. God help us all in these troubling times. Let me know if you have any more ideas for what we SBTS students and alums can do specifically.

[Kevin Regal]

Steve,

Greetings. It's been a long time since we've seen each other.

I agree with everything you say, but I was happier before you got me thinking about it!

I just listened to Mohler & Moore's discussion on Alcohol & Ministry (from your link above). I was a bit shocked. In all my years at Southern Seminary, I never ever got the idea that only teetotlars were allowed at the seminary. I never signed anything to that effect or was even asked to sign or agree to anything to that effect. Many of my collegues testified the same thing. I did hear rumors around of something everyone was supposed to have signed, but, having never seen it, I figured it was just rumor.

Much of the direction of Mohler & Moore's arguments, leads me to think that this forced teetotalism is a purely political move on Mohler's part. In other words, he is savvy enough to realize that teetotalism is popular in the convention at large, and he is more committed to political correctness (i.e. SBC political correctness) than he is to solid biblical arguments.

The only consolation is that Mohler and Moore prove to be lousy legalists. I have never heard Mohler do such a sorry job of defending a position before.

But Steve, how is a student to break the mold? In the group of students to whom they were speaking Russ made a very clear threat to anyone who might challenge the position--expulsion. If I were still at Southern, I would be functioning in the "Don't ask, don't tell" mode. And if I were asked, I would dodge the question. I had too much already invested in my degree to flit it away to after-the-fact legalism.

It hurts to say that because I really like Mohler. But, he is setting himself up as a judge over a lot of people on an issue which he himself admits is not biblical. His comments made it quite clear that his condemnation extends far beyond the seminary.

Anyway, thanks (sort of) for sharing your frustration and ending my (semi)ignorant bliss.

[Joe Kennedy]

Steve, I appreciate what you said. I think there's hope. I have a lot of friends from NOBTS who are just what we might call termites in the walls, rather than elephants storming the walls. I'm not sure where I fit into that, but know that change CAN happen, and will happen one way or another. And know that there are good people working toward that.

Some of us are just trying to figure out where we fit into the picture. Thanks, bro.

[Scott Slayton]

SBCboy... I have a couple of things to say about your post.

First I would like to respond by saying that Steve McCoy is not part of the problem. The Emerging Church did not get us into the mess that we are in today. We are not in this particular mess because of liberalism. We are in the state that we are in because people are elevating difficult, side issue doctrines to the realm of orthodoxy. A person's ability to serve as a missionary is based on their commitment to and understanding of the gospel, not what building they were baptized in. If you want to say that something is a problem, criticize the IMB position that baptism washes away doctrinal error.

All I am trying to say is that you are firing shots in the wrong direction. We are working for the same thing that you claim to want to see take place.

Also, you said that "Biblical reform will happen when you get your act together." I am surprised to see that you have so much faith in Steve. I think that he is an important young leader, but I did not know that the future of the SBC was hanging on him.

[Nick P.]

Kevin--

Students were provided with a sort of code of conduct or covenant or something in written form via their mailboxes, including directives to abstain from alcohol.

Before class registration occurred, we had to affirm the covenant, as I recall.

So it's not just a suggestion, it's something that we would have to be deceitful in order to sidestep, if I understand it correctly.

[Stephen Newell]

Did we really? I got the student code of conduct but I don't recall ever having to affirm it or sign anything to that effect. Besides, abstinence from alcohol has always been in that code for as long as I've been here, if I recall correctly, and that goes back to '99.

One thing I keep wondering--does that prohibition include cooking wine? Can't do much gourmet cooking without it, ya know.

[Shu-Ling Lee]

I am a student of SBTS in one of the most interesting fashions. If I were to describe myself denominationally (which I am not inclined to do much), I am a canadian baptist from Toronto and I was seriously looking for a seminary to further nurture the gift of music that God has blessed me to use to worship Him. Finding that SBTS was a pretty credible place from word of mouth, I thought this could possibly be a place to also guide me on my sojourn... I gotta tell you... it's been tough... because I have experienced SO MUCH of the legalistic tendencies at this school. I have tons to say, not many positive, so I will refrain from saying much. It's hard to be a young pastor/counsellor/music minister-in-training when you feel like theology has become a "don't do this, can't do that" thing... But anyways, thanks a lot Steve, I am blessed to have encountered your blog and hope to read future blogs ;) May God bless you and work in all of us for the furthering of His Kingdom.

[Tim Etherington]

As a non-SBCer I don't wish to comment on what is or is not going on inside the SBC but simply offer a hearty AMEN to what you've just said. That tendency is present to some degree in all of evangelicalism. We would rather grade on a scale we can measure; hair or dress length, alcohol content in life, political party affiliation, theological bent, etc. instead of following the grace of God in our lives. Sure, there are some issues that are of paramount importance, but none of the ones you mentioned or I listed are.

May Jesus grant that his church be filled with more grace!

Amen brother. Well said. Well said.

[Chris]

The SBC yipee!
Yes that's the law for me!
I stand alone on the word of Vines
The SBC yipee!

[Sandy McCann]

Hi! I got on to your blog through the friend of a friend blog system...can I share? First, any of you SBC folks who have not read The Present Future by Reggie O'Neal (a NC SBC leader), I sincerely recommend it. I realize it does not align with deconstructing the alcohol use and other of those side issues, but it did give me (a non-SBC person) great encouragement. I wonder if Reggie is a voice in the SBC that you could help lift up?

My second comment is really more of a question. Are any of you thinking/looking at how the local church might look more like the church universal if there was a greater move by leaders to release those of us God calls without seminary experience? I mean really release...to be and do Christ among the lost? I have many thoughts and experiences I could share but being new here I do not wish to monopolize. Please know I have a GREAT respect for those who feel called to pastoral leadership...I just sense there is *more* for the rest of us. In trying to jumpstart the thinking process in my area I have indulged my passion by putting up a website: www.acts-vision.org Wise input on this new endeavor is welcome.

[Joe Martino]

I'm not like you, I'm new to the SBC. I grew being taught that the SBC was liberal. Then I grew up and in many ways the SBC did too, taking care of some real issues. What scares me as a new SBC pastor is how much the SBC is starting to look like the Baptist I wanted to get away from when I became an SBC pastor. It scares me. The baptist I grew up was all about making sure everyone looked like them, walked like them and if you didn't you were in sin. This latest witch hunt smacks of that. I just recently found your blog and enjoy it. May God grant us all grace to deal with our own inherent attempts at legalism and may we be truly passionate about his work and not our own.

[Andy Lutz]

Steve,

I have not grown up SBC, but did attend Southern with you. I have read your letter and appreciate much of what you have to say. I am not one that holds a prohibition attitude towards alcohol. However, my concern with your letter it two fold. I am not sure that this is a great emphasis of the Seminary nor Dr. Mohler. There are much larger issues of concern for him and the school, and I would argue that they are the reasons you and I attended Southern. The issues would be an emphasis on grace, upholding inerrancy, confronting liberalism.

Second, I am not so sure that this is the biggest threat to the SBC. As I have watched friends move out from Southern to take churches I have watched a real move away from any fundamentalism. So much so that it sometimes appears anything goes in the name of reaching the lost, evangelism, or grace. Legalism has been redefined as having a law, rather than adding to the requirement of salvation. If one holds to a standard of holy living, rather than just having a Christian worldview, they are often looked down on as legalist or fundamentalists in modern evangelicalism.

Maybe, I am too far removed from the SBC now, but I try and keep informed (and I do appreciate your insights and links on these matters). I too have been somewhat concerned by a more political type interest by the Seminary. However, I have not seen in the students or heard from the students a shift in teaching from when we were there.

I hope your letter is of help to some who are leaning towards legalism. Thanks

[francie]

Sandy,

you said what i feel alot - i too am not seminary trained - but i do see the value and am looking to pursue more training - not to work in the church world - but to have a master's in counseling inorder to work in the world from a Godly perspective -- but i too have many experiences and insights - and if not for being in a "new work" area - meaning - if i were in the "real" southern baptist south - i would not be doing waht i'm doing - i would not be allowed to serve on my campus and consider myself to be part of the assoc. staff - even though i'm a volunteer - cause i don't have the 'right' training - but because of my experiences i now feel ready for more training and equipping - cause i will be filtering all the info. through my lens of experience not blindly taking them as "gospel" from those with more knowledge then me - but you are right - i don't see anywhere in scripture where one had to be "educated" to serve God -- look at Timothy, John-Mark, Steven, etc. - these men knew God and other could see that and commented that even thought the were un-educated it was ovious they had been in the presense of God - to me that means more - it's more of a testimony to God than my degrees - again, not saying anything against semianry training - i see value in it -- but we are not all called to seminary - but we are all called to serve!

Steve - even though i'm not in semianry - thank you for being pro-active rather than reactive -- i can see God using you to be an agent of change - you appear to be a humble/teachable servant - proud to call you brother!

In His Grip,
Francie

[Fred]

Yes... but sometimes it seems that the denominational reform you speak of requires infiltrating the bureacracies and institutional structures of the denomination. And that seems like a difficult task because the doors are closed to those who are Reformed and who do not obey the rules and play the game.

Perhaps the real road to reform lies in the local church. We go out and lead churches to be, God willing, more biblical and missional and the like. Maybe, in time, the denomination will follow. Or maybe we just do something new. I don't know - just a couple thoughts.

[Ashlee]

Thanks for your post. I really appreciated it, especially these statements:
"We need to be better evangelists who aren't looking to repackage for the Gospel but rather looking to better understand and live the Gospel. I think we need to remember that we are to truly be in culture, not looking down on it, and not avoiding it. "

We spend so much time figuring out rules instead of figuring out who Jesus is. We try to make extra-biblical rules instead of learning the Word. It's a mess! Thanks!

[Zach Mabry]

Steve,

I go to Southern. I like it. It's not the best place in the world, but these guys are really sharp. As far as the alcohol thing goes, the reason why I don't drink in the South is because non-believers think that Christians think that drinking is wrong. And if I drink around them they are going to think that I am compromising my faith. It's not just an SBC thing, it's a cultural thing, ever since the prohibition in the early 1900's our society has had to deal with a taboo against alcohol. What I feel like is a greater danger is people who follow similar lines of thinking as you espouse can cause a bigger problem by trying to counteract christian "fundamentalism" and cultural "fundamentalism" and wind up causing unnecessary scisms in churches. You know, I enjoy the taste of a beer but I would be selfish and immature not to submit to my culture for the sake of the gospel. We need to focus more on loving others.

[motopolitico]

You know, I don't think your thinking is all that different from that of Drs. Moore or Mohler. If by saying a "culture war" mentality won't help, what you mean is that people protesting Wal-Mart for saying "Happy Holidays" is unhelpful, then I agree. But we can neither be completely disengaged from our culture, nor be so immersed as to be indistinguishable from it. Is this what you mean??

[Steve McCoy]

Zach, I like Southern too. I have great affection for the school, the professors, and the students. But legalism has had a grip in SBC life for some time and there is a resurgence of it right now.

Let me ask a couple of questions. Why, if this is a culture thing, do we send missionaries to cultures where alcohol plays a very important role and then let our missionaries insult their hosts by refusing to drink their drinks because our culture has a taboo against alcohol and so the SBC demands abstinence? Think it through.

If you want to not drink because of some conscience reason, go for it. But have you ever wondered where "our culture" has gotten this idea about alcohol? Don't you think a part of the Church's job is to show the culture how knowing Christ redeems some of their taboos? Isn't that loving to others?

As to unity, are you saying that you would rather have unity than call out legalism? Help me understand that point, but please also address my questions. Thanks.

[myles]

this is a great letter Steve. it takes real balls to put your name on something that says what you really believe, in contrast to SBCboy who apparently lacks the sack to put his name on his critique. my prayer is that this would be the beginning of a good thing.

[Kevin Regal]

Nick P. and Stephen Newell

I started at Southern in 1999. I don't know what others received, but I do know that I never received any such statement. I also know a lot of other students who told me they had never seen anything like that either. One student I know happened to see Dr. Mohler at a Chik-fil-a. When Mohler joked "We're Baptists, other folks do beer, we do carbs," my friend replied, "some of us do both." He certainly wouldn't have said that if he thought that the seminary had a standing expulsion bull against all who aren't teetotalers. And that was much more recently than 1998.

I tend to agree with Andy Lutz (Hi Andy!) that legalism isn't the seminary's greatest threat. Like I said, Mohler and Moore were pretty lousy at being legalists. Rather, the tendancy to be politically (i.e. SBC politics) minded rather than biblically minded leads the seminary into that and many other problems. One of the more noticable (and more consequential) is the embracing of the church growth movement.

That is one area where pragmatism speaks loudly. It is true that the theological education we enjoyed would not have existed if it weren't for Mohler's tremendous skill in matters of SBC politics. Considering the makeup of the convention at large, the surprising thing is not that the school of church growth is tolerated at Southern but rather that the school of theology is tolerated. The vast majority of SBC churches welcome church growth ideology, but most tend to eschew discussions of theology.

I guess my answer for now (whether it's right or not I'm not sure) is to make sure that I am not too vested in the SBC. It is much easier to find a good church than it is to convince the entire SBC that the Bible is more important than tradition. I'm not saying that I wouldn't join an SBC church (I am currently a member of one), but rather than my main focus will be on the teaching and fellowship in my church rather than on convention politics.

And, I'm not denying that there is a lot of good to be said about the SBC. While Patterson and those who follow after him are far from perfect, the SBC is, overall, in very good shape today compared with 35 years ago. And there probably aren't many other groups of churches out there which are better (sorry Andy--other than you, my experience with Reformed Baptists leaves me with the impression that many of them are very flakey--and legalism is no stranger in that group either).

Steve,

My sentiments are definitely with you, but I sometimes wonder if I tend to demand too much from my fellow believers. While the kind of legalism that you alert us to is very alarming, it appears to be God's plan for us to live & function among believers who are (like us) completely screwed up in a lot of ways.

This is very hard for an anal person like me, but perhaps I should be thanking God for the fellowship he has given rather than focusing so much on the parts of it that are screwed up. I don't really know--I go back and forth on it a lot. What do you think?

[Joe Thorn]

Man, I think SBCToy is right. No... that was the crack talking.

Great letter. Keep working and writing bro. The "how to" question will continue to come up, and I think more pastors need to write of their success in both theological and missional reformation, cultural engagement, and overall church life. It is hard for most to imagine what the local church could/should be like outside of the very small box we have stuffed it in. It will have to be seen in the leaders and churches who are making the change now.

[iMonk]

I proudly made this post a BHT must read...mostly so you could be castigated for confessionalism ;-)

Seriously....the younger leaders have to make the move. The crowd that is empowering this mess is already committed to a "spiritually elitist SBC" (See SBCBoy for details)

The younger leaders have to take all this in and make the needed changes. The national leadership of this denomination is drunk on political influence, entangled in legalism and eloquently silent on its own foibles.

Enough. Someone say Enough.

[Steve McCoy]

motopolitico,

Have you heard Mohler and Moore on the alcohol issue? I'm pretty radically different than they are on that issue. I've also taken issue with much of the culture scolding they do through their websites.

Of course I'm not saying we should be "completely disengaged from our culture" nor that we should be "indistinguishable from it." I'm certain you didn't get that from what I wrote. But the culture war mentality of some in SBC leadership is just plain unbiblical. Just because it's an issue on which we hold a more biblical view (say creation over evolution or against gay marriage) doesn't mean we can approach the culture with whatever approach we like. We can defeat gay marriage in the courts and lose the culture we are seeking to redeem. In that sense, I approach our culture much differently than Mohler and Moore, though I love both of them and their families.

[Brad Williams]

Steve,

I do not believe that legalism is the biggest threat to the SBC. It is a symptom of a problem, but I do not believe that it is the cause of our maladies. It is ugly, nonetheless.

What I find most frustrating is that it is becoming increasingly clear that trustee boards, presidents, and etc. of the convention feel that they may make decisions on our behalf for our good. Decisions that have neither been discussed on a conventional scale nor outlined in any conventional document. The local churches are in charge in this convention, not the political bureacracy.

[myels]

are the local churches "in charge"? i find that hardly the case. while individual churches can bring up issues and whatnot, the direction of the SBC is deterimined by the hierarchy. when was the last time that you heard of something coming from the ground-up that was recognized as such? the only times i've heard of an individual church by name was to anathematize something done there, or to specifically break fellowship with it, not to look to it for direction.

[sbcboy]

I never said I know anything about you. I read your blog. I do know the SBC though. But the point is, you never dealt the substance of my argument. So you are condemning Brian McClaren and Tony Jones for being false teachers (teaching inerrancy is OK and tolerable)? Oh. That's what I thought. You are being schismatic and inconsistent. The Convention needs guys like you to lead us all to solid biblical ground and to get rid of neoorthodoxy and other blatant gospel compromising. You don't seem to understand that a foundation needs to be laid first by creating a denomination faithful to the scriptures. Then we can deal with issues like alcohol. To be frank, if you succeed in ridding our convention of these "fundamentalists" we might as well become the PCUSA and totally give in to neo-orthodoxy. You don't seem to point out that just a few decade ago schools like Southern were churning out students who denied the virgin birth!! So they might be wrong on alcohol!! They have come along way and you just don't get it.

[Steve McCoy]

I'm not sure if I can stay on track with so many to respond to, but I want to hit up some comments made by old seminary friends.

Andy (good to hear from you, brother),

I attended Southern because of Calvinism and theological depth. I attended there because they were "right" and our other seminaries were "wrong." While I'm very happy to be an SBTS alum, and learned a ton there, and made great friendships there, God has worked (and is still working!) a lot in my life to weed out legalism. I came out of seminary avoiding culture, scolding sinners for sinning, and keeping all the right rules.

Now I get email rebuked by SBTS students for playing with "liberalism" because I'm not a company man. Because I read something that isn't on the acceptable SBC reading list.

I've talked with numerous SBC seminarians on the phone and over email who have noticed the rising bar of "don'ts" at our seminaries. More than one of them use the words "Big Brother" to speak of seminary leadership. I've heard that students' blogs have been blocked when students have said something about the price of donuts or something (usually things not that significant). Some SBTS students have contacted me and told me to never use their name lest they be blacklisted, but that they agree about the alcohol issue or whatever. Some have even considered linking to this post and cannot for fear of not being able to do the things they'd like to do in the SBC.

I don't care what you call it, something is wrong. And if our seminarians will realize this is their time and they can change the direction of this thing, I think things can change.

Kevin (whoa, blast from the past!),

I called this legalism/fundamentalism a "poison" because it kills. There are plenty of other big threats out there (some of the church growth stuff included), but usually the biggest enemy we have is looking at us in the mirror. It's pride, it's making rules that Scripture doesn't give us because we think we know better. It's self-righteousness.

And sure we are called to live with other screwed up folks like you and me. But to say that people who make up extra-biblical rules are just another part of the family to accept doesn't sound like a biblical principle to me. I find it much easier to accept the person who struggles with pornography than the person who starts imposing extra-biblical rules on others.

Thanks for commenting here Kevin. Send me and email and let me know what you all are doing. pastorsteve [at] gmail [dot] com

[Richard A. Bailey]

Correct me if I am wrong, Steve, but aren't you concerned with more than the issue of alcohol within the SBC? I think that's what I got, but maybe I don't read your blog as often or as carefully as some people do. Or maybe I am simply too slow to understand what you intended when you wrote: "[Piper's] principle is crucial for our convention right now far beyond alcohol" (and this, mind you, comes from a guy who isn't the biggest fan of "authorial intent").

Anyway, I still find you tolerable--despite your tendencies toward neo-orthodoxy.

[Mark Jackson]

I read your post and am a little confused. What are you proposing people do? It mainly just sounded like you want to complain.

You signed your letter grace and peace but seem to have neither.

Is anyone preventing you from reaching your culture? Go to work!

[Steve McCoy]

SBCboy (is that like cabana boy?), is your name Mike Wood. You are from Greenville, SC? Either make yourself known or stop commenting. I don't think that is asking too much.

Why am I supposed to pronounce heretics here? Where have Tony Jones and Brian McLaren influenced my theology?

I thought the inerrantists (of which I am one) won the SBC battle for the Bible. You still fighting that one? And legalism is a poor biblical foundation for someone trying to lay a biblical foundation. Are you saying legalism is necessary right now?

I get things fine. I was converted through the friendship of an SBTS student who was there before Mohler. A few years later I found out he believed good Muslims would be in heaven, homosexuality is pretty okay with him, and more. I told him I thought he needed to find Jesus. I get it bro, but fundamentalism isn't the answer. Jesus is.

[Steve McCoy]

Mark, as a denominational worker you know what it means to have concern for more than your local church. Strange you don't think it's good I have that concern. Or maybe you just disagree with my concern.

So is your "Go to work!" comment meant to say "shut up" or "get your nose out of sbc business" or what? Why can't I write about my concerns, encourage seminary students to love the Bible more than extra-biblical rules and take the denomination in a more biblical direction, etc?

[Scott Lamb]

Mohler will be on Larry King tonight to talk about Brokeback Mountain. Clearly, this is will be an example of interaction with culture. Since Mohler's style is often the topic of debate, why don't we give ourselves a homework assignment to watch his interaction and then report back here for some discussion on the good, the bad, and the ugly. (I even promise to attempt objectivity while watching Mohler, for those who think I'd rather die than criticize the man).

[Joe Kennedy]

Steve, at NOBTS we were asked to sign a form saying we would not drink while enrolled at the seminary, and a few other things, most of which I forgot. Nobody can really police me, since at the moment I'm not in New Orleans- I'm in Mobile. Do I drink? No. Because of the contract? Yes and no. I am bound by the contract I signed. But I don't drink anyway. Is it a legalist viewpoint? Not for me, because I just don't get into it. It's not my thing. That doesn't make me special, it makes me someone who watched his uncle die a painful and disgusting death because of the effects of alcohol on his body.

I support your call for us to step up. I definitely believe we should do it within biblical guidelines, yes, to be know for what we DO, not for what we don't do. I stand by my earlier statements. Some of us are elephants, and some of us are termites. Know that there are a lot of us, no matter what we are.

[Steve McCoy]

Scott, good idea. But I don't get CNN. Dangit!

[Steve McCoy]

Oh, and Richard, yes. Alcohol is just one illustration of a big problem in the SBC. It's bigger than just alcohol.

[Keith]

Steve, I admire your courage in posting this letter. I think your goals are noble and I truly hope that you can spark a movement of repentence and redemption for the SBC. I agree with you that the seminary students are the hope for the future. However, I won't be holding my breath that you'll prevail in this fight. When the conservatives of the SBC choose to get in bed with fundamentalism in order to win the battles of the resurgence, they crossed a critical line. The legalism that you're fighting against seems to me to be the very same kind of legalism that was used by the conservatives to take over the seminaries and institutions of the SBC. The tactics that were used against the moderates of the past are being used against the Wade Burlesons of today. It strikes me as slightly ironic that some want to fight legalism now--after twenty-five years of looking the other way while it was being used against the other side. The cynic and self-righteous part of me wants to say, "It's too late now. Where were you then?" That's not the most Christ-like response, I know, but it's what I've been feeling during the past couple of months as events have unfolded.

[Fred]

One thing I gathered from watching Mohler: Don't wear too much lipstick when engaging the culture. Another thing - try not to smirk at someone else's comments, however silly they may seem. And try not to let Janet Parshall be the other person defending your position.

[Aaron Shafovaloff]

Revelant link:

http://sbtsblogs.net/

[Nick]

Stephen, Kevin, Others

re: Student Covenant
I don't know enough to speak about the past at Southern, but I did receive in my mail box a copy of a student covenant (this past semester, fall 2005), and the student information form that, as I understand it, must be completed before registration (it was preventing me from registering), includes this line:

Have you read and agree to comply with the SBTS Student Covenant ?: https://ecampus.sbts.edu/covenant.pdf

with a Yes/No drop-down box for an answer.

You can read the covenant at that address. Stephen, it refers to abstaining from alcoholic beverages. I guess that wouldn't include cooking with wine. But, I don't know. :-)

[Steve McCoy]

So simmer your beer for about 10 seconds and call it soup.

We had no covenant like that when I was at SBTS.

[Scott Slayton]

I was at SBTS when Steve was. I never saw a covenant. There was only one vague line in the student manual.

[Steve McCoy]

I think Joe Thorn forced them to develop a covenant. He would roll fatties and huff gold paint out of a lifeway bag in his on campus apartment.

[Joe Thorn]

Ok, when I was there I both read in the handbook and confirmed with the dean that beverage alcohol was a major no-go. I believe it was changed that year, 1997. I'll see if I have the handbook.

[Joe Thorn]

Oh, but back then I could smoke Padrons in my apartment on Campus. That changed later.

[Steve McCoy]

See, told ya Joe made them change it. You thought I was merely joking (he only started rolling fatties after seminary).

[Joe Thorn]

Ok, for the record: I have not "rolled fatties" since my conversion in 1990. Now I simply have fat rolls.

[Nick P.]

And I've always wondered who the namesake of "the thorn rule" was. Mystery solved.

Now if only we can figure out why the "only take one roll with your meal please" statute is known as "the mccoy rule".

[Chuck]

I like what you've got to say. I will be entering seminary soon (likely one of the SBC seminaries). I pray that the convention will sort out issues of biblical orthodoxy from other nonessential issues. May we continue to stand boldly on the fundamentals of our faith. But also, may we avoid adding to our list of fundamentals those things that aren't actually fundamental.

Cheers!

[GeneMBridges]

>>>>Second, I am not so sure that this is the biggest threat to the SBC. As I have watched friends move out from Southern to take churches I have watched a real move away from any fundamentalism. So much so that it sometimes appears anything goes in the name of reaching the lost, evangelism, or grace. Legalism has been redefined as having a law, rather than adding to the requirement of salvation.

I saw this earlier, and I agree However, that said, a key situation that prompted this involves the removal of Wade Burleson and, in particular the IMB trustees and their policies on tongues and baptism. I contend that part of the motive behind the policy on baptism is adding to the requirement of salvation. At first, I thought the logic was that those churches that affirm glossalolia are generally those that that deny eternal security. However, after dialoguing with those who discussed matters with the trustees I believe it goes much deeper than that, so we have leaders who are adding to the requirement for salvation.

The logic of saying eternal security is the doctrine to which to look to determine if John Smith Missions Candidate needs to be rebaptized looks something like this:

If a person believes he can lose his salvation, it follows he is denies Sola Fide.

Hence, he believes in salvation by works.

Hence, he is unregenerate.

Hence any ecclesiastical body formed by such persons cannot, by definition, constitute a true church, since they are all unregenerate, since Baptist ecclesiology, at a minimum demands a regenerate membership.

Hence one or more of the following is true:

(a) when John Smith was first baptized, he affirmed this same doctrine and must therefore be re-baptized now if he affirms it (since he now affirms Sola Fide and is thus to be considered regenerate)

or

(b) baptism, to be valid, must be performed by a regenerate Christian, an elder in a local church to be specific, so his baptism was invalid, even if John Smith himself, at that time, affirmed Sola Fide and perseverance of the saints

or

(c) Even if the baptizing elder in the Arminian church had changed his doctrine and believed in eternal security when he baptized John Smith, his baptism is not valid for the same reason as (b) if he was baptized in an Arminian church, and thus, his eldership is invalid, since he was not validly baptized.

Now, lots can be said to refute that idea. Off the top of my head, I could write book.

a. This overlooks the classic Reformation formula: Justified by faith, saved by grace (and those traditions, viz. Calvinism and Arminianism, having a doctrine of perseverance, so there is a sense in which we affirm we are "saved" by works, eg. God's grace causes us to persevere in faith, sanctifies us, etc...thus the above statements are equivocating on justification and sanctification; and, unless you believe a person can apostatize from the faith completely and still be saved, you have a doctrine of perseverance as well as eternal security.);

b. the nature of what Arminians affirm about justification itself (e.g while one could say that, conceptually conditional perseverance/security could be construed as inconsistent with Sola Fide, it does not follow that, in practice that is the case),

c. not to mention the endless string of questions about baptism and its administration. If the baptizing elder wasn't baptized validly, then his eldership is invalid, and so on and so on until you get to a validly baptized elder, and even then, all the persons that all those invalidly baptized elders/pastors in those churches are not validly baptized.

d. In fact, I would go so far to say that by tying affirmation of eternal security to the evidence of true salvation, the objector is mirror-reading. The one using this logic is the one assuming right doctrine, not God, saves, so he's the one who believes in salvation by works.

To assert Arminians repudiate Sola Fide and cannot constitute true churches is a form of genuine hyper-Calvinism. See: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/hypercalvinism.html

The index to baptism is a Landmark idea, so you have a strange union between hyper-Calvinism and Landmarkism in the policy.

By declaring Arminians cannot constitute true churches, one infers they are not saved, and thus you implicitly declare eternal security an article of saving faith. That adds to the requirement for salvation in Scripture.

This is the ultimate fruit of legalism. Is this a course we really want to chart for the future?

[D.R. Randle]

Steve, I appreciate your letter. I think it should be expanded to include all young SBC leaders (both pre- and post-seminary) and even those in SBC colleges and college ministries. I truly believe that something must be done to bring in younger folks into the actual decision making in the SBC. A couple of years ago I got this idea that since the convention hosts a Pastors' Conference they should also host a college and young adult conference. I thought that this past year's Younger Leader Conference would be a fulfillment of that, but the truth is that I think it fell well short of what it could be. There must be an intentional goal of getting college students and young adults involved in the SBC, whether they plan to be vocational leaders or not.

And also, I think you should go further in your letter to actually provide suggestions on how to go about combating this attitude in the SBC in a positive way. One would obviously be to show up at the convention as voting messengers. But there's got to be more that we can do than just that. I would like to hear some more suggestions. Ok, I am done with my soapbox on that one.

As for SBCboy, let me defend Steve for a moment. I have conversed with Tony Jones and I have read a good deal of what he writes on the internet and I can assure you that what Steve is advocating here has nothing to do with an Generous Orthodoxy (which I have read as well) or with inserting Jones' theology into SBC life. You were dead wrong on that one. Secondly, I don't think Steve is suggesting an all-out war on Fundamentalism (notice the capital F), but rather on a form of fundamentalistic thinking that suggests that we should go beyond the Bible to instill rules and regulations that all must abide by. Steve makes it clear that we must agree on core doctrines such as inerrancy before we can move forward. And unless you skipped from 1979 to today, you should know that that battle has been exhausted in SBC life. That doesn't mean we rest on our laurels, but it certainly doesn't mean we take creedalism to unneccessary and extra-BF&M levels. If we are going to be a truly diverse denomination, then we are going to have to tolerate non-essential doctrinal differences. But we shouldn't allow our leaders to get away with excluding people because of this lack of tolerance.

Ok, that's my two cents. Thanks again for being challenging Steve.

[Kevin Bussey]

I have to agree with Joe Kennedy. I have no beef for anyone who feels they want to drink. I don't because my grandfather was an alcoholic. My only beef is just as there are those who are condemn Christians for drinking there are others who flaunt their freedom to drink. If one does drink a beer or whatever then do it quietly. I don't flaunt the fact that I eat meat. I am on the ooze all of the time and people have beer logo's as their avatars.

[Dave]

I am non-SBC, though I once attended an SBC church, and I wandered over from Michael Spencer's site because of his post on this.
I will say, however, that what you wrote was refreshing, and looking at the SBC from the outside, on target. If I read you correctly, you're headed toward this: "David . . served God's purpose in his own generation" (Acts 13:36), and neither exalting nor denigrating tradition simply because it's institutionally approved.

[Joe Thorn]

Steve, is there anyway to help people understand that the alcohol issue is only one small symptom of the larger problem. I know it's everyone's favorite thing to get excited about, but good grief. I hate the idea that this will turn into the Baptist Board will people have a 7 page discussions for the 5th time on the evil of facial hair, or a Reformed Board where the same conversations about the Sabbath and atonement are had over and over again.

Oh, growing tired of those terrible beer avatars on those liberal websites? Well, the Russians developed a series of anti-alcohol posters that could be used for your own avatars. Check it out: link

[Richard A. Bailey]

Since my attempt at subtlety seemed to fail, perhaps Joe's alternative method will succeed. One can hope.

[Sandy McCann]

I have really enjoyed this conversation and have read it all. I am fascinated by the process that goes into these decisions. I do have one question? Is there a way to direct energies more into cultivating a heart that seeks God on these issues and passing on THAT model? I see lots of tension and critiscism here, and though much of it is well earned/deserved I am saddened that there is still an apparent process happening here where there is a belief that we can discover, and define the mind of God and HIS desires for His people. I may get slammed for this comment, but I believe God's word is inerrantly true, and that we can get very close to knowing it yet never know the whole intent of God in our lifetimes...including whether the use of alcohol is in his plan;)

If I am totally in the wrong place with these comments, I would welcome hearing from you all with links to help me out: sandy[at]acts-vision[dot]org

[Steve McCoy]

Sandy, I don't understand your question.

[steve w]

good discussion. i've been pastoring in southern california for the last 21 years. to those that seem to suggest stay out of the sbc politicks, i've tried that route for the most part. now i find myself wondering what will happen to the sbc. will they tighten the circle of cooperating churches? will they restrict which churches can send messengers to the annual meeting to vote? we already have some restrictions. will they add more restrictions? i don't depend on the sbc to do ministry. but i've enjoyed the privilege of cooperating for the fulfillment of the great commission since my childhood. so unless all of us choose to get involved in the politicks -- at least being messengers at the annual meeting -- we have to accept responsibility for handing the sbc over to the fundamentalists and legalists and landmarkists. and we should all be making our voice heard in every way we can.

[Kevin Bussey]

Joe T,

I agree that this is bigger than alcohol. But that was brought up in this post. I'm as sick of legalism as anyone. I grew up in a YFC/Campus Life family and my dad was considered a heritic by most SBC churches in Alabama because of the unorthodox methods he used.

[Mike Wood]

SBCBoy is not Mike Wood.

Mike Wood agrees in substance, though not in style, with SBCBoy. Sometimes I'd like to punch SBCBoy in the nose, I must admit.

And is not everyone making a basic category mistake when talking about alcohol? All seem to assume that the alcohol Christ (and those with whom he associated) drank is the same as alcohol today. I suggest that everyone see Robert Stein's famous work on this issue (sorry, no bib info at hand).

And as for complaining about legalism in the SBC while holding hands with Tony Jones and Brian McLaren... Mike Wood agrees with SBCBoy despite his pugnaciousness. I would have to argue that denying propositional truth and letting Walter Brueggemann blaspheme on stage at Emergent are a mite more dangerous than insisting that believers should not drink alcohol, especially because no responsible SBC leader is tying this insistence to justification, only sanctification.

Mike Wood

[Darren Fox]

I'm not in the SBC right now, but I do fight many of the same battles you do on a local scale. Churches are dying, the one I attend included, and few of those in power realize one of the main contributers to this death is extra-biblical demands.

See if this logic makes sense:

a)Leaders say our faith (theory and practice) is based on the Bible alone.

b)conformity to standards not found in the Bible are preached/expected.

c)people in the 20-40 age group (usually) smell the hypocrisy

d)worst case- they group all of Christianity into the hypocrit realm and leave it

e)Best case- they try to stay and effect change either until they see change or until they see that changes will never be made

f)moderate case- they homogenize into a larger church and disappear into the crowd (this is true of many I know)

I pray we see change....soon. Let's all keep pushing in our sphere of influence.

Steve, thanks for the opportunity to speak.

[Mike Wood]

P.S. Punching SBCBoy in the nose is an inside joke between us. I wouldn't really do that.

Maybe the stomach. =)

[Lee]

I lurk; therefore I post.

SBC - Poor God. How did he manage without us?

Question - If God is so involved in the things many are willing to disfellowship and dishonor those with whom they disagree (prayer language, a view of the nature of Scripture other than YOUR definition of inerrancy, alcohol (a read of news clipping indicate to me pedophiles in ministry are a lot more of a problem than drunks in ministry), denominational loyalty, baptism, emergents, women in ministry, etc - then would someone who wants to save us from these heretics please explain why the church in the Southern hemisphere is growing exponentially by conversion and we in the northern hemisphere are dissing one another and declining? They accept one another's diversities, do not argue over the Scripture, women in ministry, baptism, or prayer language. In fact, most of them practice these things. I didn't just read a book on this. I have seen it.

I am in the journey and His mercies are fresh everyday. I want to be a follower of Jesus, who said he must be about the Father's business. When denominations and organizations interpret the Father's business in a way that appears to create God in our image, there should be clear prophetic warning. But if they will not heed, I refuse to allow myself to be drawn into a situation where someone determines with whom I can fellowship and for whom I may support as a missionary. I may not do it through their organization, but the Mission of God has many organizations. Some are even focused on the Mission.

[Steve McCoy]

Sheesh. Someone please hear me. Let's not discuss alcohol on this thread. I've given everyone ample opportunity to discuss it before. Anyone who says Christians should abstain is clearly giving extra-biblical rules. The call in Scripture is not to get drunk, so I don't give a rip about alcohol content percentages. That is off topic in this thread and I don't want anyone to hijack it. Drink PGA if you want, just don't get drunk! Why is Jesus not enough for us?

Mike, you have the same IP as SBCboy. Tell him either to give his name or don't comment here. I will delete any more anonymous posts from him.

Would some of you omniscient folk please explain where I'm holding hands with Emergent folk? I'm me and I can't see it. So you must be pretty smart.

[Joe Thorn]

Steve, it's less hand holding, and more gazing into their eyes.

Thanks for the redirect.

[roy donkin]

Steve,

I'm an American Baptist pastor in SoCA watching as many in our denomination seek to follow the path blazed by the Southern Baptist fundamentalists... thanks for a clear warning to find a better path.

[Hashman]

Hey Steve,
I'm about 5.5 years out from my southern experience and am currently a pastor. I wouldn't have traded it for the world. I had Godly teachers who taught me how to reason from the scriptures and did not just tell me what to think. I had Bruce Ware for theology and he was outstanding. With all its problems, it's still the best seminary around.

---I'm not as thrilled about the IMB stuff.

---I don't understand why so many are bemoaning Mohler's strong stance on the drinking issue. That is hardly a new issue and I wouldn't get my panties too much in a wad about it. By the way, my church is removing the prohibition of drinking alcohol from their covenent.

We are all legalists to some point, we all have out pet issues, be they alcohol, music, hats in church, movies, etc. I don't know if I would lay down the gauntlet on that issue. There will always be some form of legalism, it just evolves from generation to generation. There are so many good things going on.

---I'm curious to know what you think about the Together for the Gospel Conference at Southern with Mohler and a charismatic, a presbyterian, plus macarthur & piper.

That's good isn't it, shouldn't that score one for Mohler's non-legalism? www.togetherforthegospel.com

---Also, what do you want the students to do. It seems that you are calling them to action. What exactly do you want to happen?

Thanks for your thoughtfulness. I am also on a journey and my views are evolving the further I get out of seminary. But I think that happens to every generation of students who become pastors. I don't think out situation is that unique, except in the unique blessings of being taught scripture by people who believed it.

That's all really gotta run!
God Bless!

Kevin B.

[Scott M]

Kevin,

I'm not sure about us all being legalists. It seems that requires special indoctrination or training. If you don't get it growing up, then from another source. I can't personally think of any pet issues when it comes to church. Lord knows I have a hard time keeping up with all of them at church. Then with the IMB stuff, it took me days to get a handle on Landmarkism and cessationism so I could even understand the conversations.

[Jay Lewis]

Well said Steve. I have been involved in SBC life for over twenty years now. I have grown increasingly disenchanted with the legalism I see at all levels. As I read, study and teach the scriptures (even in our "emerging congregation" no less) the more I am convinced that Mark 12:30 is in fact the focus of my ministry. Loving God and loving others is central to all we are as Christians. I have seen over the years the focus of leadership move from the inerrancy of scripture, to Calvinism, to now alcohol of all things. Are we not happy without controversy? While there are probably hills on which to die, we need to refocus and establish leadership that lives out the scripture and principles we say we love. Here is a thought, why don't we work together to love our Lord with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and in doing that we go ahead and love our neighbors as ourselves? That would be quite a task and a world changing proposition because we SBC'ers really love ourselves!

[Hashman]

Scott,
I do think we all have tendencies toward various forms of legalism. Here the thing about legalism. Most people who are legalistic don't realize it at the time. It's like being a heretic, you never think, "What I think is heretical." So you or I may be being legalistic about something, and unaware of it.

Kinda like a smoker not realizing that they smell smokey.

[Stephen Newell]

Nick,

Thanks for that. I'd forgotten about that little drop down box. I think most of us treat it like we would have in college (those of us who went to Christian colleges)--we look it over, and blah blah blah, then we say okay. Seriously though, I haven't seen a thing in the student code of conduct that any student could seriously find objectionable.

But I want to ask Steve--are you serious that some of my fellow seminarians are afraid of "blacklists" and some have had their blogs blocked for silly reasons? That sounds way too fantastic to believe.

[Joe Thorn]

Stephen, fantastic but true.

[Steve McCoy]

Stephen, I have received emails for months with that exact concern. I could name a handful of very specific emails from this week, but I won't to protect the people. There is no question about it. Ask around the seminary and you will find out, unless you are afraid to get "blacklisted." :)

By the way, it's not just seminary students or SBTS students, though I've heard more from there. It's IMB missionaries, church planters, denominational workers, etc. And let me assure you, I'm blacklisted as we speak, and seminarians who link to me are probably blacklisted too. No joke.

[Scott Lamb]

At the risk of sounding naive, what does "blacklisted" mean? Sounds Orwellian.

[Nick]

When I get back to school I guess I'll surf blogs and see if anything is blocked. I really think I've probably viewed your site during Theology or Old Testament, Steve.

But like Scott asked, do you mean blacklisted as in, you're on someone's bad list, or blacklisted as in, the school is filtering web traffic to your site? Or what did the senders of the emails you received mean?

I did notice that some sites were filtered at SBTS... I think it was a social networking site like myspace or facebook or something though.

[Steve McCoy]

Oh yeah. Thanks for reminding me. I mean blacklisted as in, Steve McCoy doesn't have a promising denominational position in his future.

I know the seminary has shut down Xanga access before because of the SBTS webring. I know some students working for leaders at SBTS are trolling student sites looking for problems. I know that I get multiple hits from emails in the SBTS email system every time I say something they won't find delightful to the eyes. I know students fairly regularly email me and say that they can tell me privately things that they could never put on their blogs.

[Nick P.]

"every time I say something they won't find delightful to the eyes"

funny =-) sort of. :-(

Good nerdy detective work on the email webmail referrals Steve.

[Stephen Newell]

Maybe it's a good thing I am in a ministry that is isolated from the "regular" SBC. Try to "blacklist" a Deaf minister and watch him laugh. "You never paid any attention to us in the first place!" ;-)

But still, I don't have any fear of "blacklisting" and I still find it incredible. I do know that in recent months I've been around people antagonistic towards the seminary for really stupid reasons, and getting upset over the student code of conduct seems like one of those really stupid reasons.

[Hashman]

Steve,
What exactly is a "promising denominational position"?

Give me an example of a position that you have in mind that you want, that you won't be able to have now.

Some of this discussion sounds a tad paranoid and possibly slanderous and gossippy.

Let's name some names and back some of this info up.

[Richard A. Bailey]

Hashman, since a moral charge is being levied against Steve, that is, he's a gossip, distorting facts to cause intentional harm, allow me to "name some names." In these instances, which I don't think I've ever shared with Steve, I am the person or one of the people involved. So, I know this happened exactly as described. First, while a student at SBTS I was counseled by a faculty member that he had been informed that if I wanted to have a future at the school that it would be in my best interest to distance myself from certain friends. In this case, "have a future at the school" meant doing PhD work there. A few years later when I wrote some things that were taken in ways I certainly did not intend them (by champions of authorial intent, mind you), I was informed that such comments (especially on my personal public website) might keep me from having a future in SBC life. In this case, I think "having a future in SBC life" meant teaching in a SBC college or university. Around this time, a close friend received similar counsel as I had previously, namely, if he desired a specific trustee position within the SBC, then he might find it best to distance himself from me. Now, I'll be the first to admit that doing PhD work at SBTS, teaching in a SBC college or university, or serving as a convention trustee might not qualify as "promising denominational positions." But I do wish the specific instances were nothing more than paranoia. Unfortunately, they really happened. Have other people experienced similar things? I don't know. But I don't see any reason why my experiences would necessarily differ that markedly from those of anyone else.

So, there's "some names." If Steve owes apologies for any moral charges he might have levied against others, then I think he deserves some as well.

[Hashman]

Hey Richard,
Sorry if my earlier post seemed a bit snipey. Sorry Steve, hope you can forgive me.

Hashman

[Stephen Newell]

Wow, Richard. Thanks for coming over and posting on my blog as well.

The silliness of such a threat just staggers me. That someone would even stoop so low as to make such a threat is even sillier. I hope the people who said as much to this person are no longer here, because that would lower the respect I have for this institution.

But like I said in my reply to you, I think the real issue is what Steve has been trying to get at all along--whether or not we (our generation) really give a flying fiddle dee dee about "SBC life." The whole issue of the student covenant at the seminaries is at best misplaced in all of this. It is the wrong dog to be using in this hunt.

Also, as I said over at the blog, I think our generation is more concerned about our churches and ministries than we are about the convention itself. And that's probably as it should be, though without the SBC a lot of avenues for ministry will be closed for those of us (the vast majority) in smaller churches. So I wonder if the real question is how we can make the SBC more about the local church than about the "culture war."

[Richard A. Bailey]

Hashman, I don't think it was the tone of any post in particular. Simply that I grew tired of seeing the integrity of a friend and a brother in Christ questioned (maybe at a few other sites more so than here even). I mean I love coming here and seeing Steve squirm (heck, that's that's maybe THE main reason I come) , but I was afraid that even he had suffered to much on this one and shouldn't be left hanging out to dry.

Stephen, yeah, I agree that such actions are silly, which makes me wonder even more (at the points where I really allow such silly things to bother me) why these people (all still at SBTS) feel that such tactics work. Except that for years they have worked. Let's face it, some time ministers of the gospel are ambituous and willing to do much for those ambitions. For all the talk about simply preaching the gospel, sosmetimes people aim for a bit more. Even the best of us can fall prey (as illustrated well I think in George Marsden's biography of Jonathan Edwards). I am thankful, though, for the majority of the time when most of the people (faculty and students alike) at SBTS care more about the local church than the convention. The more I think about it, the more I love your final comment. And I affirm that completely, which is one of the reasons I enjoy many of the conversations here. Perhaps at times they get too picky and some people taking potshots at individuals and institutions toward whom they they have ill feelings, but in general many of the threads here ask that exact question: how can we make the church (SBC or not) more about the local church (and church universal, I would add) than about the culture war, denominations, or personalities. I don't think the answers are always easy, but the questions must be asked.

[sean]

Dr. Mohler has some very relevant thoughts on the subjects of hypocrisy and cultural engagement on his blog today: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/

In regard to the open letter, I assure you Mr. McCoy, that Southern continues to graduate the best and brightest (due largely to Dr. Mohler's effort to recruit the best biblical scholars of the day). All of the students are taught to think biblically by great professors and not just accept whatever kool-aid is handed out. I was there at the now infamous "Alcohol & Ministry" Forum and my observations of the student body that day was that most felt the punch smelled kinda funny. Given the decrees that were handed down, there wasn't much freedom for charitable discussion. The fact remains that you can mandate behavioral change, but you cannot easily dictate how people (especially college graduates) will think. The status quo will change, but it will take time; and I pray that it will be done with a concern for the gospel and for brothers and sisters of the faith instead of strictly for personal freedoms.

[mark gstohl]

Nicely done Steve. Guys like you and Marty and others provide hope for me that Southern Baptist leadership will get back to doing the business of living the gospel in a dark world.

[mark gstohl]

BTW
Did you know that the "Abstract Principles" that Southern follows states that the Lord's Supper is celebrated with wine? Kinda funny huh?

[Fred]

I really just wanted to see this thread get 100 comments.

I don't get the vibe that Steve really has denominational aspirations that will be thwarted by his taste for a nice lager or penchant for speaking his mind. If he did he never could have said what he said. And that's the point.