The alcohol issue in the Southern Baptist Convention (and Missouri Baptist Convention, think "Beer and the Bible" issue) is sucking even harder than some of us realized, and I realized a lot.
I've heard through the grapevine that some church plants in the Missouri Baptist Convention are getting de-funded because of the alcohol issue. This issue is NOT, as I understand it, only about the consumption of alcohol. I know that some churches/pastors who don't consume alcohol are getting their church plants de-funded merely for not saying consumption is wrong.
If you are a Missouri Baptist and are dealing with these issues in some form, I would really appreciate an email with some basic info on your situation. I will not make anything public unless you request/allow it since I know that your info and name on my blog puts you at risk. But I would love to at least be able to keep up with the issue privately.
By the way and in case you didn't know, the aggressive search for SBC pastors, planters, and churches who are not in line with the alcohol policies of our entities has moved beyond Missouri. It's in Illinois as well, and surely coming to a neighborhood near you.
If this spreads and if the church is put under great strain by these zealous people, then it will show beyond any doubt that American Christians obey the teachings of men over the Word of God.
Maybe it needs to happen - just to make the issue so volatile that God brings his people back to his word.
Posted by: One Salient Oversight | 03/03/2007 at 08:27 PM
As long as the higher ups who say they are interested in reaching new people and then turn around and reveal they are more concerned with enforcing manmade rules, the SBC will continue to plateau and decline as leaders leave.
Posted by: bryan | 03/03/2007 at 08:45 PM
I have long lamented the use of money in the SBC as a tool to manipulate. I have worked for SBC entities, worked in SBC churches, and am currently an SBC church planter (or at least until this controversy spreads further). It seems like in every situation there is this underlying mantra of "do it our way or we won't give you money." That thoroughly ticks me off. Apparently since we don't have a hierarchical system of popes and bishops to tell people they will go to hell if they don't do what we want them to do, Southern Baptists have to bribe people. That seems what Christ would most likely do if he were running the largest denomination in the world.
Is it possible to hold fast to the Bible, and agree to disagree on the non-essentials? Or do we instead have to play this political game?
Lucky for the church planters getting defunded that their Lord owns the cattle on a thousand hills, and best I can tell he owns the hills too.
Grace and Peace
Posted by: Micah | 03/03/2007 at 09:57 PM
Wow. That is just so.... sad.
Posted by: Alex F | 03/03/2007 at 10:11 PM
Steve,
I don't agree with the "strings attached" deal in any shape or form which is why I have chosen to plant a church the hard way...without any financial support from any denomination. This seems to be a common scenario and I have never liked it.
However, I do think some people have abused their "freedom in Christ" mantra or have been going to too far by hailing their cold one for Jesus. My personal conviction is that there is nothing wrong with a drink or two but is it really THAT important to lose denominational money or an affiliation in order to have the ability to meet in a bar or drink alcohol? To me, being able to present the Gospel is more important than presenting my view on whether drinking is or isn't a sin.
Please don't get me wrong brothers, I am all for standing on our beliefs or going into the culture to meet people, but we must ask ourselves what is the greater cause.
I'll add one last thing. We also must take in account that many people's lives have been destroyed by alcohol and drug abuse (mine was)and sometimes people come to a church because it's their last hope for help. It will be difficult for them to find it if they come to a church in a bar or where the pastor meets you with a beer.
Posted by: James Dalman | 03/04/2007 at 12:08 AM
Regarding this issue, Luther said it well, "Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we prohibit and abolish women? The sun, moon, and stars have been worshipped. Shall we pluck them out of the sky."
Posted by: Michael Foster | 03/04/2007 at 02:24 PM
James, thanks for the comment.
A couple of things in response. First, who are those abusing their freedom in Christ that you mention? Do you have anyone in mind? This post in particular is about church plants being defunded NOT because someone is abusing their freedom. They abstain. They are getting defunded for not teaching total abstinence.
You also need to take into account that this isn't just a drinking issue, it's a meeting with/in our culture issue. Separate culture from the gospel and you have no mission.
I argued some time back that the issue here is not alcohol but legalism, or the sufficiency of Scripture. For any of us to just tag along with the extra-biblical demands of our convention will hurt our gospel. Actually, it has already done so, as a trip around the internet to see how lost people viewed the "Beer and the Bible" article will show. Go ahead and look for yourself.
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 03/04/2007 at 02:40 PM
Steve,
Thanks for your response. I apologize that my comments may have not tied directly in to the post.
I do have church planters in mind that drink and do so with a badge of honor. I have seen many young guys push the limits in order to be "relevant" to the culture or being missional. I think that there is a fine line that SOME emerging churches are walking.
I am not against drinking unless it's to get drunk and I helped plant a church in New York that met in a bar just as Journey does. It is a great day when we, as pastors and church members, can go into a bar or wherever to meet people and be missional. I have been accepted into the Acts 29 Network who is a phenomenal group of Jesus lovers. I met Darrin and think he is the real deal and I support him 100%.
My point in all this long-winded post is that however we may see the SBC as being wrong for pulling funding from churches who DON'T teach abstinence from alcohol, they do make it clear on their viewpoint and we can either choose to accept or deny their funding based on their belief or rules. Unfortunately, alcohol represents a bad thing in America; broken lives, DUI's, addiction, and death. If their stand is to be totally against it I can't argue with that - I just might not choose to be an SBC church.
I agree with you and it stinks. Maybe if churches give up their membership or affiliation with the SBC that will cause some eyes to be opened and a dialogue could take place that may change things.
- James
Posted by: James Dalman | 03/05/2007 at 09:36 AM
I'll just bite my toungue (duct tape my fingers together) here...in order to keep from typing something I might regret. But I will say that this saddens my heart.
Posted by: Michael | 03/05/2007 at 07:00 PM
james
the SBC does not require you to teach abstinance or agree with it. They have Passed resolutions against alcohol. But the only requierment is you agree with Baptist Faith and message.
Posted by: Mike | 03/05/2007 at 08:56 PM
Steve,
Hey, you may remember me; I was the college student that interviewed you for a college project about the SBC and blogging. Just for your information, I got an A on the project and the professor appreciated the creativity and the research on it. So, thanks! Anyway, about your post on Missouri Baptists and Alcohol. As it seems right now, I am a junior at Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, MO. The alcohol issue is hotly contested on our campus. On January 24th of this year, our president, Dr. C. Pat Taylor (a close friend of David Dockery), gave his 10 year "vision" speech for SBU. During this, it seems as though Dr. Taylor strategicaly placed a rather off-handed series of alcohol comments in the middle of the speech. To be accurate in my summary, Dr. Taylor unequivocally equated the consumption of alcohol as indicative of ones' spiritual life. Needless to say, controversy spawned a student reaction in our student paper, The Omnibus. Knowing that the student reactions would be duly ignored and largely unread, I crafted my own response on Facebook and received a lot of positive responses. If you would like a copy of my response to Dr. Taylor's alcohol comments, I would be glad to e-mail it to you. Regardless, it is apparent at my Baptist school that the ranks and hierarchy of the Southern Baptist Convention is having direct effect on our campus and as a result, produced an incredible amount of student apathy and cynicism. Dreadfully, our student body is completely jaded, cynical, and spiritually dead. While I cannot say that this is a direct result of Dr. Taylor's alcohol comments, it does stand in the larger shadow of the legalism pervading our convention and our school.
Posted by: Andrew Walker | 03/05/2007 at 09:41 PM
If we could get back to God's word and worship him all the other problems will take care of themselves.we are trying to stand in god's place let him have his way!I'm an old woman now and seen a lot .let me tell you if we don't get on our knees and pray the lords going to kill all of us just because we forget who the king is and who the servent is!
Posted by: nadine tennant | 03/06/2007 at 10:28 AM
The "grapevine" has led you astray. The MBC is NOT currently defunding ANY church plant over the alcohol issue. Brother, you need to consider your own integrity. You say "I know that some churches/pastors who don't consume alchohol are getting their church plants de-funded merely for not saying that consumption is wrong." Really? Well, how do you know that? It is NOT true!
Posted by: David | 03/06/2007 at 03:06 PM
It is true. I know it for a fact first hand. How do you, David know that is it not true? I do not want to name or expose the church planter...but it is true, sadly it is true.
Posted by: stubby clarksdale | 03/06/2007 at 03:29 PM
I have had this confirmed a couple of different ways through a couple of different people David. Though it would not surprise me if the MBC power structure tries to make this look like something else, it is what it is. Feel free to email me if you have any concerns.
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 03/06/2007 at 03:29 PM
Steve, I do believe you can purchase an Integrity Meter from Lifeway. It measures percentages given to the CP, counts altar calls during worship services, detects Calvinism and of course it comes with a breathalyzer attachment. Print out your score and display your integrity. Settle this once and for all.
Posted by: Joe Thorn | 03/06/2007 at 03:38 PM
Steve, I stand corrected. Although not all of the information is "out there" yet, apparently I was WRONG when I stated that the MBC is not defunding any church plants because of the alcohol issue. I have been corrected and my integrity insists that I reveal my error and ask forgiveness. I am sorry. I am also sorry for questioning your integrity. I should not have done that.
Posted by: David | 03/06/2007 at 08:11 PM
David, apology accepted. I'm encouraged by your response. Thank you.
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 03/06/2007 at 09:01 PM
David, now that you "stand corrected" do you have any thoughts about this issue?
Posted by: stubby clarksdale | 03/06/2007 at 10:06 PM
I have already proved to myself that I should not share my thoughts until I know all the facts. I am still gathering facts, trying to find out exactly what happened...rather than what might "appear" to have happened. When I know all the facts, I will be glad to comment. I will say this---After we talk about what happened to one church planter concerning his funding in relation to his position on alcohol, I hope that we can move on to talk about that which is really important...reaching the world for Christ.
Posted by: David | 03/07/2007 at 08:53 PM
David, appreciate your wisdom in waiting for facts. Too few of us do that.
I do hope in your last sentence you didn't position funding against reaching the world for Christ. Isn't that what the funding is for? It just seems like an odd statement since reaching the world for Christ is what these church plants are trying to do, and retracting funding will work against reaching the world for Christ.
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 03/07/2007 at 09:00 PM
At this time the MBC does not require a church to teach "consumption is wrong" as a requirement for funding. You can find the current form on the MBC website, church planting resource section that each planter must complete. The form indicates the planter must refrain from drinking, that is all. So, if this planter did not break the covenant agreement, why was his funding removed? Is this new policy? If it is, should it not be grandfathered in? These are important questions, David and any light you can shine on this issue would be helpful.
Posted by: stubby clarksdale | 03/07/2007 at 09:58 PM
I think if I were in the SBC I would just lie to them. Seriously. Like Nazis snooping in your basement for Jews, these legalists have lost all moral authority. They have no right to the truth. Take their money and plant a church of grace.
Posted by: isaiah543 | 03/07/2007 at 11:36 PM
Steve, Yes, hopefully...and usually funding is about reaching the world for Christ. My last statement, in my last post, referring to "...reaching the world for Christ" was a reference to the SBC Cooperative Program (CP)which currently provides for more than 10,500 missionaries in the U.S. and around the world...and which provides for training for more than 15,000 future ministers of the Gospel, currently studying in SBC seminaries, etc., etc. I could on...but that is probably enough for now. My concern is that in all of the controversy...and with all the "SBC bashing"...the most important part of the SBC (worldwide missions) is hurt the most. I have heard talk like, "Well, if that's the way it is going to be...then let's just get out of the SBC." NO. Please NO. For all of our warts/faults...the SBC CP is still the most efficient and effective way to reach the world for Christ! My concern is that many of the young leaders I have met do not have an appreciation for the effectiveness of the CP. The church planters that I have met and worked with are dedicated, passionate Christians---GREAT guys! They are focused on their calling which is often to a specific area of a city...or to a particular people group...and they will move heaven and earth to reach those people. In other words, they are focused on their "Jerusalem"...and they do a great job of reaching "Jerusalem". My concern is this---what are they doing to reach "...Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth"? While I admire their tenacity to reach "Jerusalem"...I am concerned about their resolve to reach the rest of the world. Christ commanded each of us to into "...all the nations" with the Gospel. The only way I know to do that is through cooperative missions (CP). I am unwilling to give that up because of some other problems in the SBC/MBC.
Posted by: David | 03/08/2007 at 11:06 AM
David,
I am with you in believing that it is worth staying in the SBC and working together. The problem is that someone is putting the screws to some planters/churches over non-essentials. I am finding that the resistance to cooperation is not coming from the young planters, but some leadership and conventions themselves. Alcohol, Calvinism, etc. have been reasons why some are excluded from service. One of the elders from our church, a well-educated language scholar, former missionary, recently followed God;s call to go back to the field. He was very interested in going via IMB. Hewas told he would not be sent as a missionary with the IMB because he occasionally drinks. Though he expressed his willingness to drop it, and knew he would need to to work with the agency - he was told it would be better for him to change his mind about the subject and re-apply. It's a shame, but this leads some people out of the SBC. It shouldn't be and doesn't have to be this way.
Posted by: Joe Thorn | 03/08/2007 at 01:45 PM