Reformissionary

Misery, err, Missouri

Ugh.  I'm sick of the same regurgitated, unsubstantiated arguments against the "consumption of beverage alcohol."  But I'm not surprised.  Here's an article by the Executive Director of the Missouri Baptist Convention, David Clippard.  My favorite part...

All of the new church starts that the Missouri Baptist Convention has any part of supporting are required to sign and agree to a no-alcohol covenant. This covenant has been fully supported by all our church planter pastors. For this we are grateful.

SWBTS & Tongues

Gotta love the SBC.  Dude shows up at Southwestern Seminary to preach at their chapel service.  He drops the prayer language (tongues) bomb on Paige Patterson and the bunch.  Hilarious man.  Who could have called this one?  So Paige "rebukes" him and refuses to make the video of the message public like other chapel sermons.

Southwestern Seminary President Paige Patterson has issued an extraordinary rebuke to the Rev. Dwight McKissic, a seminary trustee and prominent Arlington pastor, for acknowledging during a chapel service that he sometimes speaks in tongues when he prays.

Burleson responds,

Private prayer language is not the issue. The issue to me is that a man who holds a position that is well within the bounds of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statement is being silenced and censored.

We’ve got to create a climate within the Southern Baptist Convention where dissent is welcome, where dialogue is open and where disagreements can be accepted.

Wild Wednesday

I found (via Fast Company) a video on Web 2.0 that is super-helpful.  It's a 24 minute video from TechCrunch. I love the end where all these guys are asked what browser they use.  Care to guess?

In the video Arrington conducts conversations with 13 Web 2.0 CEOs about what Web 2.0 is, whether we're in a bubble, what business models work, what is the role of publishers, and how important and how large is the early adopter crowd, along with other issues related to user adoption trends and technology. For certain, Web 2.0 is about technologies such as Ajax, Mash-Ups, Flash, Tagging, and open source applications. But mostly Web 2.0's central focus is user participation.

Participants included Joe Kraus (Jotspot), Scott Milener (Browster), David Sifry (Technorati), Auren Hoffman (Rapleaf), Chris Alden (Rojo), Jonathan Abrams (Socializr), Aaron Cohen (Bolt), Jeremy Verba (Piczo), Steven Marder (Eurekster), Matt Sanchez (Video Egg), Godhwani (Simply Hired), Keith Teare (edgeio), and Michael Tanne (Wink).

Speaking of Web 2.0, last week Joe Carter (Evangelical Outpost) and I met with Justin Taylor (I hear J.I. Packer calls him Justin the Squire!) and a couple of other Crossway Publisher folks about blogging & reviewing books.  Very good conversation, and some great people.

I am trying out Browster because of the 2.0 video.  Wow, it's very interesting.  Anyone else trying it?  You need to check it out.

I'm pumped about GTDGmail.  If you haven't read Getting Things Done by David Allen, and/or if you aren't implimenting GTD in your life, please give it a look.  And then you can get GTDGmail and really geek out.

Watch the "Lecture Musical" from Prangstgrup.  Hilarious.

Michael Foster leads us to David Slagle's 100 Things I've Learned the Hard Way as a Senior Pastor.

Some Music You Should Check Out:

Husky Rescue (myspace)
Serena- Maneesh (myspace)
Black Angels (myspace)
TV on the Radio (myspace)

**If you are a Southern Baptist, please skip this next part.**  Imbibe?  Review and share your thoughts on your latest bottle of vino at Cork'd.  Gotta light?  CigarCyclopedia.

Speaking of "the good life," if you are a Southern Baptist you need to read this critical article from former SBC President Bobby Welch.  We need more wisdom like this!

I understand one pastor's blog site indicates he believes his drinking assists him in soul-winning!...

We have many outstanding young pastors and others on their way to leading this Convention to...do it as "sipping saints,"...as...soul winners! God help us to...elect a user or promoter of the use of alcoholic beverages to...leadership...!

Please don't sent hate mail.  It's a joke.  ;)  Bobbay is SOOOO funny.

MBB

If you haven't noticed, I've killed my other blog: Missional Baptist Blog.  Just thought I would let everyone here know that.

Phriday is for Photos: Special Edition

Every day is Photo Phriday when a picture is this good. 

Joe Thorn and I were photographed by Olan Mills at the Southern Baptist Convention.  I just received it in the mail and couldn't resist scanning it and putting it up.  The photographer thought it was funny, but a few SBC'rs walking by the booth seemed a little freaked out.  Imagine trying to take this pic and keep a straight face!

Some of you will be offended by it.  When you are offended and choose to tell me, it won't be a surprise.  So save your fingers from violently typing your thoughts and laugh with us.

I think it's unbelievably funny and still laugh out loud whenever I see it.  It's really the continuation of a running joke.  Enjoy!

Joe Thorn: Akin on Alcohol

Joe Thorn has a biblical response to Danny Akin's Baptist Press article: The Case for Alcohol Abstinence.  A blurb...

There has been a lot of talk about “wisdom” in the middle of this discussion. I agree we must pursue, and pray for wisdom. But “wisdom” is not law, and it is often subjective. What is wise for one man, may not be wise for another. I will agree in saying that abstaining from alcohol may be “the wise thing” for some people, but to suggest that it should be the behavior of all people is not only unwise, it is unbiblical.

Go to Joe's post and discuss it.

Biblical Liberty & Terrified Baptists

I find it both frustrating and hysterical that after a landslide victory on the alcohol resolution we have a couple of unthinkable things happening.  To use the words of a very recent SBC President, it's one of the most unthinkable things imaginable.

1. Those who champion the alcohol resolution are quick to admit the resolution and biblical teaching on alcohol don't match. I'm sure they wouldn't like the way I've worded that.  Whatever.  It's true and they seem to feel a great motivation to admit it.

Jim Smith (Florida Baptist Witness): "As noted in the debate on the resolution, it’s clear from Scripture that wine was consumed during biblical times — and that it is even encouraged in moderation in select passages of the Bible."

Danny Akin (SEBTS): "Does the Bible by direct command condemn the use of alcohol in every instance? The honest answer is no it does not. Jesus clearly turned water into wine (John 2)."

No matter what else these guys say, it's clear that they are supporting what they consider to be an extra-biblical resolution.  How hilarious is that?  And the bigger problem is that these ideas are not just extra-biblical, they are anti-biblical. 

For example, Danny Akin also says, "I have observed for some time a growing emphasis on our 'liberty in Christ' that I fear neglect of our 'responsibility in Christ.'"  Sure, we get his point on responsibility.  Let's not try to trump responsibility with our liberty.  There are certainly times to abstain for the sake of others, and any faithful Christian of any stripe will strive to live that way. 

But both responsibility AND liberty are Jesus things.  We cannot act like responsibility nullifies our liberty, or why have liberty? They both have their place, and anyone who interprets our responsibility as totally abstaining from a liberty has misinterpreted responsibility. That's why when these guys say that all should abstain all the time we have moved into the realm of absurdity. 

Of course there is one, clear biblical warrant for this kind of thinking: the Pharisees.  Yes, those "strong conservatives" knew how to take seriously all the "contextual and principle considerations" behind their extra-biblical rules.  I'm sure their intentions were often good, desiring Scriptural fidelity and a "holy life."  But they were condemned because they missed the grace that sets us free, opting rather for their own interpretations and additions to the Law.

Now, let me be clear. (Unfortunately, I have to spend time on this because so many of our leaders not only have a poor understanding of liberty and responsibility, but they also have a poor understanding of biblical conservatism and liberalism.) I’m an inerrantist & Calvinist. I’m an expository preacher who regularly has people leaving our services telling me that they are feeling terribly convicted over some sin. And I submit that our so-called “strong conservatives” are actually less conservative than me on this issue. The most conservative conservatives (biblically speaking) are sola scriptura-ists, and anyone who pushes extra-biblical rules that disqualify Jesus for SBC service is less conservative because they are NOT sola-scriptura-ists.

Let me move on.

2. Those who champion the alcohol resolution seem to be speaking as if they lost the vote, yet they had like 85-90% of the vote!  This is remarkably queer.  Their massive "win" on this resolution is strangely only a small comfort.

Do you believe it?  They propose a resolution that has no biblical backing and are surprised that some want to debate it.  Then they win by a landslide and feel the need to keep pushing the issue as if they lost.   Why is this happening? I think for at least two reasons, though probably more.  First, they need something to celebrate after getting pummeled at the poles on nominations. Some will now put me in the ranks of some who pushed hard for other nominations, but if you read my blogs you know I’m in disagreement with them on this issue. 

Second, they are disturbed that there was even a conversation to be had on alcohol!  From Jim Smith's article...

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president Paige Patterson…nicely summarized the alcohol resolution debate when he told me, “Sadly, I would never have believed that I would see a 45 minute debate at the Southern Baptist Convention on a resolution on abstinence from beverage alcohol. When one considers that the alcohol industry devastates more lives and homes today than any industry other than the pornography industry, such a question is doubly unthinkable. Positively, the resolution was adopted by 90 percent of the messengers, a critically important resolution in light of some pastors who now openly boast of imbibing alcohol.”

This much is clear: the Southern Baptist establishment is terrified of more than just abused liberty. They are terrified of even responsibly exercising biblical liberty.  Why else would they push for extra-biblical rules?  Liberty allows churches to be autonomous, and Christians to be responsible to God for their use of liberties, and even *gulp* allows some people to blog.  So some have been making new rules and resolutions on baptism and tongues and blogging trustees and alcohol and who is able to serve as a convention leader and who is not. Fear causes people to do very strange things, like make rules that would disqualify Jesus and the Apostles and Old Testament saints from SBC service.

The sad thing is, fear is what led the Pharisees to seek the death of our Savior.  Fear of a political takeover.  Fear of losing power and authority and privilege.  It seems the SBC "strong conservative" leaders have, like the Pharisees, turned a blind eye to the Scriptures they say they love so dearly. In that stance they continue to vilify and isolate brothers who enjoy the things Jesus enjoyed, even in a responsible and thoughtful way.

I strongly disagree with Dr. Akin, Jim Smith, and their lot. I think their position is hurting our convention, our witness, our mission work, the outworkings of the conservative resurgence, and more. I think they are pushing away from our convention our best and brightest young pastors because of extra-biblical resolutions like this. I think they are showing the world that the SBC and Jesus aren’t as close as we hoped.

And at the same time I would NEVER, EVER say these men are unregenerate. I love them both and spoke briefly with Smith and Akin at the convention. I have great respect for the work they do and the many wise things they say. But in this case they are both working against the Savior they love.

Wise Replaces Dembski

Kurt Wise replaces Dembski at SBTS.

Important Post For SBC'rs

I've written on an important issue for SBC'rs, especially younger leaders, over at Missional Baptist Blog.  My post is called "Churches Louder Than Blogs."

McKnight on Evangelicalism and the SBC

Scot McKnight: "Is the Future of Evangelicalism with the SBC?"

IMB Trustees Back Off Burleson

A bit of breaking news.  The Florida Baptist Witness is reporting that the executive committee of the IMB's trustee board, "will recommend at the board's March 20-21 meeting in Tampa that trustees reverse a Jan. 11 motion asking the Southern Baptist Convention to remove Wade Burleson of Enid, Okla., as a trustee."

Here's more...

IMB trustee chairman Thomas Hatley of Rogers, Ark., told the Southern Baptist TEXAN the committee determined the matter of disciplining a trustee could be handled internally. Burleson has vocally--and allegedly improperly, according to the trustees--opposed the board's action to establish new missionary candidate criteria.

[...]

Misinformation disseminated through informal weblogs caused confusion in the minds of some Southern Baptists, Hatley said. He said he hopes a detailed accounting of the timeline and rationale for those standards will help separate those issues from the matter of Burleson's personal conduct as a trustee and answer questions that have arisen.

[...]

Since November, Burleson’s blog and several others have maintained frequent discussion of the issues. Many of the blogs include feedback from online readers rallying to the embattled trustee’s defense and calling for a large turnout at the annual meeting of the convention in Greensboro June 13-14 to vote against his proposed removal.

With the initial wave of e-mails and letters opposing the action against Burleson subsiding, Hatley told the TEXAN that he was beginning to receive many letters expressing appreciation for the stand taken by trustees.

The policy on private prayer language regards the habit to be outside the norm of Southern Baptist practice and states that candidates holding to the conviction or practice eliminate themselves from consideration. The guideline--not a policy--related to baptism expects candidates to have been baptized in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view it as sacramental or regenerative and embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer. In contrast to the misinformation circulated by critics, both the policy and the guideline feature an exception clause that allows for review by appeal.

Here's the BP article.  (HT: Tom Ascol)

IMB Policy Change on Baptism

If you are in the SBC or are interested in keeping up with the discussion and disagreement on IMB policy changes, you need to be reading my other blog: Missional Baptist Blog.  Be sure to get into the comments as well.  We now have Hershael York posting to defend the changes, Ergun Caner giving him a "high five," and Tom Ascol pointing out that this policy tells our forefathers they weren't wet in the wight way.

MBB Posts...
Hershael York Likes the IMB Baptism Policy
Ergun Caner, IMB Policy
Ascol on York

Erwin McManus and Denominational Headway

What do you think about Erwin McManus?  Just an open question for anyone who has read one of his books, heard him speak, been to his church (Mosaic).  I've appreciated his ministry and writings.

Baptist Press has an article today on McManus and a class he taught on leadership at GGBTS.  It's a nice introduction to him if you don't know much about him.  He will be preaching at the SBC Annual Meeting Pastor's Conference in June.

I really like McManus' approach to the SBC, in that he makes his noise with his church, his books, his speaking and it's a "building" mentality and not just tearing down.  It's all gospel and mission and zeal for Christ.

Brokeback Baptists

Mark Driscoll has a nice post on Al Mohler's appearance on Larry King Live.  He includes several of Mohler's quotes from the show, which are very good and generally humble.

By the way, I remember being in a conversation with Dr. Mohler and other students one time and he was explaining how hard it was to appear on shows like King's.  It demands very quick reactions, and you need to speak and not mess up or you will be quoted all over the place.  I have said before that I think Al Mohler is specifically gifted in ways that make his TV appearances come off well. 

If you don't agree, please wait until at least Monday to blast me.  Make it a high-priority task in your Treo.  I need a break.

Russ Moore, Blogging, and Revolution

Today Russ Moore has written a short article/blog post called "The Spiritual Danger of Blogging" (also posted at Mere Comments).  He has some important things to say, things that we as bloggers need to hear.  To be honest, I think he aims this post at me (though I drink mochas). 

I've encountered many blogs run by the sort of "self-righteous" and "cynical" people that he mentions.  Strangely, most that I have encountered have been run by Calvinistic inerrantist reformed-types (who I doctrinally side with) who think a doctrinal statement is the bottom line of righteousness.  They typically spend a lot of time finding errors in the doctrines of others, defending anyone who holds the same doctrines they hold no matter what they say, finding people with any connection to something bad and broad-brushing them into the heresy camp, and looking for sins in the culture to preach against.  It's a deadly lot and I have run among the "angry Calvinist" number before.

Though Russ seems to emphasize the bad bloggers (he may be a bit cynical about bloggers, I think), he also points to a good group of bloggers out there.  My fear is that his group would be the kind who always tow the party line, and link to the "right" places, and vote straight party ticket.

I've found many good bloggers too, but I would think they would be a different sort than Russ'.  I like the bloggers who don't draw extra-biblical lines of fellowship.  They are willing to speak truth even when it costs them connections they may need in ministry.  They point out the dangers Jesus points to (like legalism) and not the ones that legalists point to (like alcohol).  The bloggers I like are the ones who like Jesus so much that they realize how messed up they are and how great grace is.  I like bloggers who are interested in a Kingdom that God builds, and who would have no problem watching our institutions and kingdoms die when they cease serving God's desires.  Sounds delicious, doesn't it?

Ultimately Moore seems to miss something.  He writes, "But, let's be honest, blogs also tend to give a microphone to a kind of deadening cynicism and blind self-righteousness in the guise of taking on self-righteousness, legalism, and what-have-you."  Sure, we all would agree.  That happens too much.  All of us who blog have certainly from time to time held on to our "rightness" too tightly because being wrong isn't fun.  But this sort of self-righteous blogging that Moore speaks of rarely makes a ripple in the blogosphere, let alone beyond it. 

And Moore's quote can just be as easily be turned around.  The guise could be on the other side, just as it was with Jesus who seemed to criticize the religious power brokers the loudest and sharpest, not the little guy who was "self-righteously" attacking legalism.

In other words, I seriously doubt the big problem with blogging is that some of the "self-righteous" ones are getting a hearing and hurting the big boys.  I think it is much more likely that if any bloggers are getting loud enough to actually create a stir among the power brokers, those power brokers would try to find a way to combat the bloggers.  The odds are stacked against the bloggers and for those with power, position and notoriety.

And isn't this what we see with Luther and the 95 Theses?  He was an annoying gnat to the institution for questioning what they were doing.  Then some started to agree with him which created fear among the powerful, and an attempt was made to silence him (something that can't be done in the same way to bloggers, which elevates fears among the powerful today).  But Luther continued on as a flawed man who didn't do it all right, but who in the end was faithful and led a revolution of biblical proportions.

While I'm not able to remove the lint from Luther's belly button (and I'm more likely to lead a revolution for P.F. Chang's), I'm more hopeful about real change happening in the SBC after reading Russ' post.  It's a sign that the message of 'necessary change' is getting out.  God help us.

SBTS, the Abstract, and Local Church Autonomy

I removed my post with the same title because the commenter I quoted has given a correction and apology. 

I was very concerned with the ramifications if the original comment were true, and as I said in my post I wanted to hear from those who knew if this was really the deal.  I did and it wasn't. 

I've also received emails from a couple of friends who are trustworthy, and at least one was concerned this was gossip for me to post.  Thought this might be a good opportunity to discuss blogging and gossip.  I think it's a good question to ask, but I don't think it was gossip.  If I were to simply spread the info as if it were true, yeah, it's gossip.  But I was removed from the situation and admitted that I didn't know and wanted someone "in the know" to comment.  In a way, I may have helped this to get off the gossip mill, but I don't know.

Any thoughts on that?  I'm happy to apologize if I'm wrong.  I'll apologize anyway because I love the people at Clifton (who I was intending to defend if this were true) and I love Dr. Mohler. 

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

Keeping Our Eye On The Ball

Among SBC circles things have been buzzing. 

The IMB has passed what I consider to be extra-biblical policies.  An IMB trustee (Wade Burleson) is facing removal from the board, and he happens to strongly and publicly oppose the new policies.  Some young leaders who have not been to the SBC Annual Meeting are planning to go to vote to keep Wade in as a Trustee.  This is an important time to work for change in the SBC.

But here's my fear.  We may take our eye off The Ball.  "The Ball" is not Wade Burleson and it's not the IMB and our mission organization.  It's not the upcoming Annual Meeting.  It's the Gospel. 

I'm not going to get into debates on whether supporting Wade or the IMB or whatever is supporting the Gospel.  So please don't go there.  I'm supportive of Wade and believe this is an important time. 

I simply want to encourage everyone who is gripped by this controversy to keep your eyes primarily on your local church, your local community, and the Gospel that has been entrusted to you (2 Tim 1:14).  Satan's joy will come when we exchange the primacy of The Gospel for anything else, even something as important as getting our mission board and convention in order.

SBC, IMB and Wade Burleson

For those in the SBC or interested in SBC issues, Wade Burleson, Oklahoma pastor and IMB trustee, is facing a vote for removal as a trustee.  You can read what Wade says about it on his blog.  I also recommend you keep up with it on my other blog, Missional Baptist Blog. 

This may be the most important year in some time to attend our annual convention in Greensboro, NC as Wade's fate as a trustee will be voted on by SBC'rs in attendance.  I will be there.

Baptism, Praying in Tongues & SBC

For those of you following the new International Mission Board policies about speaking in tongues as a prayer language and baptism, please notice the 'open letter' to the SBC from Wade Burleson over at Missional Baptist Blog.  This could turn out to be a big deal.

Wade is an IMB trustee and a pastor in Oklahoma. 

Warning to 'Emerging Church'

I learned recently that John Hammett (SEBTS prof of theology) delivered a paper at The Evangelical Theological Society meeting a couple of weeks ago on the Emerging Church: "An Ecclesiological Assessment of the Emerging Church."  I don't know if it's online anywhere (it's online now) but he has kindly emailed it to those interested in reading it.  So I have it on my desktop right now, but I haven't read it yet.

Baptist Press has picked this up as a news story: "Baptist Scholar Sounds a Warning to 'Emerging Church."  Here are a few snippets.  I've pointed out a couple of things in bold.

The leaders of many "emerging" churches echo McLaren’s claim, saying that traditional churches must change or die. Hammett, however, charges that this type of approach is overly simplistic. Many so-called "traditional" churches, he said, are reaching people by simply teaching the word of God and sharing the Gospel, he said.

[...]

Hammett also criticized emerging church leaders for letting cultural concerns over postmodernism drive their agendas, rather than being driven solely by Scripture.

"Key leaders of the emerging church affirm that they love, have confidence in, seek to obey, and strive accurately to teach the sacred Scriptures," he said. "I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of these leaders, nor the reality of their commitment to Scripture. But in reading their material in books, websites and articles, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the concern to respond to postmodernism is what is really driving the movement.

"It seems that the central problem with the emerging church ... is that in its zeal to respond to postmodern culture in a way that is evangelistically effective and personally and ecclesiologically refreshing, they have not yet carefully critiqued postmodernism," Hammett continued. "Without such critique, there is a real danger that the movement will appropriate elements of postmodern thought that cannot be integrated into a genuinely evangelical Christian worldview."

[...]

While the emerging church’s desire to engage a lost culture is admirable, Hammett said, they should do so with caution and a willingness to learn from traditional churches, not with a willingness to uncritically accept postmodernism.

"The more desirable alternative is for all churches to engage the culture, with a zeal to understand its questions and to speak its language, but also with a resolute willingness to take the posture of Christ against culture where biblical fidelity requires it," he said. "This challenge of thoughtful engagement with contemporary culture lies before the emerging church and all branches of evangelicalism."

A couple of thoughts...

1. I wonder if Dr. Hammett sees the difference here between a desire to understand and reach a culture influenced by postmodernity and uncritically accepting postmodernism.  These are very different things.  And if I read him right, I think Dr. Hammett hasn't distinguished these ideas.

Maybe he speaks this way because he thinks EC'rs muddle the line?  Maybe so.  I wouldn't fight over that claim.  But as he assesses the movement he needs to be clear on the difference.  Though I have no problem saying some in the EC are too accepting of postmodernism, there are many who are simply trying to reach a culture that has been influenced by postmodernism.

2. He says churches need to have a "willingness to take the posture of Christ against culture where biblical fidelity requires it."  What does he mean?  I'm increasingly skeptical over the intentions of statements like this one.

Critics of the EC may wonder if my skepticism is based in an unwillingness to see what's wrong with the culture because I would rather speak of love and grace than sin and judgment.  That's not my point at all.  I'm skeptical because of the 'culture war' mentality of much of evangelicalism, and of the SBC in particular.  I think it's the wrong approach to culture, it always has been, and the EC in large part is looking for a way to be the Church without scolding the culture.

Again, I'm fine saying the EC has created new problems at times in this area and in other areas.  But I think a non-scolding approach to culture is a better approach, not a lesser one, and I'm curious to learn whether Dr. Hammett's quote above is intending to hit on this topic.

I appreciate Dr. Hammett and the other scholars and pastors who are working hard to understand the EC and approach it in a conversational way.

Complementarians Complimented

I love this.  Al Mohler and Mark Dever stand in line to get Maureen Dowd to sign her new book. 

It's not every day that you get to meet the leading feminist columnist for The New York Times. Ms. Dowd did not disappoint. She was clever, winsome, and glad to sign a copy of her new book, Are Men Necessary? When Sexes Collide. The book is important in several aspects, and I will publish a review in an upcoming commentary.

Ms. Dowd, whose caustic wit ranks with Dorothy Parker, demonstrated her sense of humor in signing her books. After I introduced myself, she wrote a message right under the title question: Are Men Necessary?. She wrote to me: You are! For Dr. Dever she wrote: Absolutely!

Well, it's not every day that two complementarian evangelical men get their existence affirmed by Maureen Dowd. It's true -- these are strange times.

Logical Conclusions of Teetotalers

I'm preaching on Psalm 82 this Sunday.  It is about justice and the consequences of not fighting injustice.  I want to express my thanks for a great illustration to Alabama Southern Baptists (my denomination) who are helping hurricane victims in Florida by NOT giving out free water because it has been provided by Anheuser-Busch and has "Budweiser" on the label .  Read this snippit as I go punch a wall...

Hurricane victims who wanted water had some difficultly finding it at a relief station in Clewiston Friday. The volunteer group running a supply center doesn't like the company that donated the water, so they decided not to give it to those in line for help.

Twenty-two pallets of the canned water, distributed free by beer company Anheuser-Busch, bears the company's label – and members of the Southern Baptist Convention refused to hand it out to those in need.

Resident lined up for miles to receive food and water at the distribution point. But the water was left on the sidelines by the Alabama-based group.

"The pastor didn't want to hand out the Budweiser cans to people and that's his prerogative and I back him 100-percent," said SBC volunteer John Cook.

The SBC felt it was inappropriate to give the donation out, and they weren't happy when NBC2 wanted to know why.

"Why do you want to make that the issue? That's not the issue. The issue is that we're here trying to help people," Cook said.

No one disagrees with that, but the Red Cross says Anheuser-Busch is also trying to help.

The water has been available all along, but the SBC volunteers set it aside and few people knew it was available.

(HT: SBC Outpost)

iMonk and SBC

Michael Spencer (iMonk) has written a pretty interesting post called "Smelling Calvinism on My Breath: How the SBC Looks From Under the Table."

Total Abstinence

Oh man.  The SBC is just a delight.  Joe Thorn finds a gem of an article by Jack Graham in today's Baptist Press on the need for total abstinence from alcohol.  Uh, all that was sarcasm.  This is a mess of an article.

I expect that Joe's post tomorrow will register on the Richter Scale.  Look for it.

More News on Rainer

From Lifeway: Rainer recommended
From Baptist Press: What others are saying

Lifeway to Get Rainer

If the trustees agree with the committee, then Dr. Thom Rainer will be the new Lifeway president.  ABP has broken the story through some leaked info, and it seems pretty solid.

Rainer, currently the Dean of the Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism, and Church Growth at Southern Seminary, has written a number of books and, I think, is bound to be a fantastic leader at Lifeway.  Honestly, I wasn't anticipating such a good pick.  Congrats to my Lifeway buddies.

Fertilizing Tulips

There's a bit of stink coming from some SBC/Calvinism discussion, originating with SBC president Bobby Welch's church newsletter based on Steve Lemke's study.  Scott Slayton is talking about it, so it Marty Duren.  Joe Thorn has some good things to say and is encouraging a response from Founders Ministries (I think he will be successful).

UPDATE 7.27.05: Founder's Ministries responds

Mohler and Emerging Church

While I was on vacation Al Mohler decided to put up two consecutive articles on the emerging church: part one and part two.  I think he was trying to slip them past me. :)  My responses are intended to be reflections on what I read, not a response to him or a rebuttal. 

As others have noted, Mohler spends most of his time rehashing much of Don Carson's book on the emerging church (ec).  That's fine, and much of what Carson says is helpful.  But in Mohler's articles, like in most anti-ec stuff, it comes down to what McLaren says vs. historic Christian doctrine.  That's a bit unfair.  There's room for a discussion on McLaren and doctrine, but let's just not imply that McLaren speaks for the ec.

I guess what I'm thinking is that for Mohler and Carson all their critique of the ec is based on their critique of postmodernism, as if the ec is about a wholesale commitment to being pomo.  I understand the idea of being ec as being aware of postmodernism in culture and communicating clearly in their vernacular.  I could be wrong, and am happy to discuss this.  I also know that not all ec'rs have the same convictions on this.

So Mohler will say things like...

By denying that truth is propositional, Emerging Church theorists avoid and renounce any responsibility to defend many of the doctrines long considered essential to the Christian faith.

I'm happy to admit that some in the ec have greatly downplayed propositions, but mostly in response to an evangelicalism that wrongly has made propositions the truest truth.  The Bible is the truest truth we have and proposition are a way of verbalizing theology as we study the truth.  More on propositions in a bit.

Mohler writes...

I am constantly confronted by young pastors who identify themselves with the Emerging Church movement but deny that they associate themselves with the aberrant theological impulses and outright doctrinal denials that characterize the writings of the movement's most well-known and influential leaders.

I completely agree with D. A. Carson when he reflects: "I would feel much less worried about the directions being taken by other Emerging Church leaders if these leaders would rise up and call McLaren and Chalke to account where they have clearly abandoned what the Bible actually says."

I think the issue is that Mohler and Carson take everyone sympathetic to the ec and make them McLarenites who must deny the heresies of their highly exalted leader.  Who says you can't be sympathetic to the ec and disagree with McLaren?  Mohler and Carson have worked hard to broadbrush here, but I just don't see it.  They want clean lines at all times dividing the good and bad, the true and false.  But the Reformation included some fuzzy boundaries for a while, didn't it?  We need to be aware that it's okay for things to be fuzzy for a while on some things (not all) for real change to happen.  And even Mohler admits that evangelicalism needs to look at changing.  More coming on that below.

Let me say that it would be nice to hear Mohler rejoice that some ec'rs are happy to reject what's wrong with some theology the ec.  Why not give these young leaders credit?  Why not be excited that there is evidence that bad theology isn't just being swallowed by ec'rs?  Why not see this as evidence that Mohler and Carson's determinations on the ec as this postmodern, truth-denying, proposition-denying, foundation-denying community is not exactly what they thought?  I would think this would make Mohler take a fresh look and wonder if his initial assessment of the ec is less than right on.

Mohler finishes the final post with....

The real question is this: will the future leaders of the Emerging Church acknowledge that, while truth is always more than propositional, it is never less? Will they come to affirm that a core of non-negotiable doctrines constitutes a necessary set of boundaries to authentic Christian faith? Will they embrace an understanding of Christianity that reforms the evangelical movement without denying its virtues?

This is the first thing Mohler has done that I know of where he actually seems to want an answer.  I hope that is his intention, because until now I think he has worked so hard to scold that he is losing any influence he had.  Here I think he is more helpful.  I think the questions are good.

At the same time, the tables must be turned. Will evangelicals be willing to direct hard and honest critical analysis at our own cultural embeddedness, intellectual faults, and organizational hubris?

Fantastic.  Finally the concerns of the ec are being addressed by one of the most eloquent spokesmen of the evangelical world.  With that, I think Mohler's articles deserve to be reread and reheard and reseen with a little more openness because he is taking the pointing finger of judgment and turning it at least a little bit inward on evangelicals. 

Shoot, more like this and we may actually get somewhere.  This is the best of Mohler we have on the ec to date.

Top 10 Reasons I Love Mohler

I thought it would be a good time to release...

The Top 10 Reasons I Love Al Mohler

10. He has assembled one of the strongest groups of scholars in the world at SBTS
9. He once wore a Veggie Tales shirt for his son and allowed his picture to be taken
8. He stays up until the wee hours reading, writing, studying, and preparing for ministry
7. He is personally discipling interns who are becoming world-class scholars
6. He is willing to go on TV with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
5. He once called me "Scott" when I was trying to impress a friend with my "relationship" with Mohler
4. His wife helped mine during a difficult time
3. He writes faster than I can read
2. His library is almost as large as the Library of Congress
1. He is one of the most courageous men I've ever met, enduring death threats and protests in order to turn SBTS around

Emergent Evangelism

Doug Baker, who recently wrote this article that I was quoted in, has written a new article in Baptist Press titled, "Emergent Evangelism: Evangelism by Consensus?"  Here's a piece...

The "emerging" conversation is more than a generation gap in which the theology of former days (or lack of it) is being challenged by a wave of young ministers with cell phones, PDAs and e-mail via Blackberry. The tension is most evident in the perennial debate among evangelicals about how to "do" church. What should the church look like? How should the church of the 21st century worship and minister in a context of ever-increasing information, but diminishing wisdom? To what extent should tradition be jettisoned in favor of a "whatever works" strategy, and will such strategies reduce Christian evangelism to a mere technique?

[...]

Never has the need been more critical for the Gospel to be powerfully preached by the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. How that is done is largely settled in Holy Scripture. The public reading of the Bible, the corporate prayer of the church, the singing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs to one another, the ordinances of Christian baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the offering of confession and thanksgiving to God are all elements of public worship which are explicitly revealed in Scripture. Is it not strange that almost every modern theory of “emerging” churches disregard many of these direct commands in favor of more “evangelistic” and “relevant” methods? No amount of technology or innovation can ever eclipse or manipulate the clear biblical teaching that evangelism is not simply a matter of form, but of substance.

The Gospel is powerfully effective to save to the uttermost those who have faith in Jesus Christ. For the Gospel is not something men made up by consensus. The plan of salvation is not the accumulation and production of man’s thoughts, but the direct revelation of God. As such, it is to be preached, not amended according to demographics, and boldly declared, not adjusted for the sensitivities of modern audiences.

Please read the article and let me know if I'm missing something.  Is Doug saying emergent evangelism is form without substance?  Is it technology and not truth?  Is it whatever works and mere technique?  Am I totally missing something?  If I'm not, then I think this is a very skewed understanding of the emerging church.  Hey Doug, I know you stop by now and again.  Feel free to jump in bro, and let me know if I get your right or not.

Votes, Values & Voices at the SBC

Baptist Press has run an article in which several guys are quoted, one of them is me.  It's titled "Votes, Values & Voices at the SBC" and it's by Douglas Baker.  Doug interviewed me last Friday and was very thoughtful and conversational.  I think we have a lot in common. 

I'd love to hear your feedback.  I'll withhold my take until I read some responses.

SBC Theologians

Please read this by Michael Spencer (Internet Monk) on Who Let the Theologians in Here? (The SBC, that is.)    What do you think?  You need to read the whole post to get his point, but here's a blurb...

The growing "theologian class" in the SBC has very few places to go. They must make their own mischief. Once the seminaries and colleges are in conservative hands, then we can expect the theological battles to move "in-house." Watch for more doctrinal contention about matters less than crucial to the mission of church. Watch for "theological renewal" to take on more and more the cast of predictable "theological battles" between various teams in evangelicalism. Watch for the conservative resurgence to increasingly sound like a lot of young preacher boys arguing about Calvinism. (Around Louisville, it already does. With a liberal Presbyterian Seminary across the road, it's SBTS that is turning out preachers of TULIP.)

Watch for one strange turn. The new SBC theologians are culture warriors. They want to "engage" the culture, but what they mean is to assert conservative Christianity in the cultural battleground issues. These issues motivate many pastors and churches because they are "red meat" issues. Backed up by Dobson and the new evangelical media, the theological class is writing less about Baptist views of the church and more about fundamentalist views of the culture war.

Many of these theologians work hard to function as pundits of political and social concerns. These theologians will lead the church full speed into the culture wars....with little interest in how this will affect the overall mission of the church. And there is no denying that it is difficult to fight the culture war on one hand, and be focused on missional vision at the same time. Theology and mission are interwoven, but the negative, "fighting mode" vision of the culture warriors grows churches by bringing in the like-minded: White, suburban, Republican families.

Story

Opening line of new BP story quotes Bobby Welch as saying near the end of the convention...

"I want 'em to hear us in hell."

What exactly does this mean?  Are we gloating over those who are under condemnation?  Are we evangelizing hell now?  Are we trying to scare Satan with a red, white, and blue balloon drop?

Read on, and God help us...

"We're going to sound the charge in this room," he continued. "You don't win unless you go to war.

"We're going to attack the gates of hell for the sake of souls.

"We're going to sound in this room right now the charge to go on the assault," Welch said. "And we're also going to sound the celebration of the sure victory that's in Jesus Christ."

With the three-foot-long horn, Skaggs sounded the charge. Applause and cheers filled the room.

"Oh, yeah, I've got a feeling that in hell right now they're huntin' cover," Welch said.

Skaggs blew the horn again, and Welch said, "I want 'em to hear you in hell. And I want 'em to hear you in heaven. I want those who are on their way to hell to know we're coming. I want those in heaven to tune up, because there's gonna be some rejoicing in the next year because some folks will be off the road to hell and on their way to heaven," Welch said, the crowd's standing ovation continuing.

"Southern Baptists, honest, now, before God, who do you think could witness to and win and then, bless God, get 'em down to the church and baptize them? Who do you think could do that?"

"Everyone can -- and I'm it," the crowd yelled.

Fireworks exploding, balloons falling, shofar sounding, Southern Baptists geared up to leave the building to meet the challenge.

Where's the Mylanta?  This is going to be a long year.  I know Bobby Welch means well, God bless him.  I mean that.  But it's time for things to change.  Who's with me?

Moore on Mohler

Russ Moore tries to push Mohler's public school exit strategy.  The convention floor is heating up, and we aren't even in Nashville yet.

Word is Getting Out

Word is getting out that Reformissionary is blogging at the SBC.  Somehow, News 2 (ABC) in Nashville found out and linked to me on their blog, "Nashville is Talking."  Pretty cool.

Southern Baptist Convention Blogger

For all of you who are interested in following bloggers who will be attending the upcoming SBC annual meeting in Nashville, I'm here for you.  So you should bookmark this site, Reformissionary, keep an eye on my Emerging SBC Leaders site which should offer many links, and I also expect Joe Thorn and Marty Duren to blog as well.  I'll let you know if I find others.

I hope to update as much of the convention that I can get myself to sit through.  I will definitely be saying much about the "Younger Leaders Summit" on Sunday June 19th, some on the boring regular meetings on the 21st and 22nd and (though I'm sure I will miss some votes), and whatever else I can take note of.  I will be taking plenty of pics, and maybe even doing some vlogging if Joe teaches me how.

UPDATE: The convention hall is supposed to have wifi for some real-time blogging.

Young SBC'rs and the Bible

Joel Rainey has a good post over at Themelios on the conservative resurgence in the SBC and young leaders.  He is basically springboarding Stetzer's two articles.  It looks like Rainey is going to post more on this, and it should be a good read.

Baptist and Biblical

Baptist Press is releasing four articles on emerging young leaders.  The first article, "Young Leaders: Back to the Future" is by Bob Reccord, the leader of the North American Mission Board of the SBC.  It doesn't say much, but just by saying anything it says something.  In other words, by Reccord putting his name on the first article gives weight to whatever comes next.  Probably a good move in an all too political convention.

The second article, released today, is by Ed Stetzer: "Are 'Baptist' and 'Biblical' Synonyms?"  Ed created NewChurches.com and works at NAMB.

A few quotes from Stetzer concerning young SBC leaders.  My emphasis is in bold.

Theologically, they want “Baptist” and “biblical” to be synonyms. Missionally, they want Baptists to find new ways to reach our communities and the world.

[...]

The issues that are driving younger leaders away are not theological; they are cultural and missional. They are tired of being told that dress, worship style and traditional practices are biblical mandates when they are found neither in the Bible nor in the denomination’s faith statement.

[...]

In essence, we’re talking about their desire to be Christians who are living in a mission setting. As a result, their expressions of biblical worship use diverse music, preaching styles, dress, etc. It’s not about hipper clothes and cooler music. It’s about being God’s missionary where He has placed us now, not 50 or 500 years ago.

[...]

The conservative resurgence accomplished its purpose, and we have a group of young leaders committed to biblical theology and missional ministry. We must not now fight for our traditions as if they were our doctrine. They aren’t the same thing.

Younger leaders want to lead churches that are theologically sound and missionally committed. If they don’t find the SBC to be biblical and missional, they will find their own fellowships, and we will be the weaker for it. We had a theological resurgence, but young leaders want a missional resurgence, too. They want “Baptist” and “biblical” to be synonyms, and they want to get busy reaching the world!

Jimmy Draper Blog

UPDATE: Dr. Draper has now changed to a blog hosted at Lifeway.  Hopefully this will make comments possible, but not so much yet.

-----

Jimmy Draper, the head honcho over at SBC's Lifeway, is now blogging at Crosswalk.com (Lifeway).  Here's a link to his blog.  His first post is about blogging and about what he's learned in the Younger Leaders Dialogues (for emerging leaders in the SBC).  In the last paragraph he is very generous to my other site, Emerging SBC Leaders.  UPDATE: Baptist Press has an article on it as well.

Dr. Draper knows that he doesn't fully understand us, but also says that we don't fully understand his generation either.  Fair, and as he says, it's a good reason for us to talk.  It's obvious he could care less about blogging, but realizes that blogging is a means to connect with us better.  Good move.  Unfortunately he's using a blogging system that doesn't allow comments (which he admits), but it's a start anyway. 

A part of my concern with the current leadership of the SBC and older generations (if you will allow me to broadbrush), is that they usually think that for us this conversation is about our way of doing things vs. their way of doing things.  I don't think this site or the concerns we raise are only about (or even primarily about) doing things differently.  I think it's also about doing them better.  But maybe that's our problem too, in that we find things older generations do as always inferior to our brilliance.  We need to be very careful and willing to listen to see if we are overstating our case.

Is a desire to move from institutional to incarnational, or from monuments to a movement, about doing it different?  Or doing it better? Are we only about being different to reach younger generations, or more missional to reach all generations better?  I think these are some of the most important questions as we seek to see walls come down and find real understanding between us.

Rabid Dogs for Evangelism

Danny Akin, President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina (who once had an extended conversation with me while we peed in neighboring urinals in an SBTS bathroom, the topic was his seminary ethics class with Paige Patterson), is rightfully bemoaning the news that the stats show the conservative resurgence of the SBC has not made us more evangelistic. 

Unfortunately, his answer to the problem will never fix anything.  According to the ABP article on a talk from Akin, "In light of the downward evangelism trends, Akin urged North Carolina Baptists to become 'rabid dogs for evangelism' and defend 'the exclusivity of the gospel,' which contends that salvation comes only through Jesus."

While on the surface these things seem fine and all, I'm afraid it's just more of the same.  Don't you think the SBC President's bus ride for the cause of gaining like a zillion new baptisms should do the trick?  Maybe we need more SBC leaders to take more tours of the country in more unique vehicles.  Like Mohler in a new H3 looking for "Deeper Theology by 2133" and Akin on a train with his campaign "Riding Along Till Marriages are Strong." 

Sorry, I'm just a little frustrated.  Akin's a great bathroom conversationalist, a passionate guy, and a man of God.  But once the "rabid dogs" line doesn't really make a difference (like all the other lines before it) someone will just think of another, like "Let's crap the truth like a diarrhetic goose!"  You get the picture.

Hey SBC'rs!  How about this.  Maybe we need to be more missional.  Maybe our problem isn't that we should say the gospel more (and more like sick dogs), but that we should say it better.  Not with better words, but in better ways, like people and families and churches that are incarnated in the culture.  Healing and suffering and loving speaks!  We have too long divorced the spoken gospel from the lived gospel in the SBC.  That's the real key to fixing our statistical nightmare.  And that means we should just admit our cute sayings and bolder thrusts and clever tricks and canned evangelism just isn't good enough and actually encourage our people to live out the gospel.  We need to live redemptively, missionally, incarnationally.

Maybe we need more thoroughly missional people who live and breathe and eat the gospel.  Maybe we need more people joining book clubs or bowling leagues or knitting classes and building relationships there that will lead to helping and serving and loving and redeeming.

Church Discipline of Non-Bush Voters

Um...kicked out for politics?  Ousted for political views?  Seriously?

I just knew this would come as a result.

UPDATE (5.10.05): I really hoped there wouldn't be a single person who would dare try to explain away or defend such ecclesi-elastical sillyness.  My hopes were unrealized.

UPDATE (5.11.05): Okay, something I'm not surprised to see.  The pastor resigns.

Mohler Get's a New Chair

Congratulations to Al Mohler, President of Southern Seminary, for being appointed to an historic position.

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s board of trustees has elected President R. Albert Mohler Jr. to the Joseph Emerson Brown Chair of Christian Theology.

The chair has been held by other giants on the landscape of Southern Seminary’s history such as founding President James Pettigru Boyce and E.Y. Mullins, seminary president from 1899 to 1928. Mohler was elected the seminary’s ninth president in 1993.

“It is an historic chair in systematic theology and we believe an historic president like Dr. Mohler deserves to be teaching from this chair,” said Russell D. Moore, dean of the school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration, said after the seminary trustee action April 26. “This will be a great and momentous act in Southern Seminary history.”

Mohler responds...

“This means more than I can say,” Mohler said of the trustee action. “Especially with Dr. Boyce and Dr. Mullins holding that chair during their presidencies, it is an historical connection that speaks to my heart and to the sense of calling.

“It also is a reminder that the Lord has used significant individuals [such as Brown] to make this institution what it is. Some of these names are inscribed on buildings, some are memorialized in scholarship and professorships, and it is easy for us to forget what they meant and who they were.”

Read the entire Baptist Press article.

Kevin Ezell Should Apologize

I was so ticked last night that I couldn't even post on this. 

The Family Research Council (FRC) is holding an anti-filibuster telecast with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Al Mohler, Charles Colson, and Jim Dobson at Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky on Sunday, April 24.  Highview is a Southern Baptist mega-church pastored by Kevin Ezell where several Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professors and students are members.  They are calling this Sunday "Justice Sunday."

It seems that enough Christian conservatives are so frustrated with how some in congress are handling Bush's judicial nominees that they have decided to put together this event.  They are upset at how "people of faith" who intend to become judges are being persecuted.   President of the FRC, Tony Perkins, said, "We must stop this unprecedented filibuster of people of faith."

Some others don't see things the same way.  One of those is Joseph Phelps.  Joe is pastor of the more moderate (but still Southern Baptist) Highland Baptist Church in Louisville.  He wrote an April 21 guest editorial in Louisville's Courier-Journal called "A Tale of Two Churches," contrasting Highview and Highland and their different views of justice, though he admits they are following the same Jesus.

Highland and Highview both advocate on behalf of moral issues in the public square. But Justice Sunday has caused Highview to leap into the partisan political process, and to be associated with erroneous, alarmist assertions about filibusters which supposedly threaten people of faith. In doing so, they have moved beyond the realm of the church's resources and expertise and into a realm where churches are neither equipped nor permitted to go.

Highview and Highland are still linked as sisters by our witness to Jesus. Our differing paths make for interesting family reunions. But we can't give up, just as the larger culture of which we are but a microcosm, cannot give up. We are family.

In a recent Associated Baptist Press article, "Louisville pastor criticizes church for hosting anti-filibuster rally" by Robert Marus, Ezell responded this way (emphasis mine).

"I'm saddened that some of these pastors that really, evidently, don't have a lot to do spend time criticizing other churches," Ezell told Associated Baptist Press. "I would encourage him to spend time reaching more people -- his numbers would seem to indicate he needs it," he continued, presumably referring to Highland Baptist's Sunday attendance figures.

He also took issue with Phelps describing Highland and Highview as "sister churches" in the Courier-Journal article. "I would think we're more like distant cousins," Ezell said.

It's sad that "Justice Sunday" has become Ezell's excuse for a beat-down of a "distant cousin" over their attendance numbers (by the way, Highland has added more members in the last year an a half than many SBC churches have in attendance).  Mega-church arrogance and personality-driven ministry has reared its ugly head and said what we small church pastors have felt they might have thought all along: size does matter. 

Now, I truly believe Ezell is growing sorrier by the minute as he is surely receiving criticism from some wise and thoughtful SBTS profs, Al Mohler, and others.  He hasn't handled a volatile public issue with much grace, and I'm sure he'll learn from it. 

But there is absolutely, without question, no excuse for Ezell's comments.  However you judge the moderate theology of Highland or Phelps, Ezell has made a personal attack.  This is a church attack.  And regarless of his view on politics, filibusters, or even the relationship between Highview and Highland, Ezell should publicly apologize for his silly comments. 

Maybe brokenness over our struggles to love one another (on all of our parts) will show we are all still weighed down with sinful attitudes and actions, still needing forgiveness, and in fact more like sisters than distance cousins after all.  God help us.

For more:
Washington Post
Louisville Courier Journal
Lexington WKYT
Lexington Herald-Leader
KY Post
Associated Press

UPDATE:
Louisville Courier-Journal - various links concerning "Justice Sunday": Link 1 (specific to comments mentioned in my post), Link 2,  Link 3, Link 4, Link 5, Link 6, Link 7

Not More, But Better

Just when there seems to be a hint of a trail-head leading 'emerging SBC leaders' out of the SBC's denominational morass, we may find our feet plugged in the muck once again.

Jimmy Draper is the leader of Lifeway, the uber-resource for Southern Baptist publications.  He is also the one SBC leader who had enough guts to care about and facilitate talks with young SBC leaders.  In the mix is Lifeway's Younger Leaders Solutions board, which is an almost worthless (though noble-intentioned) place for emerging leaders to offer our 2 cents about the need for the SBC to change.  I've offered an alternative which is growing every day, Emerging SBC Leaders.

For the record, I am very encouraged that Dr. Draper has spent time with young leaders, opened his ears and heart, made an honest attempt, and so on.  I am encouraged by his concern, have nothing against him personally, and I look forward to meeting him at the SBC Annual Meeting in June.

That said, the gap between those emerging and those mired in the ways of yesterday is ever clearer as Dr. Draper has offered a new article on the gospel in Baptist Press.

Draper thinks we need a lesson in economics.

Evangelicals need a basic business lesson. Research shows that evangelicals are not supplying the Gospel in a manner that matches the public’s demand.

What is demanded by Americans?  Draper gives his opinion.

A recent MSNBC/Newsweek online survey asked readers the following question: “Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead after the crucifixion?” Eighty-one percent of those who answered responded “yes,”....It reflects other research showing that the population at large is searching for meaning in life.  

So, according to Draper, people's belief in the resurrection shows they are searching for meaning in life.  And churches are failing to supply the meaning of life to those who demand it.  Why?

Draper believes it's because evangelism isn't the highest priority for pastors.

Sadly, according to a previously released Barna Group study, fewer than half (46 percent) of the Protestant senior pastors surveyed listed evangelism and outreach as a ministry priority. Spiritual development finished No. 1 at 47 percent. (Sixty percent of Southern Baptist pastors place evangelism as their top priority).

Spiritual development is important, but it is not the primary purpose of the church....We’ve turned churches into comfortable country clubs for members when, in fact, the purpose of the church is to reach those who are not members. Evangelism is the proper expression of mature, or discipled believers.

I don't think Draper adequately shows that a cultural belief in the resurrection means people are seeking the meaning of life.  Honestly, I'm not sure what it shows.  It probably shows that most Americans are liars, or have cultural beliefs but not real beliefs, or are willing to go along with what mommy and daddy told them to believe.  I think he makes a tremendous leap here to make "supply and demand" seem plausible, but I don't see it.

But I do believe it's a biblical notion that God has made us for something bigger than the mirror, and therefore everyone is in some sense looking for meaning in life.  People are inescapably religious.  But sadly people are usually falsely religious because they reject the God of Creation for other things (Rom 1).  Let's leave that theological point aside and focus on those who are truly hungry.

Draper's answer for meeting this innate spiritual hunger is to avoid focusing on discipleship more than evangelism, and then do more evangelism. 

But we should never attempt to put evangelism against discipleship. Jesus didn't when he said in Matthew 28 to make disciples of all nations.  That means more disciples (evangelism, baptism) and better disciples (teaching/discipleship).  Evangelism and discipleship are organically connected vines, not puzzle pieces locked together.

But Draper seems to understand this already when he says, "Evangelism is the proper expression of mature, or discipled believers."  I think he realizes it's not less discipleship, but better discipleship that results in evangelism. 

And I think Draper's answer, that we need more evangelism, only hints at the problem.  Surely there isn't enough evangelism, but we don't need more bad evangelism.  We need more better evangelism. 

We need evangelism that doesn't see people as a demands to be supplied, but as image-bearers to be loved.  We need evangelism that is not first organizational, but organic and relational.  We need evangelism that is not about keeping a tally of distributed tracts (look for the tally at June's SBC), but about spending time shooting pool with sinners. 

It's no wonder that Draper and other SBC leaders are struggling to understand emerging generations.  He takes statistics and economic ideas and tries to paint the church as a failing business that needs to retool on the fundamentals of 'supply and demand.'  But emerging generations see things more organically. 

SBC leaders, please hear us.  We will not be professional pastors who are running a "supply and demand" business.  We want better disciples believing better theology and doing better evangelism through better families and homes and churches.

Draper told us that Jesus said in Matthew 9:37, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few."  No doubt, we need to pray for more laborers.  That's biblical.  But more of the same evangelism and discipleship we see today will never solve our problems. 

That is, in my opinion, a big part of what being an emerging SBC leader is.  The status quo is not acceptable.  Reformission is necessary and good.

Emerging Church Threat to the Gospel

When are Southern Baptist leaders going to do more than shout from afar at those involved in the emerging church conversation? 

Baptist Press has once again added to the misinformation on the emerging church in a March 23rd article by David Roach: "Leaders Call 'Emerging Church Movement' a Threat to Gospel."  The article includes quotes from Don Carson, a series of quotes from Al Mohler's critique of Brian McLaren's book, A Generous Orthodoxy, and quotes from Brian McLaren. 

Some of us are trying to enhance the conversation about the emerging church "movement" with thoughtfulness.  But BP (to this point) and other thinkers are trying to fill the SBC with anti-emerging noise and knee-jerk reactions as quickly as they can.  It feels like propaganda.  With every article like this published for the masses, the hope for fruitful dialogue fades.  Misinformation will need to be fixed, stereotypes will have to be dropped, and straw men will need to be put back in the corn field where they belong.

For the record, I have emailed an SBC pastor (a regular contributor to BP) about one of his articles that is heavy on judgment and without grace to some in our culture (which emerging folks are fed up with).  No response.  I have emailed and informed Russ Moore of my response to his article on the emerging church and Brian McLaren.  I know he received it, but no response. 

I'm doing all I know to do to encourage emerging SBC leaders like me to work patiently in the convention to see biblical change.  But SBC leaders are (unintentionally?) working hard to push away many in emerging generations rather than talk about the truth together. 

Listen, I don't agree with everything in the emergent conversation, or by McLaren.  But much of the emergent critique of the evangelical church is showing brilliance every time an article like this one from BP is published. 

This is a public call to Baptist Press and Southern Baptists, coming from a young Southern Baptist pastor, to talk about the emerging church with some young SBC leaders.  We certainly need to hear you, but you also need to hear us.  I think a little dialogue will show that it's actually possible to engage in the emerging church conversation and be a committed Southern Baptist at the same time.

Young SBC Leaders

Is the Southern Baptist Convention worth changing?  Can young "emerging" leaders not only feel welcome, but also start to influence this denomination?  Should we? 

I'm a Southern Baptist.  I heard the gospel for the first time in a Southern Baptist church in Southern Illinois and was converted as a 21 year old college student.  I've been a member of Southern Baptist churches in Colorado, Texas, and Kentucky.  Now I pastor one in Northern Illinois.  (It was nice not to say "Southern" one more time.)  I'm excited about our mission focus, our historical doctrinal understanding, and our cooperational goals.

I'm also engaged in the conversation called "emergent" or the "emerging church."  While emergent is not monolithic, and though I'm still learning myself, I have found all kinds of people taking part and working to reach emerging generations with the good news.  I'm excited about shedding some modern barriers to understanding the Bible and Jesus, dropping my judgmental attitudes toward culture, and embracing a biblical call to social justice that has been missing in my life. 

The thing is I would guess that many SBC'rs would read the above and think that any tie to emergent is a silly postmodern sellout.  (Or they would say, "What's emergent?")  And many in emergent would probably read the above and think that anyone who is thinking emergent thoughts is crazy to stay in the SBC fundamentalism morass.  (Or they would say, "SBC'rs don't dance, right?")

I think it's time for young Southern Baptist pastors and church leaders to start a conversation of our own.  I know Lifeway has facilitated that on their own discussion board and through some meetings hosted by Jimmy Draper.  But after perusing the board, I'm not sure that conversation is really going to be helpful.  Young SBC leaders, in my opinion, need a place outside the denominational web pages to find each other and get our own conversation going. 

If the Southern Baptist Convention is going to be relevant in the future, some pretty dramatic changes are going to have to take place.  That doesn't mean abandoning truth, becoming postmodernists, and producing The Deconstructed Holman Christian Standard Bible.  It means realizing that reaching emerging generations will mean much smaller and very different organizational structures, talking differently to the culture (boycotting boycotts, etc.), and getting leadership from emerging leaders among other things.

I've already found some helpful thoughts from Adam.  I know Joe is game.  If you are a young SBC leader and realize some of these changes need to happen, I invite you to leave a note, spread the word to others, and let's start building a conversation of our own.  Share your ideas about how we can encourage more conversation.  And if you aren't in the SBC but you know SBC'rs who need to be in this conversation, please encourage them to come here.

Evangelunacy

I'm the pastor of a church associated with the Southern Baptist Convention.  For many reasons that's a good thing, but today I'm not too proud of it because I got this from our main press organization, Baptist Press.  It's an article promoting "revival meetings" to reach the younger generations.

I'm sure SBC evangelists think they are trying to get the word out on what they believe is important, but it feels more like they are low on cash and need to put out some pro-evangelist propaganda.  And if it was just propaganda, I wouldn't freak out about it.  But it's much worse than that.

The author (who is the president of an organization of Southern Baptist evangelists) seems to think "revival" meetings are the key to evangelistic success among 9 to 29 year olds, who happen to be coming to Jesus in fewer numbers.  He says, "What is the cure? Hold an old-fashioned revival meeting."  Why? 

"Thirty-three to 50 percent of all baptisms come from revivals and harvest days. Use an evangelist! Ninety-eight percent of the time that a vocational evangelist is used to preach the revival services, someone accepts Christ. If there is adequate preparation for the revival, that figure jumps even higher."

Wow, this guy has God figured out.  Push the right buttons, get the right results.  God is a cosmic vending machine.

The article continues as the evangelist talks about "Homer," his ventriloquist doll, who tells kids not only to accept Jesus into their hearts, but then to raise their hands and come forward during the invitation.  Here is Homer's advice for kids...

"I ask the children not to pray if they are not going to come forward at the end of the revival service. The word "faith" means commitment."

Look, I'm all for a faith that is a living faith, a real and committed faith.  But the invitation system forces faith into an extra-biblical mold.  So now our commitment to Jesus isn't enough.  It's not enough to talk to your parents or pray with your pastor I guess.  Why not just tell the kids the truth: "Little ones, you need to walk up and shake the hand of the funny chubby guy with the doll so he can prop you up as his trophy and notch your name on his belt."

Here's my response to these issues and more in this article: In 2003 the SBC boasted of more than 16 million members while the average attendance of church worship services was less than 6 million.  Could this be because decades of "old-fashioned revival meetings" have produced a lot of empty decisions but very few disciples?  Could this be because we love numbers more than souls?

This is the problem between real revival and "revivalism."  True revival is something God does in the hearts of people that brings real change.  "Revivalism" is a program or event that produces emotionally manipulated decisions through 14 verses of "Just As I Am" led by some guy with a bad comb-over and a peach colored suit. 

Hey, I know some people have probably been genuinely converted through "revival" meetings, The 700 Club, and maybe even through the preaching of false teachers like T.D. Jakes.  I don't mean to discourage these people as they follow Christ.  Stay faithful. 

But we need to call it like it is and reject this kind of evangelism.  We shouldn't reject it because it's "old-fashioned."  We should reject it because it's unbiblical and ultimately turns the culture off to the life-changing gospel.

Programs are not the answer for emerging generations.  People are the answer, people who know Jesus and who love and serve others.  We need to be people who are willing to be transparent and real so that we can have genuine and meaningful relationships where the gospel is not only spoken, but lived out.

Emmitt and "Church"

Once again, the main news organization of my denomination is, like most evangelicals, trying so hard to find something worthy of praise in the sports world that discernment seems to go out the window.

Emmitt Smith, longtime running back of the Dallas Cowboys (with a career ending hiccup in Phoenix, probably for added yardage for records and such) has now retired.  He has had a remarkable career, though not very flashy.  And Smith seems eager to return to Dallas and his home church, and speaks openly of his faith in Christ and desire to point to Christ for the results of his career. 

So far, so good. 

But I'm frustrated with Baptist Press (BP) and this article because there is no concern about Smith's involvement in a church that doesn't believe in the God presented in Scripture.

Smith, along with other former Cowboys Deon Sanders and Michael Irvin, belong to The Potter's House, pastored by T.D. Jakes.  Jakes subscribes to the theological heresy called "modalism."  This is the belief that the Trinity doesn't consist of three co-equal and co-eternal persons, but rather that the one God (one person) manifests Himself in three different modes at different times.  This heresy has never been accepted as biblical and historical teaching, except among some fringe groups and Oneness Pentecostals. 

I know BP would probably rebut this by saying they are simply reporting the event, what was said by Smith, and how that would be of interest to Southern Baptists.  The problem is, they have made certain assumptions that less informed Southern Baptists will take for granted.  They assume that The Potter's House is a Christian church.  They assume we can speak of Smith's faith in the same breath as ours.  And they assume that because Smith points to Jesus that we should rejoice in that too.

I'm not on a witch hunt here.  I do believe it's all too common for true believers to be in a false movements and churches.  Smith may be deluded as to the truth of the Trinity.  But that doesn't mean that as he speaks of faith and church that he speaks of the same faith and "Church" that we speak of, especially when we can see the obvious false teaching of the particular church in question.

On top of this theological heresy, Jakes also teaches the "health and wealth gospel" and is considered a "faith teacher" which are both movements among some charismatics teaching that Jesus was a rich man and that believers should be rich and healthy, and that we can "name and claim" our desires and we will receive them if we truly believe.  It's no surprise that Jakes owns a 1.7 million dollar mansion in Dallas.

It's time for a little discernment Baptist Press.  You can read more about Jakes and his beliefs at the Christian Research Institute.