Paige Patterson on Campus Violence

Last week in a chapel service at SWBTS, seminary president Paige Patterson admonished the male students to be prepared to stand up to, and stop a campus shooter, should such violence ever occur at the seminary. The clip can be found here (4/18).

Yesterday, the seminary released a statement, written by Dr. Patterson expanding his remarks.
Since his original remarks last wednesday, many have criticized the president for "being insensitive" and for a myriad of other charges, most stemming from each pundit's interpretation of his motives.

I will not make apology for his remarks. Dr. Patterson has been called many things, but "sensitive" is not usually one of them. I do, however believe it is important for us not to judge his motives, only God and Dr. Patterson can know those. I will agree, even as a current student of the seminary, that his remarks struck me as quite bizarre. Upon reading the press release, however it appears to me that he does raise a legitimate viewpoint. Dr. Patterson views Christianity as a faith of selflessness and sacrifice, and rightly so for this is what the Bible commands of us. I agree with Dr. Patterson that the values of courage and sacrifice are important and ought to be taught at our seminaries.

How then should our faith work itself out in our lives? Does our faith lead us to attack a gunman in order to save the lives of others? Or does it manifest itself in other ways? I pray that the day never comes when someone with intent to kill enters our churches or seminaries (again), yet if and when that day does come, we should have an idea of just what our faith does call us to do. Are we to show our faith through quiet martyrdom, or are we to actively struggle against one intent on doing harm? Each of us must answer that question for ourselves.

Mississippi Baptists Remember Abortion Victims

I recently read this story from Baptist Press and found it especially noteworthy. The Baptist convention from Mississippi (my home state) has come up with a unique way to remember the lives that have been extinguished by Abortion, and at the same time to raise money, "to create a permanent endowment fund for pro-life projects, such as assisting with the operations of crisis pregnancy centers and other efforts for women with unwanted pregnancies."

What are they doing? They have built the "Memorial to the Missing," a 12-by-16 foot clear building, made of bulletproof glass to contain 50 million pennies. The memorial stands in front of the Mississippi Baptist Building, across from the Mississippi Capitol Building in Jackson. Visitors can contribute by dropping pennies into the memorial or by mailing them in to the Convention Offices. According to the report, over 26 million pennies have been collected to date toward the goal of 50 million.

Here's one of the coolest parts of the story, to me:

The Memorial to the Missing itself is weighty. When Mississippi Baptists finish contributing 50 million pennies -– $500,000 -– to it, it will weigh 156 tons or 312,000 pounds, roughly as much as 100 automobiles. Pylons driven 15 feet into the ground support the glass structure, built free of charge by a John Laws III, a Presbyterian layman who owns a construction company in Flowood, Miss.

I must say, I'm impressed by this effort and think it's a great idea to raise awareness and money to save these unborn babies. Jim Futral, the Convention's Executive Director-Treasurer had this to say: “We want people to know when they see the memorial that these children are not out of sight and out of mind.” It's most important to me to see that not only are Mississippi Baptists raising money, but they are also remembering these families and that lives are being impacted. This sunday, January 21st, Mississippi Baptist Churches will take a special offering "in remembrance of the unborn" and to go toward helping mothers choose life for their unborn babies.

Blogging on the Decline?

Recently I read an interesting post from Washington Post contributor Marc Fisher. You can find it here. This piece discusses media research that suggests that blogging is on the decline. It's no surprise to me, and I know that we have witnessed such decline even recently as a number of blogs in the SBC ghetto (for lack of a better word) have closed shop in the past few weeks.

Overall, the novelty of blogging seems to have worn off for many who have entered the forum. While this could be a good sign--and perhaps a sign of the free-market process whereby many blogs are culled so that the remainder are of higher quality, I am not convinced that this must be the case. While we may see an improvement in overall quality of the writing and content in the blogosphere, I believe that we've lost a number of good bloggers who have lost interest as well.

Perhaps the question is to be considered, "Is blogging ultimately a worthwhile pursuit?" Personally I maintain that the forum has great potential and there are worthwhile ideas being exchanged. However, I also recognize that many blogs are simply for people with too much time on their hands and too much "hot air."

At present there seems to be a lot of discussion that, while it may at some point prove worthwhile, currently amounts to a lot of wheel-spinning chatter. That is not to say that the issue of who will run the SBC and who will be welcome there is unimportant. There are a number of theological and practical points that need to be made with regard to this debate. Many of these points are in fact being argued even now. My concern however is that we are focusing too much on minutiae and, in so doing, losing sight of any bigger picture.

To me the current dialogue among many baptist blogs feels reminiscent of trench warfare. Both sides are quickly becoming more and more entrenched and consequently, little ground will be gained by either side anytime soon. It remains to be seen yet whether there will be changes made in the SBC as a result of the discussion here in the blogosphere. In short, there's a lot of talk, but will it amount to anything of substance? This is the real question.

Which Is More Important: Being Right or Being Righteous?

Recent news from the annual SBTC meeting has raised quite a bit of discussion. Of interest is the discussion on Art Rogers’s Twelve Witnesses blog. After reading this discussion, I was prompted to read and discuss the 2006 resolutions from the SBTC meeting. A pastor friend of mine pointed out some surprising resolutions, which I believe merit closer scrutiny. First off, these resolutions merit scrutiny because they were discussed and examined by committee members and then, presumably, the voting body present at the meeting. Secondly, they represent the views of a significant portion of Southern Baptists (significant, though I could not give any specific number or percentage).

Here are some of the resolutions: (for further reference see the SBTC 2006 Resolutions [pdf format]). Bold emphasis mine.
Resolution #2 “On the Sufficiency of the Word of God for the Entire Christian Life”
The resolution runs into trouble about second resolution statement:

RESOLVED, we call on Texas Southern Baptists to remember that the Word of God alone is righteous, and that fallen human beings lack righteousness; and be it further

WHAT? The Word of God is certainly inspired, but not righteous, nor is IT righteous ALONE. Friends, the Bible tells us what is and is not righteous, but I know of nowhere in the scriptures that Bible is called righteous, much less exclusively holding such an attribute (an attribute of God no less). Let us continue:

RESOLVED, we encourage Southern Baptists to remember that the Word of God alone is able to redeem sinful human beings, and that they may look nowhere else than to the Bible for the source of redemption; and be it further

Did I miss something? Whatever happened to “What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus?” Now the Bible (a Holy book and the Word of God) is able to save us? Should we put our faith in the Bible or in the God that it tells us about?

We’re doing ok with the rest of the resolutions, which are emphasize the importance of the study and application of the Word of God. I want to comment again on a couple of things. I totally agree that we should give the Bible precedence over any other reading, studying, or singing material. We definitely ought to live, worship, disciple, and minister according to the Word of God, although we must remember that we worship not the Bible itself, but Jesus Christ, without whom there would be no need for such a book.

Q: How did this slip by so many people? Was this an accident or was there something that I missed. I read the Observations (the WHEREAS statements), so I think I got the context, but I still don’t see a reason to elevate scripture to the role of Savior.

The third resolution of the SBTC was concerning Tongues and a Private Prayer Language.

The resolutions are as follows:

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention meeting in Austin, Texas, November 13-14, 2006, declare that Southern Baptists in Texas typically believe that the modern practice of private prayer languages lacks a tangible foundation in Scripture; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we are opposed to unscriptural teaching relating to speaking in tongues, whether such speech be done in private or public; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention not knowingly to employ consultants and ministry staff who participate in or promote views or practices contrary to the position described herein; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage all Southern Baptists to be patient, kind, and loving toward one another (1 Corinthians 13:4-8) regarding this ancillary theological issue, which ought not to constitute a test of fellowship; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we encourage all Southern Baptists to refocus their attention upon the public and intelligible proclamation of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the divine Trinity, Who became a man, died on the cross, and arose from the dead, so that those who believe in Him may have eternal and abundant life.

Now for my question: Why? I don’t mean the observations (the WHEREAS statements), I mean why the whole resolution on this. I understand that the issue was brought up recently and has been a big deal, but it is an issue that divides, and needlessly so. I read the resolutions that say that "this ought not to constitute a test of fellowship," but they've left no room for those who wholeheartedly embrace the private prayer language. They include the cessationist and open but cautious, but exclude continualists.

My personal views on the private prayer language (and a number of other charismata) would best be described as an “open but cautious” view. I am not a cessationist, nor an avid continualist. One of the central issues that faces the SBC today and various state conventions and associations down to the personal level is a single question. The question here is whether it is more important to be right or more important to be righteous. The two are not always mutually exclusive, but in this instance, as with a number of non-essentials, the question is valid.

We must ask ourselves if it is more important to cooperate with others who may disagree with us on non-essential issues (I’m talking about others of like faith here) to further the work of the Kingdom or if it is more important to be right on the non-essential issues. If being right is more important, then we’re in the wrong. Are we so fixated on the small issues that we lose sight of the big ones? How much have churches grown in the SBTC this year? How many new people have we reached with the gospel? Can cooperating with other churches improve these areas? How many people will be saved by denouncing a private prayer language? Surely that will make people run to our churches! (I think not).

The other resolutions (on which I will not now comment at length) include topics of: Alcohol, Immigration, Wal-Mart (will a boycott follow?), North Korea (I definitely agree with boycotting them), The CP, and The conflict in Darfur.

In conclusion I have to say this; we ought to continue to carefully consider the issues that we give weight to. I agree that a number of these issues are important and should be addressed, but others may be best left without an official position. If we are obsessed with being right, how far will we go to make sure that we are always right? Will we exclude anyone who disagrees with us? When that happens we will end up alone and powerless to bring about any change in our world. Let us remember that it is through our faith and our unity (i.e. cooperation) that we are able to be God’s agents for change in this world.

What Makes the SBC Great

I have always attended only Southern Baptist Churches. All my life I’ve been taught that the SBC is great and that Southern Baptist is the way to be. As a child and a youth I never questioned why I was a Baptist, but once I began my college and seminary education I did question. As I have learned about our Baptist Heritage, our Baptist Polity, and Baptist theology I am still as convinced as ever that I am Southern Baptist, now by conviction not simply by upbringing.

Although I confess I do not know everything there is to know about the SBC or its politics, I recognize that our convention at a crossroads. There are voices and personalities vying for change in the convention. Some cry out for widening the SBC “tent,” others for narrowing it. I personally tend to like this old tent the way it is.

While this squabble goes on and tensions build, I seek to humbly remind those who will listen of the simple beauty of the denomination to which we belong.

The SBC is great for a number of reasons. Foremost of these reasons is a single overarching principle—unity amidst diversity. Although we come from different places, backgrounds, and sometimes speak different languages; although we may govern our churches differently, or have different priorities in ministry; although our churches may be big, HUGE, small, or tiny; despite all our differences we come together under one banner and one simple belief system that uniquely defines us all as “Baptist.”

Our unity makes us great: Although the SBC claims over 16 million people in over 40,000 congregations, all Southern Baptists are united by a single faith. We affirm Jesus Christ to be the true and only way of Salvation. We honor and study the same holy book – the Bible. Southern Baptist churches are guided by two documents—the Bible and the Baptist Faith and Message.

Our mission makes us great: Southern Baptists recognize that Jesus commanded us to go into all the world and proclaim the Good News. To this end, Baptists send hundreds of missionaries, raise millions of dollars, and have formed benchmark organizations such as the NAMB and IMB.

Our structure makes us great: The SBC is not one big church; it is thousands of individual churches, with their own unique values and goals that have come together to support a greater mission or cause—namely the advancement of the Gospel. Our cooperative program funds the six major SBC seminaries (one of which I attend), as well as our missions organizations, and a number of other endeavors. Our size is a strength because it allows us to mobilize resources on a scale that none of us could achieve individually.

Our heritage makes us great: While there have been blots on our past, such as slavery and segregation, the SBC also carries a rich tradition of faithfulness to the word of God. In the past century and a half the SBC has raised up numerous men and women of God, many who have gone on to achieve great recognition and prominence, and more still who will be richly rewarded in heaven if not on earth.

Finally, the SBC is great because of our future potential. As a seminary student I see that there is the potential for a bright future in ministry, not only for me but also for the many other seminarians and young ministers who serve Christ within our denomination. There is also a potential for strife and dissention in our near future. We must choose today what we consider important, as our actions now will determine our future. Will we seek to conform the SBC to our personalities or will we leave room for disagreement? We must hold the line and maintain the integrity of orthodox and Baptist theology while at the same time allowing the diversity that makes us great.

Here’s the bottom line: If we narrow the tent too far, it will fall down upon us; widen it too broadly and it will come apart at the seams. We must determine where to put the stakes into the ground and leave them there. The BFM 2000 is still a good tent, in it there’s some clarity but we must maintain room for diversity.

Politics and the SBC pt.2

In my previous post I discussed my views on the issue of politics within the SBC. I discussed a few definitions of politics and I made this statement:
The Church in America must stop playing politics, but must not retreat from the political realm altogether.

Having discussed this issue of playing politics within the Church, I believe it is important to look at the role the Church (and the SBC in particular since that is the church or group of church of which I am a part) within the political realm.

First, what I’m not saying. I am not doing an about-face on my previous post. I am not advocating that the church ought to “play politics” outside its boundaries while not playing politics within. My views on this issue are somewhat Falwellian, this I admit up front. I was a student at Liberty University for four years and agree in many respects with his philosophy of political involvement. With that said I will proceed to lay out my own view (not necessarily his view).

Should the church be involved in the political realm? YES!

It seems foolish to ignore the political realm because we believe in separation of church and state. Separation of Church and State may be a good policy in a number of respects, but it ought not equate to separation of Christians from government. When we surrender the political realm to those whose worldviews are diametrically opposed to ours we are not being godly, we are being negligent. I am not saying that America should be ruled by the Bible, but that I would much rather have advocates within the government who will be sympathetic to the Church and allow the free spread of the gospel than be ruled by those who are more sympathetic toward Muslim or atheistic influences to the exclusion of Christianity.

As to the issue of persecution, I too agree that the church often grows through persecution, yet I recall that persecution and subjugation in the Old Testament are punishments for not honoring God in the first place. We should desire to be more Christ-like, and as we pursue that goal we will encounter more than enough suffering without actively seeking it. Our goal should be godliness, and not the persecution that often leads to it.

Having answered one objection I’ll move to another. Some will say that we ought to stay out of the political realm because “politics is evil,” or “the devil’s business,” or some such nonsense. These arguments ultimately fall flat because their foundation—the premise that politics is wicked simply is not so. The fact that many politicians are not good people, or do not hold to a standard of Christian morality does not make the science of politics inherently evil. With that said, however, I do agree that we must guard our hearts when we do foray into that arena, for we know that power and money can often lead to corruption (but that’s a post for another day).

The corruption within the political realm seems to be all the more reason for the church to go there. Three of the gospels give an account of Jesus dining with Matthew (who had been a tax collector). The Pharisees question Him and here is what Matthew’s own account says:
“And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ But when he heard it, he said, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.’” Matthew 9:11-13

There’s a post on Bowden McElroy’s blog about some others who are going where the sinners are here. We must be willing to go where the gospel is needed – this includes confronting our leaders with the message of Christ.

What is our role to be?
A) Be Good Citizens
The New Testament seems to indicate that Christians are to be good citizens of the community, nation, or kingdom of which they are a part. In Romans 13 Paul tells us that we are to subject ourselves to our authorities and give them the honor that they are due (including the confiscatory taxes they charge). Peter likewise exhorts us in 1 Peter 2 to honor the authorities and do good as a way of honoring God. Jesus himself in the first three gospels encourages submission to Caesar.

In America, we are in a unique position. The democratic republic did not exist in Jesus’ day. Christians then did not get to choose who would govern them. I believe that we are to engage in the political process and choose godly leaders.

B) The SBC should work to advance the gospel, using social programs to advance that goal if necessary.
I do not believe in big government. I do believe, as a political and religious conservative that individuals are to take personal responsibility for their conduct and well-being. It is not the government’s job to care for the needy in the community—it is the job of the church. The scriptures exhort us to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and visit those in prison. I’ll admit this is a challenge that I don’t often feel up to. I am thankful that we have ministries that are designed to reach out to those who are in need and who are hurting and I confess that I often feel inadequate to meet those needs.

C) Be Advocates for Godliness in our Sphere of Influence.
Some may be wondering, “Does this include lobbying?" Absolutely! Since we have a say in what our government does and the laws it passes, we have a responsibility to advocate for Christ’s interests (as His ambassadors!). I hear some saying already “But you can’t legislate morality!” This is true and I agree. However, we can and should have laws that dictate and enforce civil order. The New Testament says that the government’s role is to punish the evil and reward the good. This ought to be our framework as we advocate for godliness. Murder, rape, theft, adultery, kidnapping, and the like are evil, and should be punished. Do we not also believe that homosexuality, polygamy, fornication, and drug and alcohol abuse are immoral behaviors? We can and should have laws that protect the institutions that we hold dear, such as the church and the family.

As Christians we believe that the Christian worldview is superior to all others. That is the nature of our faith—it is (rightly) exclusive. In a nation that will be ruled by men and women who have worldviews, we must choose the leaders with the worldviews that most closely align with ours, and encourage others to be sympathetic to our views. America will be ruled by our worldview or by another worldview. As I said before, we may be persecuted. If it comes to that during our lifetime then I will submit to it as the will of God, but we have a choice.

Let us not be found negligent or apathetic when the time comes to choose freedom or persecution. God can use a free people to spread the gospel—it has happened in the past and will happen in the future. The SBC ought to stand together to advocate for what we believe is right. God has given us the influence that we have, but when we cease to use it wisely, it will be taken from us and given to someone else.

Politics and the SBC pt. 1

Since its inception the SBC has dealt with politics, both in its own ranks as well as in the American and global political scene. Many have been quick to point to this as a striking flaw within the convention. Some have even said or implied that if we could rid the SBC of politics, we would be able to focus on the real issues.

I must confess that there is a certain appeal to the cries of those who advocate an end to the political strivings of the convention. In this series of posts I will discuss what I believe about politics and the SBC.

First, let us first look at a definition of politics and briefly sketch their role (if any) within the SBC and its churches. The word politic comes from the Greek politicas, which refers to civic matters (FYI, this word is not found in the NT). The root word is polis meaning city (this root appears in several variations in the NT). This word is also the subject of Aristotle’s 4th Century BC work Politics, which concerns itself with the proper “structure, organization, and administration of the state” (see politics). This is also the same root from which we get the word “polity” (i.e., how the church is governed).

Politics is also commonly used today to refer to those who are shrewd or even cunning or manipulative. This is what we often think of when someone is accused of “playing politics.”

So we have two strikingly different definitions of politics. I believe that both are important and will be discussed in this series of blog posts. The first definition is the one I will discuss second, and the second is the one I will discuss first.

Here’s the thesis :The Church in America must stop playing politics, but must not retreat from the political realm altogether.

First, we must stop playing politics.
Last month Jeremy Roberts posted about the political parties in the SBC. Recently, we’ve seen dueling confessions and seemingly endless arguments about a few issues that seem to keep coming up regularly. There is also the recurrent issue of the personal biases and attacks on and by prominent members of the current factions.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that debate should not go on, but I am saying that we should not allow it to become such a focal point that we are sidetracked from our mission as a church. Allow me to present some scripture that is relevant to the current issues at hand.

Paul exhorts believers to avoid foolish controversies.
2 Timothy 2:23-26 says:
“Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”

This passage is particularly applicable to Christian leaders. He is specifically referring to the “man of God” one who serves as an ambassador for Christ. He exhorts us, not to avoid debates, but to pick our battles. We are not to engage in the fights that ultimately only hurt the body, but obviously we must be able to correct those who are teaching falsehoods or are leading people astray. Paul tells us the correct way to do that too: “with gentleness.” The goal is that those who are leading others astray might repent and become free “from the snare of the devil” (v.25-26).


We are also commanded to build up the Body of Christ
1 Corinthians 10:23-24 says:
“’All things are lawful,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.’”
And vv.31-33 say:
“So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.”

Here Paul is discussing the issue of eating the meat that had been sacrificed to idols. The meat wasn’t the main issue. Paul wasn’t so much concerned about cheap steaks as he was with the consciences of the believers and the unity of the church. Some could eat the meat in clear conscience, yet others could not—to them it was sin. Therefore, Paul tells us not to seek our own good, but the good of others. If eating certain meats or drinking certain beverages, or engaging in certain amoral (neither inherently good nor bad) acts causes disunity or sin in the body of Christ (the church) then it shouldn’t be done! This to me is the strongest argument for abstinence from alcohol. It’s not about how alcoholic it is, it’s about our testimony (to both believers and unbelievers) and about if it honors God. Since I can honor God and build up the body of Christ without partaking of alcohol –that is what I will continue to do. I mention a specific example, but you can see that the issue of building up the body applies to all that we do. If blogging does not build up the body of Christ, then we must find something else to do with our time and energy. Something that pleases God. I do happen to believe that I can honor God and encourage believers through my blog, which is why I do it.

Finally, we must accomplish the mission we have been given. The goal is to make disciples for Christ. The goal is not to be teetotalers or wine connoisseurs; not to worship men or tear them down; our goal is to build up the body of Christ as we live godly lives and train others to do so.

Where does politics enter into that? My point is that we ought not play politics within the body, yet in my next post I will discuss my views on the church’s involvement, or lack thereof, in the political realm and how I believe we can continue to build up the body and further God’s kingdom.

Majors, Minors, and Inconsequentials

Lately the debates have intensified about the issues in and surrounding the Memphis Declaration and the Joshua Convergence. I myself have contributed to, and approved of these debates. I've seen a lot of agreement and even some persuasion come about as a result of these debates. However, I've also seen these debates used to revisit some of the same issues that have been debated ad nauseum. One might almost think that some people just like to argue.

In large measure the debates of this past week have been interesting and, at times, even productive. They have caused me to think. As I engaged in this sometimes dangerous practice (thinking), I wondered what we might accomplish if we ever were to shift our focus.

At the risk of sounding like a “can’t we all just get along” post, here’s what I’ve been thinking. This week Kevin Bussey has repeatedly asked “why must there always be a battle?” I submit that we live in a constant state of war whether we know it or not. The key is that the battle is NOT against one another, but against a real enemy. There are culture wars and battles of ideas going on constantly today. Ultimately the root ideologies are either from God or they are not. This may seem like an oversimplification, but it seems appropriate if the goal is to encourage us to look at the big picture.

I’ve recently been reading a book by Robert Greene entitled The 33 Strategies of War. It’s been an interesting read and it talks about historical warfare strategies that the author encourages readers to apply to everyday conflicts. He’s not a Christian and that comes across in the book, but this is not my point. One of the first strategies he discusses is recognizing the enemy. Once we know who is and is not the enemy then, and not before then, we can begin to wage an effective war.

Recently there have been quarrels over issues such as private prayer languages and alcohol. These are issues that need to be addressed for sure, but they are not and should not be the issue concerning whether or not we will band together. Make no mistake, we are in a fight.

Greene tells a the story from The Anabasis, of Xenophon and his band of Greeks who, after a series of events ended up deep in the Persian Empire and betrayed by the Persians. They quarreled among themselves for a while and some were killed by the Persians as a result. Once they realized that they were in a fight for their lives and their fellow Greeks were not the enemy, they managed to band together to flee back to Greece. Working together, many survived.

The point is that our fellow Christians are not the enemy. Those who hold to the principles of orthodoxy are on the same side as we are. The principles I refer to are often called the “Fundamentals of the Faith.” These basic principles include:
1) The verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible.
2) The deity of Christ (I think many of us would hold that the doctrine of the Trinity is a matter of orthodoxy.)
3) The Virgin Birth of Christ.
4) The Substitutionary Atonement (Christ, though He was man was sinless and did in fact die for our sins and was raised from the dead on the third day).
5) The imminent return of Christ (He is coming back, and although we don’t know when we are looking forward to it).

Most churches that agree with these are churches that we can work with. I would be even more comfortable (usually) working with churches who subscribe to the teachings of the Baptist Faith and Message. These are the doctrines that we hold to as Christians and as Baptist. Beyond this, we can only get closer. And don’t mistake me, I believe that while we are here on earth there will be disagreements. We cannot know everything about God or our faith in this life, but we strive together to understand our faith and to be better Christians.

One professor I know routinely instructs his classes that they must “major in the majors” and “minor in the minors.” Too often we find ourselves getting bogged down in the small things when we end up “majoring in the minors.” Once we come together and recognize the major issues then we can confront those as well. These are issues such as fulfilling the Great Commission and raising up a generation for Christ.

Dueling Confessions

Yes friends, we have a new hot-button issue in the Baptist blogosphere. To be honest I'm not sure whether to be happy about it or not.

In the past two days I have read both the Memphis Declaration and the Joshua Convergence's Affirmation. While I wasn't blogging earlier this year when the Memphis meeting was held, I do know that the Joshua Convergence has set off quite a brouhaha in the blogosphere. I think I am beginning to understand why this is.

It seems to me that there is an escalating "discussion" that is being continued through these confessions. Or perhaps the confessions are being used as fuel for the fire by those who are spoiling for a fight. Is this the intent of or simply a reaction to these confessions? I would suggest that the latter is true -- this view being in keeping with my desire to believe the best about people. One cannot, however overlook the fact that, intentional or not, these debates are continuing.

As Baptists, we have a history of confessionalism. At times these confessions have served to unite us, at other times they have divided us. We've seen confessions such as the London Confessions (1644, 1646, 1689), the Philadelphia Confession (1742), the Sandy Creek Confession (1758),the New Hampshire Confession (1833), BFM (1925, 1963, 2000), and many others.

In recent years confessions have been something that we Baptists seem to have avoided for whatever reason. I personally believe that confessionalism can be a healthy thing. It can be good and healthy for us to articulate our beliefs. I read earlier today on Wade Burleson's blog some that have negative feelings toward the BFM 2000. While I can understand that some might not be completely satisfied with the BFM 2000, I don't believe that it was ever intended to satisfy everyone, simply to articulate the umbrella under which those who call ourselves "Southern Baptist" may gather. In my opinion the simplicity of the BFM is its beauty, and the 2000 version seems to have maintained a simplicity while addressing some of the critical issues of our time.

As I said before, I read both the Memphis Declaration and the statement of the Joshua Convergence as well. And while these two statements seem reasonable in and of themselves, I find them hardly sufficient to address the full range of issues that are swirling about today. I doubt that that was ever their intention. A confession simply articulates our views or beliefs, confessions do not have the power to change hearts on their own. They don’t even have to be comprehensive, but regardless, they will tell others a little bit about who we are and what we believe.

Let us all try our best to live our lives according to God’s word, but also recognize that we and our best views and efforts are tainted by sin—this is an obstacle that will never be overcome in this life. We are to honor God, study and obey his word, and once Christ comes again we will be finally sanctified (note: this is “final sanctification” as opposed to the sanctification that comes through salvation and progressively through righteous living).

As I said on Jeremy Roberts’s blog, I’ll take a “wait and see” approach to see how the signatories and adherents of these confessions live them out – then perhaps we can decide if they have lasting merits or not. Will we see that either of these confessions brings a recipe for success or unity to our convention? The proof, as they say, “is in the pudding.”

Southern Baptists in the News

At the moment things seem fairly quiet on the Southern Baptist Political front. Perhaps this is simply the calm on the surface that disguises the turmoil beneath, but I think everyone seems to be settling into the new year with a new president and some are still sizing one another up.

Thinking of this I decided that I wanted to know the public perception of Southern Baptists in the news. My question is this: can good come from Baptists being in the news or is negative controversy all that gets reported?

A brief Nexis search surprised me. I searched the term "Southern Baptist" throughout the major news outlets in the last six months. I found that the bulk of the reporting centered around the convention (naturally). However, I was surprised by the positive tone of many of the articles. I did also note that there seems to be a lack of depth to a number of the articles as well, this I attribute to the fact that some of these articles are written by people who don't understand the nature of the Christian faith experientially.

I expected to find that the major news outlets mirrored the local baptist news entities in that they captured a lot of dissention and controversy. It seems, however, that they just aren't interested in our squabbles. Generally, they could care less about Paige Patterson, Wade Burleson, and our inter-denominational politics; although the do enjoy gaping at our stances on alcohol, abstinence, and public education.

So, are we better off quietly "doing our thing" and ministering without the attention of the news? Does the attention of the media help advance our cause? Or does it simply hinder us? Or there's the related question of "are we doing anything newsworthy?" Think about this--the early church caused such a stir that they were accused of turning the world upside down! (Acts 17:6 ESV)

Dr. Page visits SWBTS

First off let me say that I'm not a reporter. Sometime I'll write a post about the good or ills of the 24hour news cycle, but that's for another day.

Today was an important day for SWBTS. I, being merely an uninformed observer probably did not grasp the full import of today's events, but I shall recount to you what I saw.

I had the privilege of hearing our SBC President, Dr. Frank Page today. You too can hear his message by visiting the SWBTS website. Dr. Page spoke on what he claimed to be "his favorite verse" (noting that he makes the claim of every verse or passage he preaches): John 10:10. He warned Christians against underestimating our enemy (Satan). He said that Satan has stolen the church's power, effectiveness, and most importantly our unity.
Dr. Page exhorts Southern Baptists to continue to fight for inerrancy, but also to fight, with the same vigor, for relevancy. He stressed the need for the church to be relevant to today's culture, warning that "the early church was met with persecution, but the modern church is met with a yawn."

He exhorts Christians to find strength in the Holy Spirit to continue this fight and will guide us as we do so.
I have to say that I was thoroughly impressed with Dr. Page himself. He seems to have a heart to unify the SBC and to truly honor God.

The Slumbering Giant -or- Seeking Expectancy

I went to Faith Night at the Texas Rangers game tonight. According to commentators there were over 40,000 in attendence. I was impressed. I'm terrible at guessing how many people are in a crowd. So I could not tell you just how many people attended the pre-game MercyMe concert.

The concert was great. It's a pity that many know MercyMe just as the band who sings "I Can Only Imagine." They're quite talented. There were several thousand in attendence at the concert. My wife and I were sitting on the hillside among the masses and I began to muse as we listened to the music.

I would assume that most of the attendees at the MercyMe concert were believers. With so many believers (mainly from the DFW area) gathered in one place I could not help but ask what we are accomplishing for the Kingdom of God. I don't mean that gathering at the concert to enjoy music and worship together was in any way wrong. What I do mean to say is that I believe we are somewhat complacent as a church.

The book of Acts records a fantastic revival taking place at pentecost. Acts 2 gives details of what happened when the Holy Spirit moved upon a few hundred believers (the previous chapter recounts that there were 120 disciples present for the election of Matthias as the replacement for Judas.

Now setting aside the issues of charismata and cessationism (and the like), I feel that one may rightly ask why about 15M Southern Baptists in over 40,000 churches are not shaking the world for Christ(Frank Mead, Handbook of Denominations 11th Ed., 2001). To be honest I don't expect an answer. No one of us can assume responsibility for the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of our denomination in reaching the world-- we are responsible to God for ourselves and those that we lead.

Sitting amid thousands of my fellow believers I recognize that most of them genuinely do love the Lord and desire to serve him. Perhaps many are in fact serving. Suddenly the moment turns to introspection. I realize that I am not responsible to God for the effectiveness of the other concert attendees, but I am accountable for how faithfully (or unfaithfully) I obey the word of God.

Why blog about this? None of us needs another guilt trip or accusation that we are not doing enough for God. We do not need for me to state the obvious simply for the purpose of filling space on another webpage. The thing is this: God has worked in powerful ways during different times in history. We call these movements of God "Revival." It begins when God moves in the hearts of a few individuals. During times when the church had grown complacent or had been marginalized, God selected a few available vessels and poured his spirit out upon them, using them in a very powerful way.

There are many believers, or perhaps "church people" is a better term, who go about their daily lives in a state of complacency. Maybe it isn't that they mean to be complacent, but they have lost a sense of anticipation that God wants to do something spectacular around, in, or perhaps through them. My exhortation is for us to pray and encourage one another toward that end.

Perhaps the words of William Carey convey the message better than my own could: "Expect great things from God, attempt great things for God." My closing thought is this: I think that too often my expectations and attempts are often smaller than God is capable of. The greater my expectancations are of God (and thus my dependence upon Him), the greater the my works will be for His kingdom.