Possible Changes in SBC Missions

[Dmckay]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - The Southern Baptist Convention is weighing a proposal to bring the world's largest Protestant missionary group for women under the control of the denomination, a move that critics say would reinforce the conservatism and male dominance of the SBC.

Formed in 1888, the Woman's Missionary Union is considered an "auxiliary" - or helper - to the denomination, but it has always been self-governing and financially independent.

Now the executive committee of the SBC is considering a motion to place the women's group under the direct authority of the convention.

Top Baptist officials stress that it's early in the process and such a step is unlikely. But if approved by both groups, the change would likely stop the Woman's Missionary Union from continuing its work with more moderate Baptist churches that are not affiliated with the SBC.

"Surely one reason this is happening is the desire to keep these Baptist women from connecting with non-SBC Baptist groups," said Bill Leonard, dean of the Wake Forest University Divinity School and an opponent of the conservative takeover of the denomination.

Leonard said the Southern Baptist Convention is "very nervous about entities they cannot control."

"There's no doubt that if the WMU goes into the SBC, and the SBC appoints its trustees, they will be redirected in much more conservative directions - ideologically and in terms of the literature they produce."

The SBC's executive committee has assigned the motion to one of its work groups, which decided this week to seek input from its international and North American mission boards before making a recommendation.

Morris Chapman, president and chief executive officer of the Southern Baptist Convention's executive committee, said the motion is being studied, but he doesn't expect the SBC to offer an invitation.

"I know the WMU is quite happy as an auxiliary," Chapman said.

Dedicated to encouraging missionary work, the Birmingham, Ala.-based WMU has about 1 million members. It has an annual budget of about $11 million, which comes mainly from book and magazine sales.

Leslie Stock, a preacher's wife from Missouri, made the motion to absorb the women's group at the annual Southern Baptist meeting last June.

As a conservative, she was concerned because the WMU was working with moderate Baptist churches and she noted that the executive director of the Woman's Missionary Union, Wanda Lee, spoke at a meeting of the moderate Baptist General Convention of Missouri.

"If we're in cooperation, then we should be in cooperation theologically," said Stock, whose husband was pastor at the Santa Fe Trail Baptist Church in Boonville, Mo., until leaving recently to work as an itinerant minister.

The moderate Baptist General Convention of Missouri broke away from the more conservative SBC-affiliated Missouri Baptist Convention in 2002, following a trend in several other states.

Julie Walters, spokeswoman for the Women's Missionary Union, said previous motions have been made dealing with the group's status, but each time it was confirmed as an auxiliary.

Even if the Southern Baptists extend an invitation, the WMU could still turn it down.

"It wouldn't be a mandate," Walters said. "The final decision would be up to our board. We have verbalized the benefits we feel we're enjoying from our auxiliary status. We're pleased to be able to support ourselves."

But some critics say the Woman's Missionary Union may feel pressured to accept an invitation and that it would represent a takeover of the last redoubt of female leadership in the denomination.

"The WMU has been the one organization controlled and run by women," said Robert Parham, executive director of Baptist Center for Ethics, a Nashville group that often criticizes the conservative direction of the Southern Baptists. "Taking control of the WMU solidifies male dominance of the SBC."

Parham said Southern Baptists are wary of female leadership, noting that in recent years the denomination has ruled that women should not be pastors and that wives should "graciously submit" to their husbands.

Chapman says that issue is not fueling the current discussion over the status of the women's group. "I don't really sense that's on the horizon today," he said. "It might have been a question some time ago. I do not think an issue of women's involvement in ministry is any longer a high priority."

[ZiSunka]

I don't see the point of having a successful missions organization come under the authority of another organization. It doesn't make sense to try to dominate an organization just because it is run by women.

There has to be more to the story that this...doesn't there?

[Dmckay]

I don't see the point of having a successful missions organization come under the authority of another organization. It doesn't make sense to try to dominate an organization just because it is run by women.

There has to be more to the story that this...doesn't there?
This is all the information that I have been able to find. My mother-in-law was the Women's White Cross Missionary Chairperson for Southern California for almost 30 years before her health failed. Once she had to step down the service to missionaries overseas fell off dramatically. Perhaps they have had a similar occurance.

[ZiSunka]

The article makes it seem like the men don't like the women running their own organization without being under the authority of men. I hope that is a false impression. :(

[JPPT1974]

Yeah because it seems like a sexist thing
Sad but true though
As women ought to have rights as well

[Chris Norwood]

Now, I'm Southern Baptist (mostly anyway) and my take on this whole thing is that it's far more about politics than it is about sexism/misogyny. The fundamentalist/conservative faction has worked very hard for over 20 years to achieve complete control over our denomination, and the idea of having any semi-independent group in their churches but not under their direction is just scary to them.
"If we're in cooperation, then we should be in cooperation theologically,"Apparently, the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Great Commission is no longer enough common ground to foster cooperation. The fact that whole purpose of the WMU has for 118 years been to support the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ both in local churches and to the ends of the Earth suddenly doesn;t mean squat. Now they must also bow down to the supreme authority of the Conservative leadership and their infallible direct line to God.

Sorry for the harsh tone there, but such blatant political maneuvering in a Chrsitian organization, especially within my own denomination, just gets me a little irritated.

[HumbleMan]

This is, IMHO, one more step the leadership of the SBC is taking in solidifying a doctrinal creed and effectively making itself a denomination. And this is on the heels of the IMB debacle.

I also wouldn't be suprised if this wasn't also tied to the spreading Landmarkism in the SBC leadership.

[Dmckay]

Now, I'm Southern Baptist (mostly anyway) and my take on this whole thing is that it's far more about politics than it is about sexism/misogyny. The fundamentalist/conservative faction has worked very hard for over 20 years to achieve complete control over our denomination, and the idea of having any semi-independent group in their churches but not under their direction is just scary to them.
Apparently, the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Great Commission is no longer enough common ground to foster cooperation. The fact that whole purpose of the WMU has for 118 years been to support the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ both in local churches and to the ends of the Earth suddenly doesn;t mean squat. Now they must also bow down to the supreme authority of the Conservative leadership and their infallible direct line to God.

Sorry for the harsh tone there, but such blatant political maneuvering in a Chrsitian organization, especially within my own denomination, just gets me a little irritated.
I had wondered if it might not have more to do witth conservatism vs liberalism when I first read it. Many years ago I was asked to help a small SBC Church to improve their teaching and train their teachers. I noticed that the system(I forget the name that they had for it) of pooling money given to Missions and giving it towhoever was sent out to the Mission field, in place of them seeking their own support, sounded like it could give rise to the same thing that split the northern Baptist Convention and created the Conservative Baptists and the G.A.R.B.

[Adammi]

I didn't read that whole article but I also read that the SBC is banning anyone who professes to privately speak in tongues to be in the missions field.

[catch21wide]

My take on the situation is that the SBC is trying to go back to it's original roots. Now I think if the WMU wants to stay independent, then the SBC will let them. As far as it being a struggle between Conservatives and Liberals, I don't think so. The only thing that these two groups are fighting for is control of the convention. I hope the conservatives stay in power for a very, very long time because they teach the Bible is the inerrant word of God and shouldn't be preached any other way. The reason why the Conservatives are against speaking in tongue is because we believe that since Jesus didn't do it, we shouldn't either. If you are going to pray to God, pray to Him in a normal manner. I thank God that I am a Conservative Southern Baptist.

[Leimeng]

~ I think the thing driving some of the so called conservative attempts to establish complete control is the relapse into the false gnostic based teachings of calvinism. I think it would be best if the WMU were to remain independent and the so called conservatives to actually start to read the Bible without prior theological prejudices. It would make a world of difference and help tremendously in the ministry to the lost.

~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Leimeng

Fatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

(***Insert Personal One Liner Here***)

[Dmckay]

~ I think the thing driving some of the so called conservative attempts to establish complete control is the relapse into the false gnostic based teachings of calvinism. I think it would be best if the WMU were to remain independent and the so called conservatives to actually start to read the Bible without prior theological prejudices. It would make a world of difference and help tremendously in the ministry to the lost.

~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Leimeng

Fatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

(***Insert Personal One Liner Here***)
Is there some specific teaching of Calvin that you think is Gnostic heresy? I would be interested to hear what it is. I know that you aren't referring to T.U.L.I.P. since it was merely a restatement of the doctrines of Grace which are the historic doctrinal position of the Baptist Church (except for general Baptists who are more Arminian) long before Calvin.

The paper from which this was taken made the mistake of referring to T.U.L.I.P. as Calvinism. It shouldn't have since there is much more to Calvinsim than just the statement of the Synod of Dort in response to the heresy of Jacob Arminius.

WERE EARLY BAPTISTS CALVINISTS?
Where does this leave Baptists? Were early Baptists Calvinists or have they always been more Arminian in their doctrine of salvation. Our research will center on several key questions, which we shall seek to answer one at a time.
Those questions are as follows:
1. Were Baptists in their early history ever Calvinists?
2. If yes, when did Baptists lose their Calvinism?
3. If yes, why did Baptists lose their Calvinism?
4. Who were some of the great Baptist Calvinists?
Were Baptists in Their Early History Calvinists? The answer to this first question comes early and with ease. Modern Baptists in America trace their heritage to the early English Baptists of the Reformation period. These early forerunners were divided into two groups-the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists. The General Baptists were not as Calvinistic, and certainly did not believe in a particular atonement. They believed in a general atonement, that is, that the death of Christ had a general design towards all men. The Particular Baptists believed in a limited atonement.
Second, we find that these Particular Baptists of the seventeenth century were the more influential of the two groups. Their Calvinism was reflected in two confessions of faith, the First London Confession of 1644 and the Second London Confession of 1689.
We find strong and clear statements on election in each of them as follows:
And touching his creature man, God had in Christ before the foundation of the world, according to the good pleasure of his will, foreordained some men to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of his grace, leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his Justice.
First London Confession, 1644
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory some men and Angels are predestinated, or fore-ordained to Eternal Life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice. These Angels and Men thus predestinated, and foreordained are particularly, and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain, and definite, that it cannot be either increased, or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret Counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love; without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto.
Second London Confession, 1689
Beyond even English history, we find that Baptists in early America shared the same viewpoint as evidenced in their greatest confession of faith, the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. In fact, this confession was pretty much a reproduction of the Second London Confession, except for a few extra categories. But as far as the subject of divine election, it read exactly the same.
The widespread influence of this Philadelphia Confession was evidenced by a statement found in one very reliable source. That source stated that, “Throughout the South it shaped Baptist thought generally and has perhaps been the most influential of all confessions” (Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, Volume I, p. 308).
Thus the question, “Were Baptists in their early history Calvinists?” has to be answered with a strong and definite “Yes!”
When and Why Did Baptists Lose Their Calvinism?
These two questions are so closely related that if we discover the answer to one we will also uncover the other. But the answer to these two questions is not easy to find.
After pouring over dozens of books on Baptist history, and after giving it much thought and meditation, the answer was uncovered. Even then it can not be stated in a short and simple manner. To state it in summary fashion would be as follows: Baptists lost their Calvinism sometime in the past one hundred years due to the influence of the two great awakenings and the events which accompanied them.
To elaborate, Baptists were strong Calvinists in their early history in America as evidenced in the already mentioned Philadelphia Confession of Faith. This confession would have to be dated in the early part of the eighteenth century, perhaps about 1725.
When the first Great Awakening of 1740 (which by the way was a Calvinistic movement) exploded on the scene of early American history, Baptists were not involved in it. Baptists became involved in it as members of the established churches, who had experienced revival and renewal, left to join Baptist churches. These individuals were known as Separates, and they brought to the Baptist churches the spirit of the awakening, which was good, but they also brought some dangerous tendencies—a distrust of the established clergy, a view of the immediate illumination of the Holy Spirit, etc.
The excesses of this first great awakening were dangerous and damaging to Baptist life in America. Baptists began to move in the direction of a spirit of the anti-theological or non-theological in their attitudes and thinking. They became very pietistic, with strong appeal to the emotions. They came to undervalue ministerial education. They became somewhat anti-education and anti-historical. They began to fear creeds and confessions of faith. Up to this time confessions of faith and even catechisms were used by Baptists without question or apology.
When the second Great Awakening of about 1830 struck, Baptists were already in the middle of the modification of some of their thinking, with a modified Calvinism beginning to develop. Though Calvinism was still very strong, tendencies continued and even other tendencies were birthed which were to become a further threat to the remaining influence of Calvinism. Pietism was primary, while doctrinal aspects were secondary. Individualism in life began to reign, as opposed to corporate concerns being primary. Strong opposition to confessions developed.
This is not to say that Baptists fled their Calvinistic heritage at this point of history. It is to say that some tendencies, not all of them bad, began to develop, which if carried to an extreme could become very detrimental to their doctrinal heritage.
To summarize, the Calvinism of Baptists was under constant and direct attack in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, first from the revivalism of the Separates, then by Methodist Arminianism, and also from the Free Will Baptist movement, and finally from Charles G. Finney. Having embraced revivalism and its tendencies after the first great awakening, and having been suddenly vaulted to great prominence and influence among the people and the religious scene in America, Baptists were very interested in keeping their newly acquired religious leadership and in keeping their movement growing. As time wore on, the remnants of their Calvinism were still strong in some places, though modified. But even that amount of Calvinism became more difficult to defend before the simple, uneducated, common-sense man or even the rational, educated, philosophically trained man. Instead of continuing to hold and defend their Calvinistic theology, they strained their Calvinistic theological framework to accommodate the new religious mood of the day.
The change was slow, and Calvinism continued to be held and defended by some even into the twentieth century. But by the middle of that century, Calvinism was all but dead among Baptists, except for a weakened definition of the fifth point. Baptists of past history called the fifth point “the perseverance of the saints.” Baptists of the middle years of the twentieth century called it “The eternal security of the believer.”
One final point must be made. Sometime just past the middle of the twentieth century, a revival of Calvinism among Baptists began, and it appears to be continuing and growing today.
Who Were Some of the Great Baptist Calvinists?
This was not a difficult question to answer. History abounds with great Baptists who were Calvinists. The following is a partial list:
1. Isaac Backus, New England Baptist born 1724.
2. John Leland, New England Baptist born 1754.
3. James P. Boyce, founder and first president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.
4. J.L. Dagg, an early Southern Baptist theologian.
5. P.H. Mell, president of the Southern Baptist Convention for seventeen years, longer than any other president ever served.
6. Adoniram Judson, born in 1788, was the first foreign missionary to go forth from the United States.
7. Charles H. Spurgeon, the great English preacher and pastor of the nineteenth century.
Calvinism, a doctrinal system first systematized to combat the Arminian heresy’s threat to the early church was the official position of the “Church” pretty much from the time of Augustine. Many Baptist preachers and teachers today will still describe themselves as “four” or “four and a half” point Calvinists.

[Justin The Baptist]

My take on the situation is that the SBC is trying to go back to it's original roots. Now I think if the WMU wants to stay independent, then the SBC will let them. As far as it being a struggle between Conservatives and Liberals, I don't think so. The only thing that these two groups are fighting for is control of the convention. I hope the conservatives stay in power for a very, very long time because they teach the Bible is the inerrant word of God and shouldn't be preached any other way. The reason why the Conservatives are against speaking in tongue is because we believe that since Jesus didn't do it, we shouldn't either. If you are going to pray to God, pray to Him in a normal manner. I thank God that I am a Conservative Southern Baptist.
Amen!

We just don't see much use in these "prayer tounges." Paul says in 1 Corinthians that tongues were "not to those who believe but to unbelievers" (14:22). I'm willing to wager that God is a believer. This is one reason that makes me proud to be a Southern Baptist. We believe that the Bible is true an inerent, and we follow it as such. We could allow women ministers and leaders, and be much more popular and politically correct, but we would do so at the cost of following the Word of God. Following the Word of God always ranks ahead of political correctness in my book.

[JPPT1974]

This is, IMHO, one more step the leadership of the SBC is taking in solidifying a doctrinal creed and effectively making itself a denomination. And this is on the heels of the IMB debacle.

I also wouldn't be suprised if this wasn't also tied to the spreading Landmarkism in the SBC leadership.

It is indeed that way my friend
In order to know what to do
In the SBC!

[DeaconDean]

Amen JPPT1974. What's next a takeover of "Lottie Moon?" Why stop there, take over "Annie Armstrong" also. Being Southern Baptist, I think they should "butt out." These ladies organizations are well run, and very mission oriented. What will happen is the SBC will "rule" it to be an organization with little effect. Our church has no control over the WMU, they are run by the women of the church, for the women of the church. To me that would be like the church ruling in their affairs. But that's just my two cents worth.

[ShortCircuit]

[ The reason why the Conservatives are against speaking in tongue is because we believe that since Jesus didn't do it, we shouldn't either. If you are going to pray to God, pray to Him in a normal manner. I thank God that I am a Conservative Southern Baptist.[/quote]

Wow, I was raised in the SBC and at this time in my life (48 years old) it is this sort of belief that has me questioning my committment to the SBC.

How do we really know, for 100% sure, how Jesus prayed. Jesus went to a place of solitude to pray most of the time.

And I truly do not mean to sound argumentative, it really is not my style to be confrontational.........BUT, if we are going to say as Southern Baptist that if JESUS did not do it (whatever IT may be ) then we aren't going to do it. That my friend will open a whole lot of cans of worms and cover a lot of territory.:sigh:

[Andyman_1970]

Now, I'm Southern Baptist (mostly anyway) and my take on this whole thing is that it's far more about politics than it is about sexism/misogyny. The fundamentalist/conservative faction has worked very hard for over 20 years to achieve complete control over our denomination, and the idea of having any semi-independent group in their churches but not under their direction is just scary to them.
Apparently, the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Great Commission is no longer enough common ground to foster cooperation. The fact that whole purpose of the WMU has for 118 years been to support the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ both in local churches and to the ends of the Earth suddenly doesn;t mean squat. Now they must also bow down to the supreme authority of the Conservative leadership and their infallible direct line to God.

Sorry for the harsh tone there, but such blatant political maneuvering in a Chrsitian organization, especially within my own denomination, just gets me a little irritated.

I hear you brotha, it gets me wound up too.........

[Andyman_1970]

I also wouldn't be suprised if this wasn't also tied to the spreading Landmarkism in the SBC leadership.

What's "landmarkism"?

[pressingon]

Dmckay...

Do you have a source for that article? Just curious where you saw it.

All...

If this is indeed occurring (it wouldn't surprise me), it's yet another symptom of the current problems with the SBC... a power struggle resulting in the narrowing of the bounds by which we cooperate. I'm getting very much sick and tired of the "conservative / moderate / liberal" baloney we're constantly hearing (as well as the calvinism / arminianism debate). It's just plain sad to me that so much of our convention leadership (and convention members, for that matter) are so self-assured of their own righteousness... that their particular understanding of Scripture is 100% correct and that others are wrong... and to take that self-assurance so far as to say "we can't cooperate with you because you believe such-and-such"...

If anything, we as a convention need to be MORE inclusive. That's not to say that being theologically correct is not important... but that we simply can't make peripheral matters of Scripture (where the correct interpretation or understanding is not clear cut) a divisive issue. It's what's being done more and more, and (in my opinion) it's damaging the future of our convention.

Anyway, enough of my ranting. I'm just concerned about our convention. We seem to be spending far too much time on things I would consider "foolish and stupid arguments" (the latter part of 2 Timothy 2 is quite convicting on this, if you ask me), debating things that really don't matter much when it comes to making a difference for Christ, and in the process, damaging our witness and creating disunity amongst our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Andyman...

Here's a link for ya... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmarkism.

It covers the basics, but if you want a bit more discussion about some of the current uproar, you might visit http://www.wadeburleson.com (there are a couple posts on "the dangers" of this belief which have generated some good discussion in comments).

[Chris Norwood]

And I guess what irritates me most of all is that, historically, Baptists have been all about individual responsibility. The local church has always been autonomous and free from hierarchical control from some larger organization. We have always denied the use of creeds because we believe that the Bible should be the only written authority to which we swear allegiance. And even the point of the SBC was to pool the resources of autonomous local churches to better reach out into a lost and dying world.

Now, however, we are moving steadily to a denomination ruled by a closed-minded and ever more-oppressive hiererchical leadership. The Baptist Faith and Message is being used as a weapon to exclude some from positions of authority and service, and is fast becoming a true creed to define what we all must believe rather than a confession of what is most important that we all do believe. The organization which originally brought together independent churches who chose to focus on the most important aspects of our faith and live out the great commission now chooses to focus on the secondary aspects of our faith, and our reputation in our nation has suffered while our evangelistic influence around the world has faded.

It makes me sad to think that the SBC has become a new breed of pharises, focusing so much on rules and regulations of scripture while missing the message that lies behind them all. "You think that everyone should agree with your perfect knowledge. While knowledge may make us feel important, it is love that really builds up the church. Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn't really know very much. But the person who loves God is the one God knows and cares for." -1 Corinthians 8:1b-3 (NLT)

[HumbleMan]

Good post, Chris. One thing that I was looking for when looking for a new church (I came out of the CoG) was autonomy of the local church, while having similar beliefs of like minded bodies.

I've tried to stay out of political discussion lately, because I've become so disappointed in our current leadership (both parties) in Washington. But the moves that the SBC leadership is making reminds me of what's happening there. All the while giving lip service to autonomy of the church (and states), power is being consolidated at the highest possible level with little or no say or input from the people who elected them.

PressingOn,

Thanks for the links. I haven't had time to get back until now. I might start a new thread on Landmarkism and some of their teachings.

[Andyman_1970]

Andyman...

Here's a link for ya... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmarkism.

It covers the basics, but if you want a bit more discussion about some of the current uproar, you might visit http://www.wadeburleson.com (there are a couple posts on "the dangers" of this belief which have generated some good discussion in comments).

Thanks for the info.

Unfortunately I've already bumped up against this at my church. I teach the college/twentysomething Sunday school, and last year we studied through the Gospel of Luke. When we came to the Last Supper, I had an idea that the lesson would be the class taking the Lord's Supper...........I floated that idea to the leadership and you would have thought I was wanting to teach that Satan is lord or something, the implication was Sunday School teachers have no business dispensing the elements...........

That article really brought into focus how my church is embracing Landmarkism..........and certainly something for me to think and pray about.

Thank you.

[catch21wide]

Hey Andyman. What you said about a church being an autonomy made me think. It made me think of what my pastor said about how a church is supposed to be run. He said a church is NOT an autonomy which it is run by the deacons and/or pastor. It is NOT a democracy run of the people, by the people, and for the people of the church. The church my friend is a CHRISTOCRACY run by Jesus Christ, of Jesus Christ, and for Jesus Christ. If He leads the pastor in a decision regarding the church, then the church should consider it to be God's will to let that decision come to be. I don't want to start a debate or anything, but when I see something about the church that makes me think about it I am going to speak my mind. I hope this post helps you to understand where I am coming from. I also hope I didn't get off tack of what you were saying. If I did I apologize.

[Danfrey]

The church my friend is a CHRISTOCRACY run by Jesus Christ, of Jesus Christ, and for Jesus Christ. If He leads the pastor in a decision regarding the church, then the church should consider it to be God's will to let that decision come to be.

Who decides if the Pastor is following God's will or his own? What happened to the idea of a servant leader?

Matthew 20
25Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave

[Andyman_1970]

Who decides if the Pastor is following God's will or his own?

And what if the pastor makes a decision (with catch 21's post in mind) in which then the church should consider it to be God's will to let that decision come to be has no basis in Scripture, then what? Do we let the pastor do whatever he wants or thinks is "right"? If his decision has no basis in Scripture then how do we know it's "right"?

The example I shared of the Lord's Supper debacle I experienced had no basis in Scripture, and yet the decision was made as though it had the full authority of Scripture behind it........I have serious problems with that.

catch21wide, of course your pastor is going to say he (the pastor) runs the church, he's in charge.

[JPPT1974]

This could go either way
Either pros or cons
Just put aside the differences
Experiment with it
If they like it that's great
If they don't, think up plan b.

[Danfrey]

The key here is common accountability. Let me give an example to I believe is similar.

When my wife was alive, she was wonderful at submitting to my authority as her husband. (there goes political correctness) Saying this, let me also explain that my wife would not tolerate me making an ungodly decision in the home. She would break out her Bible and we would discuss the problem she had with my decision. If my heart was in the right place and my ego was in check I would submit to scripture and to God who was obviously showing me something through my wife. If she was mistaken, she would submit.

All that to say a pastor has to be ready to be admonished just as he expects his congregation to be. Let us just remember to do it according to scripture. As far as those things that are not addressed in scripture, it is time we let them go and move on. How many church divisions come from items that are not found in scripture. The Mennonites who I am very fond of, have had this problem throughout their history.

[Chris Norwood]

I absolutely believe that every church should be a theocracy/Christocracy in which God himself is in charge. I also agree that the pastor is the primary leader and should help to give the church direction and vision. The thing is, however, that because Baptists are strong believers in Soul Compentency and the Priesthood of all Believers, we use democratic processes to best determine the will of God.

The theory is that the Holy Spirit is in each one of us working to reveal the will of God, and that while one individual (including a pastor) may at times not get the message clearly, the majority of the Christians in a congregation should be able to come together to discern what God wants to happen. Now, the pastor certainly has the right and responsibility to make suggestions based on what he thinks that direction should be, and should also remind the congregation that they are voting for what they feel God wants instead of their own opinions or wishes. But in the end, Baptists should still use democracy as the tool to discern God's will.

[eldermike]

IMHO, the conservative SBC leadership saved the SBC. I have been SBC all my life and I can tell you that if there had not been a conservative take over the SBC would be gone today. People woke up and went to conventions, they voted with their wallets until the SBC was flat on it's face and then they took it back. I grew up in an SBC town (wake forest NC). The school was in danger of being condemned by the town, today it's in better shape than ever. I am not one to condone every move made by the conservatives but in the case of the SBC I'll hide and watch, because the have been right up to this point.

[pressingon]

Mike,

I don't think many in the SBC would disagree with you on that... the conservative resurgence was, for the most part, a good thing. Some of the methods used to re-establish conservative leadership left a LOT to be desired... but the conservative direction of the convention is, in general, a good thing.

The thing to me is this... missions, through the cooperative program, is what makes the SBC such a wonderful organization. It enables us to have such an impact on the world... making a real difference for Christ. But what is our leadership doing? Narrowing the bounds of cooperation. It's starting with missionary candidates... if you practice a private prayer language or if your baptism wasn't done just right... you can't serve. So... unreached people groups continue to go unreached. But what's next? A crackdown on end times views? At what point does this narrowing of acceptable theological viewpoints result in individual churches either leaving the SBC because they're no longer welcome or being excluded from affiliating with it? What impact does this have on the cooperative program (and thus, missions)?

We can't sit on the sidelines on this one. This isn't a conservative / liberal issue... it's, as Wade Burleson (http://www.wadeburleson.com)put it, a "crusading conservative" / "cooperating conservative" issue. Do we want our convention leadership establishing more restrictive (and divisive) bounds on scriptural interpretations, or are we going to agree to disagree on debatable, non-essential doctrines (to preserve unity)?

It's a big deal, particularly to the younger generation of leaders who see themselves more and more marginalized by the convention every year.

[Andyman_1970]

The thing to me is this... missions, through the cooperative program, is what makes the SBC such a wonderful organization. It enables us to have such an impact on the world... making a real difference for Christ. But what is our leadership doing? Narrowing the bounds of cooperation. It's starting with missionary candidates... if you practice a private prayer language or if your baptism wasn't done just right... you can't serve. So... unreached people groups continue to go unreached. But what's next? A crackdown on end times views? At what point does this narrowing of acceptable theological viewpoints result in individual churches either leaving the SBC because they're no longer welcome or being excluded from affiliating with it? What impact does this have on the cooperative program (and thus, missions)?

Well said, it seems like a line in the sand has been drawn without any Scriptural substantiation of said line.

Our church (SBC) sends missionaries to Ecuador on a regular basis. This last trip our associate pastor baptized 30-40 people who had been saved in that village between our missionary visits (8 months or so). I didn’t think much of this until I started digging into this matter, I thought “why couldn’t they have been baptized but their own people” instead of say our pastor going down there. Then the light bulb came on [after researching this matter] evidently one has to be baptized by a “real live” SBC pastor in order for it to “count”………….I find no Scriptural basis for that.


We can't sit on the sidelines on this one. This isn't a conservative / liberal issue... it's, as Wade Burleson (http://www.wadeburleson.com)put it, a "crusading conservative" / "cooperating conservative" issue. Do we want our convention leadership establishing more restrictive (and divisive) bounds on scriptural interpretations, or are we going to agree to disagree on debatable, non-essential doctrines (to preserve unity)?

The interesting thing is, Jesus more than once says His followers will be known by their love (agape) for one another, and the world will know He is real by our love for one another, Jesus never mentions that the world will know He is real because we had intellectually assented to the correct doctrine.


It's a big deal, particularly to the younger generation of leaders who see themselves more and more marginalized by the convention every year.

It’s a big deal to me as my family and I increasingly see ourselves as “not fitting” with this current wave of perceived landmarkism.

[eldermike]

Mike,

I don't think many in the SBC would disagree with you on that... the conservative resurgence was, for the most part, a good thing. Some of the methods used to re-establish conservative leadership left a LOT to be desired... but the conservative direction of the convention is, in general, a good thing.

The thing to me is this... missions, through the cooperative program, is what makes the SBC such a wonderful organization. It enables us to have such an impact on the world... making a real difference for Christ. But what is our leadership doing? Narrowing the bounds of cooperation. It's starting with missionary candidates... if you practice a private prayer language or if your baptism wasn't done just right... you can't serve. So... unreached people groups continue to go unreached. But what's next? A crackdown on end times views? At what point does this narrowing of acceptable theological viewpoints result in individual churches either leaving the SBC because they're no longer welcome or being excluded from affiliating with it? What impact does this have on the cooperative program (and thus, missions)?

We can't sit on the sidelines on this one. This isn't a conservative / liberal issue... it's, as Wade Burleson (http://www.wadeburleson.com)put it, a "crusading conservative" / "cooperating conservative" issue. Do we want our convention leadership establishing more restrictive (and divisive) bounds on scriptural interpretations, or are we going to agree to disagree on debatable, non-essential doctrines (to preserve unity)?

It's a big deal, particularly to the younger generation of leaders who see themselves more and more marginalized by the convention every year.

You could be right on the conservative/conservative nature of these issues. I pray that's the case. I do personally hold that we have more non-essential doctrine than we need. But, you and I may not agree on which of these doctrines are actually non-essential; thus, the need for leadership.

[catch21wide]

Our church (SBC) sends missionaries to Ecuador on a regular basis. This last trip our associate pastor baptized 30-40 people who had been saved in that village between our missionary visits (8 months or so). I didn’t think much of this until I started digging into this matter, I thought “why couldn’t they have been baptized but their own people” instead of say our pastor going down there. Then the light bulb came on [after researching this matter] evidently one has to be baptized by a “real live” SBC pastor in order for it to “count”………….I find no Scriptural basis for that.

The reason why your associate pastor baptized those people was probably for the fact that there are a lot of villages in South America who do not have the christian faith. Look at the missionaries in all the different countries in the world. They baptize hundreds of NEW believers each day in the name of Christ. Maybe your pastor was proud enough to baptize a person in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit. He was probably proud to baptize his brothers and sisters in Christ, not because he wanted it to "count" as you say. He more than likely wanted to baptize them because he wanted to. Think about it.

[Andyman_1970]

The reason why your associate pastor baptized those people was probably for the fact that there are a lot of villages in South America who do not have the christian faith. Look at the missionaries in all the different countries in the world. They baptize hundreds of NEW believers each day in the name of Christ. Maybe your pastor was proud enough to baptize a person in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit. He was probably proud to baptize his brothers and sisters in Christ, not because he wanted it to "count" as you say. He more than likely wanted to baptize them because he wanted to. Think about it.

The issue is not was his baptizing a good thing, it was I praise God for that, it's that those people could not be baptized until and "offcial pastor" did it........there is no Scriptural basis for that period. There is no reason those new believers couldn't have baptized each other or baptize yourself (which BTW is the way Jesus and the other Jewish converts to Christianity did it in the 1st century, it was called a mikvah).

I have thought about it..................