« President Al Mohler vs Adjunct Professor James Merritt on "pyramid schemes or something" by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Ancient Wine and the Bible: the Case for Abstinence by David R.Brumbelow »

Oct 13, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

volfan007

Great insight.

David

Luke

Nicely argued.

A re-brand without a real change is simply deceptive.

boB Cleveland

"...from the bottom up"

That's been going on for years. Recently, Valleydale Baptist Church, a couple miles from my home, and a big church, changed their sign out front to "Valleydale Church" and then in small letters, to the side, "an sbc fellowship". And there are others, including new churches (like Brook Hills) that simply never put "Baptist" in their name.

If the name is a real problem, then it should be changed to solve the problem. It seems wise to me, to find out.

Tim Rogers

Brother Bob,

If the name is a real problem, then it should be changed to solve the problem. It seems wise to me, to find out.

Here is the situation. How does one check out if the name "baptist" is a "real problem"? If the facts come back that "baptist" is a problem then we have to ask ourselves a question. Are we willing to remove a name that tells the world who we are and exchange it for a name that tells the world who we want to be in their eyes? It seems the principle of transparency suggests we remain with a name that tells the world who we are.

Blessings,
Tim

boB Cleveland

I have no idea whether the name is a problem, but business can certainly find out what's best for them to accomplish their goals. I would hope the SBC could find out, too.

If they wanted to. I doubt that, collectively, the SBC members/messengers have the will or the interest to find out.

Tim Rogers

Brother Bob,

I doubt that, collectively, the SBC members/messengers have the will or the interest to find out.
That is the very argument that has been presented. The "SBC members/messengers" should be the ones to determine if we want a task force not the president of the convention back-dooring an end run and then turning around and telling everyone to trust him.

Blessings,
Tim

Ron Phillips, Sr.

Who is going to tell us if Baptist, or Southern for that matter, is a "problem"? The lost and un-churched? Are we going to make the same mistake that many churches make when letting the lost determine how they "do" church? A lot of churches let the lost determine their music and preaching styles and content in order to be seeker friendly. So I guess it makes sense to those churches to also let the lost determine if a change of the name will be another catalyst to usher in the vast unreached people.

If we change our music, our preaching, and everything about us and also change our name, they will come. Yeah, right!

Blessings,

Ron

Austin Maddox

Ron Phillips,Sr has nailed it !!! All of these changes that have been going on in the SBC for sometime is a failure to understand the regulative principle that is taught in Scripture. God has clearly showed us how we are to worship Him so we have no authority to worship Him outside of the way He has designed for us to worship Him. What we are seeing in the SBC is a failure to understand from Scripture alone that worship services are to be designed with the thought of the Glory of God alone and not the nonbeliever or even what Christians want. The name change is just flowing out of this problem that already exist. We have failed to teach our Baptist distinctives(immerse our people in our doctrines)and now we have a generation that still associates within our SBC churches and majority of them don't care about our distinctives. If you are ashamed or know of another denomination or local church that is closer to the teachings of Christ then do what Spurgeon said " Give up being a Baptist and go be what you think is closer to our Lord". These were not exactly Spurgeon's words but very close. Sadly, we have put many of our large megachurch pastors up as examples to our churches and we are finding many of them show poor giving to the CP,hire staff that don't even have a clue to what Baptists believe, and feel they don't need to fellowship with our smaller and median sized churches because they have all the answers. Congrats SBC leaders !! We have seen this day coming for years.Ron Phillips comments may be short but he reveals something that is an overflow of a much bigger problem..the Bible has been laid aside for years as the authority on what should worship look like, what should a pastor focus on, and the type of men that should be hired on church staffs and we have forgotten about the holiness of God.

Mary

Giving up Baptist distinctives is exactly what this is all about. The people pushing so hard for a name change think that cooperation should be based solely on whehter an organazition or group is Christian. Ie, they can have different views on ecclesiology or PPL and we should still fund for the sake of diversity. How dare the people in the pew think their money should only go to churhces like the church they attend. Such bigotry and hatred they show when they won't fund and support churches not like their own. We are not supposed to be distinct because that is so closed minded and just not very Christian of us.

CASEY

RIGHT ON, MARY! It's all about(the name change) becoming "more Evangelical"...and it's being led by two Seminary Presidents who, quite frankly, need to get back to administrating their schools rather than trying to "change Southern Baptists". A former Catholic who is now a conservative SBC Pastor tells me he's thought for the last 7 years that the "SBC" stood for Slowly Becoming Catholic. He gets "chills" when he sees what he calls a 'drift towards a single(or two) SBC leader' type governance. We must get back to grass roots up type polity...time is short.

selahV

When did cooperating Baptist churches within the SBC morph into cooperating with every other faith-group that calls themselves Christian? Will we soon be joining the LDS because politicians say it is Christian? When do we put on the brakes? I wonder what our Southern Baptist Seminaries will be teaching in twenty years. All the little gray-haired old ladies and gents will have went on to glory. Will the SBC (or the "C"), still be sending out missionaries? Or will they just be joining others at the local pub and buying a round for the house in order to soften the soil for witnessing?

Oh, and when we join other faiths in evangelizing, do we still count the folks who get saved? Or is that another part of the Baptist tradition that will cease? I'm being a bit silly here. But seriously...will we still baptize? Since some are so rip-snortin' ready to eliminate "Baptist" from our name, will we be eliminating baptism next?

Okay, I'm done. Gonna go pray a while and intercede for our convention of Southern Baptist churches and the leaders who minister within them. May God's grace, mercy and wisdom fall upon them and abound. May all who drop in here to read, or banter a bit, remember to bring all this stuff before our Lord so He can direct our path. I just don't understand all this posturing and need for task-forces and study groups, but I do know I can trust God to keep me through it all. selahV

LMalone

"A former Catholic who is now a conservative SBC Pastor tells me he's thought for the last 7 years that the "SBC" stood for Slowly Becoming Catholic."

In my neck of the woods, SBTS is jokingly called the 'Real Presbyterian Seminary'. But I agree we are veering toward Rome at breckneck speed. Baptist committees sealing documents for 15 years is very Romanish.

What I thought I would never live to see is the day Mohler promoted cultural relativism. It goes to show that maintaining viable power/position is a very powerful incentive.

You would think Baptists would have nothing in common with the Driscollites (Acts 29)

It is actually a case of seminary presidents, instead of leading, are running after the pack yelling, wait for me, I am your leader! Jonathon Merrit is the poster boy example of what I am talking about with these guys.

Wonder what else they will compromise?

Mary

what's really sad is to watch how some people are being manipulated to jump on the "you're a racist if you don't want a name change" bandwagon. What they don't get is they're being used to push an agenda to open the tent big enough for now to bring in Acts 29 and SGM people then the tent will suddenly get smaller to include only those who care about the "true Gospel" It's not just any evangelicals who are now to be welcomed - only reformed evangelicals.

Trying to reform the SBC by reforming existing churches hasn't worked out so well so now the reform has to happen with an emphasis on new church plants and allowing those who are not SBC to come into the SBC. It's building a political base to take over.

Lmalone

"What they don't get is they're being used to push an agenda to open the tent big enough for now to bring in Acts 29 and SGM people then the tent will suddenly get smaller to include only those who care about the "true Gospel" It's not just any evangelicals who are now to be welcomed - only reformed evangelicals."

Mary, In case you do not know, SGM is a cult. Big time. It is the former "People of Destiny" and CJ called himself an "Apostle" big A.

If you are interested in why I call them a cult, go to sgmsurvivors.com and read about their practices. Some of the stories are from former sgm pastors. ( those who attended their 9month pastors college!)

I am startled in what Al, Mark and Ligon see in this guy. It only makes me think I had them wrong for a long time.

Lmalone

Btw: SGM does not do "missions". They are big into planting sgm style churches in the US. Their formula is for several families to pull of stakes, move across country and plant a church. The horror stories from this are legend over on the blog.

And that is where I see the SBC going...planting like minded reformed churches only. (Has Ezell ever admitted he is reformed?)

Our youth minister is leaving us to plant a new "reformed" SBC church in Georgia. Tell me if I am wrong but doesn't every podunk town in GA have a Baptist church? I know there is one or two in every tiny town in Ky. But they are not the right kind of churches.

Max

Casey - "... the SBC stood for Slowly Becoming Catholic". Actually, Slowly Becoming Calvinist is a closer fit. But, we may very well end up in Rome before this rebellion runs its course.

Mary - "... the reform has to happen with an emphasis on new church plants". Yep, that appears to be the strategy - several new SBC church plants in my area are led by the young, restless and reformed.

Lmalone - "Has Ezell ever admitted he is reformed?" He was/is Al Mohler's pastor ... think about it.

Mary

L, I know SGM is a cult. CJ is a big hero to the YRR. A lot of the YRR love the Family Integrated Church models so popular with Doug Wilson's Vision Forum too. Look up Randy Stinson (who I think is still at Southern) and how Vision Forum praised him. Voddie Bacham(sp) is another big FIC guy. I've read the horror stories from the SGM survivors. I've also noticed the complete silence of "voices" in the SBC YRR community to address the issues of CJ's cultic abuse and practices or for that matter the silence over the fact that Mark Driscoll has gone off the deep end and believes God gives him sexually violent visions so as to "counsel" his flock.

I believe the ultimate vision for the SBC of Mohler and the elites is closer to the closed churhes and cultic practices of Vision Forum, Driscoll, and Mahaney than the idea of "let's have a big tent of Christ follower's. They have to get complete control first and then winnow out the "chaff"

It's also interesting how some of the oh so vocal egals ignore the abuses of women by these heros of the YRR. Calvinism will be defended above everything.

Ezell is according the YRR not a Calvinist because he's a 4 pointer. When the YRR speaks about "building bridges" to nonCalvinist in the SBC that's the bridge they are building. To 4 pointers. Not really a bridge as much as a step across a very narrow little crack. The majority of the nonCalivinist in the SBC are thought by the YRR to be Biblically illiterate or possibley even not real Christians. Those nonCalvinist are the ones who need to be reformed or removed. We've "lost the Gospel" don't ya know. Thus every podunk town in GA who has a church may not have a "Gospel Church." And Ezell is certainly not going to try to revitalize a "nonGospel" church in GA when his goal is to see the only "true Gospel" church planted. But he'll sure spend the money from those he considers to have lost the Gospel.

Max

Mary - you wrote "Ezell is according to the YRR not a Calvinist because he's a 4 pointer."

Moderate (4-point) Calvinism has always seemed a paradox to me ... Unlimited Atonement vs. Unconditional Election. R.C. Sproul, reformed pastor and author, "suggests that there is confusion about what the doctrine of limited atonement actually teaches. While he considers it possible for a person to believe four points without believing the fifth, he claims that a person who really understands the other four points must believe in limited atonement because of what Martin Luther called a resistless logic” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyraldism). Of course, 4.5 point Driscollites stretch their theology to cover both bases with "unlimited limited atonement."

Whew! I'm so glad that the Gospel (the Truth, whole Truth and nothing but the Truth) is simple enough for even a child to understand. Majority Southern Baptists haven't lost the Gospel ... whosoever will still may come! As Brother Harris indicates in this blog "we certainly do stand in need of a spiritual awakening."

Mary

"... even a child to understand"

Amen!

It's seems to me that as we look historically at how doctines developed that at the time when Bibles became available to "the common plowboy" people began just believing the very simple plain meaning of the Scriptures. Calvinism has to be taught. Which leads to the arrogance that is on display amongst Calvinist that they "get" something the rest of us don't because they got the "secret" behind the plain meaning of the words. Where people just read the Bible and nothing else it seems they don't find Calvinism. And I think this idea that Calvinist have been "taught" some hidden doctrine that is like have a decoder next to you to change scriptures from their plain meaning ie "well where the Bible implies choice all over the place it's not really a choice choice because of course people don't actually have choice because God is Sovereign so of course the Bible doesn't mean choice choice, but only that people will have a choice that's not really a choice."

I love my Thompson Chain Bible because it's purpose is to let scripture interpret scripture by following the "chains" I think too often people are looking for "study" Bibles or "study books" to help them with the bible when all you gotta do is read the Bible alone. Sola Scripture and nothing else. Give me a Bible with big enough print and a Strong's concordance and I'm good to go!

Max

Mary - There is much in Scripture about the sovereignty of God. There is much in Scripture about human responsibility and free will. Scripture does not contradict itself – it all works together in a way that is beyond human comprehension. I'm wary of complex theological systems whose validity can be debated at every point. To teach that the mysteries and secrets of God fit into a neat theological box is to stand in arrogance before our Creator. I'm a big promoter of education (I even have some myself), but education does not produce one ounce of revelation. God reveals truth to those who humble themselves before Him and seek His face. I rest in the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Truth) to lead me through God’s Word … not the teachings of men.

P.S. I also carry a Thompson Chain Reference Bible, coupled with a Strong's Concordance ... they have helped me sort through Scripture over the years. I now have a giant print version of both!

LMalone

ok, I get it now about Ezell. He can tell some non sbc mega church movers and shakers he is not.a Calvinist and be technically correct. I told them he was and they were emphatic he told them he was not. I get it now.

The comments to this entry are closed.