peterlumpkins.com

Former attorney and New Mexico pastor asks riveting questions concerning Liberty University and Mark Driscoll by Peter Lumpkins

Al Mohler says to state editors: you must cover Calvinism (part II) by Peter Lumpkins

Following "Al Mohler says to state editors: you must cover Calvinism (part I)" is the final section below (not included here is the Q/A session). As before, while the words summarize sections from his address to Southern Baptist editors, the words are his own words (no commentary is added other than an occasional implied subject in brackets for clarity). I've sought to be true to the context. However, the reader may be pleased to know a transcription of his entire speech is available  >>>

Send North America: Who’s coming to St. Louis? NAMB or Acts 29? by Mary England

As a life-long St. Louisan I read with interest the recent Baptist Press article about NAMB's plan to plant 75 new churches in the St. Louis Metro Area. My initial thoughts were; where are they going to plant new churches, what about the struggling existing churches, and what kind of new churches?  >>>

SBC Tomorrow welcomes back Mary England as Guest Contributor*

Acts 29 and Anti-Congregationalism by Peter Lumpkins

More than once, I have been challenged on my assertion that Acts 29 Network is elder-governed, elder-ruled rather than elder-led. Some appear to plead the distinction between the two, but upon further investigation, we find what is basically meant by elder-led is elder-governed leadership. Perhaps now we may be able to lay this to rest for good. Below is an explicit denial >>>

Elder-Rule on the Rise in the Southern Baptist Convention (Part I) by Peter Lumpkins

 

   Below is Part I of a portion included in an essay originally published in the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry (Vol. 3 No. 1 Spring 2005: 188-212) entitled “Elder Rule and Southern Baptist Church Polity.” It’s author is Dr. Robert A. Wring, presently pastor of the Mountain Road Baptist Church in Spanaway, Washington (near Tacoma). Dr. Wring based his essay on his doctoral dissertation he completed in 2002 at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, the thesis of which was “An Examination of the Practice of Elder Rule in Selected Southern Baptist Churches in the Light of New Testament Teaching” >>>

Acts 29 Network: Elder-Led or Elder-Ruled by Peter Lumpkins

  I had a conversation recently which drew my attention to the question once again:  does the Acts 29 Network insist its networking churches/church plants possess a elder-ruled, presbyterian-like governing polity, or does it allow for congregational church polity as is found in our Baptist heritage? Let's take a look... >>>

Blog Potpourri by Peter Lumpkins

Just  a few things to keep the week going:

Three in One: An Essay on the Biblical Role of Elders by William Harrell

SBC Tomorrow welcomes William Harrell as guest contributor*

   Over the last several years there have been a number of changes which are causing confusion in Southern Baptist ranks.  Those changes, if incorporated into our Southern Baptist Zion, will make us look and act more like Presbyterians than Baptists.  I will not attempt to define what all those changes are, but I do want to focus on one in particular.  I have observed that many Baptist churches which try to institute the office of elder in their Baptist way of church life, find themselves suddenly embroiled in controversy.  This does not happen every time, but the problem arises frequently because good Baptist people realize that having the office of elder in their church is something outside the normal practice of our Baptist heritage...>>>

Vance Pitman Defending the 2011 SBC Pastors' Conference by Peter Lumpkins

  

 

 

    So far as I can tell, I was the first caulk mark on the board expressing concerns toward the 2011 SBC Pastors’ Conference. In a piece entitled, “Is the 2011 Pastors’ Conference over the top for grassroots Southern Baptists?,” I queried aloud:

"One must wonder if the platform Pitman handpicked is the appropriate channel through which the Holy One of Israel—the Lord God of Hosts—desires to breathe.  Understand:  God is God and He may choose to exhale His Spirit’s breath through any means He so desires.  The question is, do we have any solid reason (biblical or otherwise) to believe that at least some of the choices Pitman made will breathe life into Southern Baptist pastors rather than breathe death upon the Southern Baptist Convention?"

Now, in a Baptist news agency, Vance Pitman publicly responds to raised concerns>>>

Nominal Southern Baptists and Exercises in Missing the Point by Howell Scott

SBC Tomorrow welcomes Howell Scott as guest contributor*

    Some of the Southern Baptist Convention’s best and brightest continue their on-going exercise in missing the point. The parallels between Congressional elites missing the point of the grassroots Tea Party Movement that began in the spring/summer of 2009 (culminating in one of the worst electoral defeats for the incumbent party in November 2010) and SBC elites missing the point of the growing grassroots movement of “traditional” Southern Baptists is astounding. However, that’s what elites do, regardless of their venue. They are masters of missing the point. And, when they do miss the point, they often try to rewrite the story or change the subject of the story altogether. Such is the case with two well-known leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention>>>

James White, Elder Boards, and Accountability: Late Night Friday Funnies by Peter Lumpkins

UPDATE:  No, the following is *not* a spoof.  Make sure you follow the links...

Sometimes, one cannot resist getting a big, belly roll laugh on the blogs.  And, after a week of relatively intense flame rounds from folks, I end the week with a smile on my face.

Dr. Boyd Luter: Anonymity: Some Biblical and Cultural Reflections: A Brief Response by Peter Lumpkins

Last week, Dr. Boyd Luter posted an anonymous letter from a trusted friend who allegedly is a Professor in one of our six seminaries.  The anonymous letter predictably generated a lot of heat.  I posted twice about it (here and here).  Others stated reservations as well.   

Dr. Luter's post today which defends anonymous letters is entitled Break in series (II): “Anonymity: Some Biblical and Cultural Reflections”  Below is a brief critique based upon some of my personal reflections about anonymous letter writing, especially in light of Dr. Luter's very well written opinion.  I shall focus on what I believe to be the larger concerns and leave the smaller ones for another day.

Dr. Luter begins by rehearsing a litany of wider cultural events that led to exposing hypocritical persons:  Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and JFK.  He moves to corporate scandal similar to Enron and then  gets personal with a situation in his own pastorate. 

Later, he moves to overseas missions and the undercover situation of missionaries, ending with the academy where he exposes "one of the most ironic and inconsistent practices concerning anonymity that can be possibly imagined."  What might this be?  Students evaluate professors 'anonymously' but professors cannot evaluate administrators anonymously.  Interesting,  Dr. Luter.  I did not know Administrators worked for Professors.  Rather I assumed administrators were responsible to Trustees.  If the good professor prefers to evaluate anonymously, he should hang up his robe and pay his tuition.  Another possibility would be to become fortunate enough--or not-so-fortunate these days--to be employed as an Administrator.   

Here is a man with a PhD, a...well, you can read Dr. Luter's own description of himself:   

"I have had the privilege to write a commentary on Philippians for the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Baker, 1989) and half a book expounding chapter 3 (Looking Back, Moving On [Navpress, 1993])... I was a seminary and Christian college professor for 15 years...five schools at which I’ve taught full-time or served as an administrator (ranging from department chair to Academic Dean to Acting VP for Academic Affairs)... I have a pretty fair resume in which I once had fleshly confidence: rank of full Professor; Writer in Residence; a number of books, articles/book chapters and numerous other projects; numerous ”Who’s Who…” listings; scholarly papers; Evangelical Theological Society offices.  I could go on, but you get the point." (In no way am I including this to malign Dr. Luter.  Indeed, the context of these words demands the opposite).

I possess only one comment toward the entire litany of cultural examples Dr. Luter rehearses above:  Not one of the examples Dr. Luter mentioned proves or disproves that anonymous, morally indicting letters are either to be taken seriously or that the letters themselves are not to be morally indicted as no more than godless, antiChristian smut--a literary fungus of sorts, beginning to grow among Southern Baptists dissenters.  For my part, perhaps the best way to deal with fungus is scrape the skin raw. 

In addition, Dr. Luter merely describes what is the case. But surely, the good professor would not argue that what is, is what ought to be. Nor can 'one who is reading this who has a shred of objectivity'--if I can borrow a line from Dr. Luter--place, in the same category with missionaries, who, because of government oppression, risk their very lives.  Dr. Luter wants us to accept that the writing of an anonymous letter, the contents of which vaguely but morally indicts, without any objective evidence, well respected Baptist leaders is analogous to missionaries who offer their blood as a pledge for preaching the Gospel?   This, from my view, constitutes ethical coo at its majestic height.  Please, Dr. Luter:  Some of us Southern Baptists who live in the south are slow to be sure--admittedly, I am one.  But...not that slow. 

Moving on, Dr. Luter takes up the case from Scripture for anonymous letter writing which, though vaguely, morally indicts well-respected Baptist leaders.  Up until today, I did not realize Scripture was so clear in its case for anonymity in making moral charges against one's brother.  But Dr. Luter seems very confident.  One is never too old to learn. Let's see.

First, Dr. Luter rightly acknowledges Matthew 18.15-17 in dealing with conflict.  He notes:   

"Yes, I am certainly fully aware of Matthew 18:15-17.  But, in recent posts I have brought up–and, incredibly sadly, it has been ignored–that, with leaders, who are expected to be held to higher accountability than the average Christian (Luke 12:48)..."

I agree that leaders among us are held to higher standards.  My concern, however, is that Dr. Luter implies that leaders are not entitled to adequate standards but rather sub-biblical standards.  Matthew 18.15-17 states:   

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."(ESV, emphasis mine).

The clear assumption is that the "two or three witnesses" are:  a) public figures  b) such public figures who possess establishing evidence.  Where is the anonymous letter which openly indicts a brother for his immoral behavior?  Dr. Luter assures us he taught hermeneutics to many students.  May we, then, Dr. Luter, legitimately insert "anonymous letter" in the place of these public figures our Lord mentioned as viable witnesses and do so without sacrificing hermeneutical integrity? 

Indeed, glancing at the six passages found in Scripture where the "two or three witnesses" are mentioned--and, know I am willing to be corrected on this-- every single one without exception assumes public, open, straight-forward testimony by the said witness (Dt. 17.6; 19.15; Mt. 18.16; 2Cor.13.1; 1Tim.5.19; Heb.10.28).  The fact is, minus such public testimony, one can safely conclude that no case existed against the accused, or if it did, it would have to wait for the public testimony.

Hence, Dr. Luter, in essence, dismisses the words of Jesus as applicable to the situation pertaining to Southern Baptist leaders and opts instead for Paul's advice to Timothy for dealing with erring Elders:   

"the higher standard for approaching them [that is, leaders] is found in 1 Timothy 5:19-20.  There, probably because of the strong potential for valid accusations of powerful leaders getting squelched before they get anywhere, the process begins not with private confrontation, but with the accusations being made before the assembled leaders by at least two witnesses (5:19)...Whereas that passage does have a public dimension which appears to be primarily for the benefit of the guilty party...1 Timothy 5:20 says in no uncertain terms that the public rebuke of a sinning leader is designed to be a deterrent to other leaders: to scare them into not following suit through their own sin!"

I must concede I remain unconvinced that this passage should be applied broad brush to Christian leaders who serve in denominational service (And, frankly, I possess similar reservations to Jesus' words discussed above).  I realize many have made this particular argument on both sides of the aisle.  Indeed, some on my own site have argued thusly.  No one has mentioned it more, however, than Dr. Luter who laments "incredibly sadly, it has been ignored."   

Nevertheless, I think there are inherent difficulties in applying particularly this passage in 1 Timothy to the current charges against Drs. Mohler and Patterson. Why?  First, the Apostle is definitively addressing Elders who serve congregations as Elders.  The ecclesiastical 'court' was local, not denominational.  The local ecclesia was to handle this, not the Churches at large, any more than Churches at large should handle any situation calling for discipline.  Church discipline is a local not a universal Church phenomenon.

If this is correct, applicability of this principle is entirely skewed when literally transferred over to deal with denominational servants.  Hear what I am not saying:  I am not saying no accountability exists which is morally absurd.  I am saying that historically, in Southern Baptist culture, accountability has been placed into the hands of Trustees who deal with these matters, not the local ecclesia or a coalition of the same, and certainly not political alliances who desire to oust sitting Presidents of our seminaries by accumulating anonymously penned indictments.  If followed, organizational meltdown is imminent.  Imagine the chaos if we began to exercise discipline based upon anonymous indictments--and that, not locally but denominationally.  Toward what Dr. Luter is thinking I am at a loss.

Yet, if we grant that the Pastoral advice given to Timothy applies to denominational leaders, one must question whether it applies the way Dr. Luter suggests.  First, Dr. Luter assumes that the context behind Paul's advice exists "probably because of the strong potential for valid accusations of powerful leaders getting squelched before they get anywhere."  I can readily see why Dr. Luter would assert such.  It fits well his contention that that is precisely what is going on in the Southern Baptist Convention--Drs. Mohler and Patterson, among others, squelch dissenters by threatening their jobs. 

However, there is nothing in the context to require this assumption.  One could just as well assume that the reason two or three witnesses were required was to protect the Elder from invalid accusations--perhaps, but not necessarily so--coming from single, rogue church members who possessed ill-intent toward certain, prophetically, bold Elders. 

Secondly, Dr. Luter asserts Paul advises that "the process begins not with private confrontation, but with the accusations being made before the assembled leaders by at least two witnesses (5:19)."  However, note what the text says once again: 

"Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear." (ESV) 

The text does not say what Dr. Luter seems to suggest.  He assumes the accusations are to be made before the assembled leaders prior to private confrontation.  Rather, Paul's advice is:  a) not to admit a charge against an Elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.  Dr. Luter assumes this is public.  Where does the text suggest the encounter with the two or three witnesses is public and definitively not private?

My understanding is, while it does not say this particular encounter is private, given serious reflection to Jesus' words in Matthew 18.15-17, one could assume it ought to be private.  Suppose the charges were that the Elder was sleeping around?  Is this really the kind of accusation the Church desires to entertain publicly, prior to establishing the truth or falsity of such a charge?  For my money, I'm placing my bet with the words of Jesus--Do it privately. 

What then are we to make of verse twenty:  "As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear."?    Here is Dr. Luter's explanation:

"the process begins not with private confrontation, but with the accusations being made before the assembled leaders by at least two witnesses (5:19)...1 Timothy 5:20 says in no uncertain terms that the public rebuke of a sinning leader is designed to be a deterrent to other leaders: to scare them into not following suit through their own sin!"

If I am understanding correctly, Dr. Luter suggests that, prior to any private confrontation as when non-leaders are in view in Matthew 18.15-17, Christian leaders, whom the Bible holds to a higher standard, are to be accused before the open assembly, evidently without any confirmation that the leaders have been found guilty of the charges. But is that what the Apostle has in mind?  I don't think so.   

Instead, Paul advice is:  a) not to admit a charge against an Elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses (see above).  And, now, b) "As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear." (1 Timothy 5.20).  That is, those who have been found guilty of sin and who persist in it, Timothy is to publicly rebuke them in the presence of all.  There is not a hint that charges should be brought publicly nor that the Elder should be publicly rebuked prior to the establishment, if any, of the Elder's guilt.

If I am close to correct, Drs. Patterson and Mohler have not been found guilty of anything.  Many charges have been manufactured but no convictions made.  Toward what, then, does Dr. Luter desire public rebuke?  Are Drs. Patterson and Mohler to be publicly chastised because somebody charged them with wrong-doing?  Dr. Luter suggests such public display will "scare [other leaders] into not following suit through their own sin!"  I suspect such skewed public abuse will scare anybody from desiring to be a leader period. 

To the contrary, public rebuke, while surely in order, is not to be confused with massive injustice and/or personal character assassination that does much to hurt both God's Kingdom and His servants.  And, while I have expressed my reservations in applying 1 Timothy 5.19-20 to denominational servants, if we do so, we must do so carefully, sensitively and with full reflection on Jesus' words in Matthew 18.15-17, assuring that Christian leaders do not get the shaft from overly jealous political liaisons who simply desire change in leadership personalities. 

There are other, smaller issues with Dr. Luter's post.  I'll just have to save it for another day.   

Grace.  With that, I am... 

Peter