Dissenting in the Southern Baptist Convention: Dignified Critique or Destructive Politicking?

  Former Congressman, Tom Delay, wrote: 

“I have learned something about liberals. They are much like Communists. They believe they have to destroy you in order to win. ... Liberals in Congress have no ideas that history hasn’t disproved, and this leaves them pursuing only power. To get that power, they will destroy you — and if they can’t destroy your message they will try to lock up the messenger. Congress today is plagued by the politics of personal destruction.” (italics mine).

Today, the same could be said of dissenters in the Southern Baptist Convention.

    Oddly enough, when some are lamenting the demise of the Southern Baptist Convention as a denomination because of recently released numbers of decline, the growls of dissent have turned to deadly bites and the snarls of query to malicious mauls.

I offer two examples for your necessary consideration but not by any stretch for your nourishing edification.  Surely no one who loves the Southern Baptist Convention or appreciates sober reasoning about truth could imagine in a thousand lives--were our Lord to grant them--that edification could result from such a read. 

From my vantage point--and mine alone--one is conceivably far more likely to contract rabies than come by edification in adhering to the thought processes of weblog posts such as these. If you do read, note your distance. Rabies is extremely contagious and I'm told the least drop of drool contains all necessary to make you a carrier.

The first example is a post on Grace & Truth to You and can be dealt with easily.  Of course, Mr. Burleson is no stranger to us here.  He of late comments more frequently on this site. 

Nor is Mr. Burleson a stranger to many Southern Baptists. He guaranteed his name in lights by kicking sand on the Trustees of the IMB every time they met at the beach for a meeting. The trustees patiently dug the sand out of their ears for several meetings, moving on with the Missions agenda before finally having enough. Then one day the bullie kicked down their sand castle.  And Mr. Burleson made history. 

He self-proudly became the first, sitting trustee in the history of Southern Baptists to be censured from serving what Southern Baptists had appointed him to do.  Not kick sand in people's faces, mind you. But work for global missions with other like-minded Baptists.

Now Mr. Burleson no longer kicks sand; instead he poisons soup. His current post posing as an "unmasking" of those he dubs the "Baptist Identity movement" is a complete fabrication within his own mind.  He desires to expose their extreme views and extra-biblical philosophy with which he contends but cannot manage to dialog with any of the actual writings of those he allegedly unmasks. 

Burleson's engagement with the "Baptist Identity" views is limited to one short sentence from an essay I penned and which Professor Malcom Yarnell subsequently quoted .  This is the statement that Burleson unmasked for all Southern Baptists to see:

Cooperation must end where our bedrock convictions are compromised.

From that one statement, Burleson bit, gnawed, snarled and mauled the alleged "Baptist Identity" advocates.  From his view, we propose a "top-down ecclesiology" which is akin to Roman Catholicism, a "loss of local church autonomy" and an "extra-biblical theology". Burleson never quotes any sources for his "unmasking" of the real agenda of "Baptist Identity".  Just the innocuous statement I penned above--for effect, I suppose. 

Then again, if it is one, valid criticism that stuck to him over the course of these eighteen months or so since some of us challenged his provocative assertions and rumormongering about SBC leadership,  it is this:  the absence of positive evidence or the exploitation of possible evidence. 

Either way, Mr. Burleson's posts stand, in my view, as the quintessential embodiment of litigation mania currently in our culture, which cares not about factual concerns but only about fiscal returns.  A genuine, sober reading of evidences seems out of the question.

The second example is Provocations & Pantings, a Founders-friendly blog, written by Timmy Brister, a former Southern Baptist Theological Seminary student and watchdog for all things NonCalvinist. Timmy has made quite a name for himself for his hard talk toward all things not birthed from pure, undiluted Dortian Calvinism.

Indeed, according to Collin Hansen's new book, "Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists", Timmy took a beating even from seminary officials for his over-the-top language against NonCalvinists.  Twice let go as staffer from previous Churches because of his vocal stand on Dortian Calvinism, Tom Ascol recently took Timmy under his wing by bringing him on staff at his Church.  And, Timmy wasted no time flexing his muscles as the go-to-guy for Dr. Ascol. 

On this post, Ascol, who has for two years brought a resolution on regenerate church membership to the SBC for consideration-- concerning which, by the way, both times were rejected for whatever reasons--explains the differences between his resolution and now one by Drs. Bart Barber & Malcom Yarnell which is obviously perceived by some to be a "rival" to Ascol's.

There was apparently dialog, however small, between the various men who were working on both resolutions.  Ascol offered some changes to the other resolution being written which, from what I gather, could have led to a joint resolution. 

Nonetheless, for reasons known only between the parties involved, while Ascol's recommendations were considered, they were not in the final draft.  By the way, my name, should you want to know, stands as one of the charter sponsors of the Barber/Yarnell resolution.  One trump-card of this resolution is that a major group of Southern Baptists have already passed it--or, at least a very similar version of it.

So, Dr. Ascol decides to continue with his.  Frankly, I do not see what the problem is at this point.  Anyone or any group of cooperating Southern Baptists may submit a resolution for consideration.  Meet the guidelines, submit.  That's it.  That's the process. 

And, the rule is, there are always many more resolutions submitted to the Resolutions Committee than either considered or recommended to the Convention for vote and approval. 

In addition, even if one's resolution is considered and ultimately approved for recommendation to the Convention for vote, it's virtually certain it will be edited and very probable it will look unlike what you originally submitted.

That said, Dr. Ascol had every right to continue developing his resolution to submit as did the Barber/Yarnell group they theirs.  It sounds so easy here.  What could possibly go wrong?

Well, here it is: 

The Founders mentality, which simply cannot and apparently will not leave their Dortian Calvinism out of the equation of any single issue with which we find ourselves at odds as Southern Baptists, opened fire.

Dr. Malcom Yarnell logged on to the post linked above and Timmy Brister responded back about the lack of Gospel in the Barber/Yarnell resolution. *"Repent is the first word of the Gospel", Timmy insisted.

After a couple of exchanges and Timmy denying he said Southern Baptists had "lost" the Gospel but only lost "focus" on the Gospel, I penned a comment of my own, showing, I believe, precisely that Timmy indeed did explicitly say we have lost the Gospel and needed desperately to "recover" it.

And, instead of humbling himself and admitting he, in fact, was guilty of saying **Southern Baptists have lost the Gospel and need to recover it, he went silent in the thread but opened fire with double-ought buckshot.  In that post, which near steals one's breath, Brister indicts both Barber and Yarnell as lacking moral integrity in bringing the resolution because both men are in Churches that Brister suggests is apparently 70% unregenerate. Therefore, Brister informs us, Ascol's resolution is superior. 

Timmy had other reasons why he supports Ascol's resolution over Barber/Yarnell's.  But that one stabbed me really good. Am I to understand that, if a Church does not meet the numbers quota that Calvinists like Brister defines, neither the messengers from those Churches nor the Pastor of those Churches is morally suited to offer a resolution to the Southern Baptist Convention?

If for no other reason I could think, if Ascol's resolution comes to the floor of the convention as it is, I think I'll just vote no.  I cannot imagine that's the acceptable interpretation these guys are placing on their resolution.  If so, this stands as just another reason why the so-called "Baptist Identity" position may be attractive.

These two bloggers--Burleson & Brister--while possessing separate agendas, are both exemplar of the kind of directions dissenters of the Conservative Resurgence would lead us.  One of these would lead us to Geneva to bow at Calvin's feet, creedally endorsing without debate all five points of Dortian Calvinism.  Moreover, these apparently would decide who's Church was qualified to be called regenerate and whose would not.

The other major dissenting group looks to Wade Burleson as a spokesmen.  He is less harmless because of his complete disregard for factual accuracy and his sloppiness in skewing sources when he employs them.

Call me an historic Baptist if you like.  Call me an advocate of "Baptist Identity".  Call me backward or old-fashioned.  I really am unconcerned much about what I am called.  But know this, dear reader:

I absolutely, positively refuse, by the grace of our loving Lord, to travel to Geneva with Founders or get swallowed up in a black hole of evangelical anonymity with Burleson.

It's really that simple for me. I am not interested in buying what either set of these dissenters are selling.  Personally, I'd rather die.

With that, I am...

Peter

*I do not at all accept such a simplistic convolution of the Gospel. And, frankly, given Founders advocates like Timmy, who constantly sing the sad song that Southern Baptists need to "recover the lost Gospel" I am confused why our Founders brothers let him get away with such theological nonsense. 

If "repent" is the first word of the Gospel, the Gospel is a Gospel of works, not gracious love.  Repent is something I do.  And, whether repentance is a gift or not is absolutely irrelevant. Even if God divinely, monergistically enables me to repent, it nonetheless is me repenting; it is not God repenting.

Thus, if the Gospel begins with repentance, the Gospel begins with me.  That's pure, unmitigated nonsense as far as I am concerned. There is only one word that could possibly qualify for the opening act of the Gospel--Christ.  Period.  No debate.  No discussion.  No ifs.  Christ alone is the first word, Timmy. Indeed, I'd say He was last as well, the Alpha and Omega, so to speak.

**When Founders like Timmy Brister say the Gospel needs to be recovered, do not mistake this key component:  for them, the lost Gospel which needs recovery is the Doctrines of Grace, more popularly interpreted as the Five Points of Calvinism or TULIP.  This is easily demonstrated.

 

Comments

[jasonk]

And meanwhile, back at the guest house, little Jimmy's dog is trapped in the well...and so are the Days of Our Lives.

SUCH a soap opera.

I like Wade's blog. At least he is real.

A couple of questions, Peter. Is it true that the newest resolution contains no mention of repentance over the fact that the SBC has officially inflated its numbers over the years? And if that is true, do you see it as a problem? Do you believe that the SBC has inflated its numbers, and that it was wrong, even sinful, for us to have done so? And therefore, should we as a body of believers repent from it publicly?
Finally, is there anything wrong with a pastor being let go from his church, then hired on as a staff member at a friend's church? You made it sound like a bad thing, but it happens a lot.

[selahV]

JasonK...you need to go pray for a while, son.

[jasonk]

SelahV, first of all, I am not your son, please do not refer to me as such.
Second of all, you're right. I do need to pray more.
Third of all, so do you. And so do we all, because the denomination I have been a part of for three decades is turning into a soap opera.

[selahV]

JasonK, I apologize for calling you an endearment I reserve only for those whom I love. I only had one son who lived to be 33 years old. And he, Jason, would never have objected to any lady over 59 calling him such. Perhaps you are much older than your words seemed to express to me, and I should have called you brother. So, you go pray, and realize that I too am praying. Having read what Dr. Yarnell wrote at SBC Today, I could do nothing more, nor less than pray. Only a working of the Spirit of God will heal us. The SBC is not a soap opera. It is a convention of churches with loving, kind people who are called by His name. Thousands upon thousands of those dear Christian people know nothing of the squabbling going on in the cyberworld. We are in great turmoil at this moment and while you find it necessary to go from blog to blog sharing your disdain for us, I humbly request you pray for me as well as others. I do not go but to a few blogs for most of what I read tears my heart apart. selahV

[volfan007]

jasonk,

maybe sbc churches did not inflate thier numbers on purpose, in some sort of conniving, scheming plan to make themselves look bigger...to make the sbc look bigger. maybe it was just what happened over the years as people joined and then dropped out, and they just did nothing about all the ones not showing up? you know, maybe it was not some sinful, sinister plot to get bragging rights?

ever thought of that? or, are you just so anti-sbc, or anti-sbc leadership, or anti-conservative resurgence influence on the sbc, or anti-conservative, or anti-baptist identity that you just want to cantankerous?

david

[volfan007]

that should read...."be cantankerous."

david

[jasonk]

SelahV,
I appreciate your words, and the sentiment behind them. You are right, the SBC is for the most part a loving group of people, however, what I read, here and elsewhere, sounds like a soap opera. He said, she said. Drama queens. It does nothing to further the cause of Christ in the world.
My objection to your use of the term "son" was not because it is a term of endearment, but because you used it to scold me. Apology accepted.

David,
I am not anti-SBC, anti-conservative, etc. I do object to the narrowing of what is a Southern Baptist. There are many good brothers and sisters in the Kingdom of God who are being written off, and that concerns me. The questions I ask are not merely rhetorical, I really want to know what people think--was the SBC deliberately complicit in inflating the numbers? I think that you might call that "ministerially speaking." I've known pastors who count ears instead of heads. Who baptize the same kids year after year. And it wasn't just a few pastors. I've known lots of them. And that is because many pastors are infatuated with numbers.
Now, if it is true that pastors are infatuated with numbers, and that made its way up to the leadership of the SBC, and we have been going around bragging about 16 million members, when we know all along that's not true, is it sin, and should we repent of it? I read Dr. Yarnell's words at SBC Today, and like Selah, it broke my heart. He is absolutely right. However, at some point one has to go beyond merely saying, "Lord forgive me because I'm a sinner," and publicly repent of specific things we have done wrong.
My questions and comments were not designed to be cantakerous, they are born out of a genuine frustration over the nature of what we are fussing about, the way we are fussing about it, and the way we think it needs to be dealt with. That's it. I may be a lot of things, but I assure you, I am sincere above all.

[peter]

JasonK,

I wrote "Twice let go as staffer from previous Churches because of his vocal stand on Dortian Calvinism, Tom Ascol recently took Timmy under his wing by bringing him on staff at his Church."

How that is supposed to "sound like a bad thing" I cannot tell. Perhaps on the surface, it may "sound bad" to many; but others like yourself, I suppose there is nothing bad at all. I gave judgement neither way. I only reported what Hansen wrote in his book and Ascol posted on his blog about Timmy's current situation.

As for the numbers, JasonK, it doesn't matter at all what I believe about them for the answer has nothing to do with this post.

As for the "soap opera" atmosphere, I suggest you believe as you wish, sir. I offer no defense about that here.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Camel Rider]

Do you really expect peaceful dialogue when you start your article with a quote about liberals being like communists...doing anything they can to get power. Non-Baptist Identity people are not liberal, communist nor after power. Well maybe some are but that can well be said of your side as well.

You actually write a post quoting that voices of dissent are using "politics of personal destruction.” (italics yours)." Then you actually go on and personally attack two bloggers that have opposing views than yours.

Then Jason posts a comment and he's laid into with a command to go pray (becuase obviously no one could oppose the BI if they had prayed) and he's questioned as if he's anti-SBC...."are you just so anti-sbc, or anti-sbc leadership, or anti-conservative resurgence influence on the sbc, or anti-conservative, or anti-baptist identity that you just want to (be) cantankerous?"

So when you say nasty things it's just pointing out bad theology, when others do it they're liberal and anti-SBC. When the BI seeks to continually redefine both the BFM AND Scripture, it's simply maintaining Scriptural purity, when the other side does it they're trying to lead the masses astray with their TULIP.

I truly don't understand this line of thinking. I don't understand the BI movement. I think Wade nailed it on his blog. I don't agree with everything he writes or does but at least he's honest and doesn't play the God card every time he chews someone apart.

I believe the SBC still has a future but with this type of division and stubborness on both sides....and honestly a lack of focus on what it really important.....the GC....not maintaining some man made idea of denominational identity...I'm afraid for what this future looks like.
Camel Rider

[Debbie Kaufman]

Now I suggest that those who read this read Timmy and Wade's blogs. I think you will find the above to be untrue. I also find it dirty that you would mention Timmy Brister and his church experiences as you have Peter. That is low, too low for even me as I could mention one that has the same history in your camp. Actually two if I think about it. I'm disappointed that you have gone this route Peter and I too took SelahV's answer to Jason as condescending. Yep. It's certainly getting Convention time.

[Tom Bryant]

We do not know each other, but we would certainly be on the same side of most issues that are now confronting the SBC. This tone and attack in this post reminds me of the attack that ended Sen. McCarthy's reign of terror in the 50's. Deal with the issues, deal with them forcefully, but attacking Brother Brister's position because of his past employment record is just out of bounds. I have thought his statements have been outlandish at times. But the kind of personal attack on him is something that we wouldn't allow in our church's business meeting where we insist on one believer speaking lovingly and kindly to another believer.

I am afraid that you have moved from dignified critique to destructive politicking.

[bill]

A couple things:

Could someone define Dortian Calvinism, as opposed to the (apparently) acceptable kind of Calvinism? Perhaps an example of a Dortian Calvinist and a good Calvinist would be helpful.

Also, is it fair to characterize Mr. Brister's blog post(s) as the "Founder's mentality"? If, as I suspect, you judge Mr. Brister's attitude to be wrong, then you paint a whole organization with the same brush. Is Mr. Brister the official spokesperson for the Founder's movement?

[peter]

Tom, Debbie, Camel & All,

If you can show in the words I employed about Brister's 2 departures from former churches that they constitute a personal attack, I'll be open to dialog about that. If not, I have no interest in pursuing it with you.

Now, if you care, you can read in Hansen's book, "Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists", these words:

"At Mobile, Timmy encountered a strong Reformed movement. But like so many others, he didn't find so much appealing about these Calvinists. They told him God would never use him unless he embraced five point Calvinism...

Circumstances nudged Timmy toward Reformed theology. He was fired from his first church internship, working for an SBC church in Mobile that ranked among the states leaders in baptism...

After his first ministry experience, Timmy was pretty sure he wanted nothing to do with churches...Timmy moved closer to home after college and began working in student ministry for a church...But during his fourth year Timmy led a staff devotional by reading Piper's "Brother's We Are Not Professionals".

The staff didn't appreciate what Timmy implied...The church suspended Timmy for one week without pay.

At that point, Timmy decided he needed to go to seminary. Timmy expects to either plant his own SBC church or join a Calvinist pastoral staff when he graduates"(p.78-79)

How employing information in a public source is attacking another I will leave to the more sober readers to consider.

With that, I am...

Peter

[volfan007]

it looks to me like the majority of the attacks in this post are not coming from the computers of peter, selah, and volfan. they all seem to be coming from some of the others in here. in fact, you all's words seem very harsh and condemning and misjudged and unfounded.

a good, long, hard, look in the mirror does wonders in opening the eyes.

david

[peter]

Bill,

Personally, I've gone the distance in attempting to find language Calvinists themselves accept. It has been "Strict", "Strong", "hyper"(little "h" as in 'aggresive'), "Five Point", and some others, I suppose, coupled with Calvinist but none has been successfully acceptable.

Interestingly, "Dortian" has been the least objectionable so far. What do I mean by Dortian Calvinist? One who adheres to the nonnegotiable TULIP as defined at Dort. For Dortian Calvinists, all five points are necessary theologically. Ascol unapologetically defends Dortian Calvinism as does Founder's resources.

That's why I employ the term myself. And why, I shorten it to "Founders types" or "Founders Calvinists", etc. Nor is it in the least meant to be negative. It's actually been positive thus far.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Ranger]

Peter,
I usually like the way you write, but I think your aversion to Calvinism has clearly led this post to conclusions that are neither justified nor evident from those asking for repentance in the SBC. Do you honestly believe that Tom Ascol of all people is in anyway implying that the "gospel begins with me" by focusing demanding that the SBC repent for its past sin in this matter?

What is the message that Jesus sends the disciples out with in the gospels to proclaim throughout Israel? Is it not repentance? Or what was the message of Peter at Pentecost? Is it not to "repent and be baptized?" Or what about whenever Simon tried to buy the power of the Spirit in Acts 8? Was the command of Peter and John not to "repent and beg the Lord?"

Or is the question not whether or not we should demand repentance but instead whether or not you view the past actions of the church in this matter to be sinful at all? Is it not sin to report things that are not true? Is it not sin to not enforce biblical standards on our congregations?

I stand with Dr. Ascol in believing that as followers of Christ that we are commanded to follow His lead in calling "sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32).

[peter]

Ranger,

Thanks. And, I surely cannot deny my bias could be at work in any number of posts I publish, my brother. I am as vulnerable as anyone.

However, I think you mistook my words written to engage Timmy's words with Ascol's position. I haven't read an Ascol writing that "Repent is the first word of the Gospel". I was exclusively alluding to Brister at that point.

I must admit, though, that if Ascol--or whomever for that matter--insists "repent" is the first word of the Gospel, the same comments I offered apply, given my understanding.

Does either Ascol or Brister believe the Gospel 'begins with me'? I haven't the least confidence they would affirm such. Nonetheless, the assertion "repent is the first word of the Gospel" unmistakably implies such, from my view. If I am correct, it needs to be discarded for a better statement that avoids insufficient implications.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[johnMark]

Who said the following?

Yes, sir, repentance and faith are the first words in the Gospel!

Mark :)

[bill]

I don't have a problem with repentance being the first word of the Gospel. That doesn't mean (nor is it implied) that it comes before belief. Belief comes first. The question is, is the language of repentance appropriate for a resolution calling for regenerate church membership? I think it is. Those who believe it isn't because not everyone may be guilty of intentionally or unintentionally inflating membership numbers, misunderstand the nature of corporate repentance.

[peter]

Bill,

You can accept either "belief" or "repentance" as the first word if you like. I happen to accept neither in pole position.

As far as a call to repentance being acceptable to a resolution, I haven't the faintest reservation. Yet to insist a call to repentance is a non-negotiable element toward offering an acceptable resolution, I possess major difficulties.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Tom Bryant]

All I am saying is that in dealing with your differences, you have gone from attacking a position to attacking a person when that information does not need to be known in the course of the discussion. I can, and do, disagree with what Brother Brister is saying. But I can disagree without ever having to know about any employment history.

That's what I thought was out of bounds. When Paul confronted Peter in Galatians, I doubt he reminded Peter about his failure at Christ's trial.

[peter]

Tom,

My brother, could you please be specific about precisely what in the language I used about Timmy's employment that is "attacking"?

In addition, I have stated now three times and documented above the source of that information. It is a book recommended by all Calvinists everywhere. Please be specific how that info is illegitimate to recite.

Grace, Tom. With that, I am...

Peter

[Don't Tell]

Peter,

You have really crossed the line of what a Christian should be. You have been Slinging Mud and Untruths ever since you started Blogging. Your Poison Pen has been Spewing Venom as much as any Serpent. The “I AM” of your Sign Off is very Disrespectful of the “GREAT I AM”.

And with That

I am Peter

[Byroniac]

Don't Tell:

I don't agree with Peter in a lot of things, and I don't agree with him in this post. At all. It's possible I don't understand where he's coming from, often, though. But more likely, we just see things differently. I'm willing to agree to disagree and move on.

Having said that, Don't Tell, here's what I want to tell you:

You are simply being unfair, regardless of your opinion. If you are going to say something like that, then at least be an adult about it and say so without being anonymous. To insinuate that Peter's "I am..." is a reference to the Divine Person is patently ridiculous. It would also be helpful if you documented your claims, but I suppose that is too much to ask in today's world.

[Alan Cross]

I'll leave most of this debate up to others to decide, but Peter, you are wrong on a couple of things. The "dissenters" or "reformers" do not just slide easily into two camps, either Enid or Founders. While I have agreed with both Wade and Ben and Tom Ascol and Timmy Brister on certain issues, I've also disagreed with them on others (I have no particular anger against Paige Patterson, nor am I a Calvinist). There are many others who want to see things set right, who oppose the IMB policies, and who are open to a Calvinistic influence in the SBC that are not of any camp. Nor, do they employ the politics of personal destruction.

My biggest objection to what you have written is that you paint your opponents with too large a brush. I've even agreed with you, Bart Barber, the SBC Today group, etc. on more than one occasion (I especially like what you say about Jesus being the beginning and end of the gospel in this post), but we both know that I am not in your camp.

I think that there are a lot of people that are not in anyone's camp. The truth is, there are some loud voices that demand a reaction in one way or another. I do not comment or really have much opinion on around 95% of Wade's posts. I have the same perspective on around 90% of Bart's posts and maybe 80% of the SBCToday posts. But, there are a few issues that I am interested in and I comment on those. The fact that I happen to agree with Wade more than Bart or you on those few issues does not put me in his camp. I really don't have time to talk about everything else.

I am well aware that you were not talking about me here, nor am I trying to be arrogant by inserting myself into this conversation. I just wanted to give a perspective from someone floating out there in the blogosphere about "camps" and broad brush painting. I think that even in the blogosphere, we are much more diverse than people think and very few of us march to the siren song of a pied piper. I think that most of us are issue oriented rather than personality oriented, at least I hope that is the case. It's just that there are about 10-15 people that are very vocal and they can be very nasty at times. Those people dominate most of these conversations negatively and skew all of our perspectives. At least, that is my impression. But, God loves them too. Maybe we can all work to neutralize the influence of those who go nuclear with love and grace. Who knows? It just might work.

I'm all for a good debate and I have no intention from backing down on an issue that I believe to be important, but I think that we should do it in relation to issues, not by tearing someone down. I am not saying that I have been perfect in that, because I haven't. I have failed. But, maybe the events of the past two weeks could cause us all to reset a bit and remember that we are brothers.

[scott shaffer]

Peter,

Regarding Timmy's employment history, why mention it at all? How is it germane to the resolution or the point of the post?

Grace,
Scott

[Tom Bryant]

Peter,
I can remember being asked to leave a summer job in a church because in 1965, I said that Christians ought not to support the war in Vietnam (a war, by the way that I was fighting in 5 years later). Should that be an issue in a discussion concerning which resolution is better? It doesn't have to be untrue to be an attack.

I can see that neither one of us are going to change our view of this. Basically, I agreed with the rest of the post, just bringing up a man's past that had nothing to do with the discussion.

Regardless, I look forward to hopefully meeting you in Indianapolis.

[bill]

Peter: Fair enough. But I will remind everyone that the language of repentance is apparently a non-negotiable for both sides. One side will not accept a resolution without it, and one side will not accept a resolution with it. Both well within their rights certainly but brother Tom is one coming out of this looking uncooperative.

[peter]

Dear Don't Tell,

Thanks for logging on. You have no debate from me to believe as you wish about both my posts in general and the way I sign my name in particular...

Alan,

You deny, against my alleged assertion to the contrary, that "The "dissenters" or "reformers" do not just slide easily into two camps, either Enid or Founders". Could you please, my Brother, produce the language here which supports such?

I concede the two representatives were intended as majors players among the dissenters. Nonetheless, offering "two examples" and "two directions" which I myself deny by no stretch exhausts the options. Nor do I imply such.

In addition, I even threw in that the so called "Baptist Identity"--surely considered, at least by many, a dissenting movement--is a position which "may be attractive". That's three, Alan.

Consequently, I painted with no broad brush as you suggest in identifying those who disagree in the SBC. Sorry. I just don't see your point.

If I am perfectly honest, Alan, I do find it tiring--but still possessing enough humor to quiet frustration--to be increasingly reminded by many who somehow think it their duty to suggest they are more objective, more fair, more evenly reasonable and belong to "no camp" or "no group".

This is usually stated in the form of

"Sometimes I agree with Wade, sometimes I don't; Sometimes I agree with Bart, sometimes I don't; sometimes I agree with Tom Ascol, sometimes I don't, and sometimes I even agree with you sometimes I don't."

The message that bleeds straight through, of course, is the message that "I" am fair, "I" am balanced, "I" am obligated to truth, "I" am reasonable and "I" am certainly not biased.

What a Georgia hoot! I love life, love my Lord and cannot fail to concede, I love being Baptist despite our sometimes delightfully humorous ways.

Grace, Alan. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Byron,

Always a pleasure to have you log on. And, I cannot express my gratitude enough for the sober comment.

Know also you are correct in your assertion about the "I am" sign off. There is a story about that. It actually has an origin when I began doing it.

However, I refuse to even address it when someone suggests it a blasphemous reference of competition I have between me and my Lord. I will not waste a snippet of my life on such needless--not to mention useless--explanation.

Grace, Byron. With that, I am...

Peter

[Alan Cross]

Peter, at the end of your post, you give us two options of directions that you refuse to go involving the dissenting groups. I really do not know what other options you hold in your mind, but you presented us with two. If you want to add the BI group as a third, fine, but I was responding to the two directions that you said you would not go. My point is that there are many who agree with parts of all three camps that do not find themselves in any camp on all of the issues.

I am sorry that you tire of people who claim to be objective. I make no such claim. I am very biased and opinionated when it comes to the issues that I believe in. It is just that no one camp articulates those issues, therefore I withhold my allegiance from uncritically siding with any one group. There are lots of people who do the same and do not want to lead the SBC to any camp or in any dissenting direction. They just want some correction on particular issues. That is human nature and defines just about everyone that I have ever met in the SBC. But, it can be accurate to say that you can agree with someone on something and not be a follower of them or be in their camp on other things.

Peter, for someone who ends every post with "I am Peter," I find it interesting that you would get a hoot out of someone else declaring their position on issues by using the pronoun, "I".

It is a shame that you did not see me largely agreeing with your post that the ugliness needed to stop. My only point of contention was that not all dissenters fell into the two camps that you used as examples. You have agreed that there are not just two camps. I am glad that we are able to clear that up.

Thank you for your response.

[peter]

Scott,

I do not know how to request this any clearer: what language did I employ that makes the mention of Timmy's relations with two former churches off limits here but perfectly acceptable in Hansen's book? I'd like to know, please.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Karen in OK]

What I keep hearing is that of 16 million supposed members only 6 million show up on a given Sunday, so that shows evidence that most Southern Baptists are possibly unregenerate in that they are not even nominally committed to attending their own individual church.
Thus, a resolution to address this is needed. Although the signers in support of each resolution all say that their respective churches are not guilty of this. But supporters of these resolutions all have anecdotes about the "many" churches they have heard of.

So I got out my most recent church directory and counted the numbers. I suppose that on the surface my church would be a textbook case of needing to practice the tenets of these resolutions. Week after week, our attendance varies between about 170-190, yet I counted 356 people in the directory.
BUT THEN I counted all the people I could personally account for their whereabouts, and/or I had seen in church very recently, and I came up with 292 out of the 356.
That included my son who is in college and very recently transferred his membership to a great SBC church in his college town. Until he did, he brought the attendance statistics of our church down, even though he was attending and active in an SBC church every Sunday. Part of the supposed 12% that keeps going to church after high school.

Why such a large gap between 170 and 292? Many, many reasons, none of which have to do with lack of church discipline. Some are nurses and work every other Sunday. They come when they don't have a Sunday shift. Likewise for the nursing home workers, policemen, and others. Lots of college students who DO attend in their college towns. Some people shut-in or in the nursing home. Some are retired and travel part of the time. Some are regularly gone on mission trips. Some have little kids that have all kinds of illnesses.
But there are still 64 unaccounted for. All I said was that I could account for 292, more or less. I don't pretend to know everybody in the church, but the pastor and deacons do.

Bottom line, on the surface, my church falls into the category of what these resolutions are about. But it really doesn't. Why should I vote for a resolution that assumes churches are in sin on this matter when it seems to me that the statistic of 6 million vs. 16 million is being over-simplified and churches are assumed in sin on the basis of this over-simplification?

[peter]

Tom,

Know I am open to agreeing with you about inappropriate language or off-limit facts about people's lives if you can please offer me precisely what I wrote that is inappropriate.

I made no assumption; I wrote based on no rumor; I did not suggest Timmy was wrong in his actions which led to his departure of the two churches; to the contrary, I do not think a person should be considered in the wrong just because he/she is asked to leave a position.

And, I would fully concede Timmy's courage a positive thing, in speaking his theological convictions even under pressure that his job was in jeopardy.

Nor did I make this an issue. JasonK began shooting his six shooters in the very first comment: "You made it sound like a bad thing". I have repeatedly asked for the "bad thing" I said by quoting info from a book all Calvinists recommend. No one yet has offered any substance.

I can only conclude that the reason the objection exists is that my statement is disliked. Well, I am sorry that it is disliked, but that makes it neither inappropriate nor off-limits. But in no uncertain terms, it makes it not unChristian.

Grace, Tom. With that, I am...

Peter

P.S. I count it an honor to meet you face to face in Indy.

[scott shaffer]

Peter,

You are missing the point. I haven't read the referenced book, but based on what I know about it, the comment was relevant because it fit with the overall topic of reformed theology in general and calvinism in particular.

But, what does this fact have to do with the point of your post? Perhaps there is a connection, but I just don't see it and apparently several others don't either.

[peter]

Scott,

To the contrary, Scott, I have repeatedly asked for any type of evidence that the comment was inappropriate, based on false info, if it was framed in such a way as to attack, etc etc. Nothing surfaces except forms of dislike or disapproval such as yours evidently is, Scott.

Nor does it make one iota of difference whether you've personally read the book. Please, my brother:

the information is public information, accessible to any who desires to read it. Unless I have skewed the information, misstated the information or in any way made the information say something it did not say, it simply stands beyond reason why anyone would object.

What's interesting is, this very subject is precisely the issue I've had with Enid and even mentioned this in the present post--skewing sources. For over a year, I raised this issue and documented the complaint.

Here, however, the complaint is against the use of legitimate sources with a charge attached of unchristian, inappropriate, over-the-top, etc etc. When asked how that is so, the complainers scatter, content with leaving the charge intact but without producing any substance to sustain.

I'm, sorry, Scott. For me, that is totally disingenuous. And I hope, under our Lord's grace, I never, ever make it my practice to employ such a lame contribution--if contribution is at all the proper term.

I suggest, my brother, if you, or anyone else does not agree with that, fine. I accept that. But as far as I am concerned, unless you're willing to produce the goods, it needs to rest.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[scott shaffer]

Peter,

It appears we won't agree on this.

I don't see how the fact that he was dismissed by or left two churches because of his Calvinistic theology is relevant to your post "Dissenting in the Southern Baptist Convention..." Yes, it is public knowledge and there is nothing wrong per se with repeating it. But again, what does it have to do with the topic at hand? You have yet to answer the question posed by me and others. Until you connect the relevance between your post and his employment history, it gives the appearance, and I stress appearance, that you mentioned it as a way to discredit him or the Founders group.

By the way, I thought his post, especially his dialog with Yarnell, was off base. And, I disagree with most everything posted by Wade Burleson that is SBC related.

[Byroniac]

I'd like to pull something out of the "and now for something completely different.." category.

I would like to remind my Calvinistic brethren to not obsess over numbers. I would also like to remind myself and them that we have, often justly I believe, criticized the excessiveness in focusing on numbers with non-Calvinists. Now the shoe is on the other foot, for a different reason and coming from a different perspective.

Numbers by themselves do not tell the whole story. They can and probably do serve as indicators of spiritual problems in churches in many instances. But they are not the whole story, though they might be the only information someone on the outside ever gets. There's a famous quotes about lies and statistics I won't quote here, but I think it can be relevant.

I have read both the Ascol and the Barber-Yarnell resolutions just now. I favor the Ascol resolution and appreciate its call to corporate repentance without intending to assign blame to every individual church in the SBC. But both resolutions are very good (I have not read the third one, and I am not sure yet where it can be found) and both need to be passed in my opinion. I think both resolutions are good for the SBC.

I want to say by way of final reminder, as Christians we should know best that church membership, having your name on the church rolls, and even active attendance are no guarantees of changed hearts and changed lives. Will we be satisfied once the numbers are in proper alignment (whatever that would be)? I sure hope not! I hope we would always be calling to Christians to constant spiritual growth, repentance of sin, and works of righteousness.

[Greg Welty]

Peter,

As you probably know, I've taken Timmy to task for his post on the Barber-Yarnell resolution, and have posted three quite critical comments there (the first two are quite lengthy).

However, in your post here, you say of Burleson and Brister:

"One of these would lead us to Geneva to bow at Calvin's feet, creedally endorsing without debate all five points of Dortian Calvinism."

Since Burleson is quite allergic to creeds, I assume you intend to refer to Brister here. Could you please document where Brister has stated or otherwise revealed that his purpose is to (i) get us to worship Calvin, and (ii) give Calvinism creedal status in the SBC, and (iii) get us all to accept Calvinism *without debate*?

[Tim B]

Peter

I will offer two quick comments...
If the word "repent" means "change of mind" or to "turn around" then I would suggest that the accusation that the Barber/Yarnell does not contain a call for repentance rather empty. What it does not do that Tom's does is that it does implicitly accuse all SBC churches of being in sin.

The accusations that the "SBC" deliberately inflates its numbers without any evidence is a slander against good trustworthy clerks, secretaries and others involved in the reporting of numbers and ought to be repented of.

Tim B

[Byroniac]

Tim B:

No, the Ascol resolution does not imply that all SBC churches are in sin. The resolution is offered in the context of corporate repentance as opposed to individual repentance.

It states, for example, "RESOLVED that we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the widespread failure among us to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of lovingly correcting wayward church members (Matthew 18:15-18)"

The key words are found in places like above where it says "among us" instead of something like "in us all". It does not require that someone interpret it to mean that all churches without exception are guilty and need to repent.

OK. This is a weak analogy, but maybe it can help show my point. This is like getting a corporate memo at work complaining that employees are speeding in the parking lot and not obeying the posted speed limits (assume there is for the sake of argument). All employees are not guilty, and the memo intends no insinuation to that effect. Some are guilty, and such is clearly stated without apology. The reasons and motivations for that guilt are not discussed or analyzed. It is simply a call to "corporate repentance" and intended in that context.

[scott shaffer]

Greg,

I just wanted to mention that I appreciated your comments at Brister's site. Your analysis, in my view, was right on target.

Scott

[bill]

Tim: I would guess then, that you would reject any resolution which calls for repentance unless it can be shown that all SBC churches are guilty?

[Tim B]

Once we acknowledge that the word "repent" means "to change or turn around" then there is very little difference between what the following statements in each motion except that the Ascol version asks all the churches to "repent" or to "turn from" sins which they may or may not be party to. I am not sure how my church can repent or turn away from sins that another church may be guilty of. Here are the two parallel statements in the resolutions:

"RESOLVED, That we humbly urge our churches to renew the practice of redemptive church discipline, reviewing their membership rolls and kindling fraternal kinship and accountability among all members of the congregation;"

(This motion would urge churches that are already faithful to continue to practice redemptive discipline and churches that are not to repent (to turn around) and start doing so.)

"RESOLVED that we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the widespread failure among us to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of lovingly correcting wayward church members (Matthew 18:15-18)"

(This motion asks all churches to repent (or to turn) and obey the practice of loving correction whether they already do so or not.)

Neither calls for churches to confess their disobedience to God and neither calls for churches to seek God's forgiveness. I am not sure why some are hung up on the word "repent." Both are calling for an action..... one calling on "the churches" to turn and to start practicing discipline and the other for churches to either continue or to begin doing so.

Tim B

[Byroniac]

Tim B, you said the Ascol resolution "asks all the churches to 'repent' or to 'turn from' sins which they may or may not be party to."

No, it does not do this. If the resolution issued a call to personal repentance for all members of the SBC, then it would do this, but not until. What the resolution advocates instead is corporate repentance by taking all SBC churches as a collective whole and addressing sin that some (not all) are guilty of and need repentance. The audience is universal (the scope is the entire SBC), and so is the call to repentance, but no assignment of guilt is attempted or needed.

My parking lot analogy, weak as it is, tried to point that out. The entire group as a collective whole is addressed in correcting a problem with certain individual members. Because the guilty individuals in my analogy are not known, all are called to repentance, if you will. The repentance is corporate, because the entire group--considered as a group--repents of the misdeed(s).

I think the call to repentance is a good thing, myself. At the very least, it applies to guilty parties, but even those who are not currently guilty of this might have been guilty of this in the past, or could be guilty of this in the future. These can appropriately repent of being too lenient towards this sin if applicable, or at the very least, reaffirm the commitment to remain innocent of the charge. My personal impression is that the resolution is offered in the same spirit as that shown by Israel's prophets of old when they called the nation to corporate repentance and included themselves in the list of transgressors, who were probably innocent of the charges in their personal lives.

[Tim B]

Byroniac,

Since you cannot see my face to now my spirit as I type these words, please understand that I write with a spirit of grace and understanding of your position and appreciate it. I also write to clarify my position as it arises from my understanding of the doctrine of the church and of the part the convention plays in the lives of independent local SBC affiliated churches. In the end, either resolution is find as long as it is understood that Ascol's version is prophetic in nature as opposed to exhortative in nature.

Because the SBC is a convention of independent churches, corporate repentance for the sins of individual churches is inappropriate. The sort of sins that the SBC ought and should confess and repent of are sins that are committed by the convention as a whole. For instance, if the convention was birthed out of a desire to maintain slavery then the convention ought to confess and repent corporately. If the SBC has appointed through its boards and agencies individuals who taught heresy then it ought to confess and repent as a whole. If the convention through its boards and agencies has misused the funds entrusted to it then it ought to confess and repent corporately. If the convention through its boards and agencies has not pursued its God given responsibilities for biblical fidelity, world evangelization etc or has through those same agencies encouraged its churches to unfaithfulness then the SBC ought to confess and repent corporately. But Ascol's resolution does not involve sins of the SBC. As far as I know the SBC has not encouraged its members to be unfaithful to the command to redemptive discipline. Individual churches who cooperate with the SBC have backslidden on their own accord and therefore must confess and repent individually.

As I read Ascol's resolution prophetically. It is the voice of the messengers (who corporately form the SBC while in session) calling on individual churches to repent. Perhaps that would be appropriate. If I am there, I might add a number of other things that the churches ought to repent of such as the failure to honor the Lord's day appropriately, the failure to evangelize seriously etc.

I will close with a story you will all enjoy. Many years ago when I was in seminary my church had Freddie Gage come for a one night crusade. At the end, Rev. Gage opened up the invitation calling anyone who wanted to be saved to come to the front. Only a few responded. Next he called for members who were backslidden to the front. A few more responded. He then called for folks who weren't praying and reading their Bibles as they should to come down. Through all this me and my two seminary buddies stood fast. Finally, he called on those who hadn't been witnessing as they ought to come down. By this point half or more of this very large congregation had made their way forward. My buddies broke for the front but I could smell a rat and stood fast. As the last found their places Rev. Gage asked all those who had come down to pray the following prayer. "Lord, i know that I am a sinner. I need you to save my soul. Would you forgive my sins, come into my life and make me your child. Amen"

Freddie assumed the whole bunch were lost including those who weren't witnessing enough and made sure they would all make it to heaven.

I write that to say this, If we look hard enough, we will be able to find some sin that everyone has committed and for which we all ought to repent of. Perhaps redemptive discipline is one of them. The question is where do we stop?

Tim B

[volfan007]

What I would like to know is...from what I understand... Tom Ascol's resolution in his Association down in Florida didnt contain the same words about repentance. If that is true, why not? Why did the resolution down there not contain the call for repentance? Can any of you help me understand this difference?

David

[Byron]

Tim B:

I appreciate the discussion. You explain your perspective very well, and show your patterns of thought which truthfully I hadn't considered. And for that, thank you.

However, I must continue to disagree.

I'm not sure I entirely understand your distinction between the prophetic and the exhortative, so I'll refrain from commenting on that.

You say, "Because the SBC is a convention of independent churches, corporate repentance for the sins of individual churches is inappropriate."

This may get to the crux of our disagreement. I do not see a dichotomy between the two for the scope of this issue. The SBC *is* the collective of the individual churches, as far as this sin issue is concerned, so a corporate call to repentance addressing the entire body of members to individually repent as necessary is appropriate, and does not assign blame where none belongs.

Also, you mention, "or instance, if the convention was birthed out of a desire to maintain slavery then the convention ought to confess and repent corporately."

Again, the convention *is* the collective of churches. Individual churches were guilty of this, and individual churches had to repent. It made sense to address all churches corporately concerning repentance. Bill made a great point here about this idea. It almost seems to me that you suggest that corporate repentance is not valid without universal guilt. I say it's never quite that simple in real life. When the SBC corporately repented of slavery not many years ago, they included by way of corporate reference SBC churches which did not exist at the time slavery was an issue, as well as guilty SBC churches which no longer existed at the time the corporate repentance was offered. Besides that, churches "repented" for sin they personally did not commit, knowing full well that everyone guilty in this regard was no longer alive. Yet you have no problem with this corporate repentance, but take issue with the Ascol resolution which is less radical in its reference to sin, guilt, and repentance. That is what mystifies me.

Enjoyed your story, however.

[Tim B]

Byroniac,

Perhaps I am wrong but I do not see the convention as the "collective of individual churches." My church is only attached to other SBC churches in the ministry that we choose to do together. When there is sin in the work or in the collective decisions that are made then we must repent together. When there is sin in individual churches then those churches are individually responsible. (I don't remember exactly how the slavery resolution read and it may or may not have met my criteria for corporate confession and repentance.)

When I speak of one speaking prophetically I mean not in the predictive sense but in the accusatory sense. Brother Tom's resolution makes no bones about the fact that the churches are in sin and need to repent. That is a prophetic statement. To "urge" is an exhortation which does not assume guilt on the part of another but calls on all to examine themselves and make necessary changes. The convention will have to decide which tone is more appropriate.

One of the problems that Brother Tom has is that some who are part of the founders movement of which is he closely identified has been (rightly or wrongly) branded as being arrogant toward other SBC churches and the prophetic tone of his version will be taken by some as an expression of that condescension.

Tim B

[bill]

David: Tom Ascol has answered your question on one of the other BI blogs.

The repentance language objection is number 3. The first objection was that our lapsed members were targets for evangelism, so we can't adopt Tom's resolution. the next year, Tom's resolution would violate church autonomy. This year, we shouldn't call people to corporate repentance unless they are all guilty. Next year, it will be something new.

I credit David for his honesty. Tom Ascol is a Calvinist and therefore extreme. With Calvinism fast becoming the latest SBC bogeyman, it just won't do to have a Founder's guy telling off the SBC.

Just look at how the terminology has changed. It used to be understood that a Calvinist was someone who adhered to the classic 5 points known as TULIP. Now, 5 pointers are called Dortian Calvinists, whereas regular Calvinists are those who hold to anywhere from 1-4 of the points.

Has anyone ever introduced a resolution to immediately cease all resolutions? Now that is one I could get behind.