« The Conservative Resurgence, Girly Men, and the Southern Baptist Convention by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Troy Gramling Responds by Peter Lumpkins »

2010.03.24

Comments

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

volfan007

I agree. It is a big deal. A very big deal.

David

Ed Goodman

Peter,

I give a hearty "Amen!" to your sentiments. The CP is a huge deal, and our leaders should set the pace in guiding their churches to give.

Blessings to you, brother.

Ed Goodman
Matthew 5:8

Jacob Hall

The most interesting part of it is that I was unable to find any listing of staff on the Flamingo Road website. That is the first time I have never seen that done on a church website. I guess if there is no online record on your website, its easier to deny. They did however mention that they were SBC on the website, but did not mention the BFM2000.

peter

David & Ed,

Thanks brothers. Have a great evening with your churches...

Jacob,

I agree. It's difficult to find anything like one sees in most congregations.

A couple of tasty bits surfaced in my rambling around their site. First, they appear to be influenced significantly by Willow Creek and Bill Hybels. Hybels has been to their church and held conferences, etc. Now I actually like Hybels in some ways. However, Willow Creek is strongly egalitarian in focus.

Secondly, one of their podcasts was a roundtable discussion with three of their pastors--one of which was "Pastor Heather"--and a leadership developer from the Florida Baptist Convention. That was the basis of my suggestion that the FBC is fully aware of their egalitarian leadership template. And, of course, The convention president, John Cross, would be aware as well.

Thanks, Jacob.

With that, I am...
Peter

Bart Barber

I'm pretty sure that there used to be staff information on the Flamingo Road web site. I was looking at it several months ago. Now I can't find any.

Chris Roberts

Peter,

"Secondly, one of their podcasts was a roundtable discussion with three of their pastors--one of which was "Pastor Heather"--and a leadership developer from the Florida Baptist Convention."

Could you point me to the podcast, or let me know who the leadership developer was? As a Florida pastor, I've had some contact with leadership development folks in the FBC and I've been less than thrilled with the things coming from them. I'd be curious to know which one was present for that podcast.

Darby Livingston

Peter,

I couldn't care less if you call someone a girly man. I don't think it's that derogatory of a term. It's your reasoning. You're assuming that the men you mentioned are actually fervently keeping up with everything that is happening in every church and state convention in the country. It's not like they have seminaries to run or speaking engagements or writing deadlines or anything else to take up their time. How do you know the men you listed even know about the situation? And how do you know that they weren't forming a statement concerning it as you posted? What if I called you a girlie man and coward for not knowing what is going on with Deacon Smithjones at Forty-first Baptist Church in Anywhere, Texas? Is it a fair expectation that you would or should know and speak on it?

peter

Bart,

Perhaps they went through a ‘fine tuning’ process…

Chris,

Yes.  Here is the podcast

With that, I am…

Peter

peter

Darby,

First, thanks for the 'girly man' encouragement ;^)

Second, Darby, I'm afraid there's not anything wrong with my reasoning, at least as I can tell from your assertion: "You're assuming that the men you mentioned are actually fervently keeping up with everything that is happening in every church and state convention in the country" (emphasis added).

Darby, I'll give you a shiny new nickel for any statement anywhere in this piece (or even the others for that matter) which implicates my arguing from such a ridiculous assumption.

On the other hand, using your own alternate assumption that the men I mentioned may not know about the Troy Gramling fiasco suggests these men are, for all practical purposes, jack-squat stupid.

Not knowing about the 1st nominee to Pastor's Conference? Nor the report in the most read state convention paper in the country? Not to mention they have four Floridians sitting on the GCRTF? Not knowing what's going on in the very state the vote is to take place, a vote they're promoting as a turning point for the SBC?

In my view, what you have just accomplished by logging such a scenario is to perfectly eclipse my "girly man" metaphor by a West Georgia mile!

Thanks! Now maybe others won't think I'm so evil after all... :^)

With that, I am...
Peter

Don

Peter,
I agree this is very big. It is somewhat like liberals in politics. They introduce something off the wall (i.e.universal health care, gay marriage)and it is blown off, but they keep coming, and keep coming and all of a sudden it becomes part of the debate and then becomes acceptable to people at large. Basically we have an emerging church pastor nominated for national office and while he probably won't win, he is the begining of something that won't end until the SBC either elects a "naked" pastor or there is some sort of split off from these churches. I personally could care less if they left the SBC and the sooner the better. They can only hurt us and we must pray for a revival in the SBC.

JR

Peter,

You make assumptions based on info that is not fully substantiated. There are a number of churches in the SBC, including some associated with the CR, that refer to female associate ministers with the title "pastor." Doing such does not make one fully egalitarian, and many will argue that it does not put one outside of BFM2000.

Furthermore, you really don't know how much of FRC's mission money went to SBC related causes. Annual reports are not always filled out completely.

There is no question that Flamingo Road is non-traditional and out of the box. However, they are not "emerging" as Don suggested. It seems that you and many of your readers dislike the idea of contemporary churches influencing our convention, regardless of what they give.

Would your reaction be the same if the pastor of a traditional church in Alabama were nominated who gave a small percentage to CP and had a female associate pastor on staff? Would the election of such a man to lead a two day conference indicate the end of the SBC for you? Really?

Robert I Masters

9. Can women be pastors or deacons in the SBC?

Southern Baptists have long valued the priceless contribution of women as they have ministered to advance God's Kingdom. The Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) affirms the vital role of women serving in the church. Yet it recognizes the biblical restriction concerning the office of pastor, saying: "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture." The passages that restrict the office of pastor to men do not negate the essential equality of men and women before God, but rather focus on the assignment of roles.

from sbc.net

Why is this church an SBC affiliated congregation?
What part of I Do NOT permit do they not understand!

call up the Florida Baptist Convention
call up the association....GulfStream Baptist Association

KILL the affiliation!

peter

Don

Thanks. I think you are correct that, given this bold nomination, more will continue to surface. Also, as you rightly pray, an authentic revival in the SBC would do more than we could accomplish with a full dozen TFs at 7/24 abilities...

JR,

First, while I doubt you could demonstrate a "number of churches" including some "associated with the CR" that refer to "female associate ministers" with the title "pastor" actually exist, such is entirely beside the point. To my knowledge, not one of your supposed churches has a pastor aspiring to a national platform in the SBC. If they do, I'll be the first one to raise my hand--affiliated with the CR or not.

Second, whatever you mean by being "fully egalitarian" I do not think you understand the scenario, JR. If you followed any of the links I provided over the past three posts, it's at best argumentative to dismiss the clear egalitarian indicators present surrounding FRC. Baylor Law student, Aaron Weaver, a progressive Baptist and a convictional egalitarian observed Gramling's position bears all the markers of an egalitarian view.

Indeed Gramling rejects flat out the template to which you referred above, where "Senior Pastor" is positioned in authority "over" other pastors. Hence, a female minister on staff "under the authority" of a male Senior Pastor doesn't fit his template. Instead he argues for "Lead Pastor." Therefore, on this particular point, JR, I think it may be you chugging along on empty, not me.

Third, you suggest I "really don't know how much of FRC's mission money went to SBC related causes" because "Annual reports are not always filled out completely." Yes, and there is blue cheese on the moon because John Glenn didn't walk the entire surface.

Fourth, you think because I apparently dislike the idea of contemporary churches influencing our convention, I'm reacting the way I am. Naughty, naughty. Unless you can be specific, JR, I'm afraid you're just swatting at imaginary flies over the cooking soup. Let's stick with what is actually the case--the piece I wrote.

And, no. My reaction to the pastor of a traditional church in Alabama being nominated who also gave a small percentage to CP and had a female associate pastor on staff would not be the same for one reason: I'd have a heart-attack and die ;^)

More seriously, JR, you must not know Alabama nor what "traditional" entails around these parts. In other words, no such animal exists, even in a jungle like Alabama!

Thanks, JR.

With that, I am...
Peter

Tom Bryant

You might want to check out their internet baptism at http://www.troygramling.com/the-first-time

This is a big deal.

Darby Livingston

Peter,

Glad I could help. :)

JR

Peter,

Based on your criteria for leading the pastor's conference, I believe you have also eliminated the possibility of Ed Young Sr. of Second Bapist Houston from serving. Of course, he already has served as president of both the pastor's conference and the convention, and our work has not come to a screeching halt.

Robert I Masters,

If FRC should not be part of the convention for being out of line (in your view) with the BFM2000 (though we have yet to even hear the church clearly state their position), then there are, I believe, literally thousands of other churches that will need to be severed as well for a variety of reasons

Their are some individuals, such as Malcom Yarnell, who claim that BFM2000 requires closed communion. Others disagree, but if he's right, that would easily eliminate the majority of churches in the SBC. The BFM was never meant to be a stick we use to beat people up when they are skirting our interpretation of it.

Chris Roberts

Peter,

I sent you an email about Flamingo Road staff. Did the email find its way to you?

peter

JR,

I'm afraid you're going to have to be more specific than dropping a name. But for the record, if 2nd Houston gives 0.18% (or comparable) to the CP and has on the ministry staff, Women Pastors, don't bet enough for a starbucks I would not oppose the legendary pastor to such a nomination.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Chris,

I did not get it. Try:

at gmail dot com

With that, I am...
Peter

Chris Roberts

Peter,

Afraid the address isn't showing in your comment. I sent my emails to the address listed on the contact page. They didn't bounce back; perhaps they found a home in your spam folder?

peter

By the way, Jeff,

You mentioned two things to Robert of note to me. First, you insist "we have yet to even hear FRC clearly state their position." My question is, did you follow any of the links I offered on these last three posts? If so, I'm wondering how one is supposed to clarify what seems rather clear.

Second, you assert "some individuals, such as Malcom [sic] Yarnell, who claim that BFM2000 requires closed communion. Others disagree..." Who are these others who disagree to which you refer? Could you point me to their expressed views?

With that, I am...
Peter

Robert I Masters

JR,
Frankly I could care less what some in the Convention want.... my conviction comes from God!
He is perfectly clear on that topic. So If you support FRC then you are encouraging people to sin. Stop working for the devil.

On your point about severing ties with other convention churches your welcome to start! I have no objection to that at all.Like the Marine Corp;we just need a few good men to lead God-centered churches.

Your point on Michael Yarnell is not relevant since the Convention has not voted on that issue.

Lastly what the churches position is abundantly clear from both video, audio and personal experience. Having lived in Cooper City and Pembroke Pines.

BTW- Even Ed Stetzers blog has information concerning the "Lady pastors" at FRC. Maybe you could find out from him.

Raul

If you'd like to learn about Pastor Troy Gramling...go here... www.pastortg.com

Tim Rogers

Brother Peter,

It seems that Brother Gramling only affirms the 63 BF&M. Does this mean he does not affirm the 2KBF&M?

Blessings,
Tim

JR

Peter,

As Troy Gramling has now responded, I will not belabor my earlier points. My reason for speaking came from the sense that a brother was being attacked on unclear pretenses and that commenters were piling on, in some cases quite harshly.

You continue to point to an 8 year old news article which quotes Troy saying in effect that FRC uses a team-based leadership model. But it does not necessarily follow that Heather Palacios is therefore considered to be functioning in the role of elder. This was my thought all along, and Troy's comments seem to indicate this.

Robert Masters,

For clarification, I am a humble servant of Jesus Christ, not the Devil. Also, just so you know, I affirm and have signed the BFM2K. I am a complementarian. I would not give a female minister at my church the title "pastor". I have noticed other conservative sister churches sometimes give titles such as "pastor to children" etc. to women who serve as ministry associates. I have no problem continuing to cooperate with them for the gospel.

Oh, and by the way Robert, my reference to the Lord's Supper pertains to article 7 of the BFM2000. It's been voted on. And Peter, the statement on the Lord's Supper is silent on where non-members come in, or what precisely constitutes "the church" (local? baptist? universal?). Not trying to get into a big thing about that here, just letting you in on some of the rationale..

peter

JR,

I'm glad you won't belabor your earlier points for none of them as I recall were well taken. Or did you overlook my responses?

Also, you state the reason you logged on here was because a brother was being "attacked" on "unclear premises." JR, I made it very clear I was neither attacking my brother nor have my premises been unclear as to the two stated objections concerning Gramling's candidacy. Unless you can be more specific, please don't bother to bring this up again--especially about allegedly attacking a brother.

While it's true the article to which I pointed is 8 years old, such is irrelevant to the point I make for the simple reason that every indicator is, that is precisely how FRC now operates. In other words, there's no reason to believe Gramling has changed his mind and every reason to believe he operates under the paradigm he expressed in the article. Unless you care to show otherwise, then the article remains relevant.

You assert it does not follow that "Pastor Heather" functions in the role of elder. While I made no mention of elder in my comments, since you bring it up, apparently you are assuming a distinction between "elder" and "pastor" which is foreign to the NT so far as I know.

Nor has Gramling's response cleared up anything as I wrote in my last post. In fact, his response raises yet more questions.

Even so, your point seems to reduce to, "it's O.K. to entitle someone "pastor" so long as it doesn't mean what the NT means by the office." If this is your point, I'm just not getting it.

Finally, I did not ask you to let me in on some of the rationale about the Lord's Supper. Instead I queried who the others were who disagreed with Malcolm Yarnell and pointing me to their views. Am I to understand it was you about whom you referred?

As for your point proper from the BFM about the Lord's Supper, you're quite right: I don't want to get in on it here even if your rationale is strangely inadequate.

Unless you've something new to log, I assume this exchange is over.

With that, I am...
Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.