I recently raised the question of an inevitable collision in the SBC between Free Church theology on the one hand and Reformed theology on the other, especially as theologically teased out in eccleesiology. My fellow Georgian pastor, William Thorton, offers commentary on two recent "Reformed" perspectives concerning the way the SBC operates (or "supposed" to operate according to the younger "Reformed" perspectives). In a piece entitled "Sorry, the SBC isn't one mammouth megachurch..." Thorton writes:
"There is no principle of submission to the authority of SBC leaders, or to decisions made at any SBC annual meeting, unless you are an employee. There is no principle that requires us to swallow any new policy or strategy. There is no biblical prohibition of criticism of denominational executives or policies"
So, toward what was Thorton referring? Two "Reformed" commenters on SBC Voices, and their complete misunderstanding of Baptist church ecclesiology as well as their apparent ignorance on the way churches in the SBC relate to entities of the SBC .*
One "Reformed" Baptist wrote concerning the president of NAMB and his relationship to Southern Baptists:
God has clearly allowed [Kevin] Ezell [new NAMB CEO] the place of authority, and now it is your job (and mine), for your own sanctification in Christ (and mine), to submit to his authority at NAMB so long as he does not violate the Scriptures.
Similarly, another "Reformed" wrote:
"Ezell has authority over Southern Baptist NAMB missions; and we should submit to his authority over this… OR, at the very least, we should submit to the majority of other Southern Baptist churches that have voted in favor of the GCR.
And, we wonder why those of us who lament the demise of Baptist distinctives in the SBC are routinely caricatured as raising questions which have no real substance in reality.
With that, I am...
Peter
Read William Thorton's entire piece
*William Thorton was gracious enough to not identify the two "Reformed" men displaying ignorance concerning the SBC. I'll not either. I will offer the links, however---here and here
No slight to you Peter, but William is my favorite blogger. He is an equal opportunity skewer, doesn't seem to care if his target is moderate, conservative, Calvinist, or free willer. I followed him for several years over at baptist life where he always handled himself with courtesy and respect when his main debate partners were typically fairly to his left. His blog is one of the first u check each day
Posted by: Jim Champion | 2011.04.13 at 01:17 PM
Peter, I don't keep a calvinst scorecard and it is not plain to me that these views stem from that strain of theology or from a careless or faulty view of SBC work and relationships. You are the macro guy, but I'd be interested to hear those I quote make the calvinist connection.
Thanks for the kind words Jim...
Posted by: William Thornton | 2011.04.13 at 02:44 PM
Peter, I'm curious... Is Ezell just a figuredhead, or does he have authority over NAMB?
Posted by: Jared Moore | 2011.04.13 at 03:36 PM
BTW: When I say "submit" in the above quote, I'm referring to following a leader even when we disagree (2nd quote above). This IS a form of submission. (I believe my quote above is taken out of context, based on all else I said at Voices. I thought I made myself clear?)
I'm NOT suggesting... and I said this where my original quote was pulled from at SBC Voices, that we have some form of Methodist Hierarchy.
I'm merely suggesting that there are biblical principles which should be applied, instead of the "I don't have to follow any one; my local church will just follow ourselves." This is the OPPOSITE of cooperation. This is why I keep saying "should" instead of "must." For the sake of the gospel, we SHOULD follow the leaders of sbc entities, so long as they don't violate Scripture. If we're going to always just do our own thing, why do we need leaders? Also, why have leaders if we're not going to support them? It's for the sake of the gospel. We accomplish more together than we do divided.
Finally, I have yet to see an issue that any of you have raised that condones dividing from other southern baptists in reaching North America with the gospel. I would love to hear if those of you that are against the GCR, think southern baptists should still cooperate together for the revealing of God's glory through carrying the gospel to all nations?
Posted by: Jared Moore | 2011.04.13 at 04:26 PM
Brother Jared,
I cannot answer for Brother Peter but you ask a question that seems to reval a current misunderstanding of the position of our entities. You ask:
Yes, Dr. Ezell is to lead NAMB in the direction he senses God's leading. The Trustees are representatives of the churches of the SBC. It is the Trustees holding in trust the entity of the Churches of the SBC that guidelines are established within which Dr. Ezell leads NAMB. We as pastors have every right and responsibility to call him into account of the Trustee guidelines. It is through the Trustees that the SBC churches have authority over Dr. Ezell. He does not exercise authority over the churches of the SBC. He leads NAMB as an autonomous entity tied to the SBC through the directions and directives of the Board of Trustees. The way you are arguing for this authority you are setting the Council of Presidents up as a board of Elders to rule the SBC. We are not Presbyterians.
Blessings,
Tim
Posted by: Tim Rogers | 2011.04.13 at 04:44 PM
Jim,
No slight taken...
William,
If I implied you kept a "Calvinist scorecard" it was entirely unintended. As for the "Reformed" conceding a "connection" so to speak, I'm afraid you will never get it--at least from the "Reformed."
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2011.04.13 at 04:45 PM
Jared,
A) No. Ezell is the president of NAMB
B) No one took you out of 'context' Jared. In the thread you responded to the writer of the first comment who clearly stated "God has clearly allowed Ezell the place of authority, and now it is your job (and mine)...to submit to his authority at NAMB." And, while you denied the part where the commenter applied Peter's words concerning our allegiance to governmental leaders to NAMB's president, you nonetheless stated in no uncertain terms,
C) You write, "I'm NOT suggesting... and I said this where my original quote was pulled from at SBC Voices, that we have some form of Methodist Hierarchy" (embolden mine). Could you please point us to your clarifying statement about not supporting a form of "Methodist Hierarchy"? I seem to have overlooked that.
D) "I'm merely suggesting that there are biblical principles which should be applied, instead of the "I don't have to follow any one; my local church will just follow ourselves." This is the OPPOSITE of cooperation." First, like it or not, the very statement you reject--"I don't have to follow any one; my local church will just follow ourselves."--is the very principle Free Church theology embraces, Jared. Nor is it the "very OPPOSITE" of cooperation, and certainly not of Scripture. To the contrary, it is the very essence of Baptist cooperation--voluntariness. You're making it way too easy, brother, to highlight the differences between "Reformed" and "Free Church" relationship between autonomous bodies.
Second, the language you employ betrays more than a voluntary relationship. Twice you stated we should "submit" to Ezell because of his "authority over" NAMB implying obviously he has "authority over" us. A third time you mentioned we should "at least" submit to other churches' "authority over" us. The model to which you obviously appealed, Jared, is dependent upon submission to authority, a decidedly presbyterian philosophical template, certainly not one cradled in the Free Church ecclesial tradition. Of course, "Reformed" Baptists have much more in ecclesiastically common with Presbyterians than they would the Leftwing of the Reformation.
Finally, to appeal to a supposed distinction between "should" and "must" as a way out of your dilemma hardly offers satisfaction to those thinking about what you're suggesting, Jared. Granting your distinction, you're still implying churches should--but not must--"submit to authority." Well, if they should but don't, are they not being disobedient?
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2011.04.13 at 05:31 PM
Peter, on the calvinist scorecard, what I meant was that I can't identify which of the folks we see around the blogs is calvinist and which are not...except for Ascol and I don't see him around much anymore...but I will happily rely on your trained eye to root our reformed brethren out. :)
Posted by: William | 2011.04.13 at 07:05 PM
Peter, First, I always regret posting on your blog. Rarely do you represent my views as expressed in full context.
You're presupposing my argument. I'm NOT presbyterian, but congregational through and through. I have already qualified my "submission" statements as "following without agreeing." You can conjure up some Presbyterian definition in your mind, but you're not talking about me the moment you do. So, if you want to keep creating a straw-man and argue against him, I'll leave since you're no longer arguing against me.
C. Here's the quote where I denied a hierarchy: "Howell,
You’re putting words in my mouth. I’m not suggesting some Methodist form of church government. For the record, “missions parachurch organizations” aren’t in Scripture either, including all sbc entities (They’re not ran by local pastors). However, since we have these organizations as servants of the church; and since they have their leaders placed there by us, or by people we placed in a position to place them there, then shouldn’t we support them even though we disagree on non-essentials?"...http://sbcvoices.com/young-something-and-tired/#comments
D. Peter, because our sbc entities are servants of ALL sbc churches, the votes of other churches DO matter. Other churches do have a small amount of authority over us, in that our vote doesn't matter if we're out-voted... the possibility of being out-voted destroys true autonomy over our sbc entities. Although, other churches do NOT have authority over us, they do have authority over things that we want to have authority over... if they out-vote us. I think true autonomy was traded for cooperation the moment we formed parachurch organizations, at least with what is concerned with governing these entities. For example, if your church voted for a different trustee, but was outvoted, then your church does NOT have a self-governing vote over that entity. You must concede to the vote of the other churches... this is the opposite of local church autonomy. In local church autonomy, the church approves it, and it's done; but, in the case of voting and sbc entities, it doesn't matter what your local church approves, if you get out-voted. You reliquish your autonomy for the sake of cooperation with parachurch organizations.
I'm not going to keep arguing with you about the word "submission". I suppose you like the word "follow" better; which implies submission as well. If you want to argue semantics,argue away; but, I'm not going to stick around to keep debating semantics.
Yet again, you and others like you blame Reformed theology for everything. Even though, I'm not Reformed in my view of church government in the least, unless you're speaking of reformed Baptist: congregational.
Finally, the difference between "should" and "must" is a real distinction. I believe we should support the leaders of our sbc entities. Ezell was placed there to lead NAMB; shouldn't we submit to his authority? Oh, excuse me shouldn't we "follow his leadership"? Last time I looked my local church wasn't the president of NAMB... or one of its trustees.
Posted by: Jared Moore | 2011.04.13 at 08:00 PM
Jared,
Your words are embolden:
Rarely do you represent my views as expressed in full context.------------ I suppose you mean I almost always take your words out of context to make my point. Perhaps you are correct, Jared. Perhaps I'm so frustrated because your words are so precise, so exceedingly challenging, my only recourse is to dishonesty--creating a false sense of your words so I can meet the demand your intellect places upon me. Perhaps. But perhaps also your words are unspeakably loose and sloppy. Perhaps I'm only dealing with what you *actually* write not you *meant* to write. I'm perfectly content to allow readers to judge between us. What I have little contentedness concerning, however, is for you to show up here as a squealing crybaby--recall on both accounts your words were used, you pled my use of your words were 'taken from context'--rather than showing precisely how your words were allegedly twisted. Either demonstrate it or knock it off, Jared. Few here want to hear your whining. No freebies. Sorry.
You're presupposing my argument. I'm NOT presbyterian, but congregational through and through-------------- First, I don't know what you mean, "I'm presupposing your argument". I used your own words, Jared, *your own words.* What I "presupposed" were valid distinctions between Free Church theology on the one hand and Reformed theology on the other. You definitively employed the language of Reformed ecclesial language--"submission to authority"--something anathama to Free Church tradition. Second, you complain I suggested your were "presbyterian." Read my words again, Jared. I did not. What I wrote was,
I never said you were anything. I assume you're Baptist. You pastor a Baptist church and have membership in a Baptist church. However, as a Baptist, you nonetheless curiously "appealed" to a "model" which is "dependent upon submission to authority," a decidedly "presbyterian philosophical template."
If anything, I was suggesting your appeal to a model which possesses a "presbyterian philosophical template" is at best strange and at worst, disastrous for Free Church tradition. Yet instead of showing how my assumption is mistaken that submission-to-authority-language is necessarily Reformed and contra Free Church, you complain I'm calling you names. Oh brother...
I have already qualified my "submission" statements as "following without agreeing"... So, if you want to keep creating a straw-man...---------- You may have "qualified" your assertion, Jared, but I rejected your "qualification" and showed why. Hence, no 'strawman' as you put it.
Here's the quote where I denied a hierarchy: "Howell, ...You’re putting words in my mouth. I’m not suggesting some Methodist form of church government... ---------------">http://sbcvoices.com/young-something-and-tired/#comments"--------------- Are you really serious, Jared? Your link is from a comment thread on a post a week or so older than the comment I quoted from you! Yet you say above, "I'm NOT suggesting... and I said this where my original quote was pulled from at SBC Voices, that we have some form of Methodist Hierarchy." This is why dealing with some of you guys is so entirely frustrating, Jared. Apparently you think we're all hillbilly bimbos who won't notice the nonsense you log, or couldn't read it if we happen to stumble across it. I suggest if you want to exchange here again, then log only what you know you can adequately demonstrate, Jared.
Peter, because our sbc entities are servants of ALL sbc churches, the votes of other churches DO matter Other churches do have a small amount of authority over us... the possibility of being out-voted destroys true autonomy over our sbc entities... think true autonomy was traded for cooperation the moment we formed parachurch organizations, at least with what is concerned with governing these entities.----------------- First, no one here denies "votes DO matter." What is denied is what you suggest follows from that, Jared--"Other churches do have a small amount of authority over us..." No, they don't. Whatever the SBC decides has absolutely no--zero--authority over what my church decides. The problem Jared is your use of the terms "authority over" regardless of whether you qualify it with "small amount." Authority implies either force or obligation, and neither is appropriate to Free Church ecclesiology. The fact is, no church or convention of churches has any authority over my church. Period. Protest as you wish to the contrary, but authority like you're suggesting has no place in Baptist ecclesiology. However, it is very much at home in Reformed ecclesiology.
For example, if your church voted for a different trustee, but was outvoted, then your church does NOT have a self-governing vote over that entity.------------- Jared, the convention is autonomous in the very same sense as the local church is autonomous. Hence, churches do not concede anything.
You reliquish your autonomy for the sake of cooperation with parachurch organizations.----------The day Southern Baptists relinquish their autonomy for sake of "cooperation' will be the day we stop being Baptists.
I'm not going to keep arguing with you about the word "submission". I suppose you like the word "follow" better; which implies submission as well. If you want to argue semantics,argue away; but, I'm not going to stick around to keep debating semantics.---------------- First, Jared, it is not about "semantics." It's about what constitutes Baptist ecclesiology and what does not. Hence, "submission to authority" must be the worst possible phrase to describe congregational life from a biblio-Free Church perspective. So, you may do as you wish--stay or go. But you won't get away with making this out to be merely "semantics." Second, I don't like "follow" any better. But contrary to your assertion that the term "follow" also "implies submission," at least "follow" is neutral and could just as easily imply voluntarism which is a keystone idea in Free Church thinking.
Yet again, you and others like you blame Reformed theology for everything. ----------------Well, no I do not. I don't necessarily blame the "Reformed' for low baptisms in the SBC, for example. While the "Reformed' haven't helped things, they surely cannot be singled out as the lone perpetrators. Even so, what this has to do with anything in my comments I haven't a clue.
Even though, I'm not Reformed in my view of church government in the least, unless you're speaking of reformed Baptist: congregational.---------------- While you very well may be "Reformed" and Baptist and congregational, the model toward which you argued--not to mention the language you used as in "submission to authority"-- is more in line with a presbyterian philosophical template than anything intrinsically Baptist. Sorry, Jared.
Finally, the difference between "should" and "must" is a real distinction. I believe we should support the leaders of our sbc entities. Ezell was placed there to lead NAMB; shouldn't we submit to his authority? Oh, excuse me shouldn't we "follow his leadership"?------------------ While I have no problem with accepting a "real distinction" between "should" and "must" the problem you have, Jared, is the way you employed them. The fact is, there is no "real distinction" in the way you used "should" submit/follow Ezell. For you, "should" reduces to "must". You write,
Unless I am mistaking your own words, Jared, you're suggesting it is ungodly--disobedient--to divide or with-hold support for K. Ezell's "authority" over what is termed "non-essentials." Laying aside the fuzzy matter of "non-essentials" the point I hear you making is, one *must* follow/submit to Ezell's "authority" *if* one wants to avoid ungodliness. Hence, your "should" and "must" lacks any real distinction whatsoever, Jared.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2011.04.14 at 10:59 AM
Peter, You are mistaking my own words; can you find anywhere in any of my comments where I appealed to Scripture for the reason why we SHOULD submit to Ezell's leadership/authority over NAMB? NOPE. I've argued that for the sake of the gospel and cooperation, we should follow his leadership, since we accomplish more together than when we're divided. Our choices are to follow his leadership or to rebell. I've even argued that we SHOULD follow his leadership if we disagree over non-essentials (non-Scriptural reasons); and that we SHOULD still voice our concerns. If we aren't following Ezell's leadership because we would "do things differently," and we don't have a biblical reason, then I believe it's an ungodly reason why we're choosing not to follow. "We didn't get our way" isn't a godly reason to reject someone's leadership... unless you have a biblical reason. And, I've yet to see anyone argue for a biblical reason.
Finally, I still contend that when we follow someone as a leader, we at least submit to them in some form, because we're NOT the leader. How can you follow someone without submitting to their leadership in some form? Although Ezell is our (sbc churches) servant, he's still the leader of NAMB, or the trustees are, or the majority of SBC churches are... but, you, I, and each of our local churches are not. Our churches are self-governing, but they are not sbc governing... unless we're with the majority.
Posted by: Jared Moore | 2011.04.14 at 12:18 PM
Jared,
I'm not interested in answering any question you may log while at the same time you ignore the time I do take to seriously interact with your words. Offering no engagement whatever but "I still contend" offers me little hope you're up to discussing the issue.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2011.04.14 at 12:33 PM
Peter and Jared, after reading all this, I must get a cup of coffee even though I should drink a glass of water. Whew...I feel like I've just drank the old wine. selahV
Posted by: selahV (a.k.a. hariette petersen) | 2011.04.14 at 12:53 PM
"......can you find anywhere in any of my comments where I appealed to Scripture for the reason why we SHOULD submit to Ezell's leadership/authority over NAMB? NOPE. I've argued that for the sake of the gospel and cooperation, we should follow his leadership,
"We didn't get our way" isn't a godly reason to reject someone's leadership... unless you have a biblical reason. And, I've yet to see anyone argue for a biblical reason...."
I'm really confused. Jared is not appealing to scripture anywhere (even though he states it's for the sake of the Gospel) but he's declaring anyone who doesn't submit to Ezell "ungodly"(how do we know what's ungodly without appealing to scripture?) but yet those who reject Ezell's leadership have to appeal to scipture because Jared declares they don't have a biblical reason even though he doesn't have a biblical reason as to why we have to submit?
Not that I count, but first we don't have to submit to Ezell because he has no authority over autonomous churches, he's actually an employee of those churches (this conversation I think highlights the points of this whole nominal Baptist discussion) and second he has not shown himself to have qualities of a Biblical leader, such as be an example in his gifts to AA and CP, his response to criticism, his atttacks against previous servants of the HMB/NAMB, and his whining that he's somehow now a victim. Not exactly qualities one would look for in a leader in even a secular position of leadership but I think it definately does not rise to the test of who can be a Biblical leader.
Posted by: Mary | 2011.04.14 at 12:55 PM
Peter, I'll try to interact more with what you wrote:
About my quote above concerning where I spoke against Methodist Hierarchy, I thought that I had posted it in the same section; but, it wasn't. To be fair however, the comment about Methodist hierarchy was made on Apr. 7; and the comment quoted by you was made on Apr. 10. It's an honest mistake. I was posting on multiple articles and boards concerning the same issue.
I'm arguing for voluntary submission; while you're reading "necessary submission" into my comments. You presuppose since I'm reformed that I'm reformed in my view of church governement, even though I've clearly said that I'm congregational.
And yes, I do think you try to blame reformed theology for everything. Anything that comes out of the reformed camp; you try to take issue with. Almost the entirety of your blog has become about coming against reformed theology or reformed thinkers in southern baptist life and abroad. Are you surprised that I think you have an anti-reformed agenda?
Finally, I've never argued that local churches should submit to Ezell concerning their churches; however, I have argued that we should "follow his leadership" or "submit to his authority" over NAMB. Could you answer me just one question, "How does local churches voluntarily submitting to Ezell's authority OVER NAMB violate local church autonomy?"
Posted by: Jared Moore | 2011.04.14 at 01:07 PM
Jared, no church has ever voted for an SBC trustee. You are aware of this?
Posted by: William Thornton | 2011.04.14 at 01:36 PM
William, Messengers that represent churches do vote for trustees? Correct?
Posted by: Jared Moore | 2011.04.14 at 02:05 PM
Jared,
About my quote... I thought that I had posted it in the same section; but, it wasn't.... It's an honest mistake Glad you corrected it.
I'm arguing for voluntary submission; while you're reading "necessary submission" into my comments Jared, not a single time have you so much as acknowledged the term "voluntary" much less argued for it, and that in the face of my employing the term over and over. What is more, the term "voluntary" cannot go side-by-side with "submission" the way you have consistently used "submission." One cannot say "I voluntarily do X" when X is either necessary as in "must" or an ought as in "should." You are simply making no sense.
You presuppose since I'm reformed that I'm reformed in my view of church governement, even though I've clearly said that I'm congregational How many times must I say this, Jared? I'm presupposing nothing about you. Rather I'm reading the language you are employing and concluding the language you are employing is much more in line with a presbyterian philosophical template than Baptist ecclesiology. I said earlier as clearly as I know how,
Unless you have another line than, "oh yes you are!" don't bother logging it.
And yes, I do think you try to blame reformed theology for everything. Anything that comes out of the reformed camp; you try to take issue with. Almost the entirety of your blog has become about coming against reformed theology or reformed thinkers in southern baptist life and abroad. Don't come here again logging accusations which a) have nothing to do with the post b) built exclusively on no specific evidence but on your personally biased opinion about this site. I don't do this on your blog and you can be sure you ain't doing it here. If you have a specific complaint about what I write fine. But generic accusations are nothing more than filler so far as I am concerned, revealing more about one's lack of response than anything to do with the particular issue under discussion.
Who are the "we" in this paragraph, Jared? And, just who are the "Christians and local churches"? And what happens if "we" don't "voluntarily" submit to his authority? According to you, we become ungodly and divisive [btw, so much for "volunteer" submission].Finally, I've never argued that local churches should submit to Ezell concerning their churches Really? Consider:
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2011.04.14 at 02:18 PM
Peter, it depends on the reasons WHY we refuse to support. It's NOT cut and dry. We should support if we don't have a biblical reason... for the sake of the gospel. This is my position. It is indeed voluntary submission (I've argued this elsewhere). I just think we need a good reason. I mean, is "I don't like Ezell's hair," so, I refuse to unite with other churches for the sake of reaching North America with the gospel, a "godly" reason? My point is that there are legitimate reasons, and there are reasons that are not legitimate. There are "godly" reasons and ungodly reasons for support or not supporting. If the division is over a non-essential, then it's an "ungodly" reason. The gospel is essential; reaching North America is essential; revealing God's glory is essential; methodlogy... not essential, if it doesn't violate Scripture IMO.
Your final quote is blatantly taken out of context. I believe we should submit to Ezell's leadership over NAMB; not his leadership over OUR CHURCHES (Because he has none). So, once again, how does submitting to Ezell's leadership over NAMB violate local church autonomy? The answer is that it DOES NOT.
Posted by: Jared Moore | 2011.04.14 at 02:35 PM
Jared,
it depends on the reasons WHY we refuse to support... it certainly does but reasons to be decided exclusively by each local congregation not you, the SBC, or anyone else. Even so, it the reasons involve why a church continues to cooperate not why it would rebel against any supposed authority.
My point is that there are legitimate reasons, and there are reasons that are not legitimate Granted. But the reasons are definitive for each congregation and have nothing to do with submitting to authority
If the division is over a non-essential, then it's an "ungodly" reason Such only makes sense in a model where churches are obligated to submit, Jared.
Your final quote is blatantly taken out of context. That's the third time you've complained I took your words out of context, Jared. And, I suppose since you could not show how I did so before, you have no intention of showing it now. To suggest I somehow forced you to say something like, "Ezell has authority over FBC, Any City" is absurd. Nonetheless, I ask again, concerning the paragraph I quoted,
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2011.04.14 at 02:53 PM
Peter, dividing over non-essentials is NOT ungodly? You've got to be kidding me? So, when churches divide over non-essentials, you think this is fine? When churches divide over types of music, styles of buildings, etc., this is fine? Churches are not free to decide whatever they want. The Bible commands unity; and we should seek to be united, unless it's a biblical issue. You seem to think a church can divide from working with other churches and Christians regardless the reason. You have a hard argument to make when the same Bible that gives local churches autonomy also commands local churches to be united.
The "we" is southern Baptist Christians. What happens if we don't submit to this authority? Well, we don't support missions through NAMB; and thus, NAMB is less effective because we refuse to unite with other churches to reach North America.
Posted by: Jared Moore | 2011.04.14 at 03:32 PM
Jared,
Peter, dividing over non-essentials is NOT ungodly? You've got to be kidding me? So, when churches divide over non-essentials, you think this is fine? When churches divide over types of music, styles of buildings, etc., this is fine? Jared, please. You're making this very difficult to continue. We're not speaking of local church unity. Instead we're speaking of how thousands and thousands of completely autonomous bodies voluntarily relate to one another, churches which have no obligation--biblical or otherwise--to team with another church body. It's called Free Church congregationalism, Jared. Hence, if there is *no* obligation, then it follows no other person outside that congregation has any say-so whatsoever in telling the church it *must* or *should* unite with other churches for these reasons and not that or else the church is "ungodly." We're probably not going to agree here, Jared. You seem to be arguing for some type of connectionalism which I reject flat out.
Churches are not free to decide whatever they want. In Free Church theology that is not only precisely what they can do but also precisely what they must do if they stay true to biblical ecclesiology.
You seem to think a church can divide from working with other churches and Christians regardless the reason. Now we're getting somewhere. A local assembly alone decides with whom they will cooperate and not cooperate and unilaterally decides the parameters for cooperation or non-cooperation.
You have a hard argument to make when the same Bible that gives local churches autonomy also commands local churches to be united Well I think it will be you, Jared, who finds it a difficult argument to make from Scripture, a biblical argument which commands local churches to be united. I may just write an entire post on this little jewel, though I'm sure you'll probably accuse me of ripping it out of context.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2011.04.14 at 05:37 PM
Peter, We don't have to "team up" with other churches, I agree; but, the command of unity is clear in Scripture. So, if we're choosing NOT to unite together in reaching the world with the gospel, the reasons are essential. You argue that the reasons do NOT matter; while I'm arguing that they do matter. Scripture & Conscience matter; while selfishness, arrogance, various opinions, and non-essentials do not matter.
I would like to read your argument that there is nothing in the Bible that commands local churches to be united with one another. You'll have to do some interpretation gymnastics to prove your point. You'll have to take some universal commands and apply them only to local churches. Unity is commanded very clearly in Scripture. Even if we're not "teaming" up, we're still to be united.
I affirm local church autonomy the same as you. Where we disagree is that I believe the local church is still NOT the final authority. The final authority is Scripture; and thus, it DOES matter what local churches decide. Their decisions are NOT neutral; they either reveal God's glory or hide it. "Loving our brethren" looks like something. You cannot affirm a blanket statement that the local church can decide "whatever it wants." It's not above the Bible.
And Yes, I do believe you'll take my comments out of context. You often do.
Posted by: Jared Moore | 2011.04.14 at 06:26 PM
Jared,
By "team up" I meant no more or less than what you did by "unite." So what's your point? And, I'll say it once again, Jared, so we are clear: make your biblical argument which commands local churches to be united [with one another in a cooperative way]. Otherwise, good night.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2011.04.14 at 06:47 PM
Peter, we are to be united; however, I believe cooperation can be inferred from Scripture; but, not necessarily commanded. Unity is commanded; but, this can take place without cooperation.
I'm speaking against churches that have cooperated with the sbc in the past that have stopped cooperating; or churches that are thinking about stopping cooperating. I'm saying that the reasons matter. You think they don't. God's glory is revealed by our decisions or hidden by our decisions. The reasons matter... this is what I mean by refusing to support NAMB for "ungodly" reasons. If it's not a biblical issue or a conscience issue, these churches had better examine their reasoning. You on the other hand seem to think that if a church doesn't like Ezell's hair, then this is a legitimate reason for them to sever cooperating with other sbc churches. Although they are free to make the decision, I believe the reasons glorify God or are sinful.
Let me offer you a "for example"; can a local southern baptist church refuse an invitation for a joined worship service at a local church of a different ethnicity based on their racial biased toward that ethnicity? Or, does the reason they refuse matter?
Posted by: Jared Moore | 2011.04.14 at 07:02 PM
Jared,
First, you first assert we are commanded by Scripture to unite with other churches. Now you wish to dilute that significantly to unite with other churches as inferred from Scripture.
Second, you've yet to mention a single verse of Scripture for your biblical case. I'm still waiting. Now, unless you want to make good on a biblical case, I bid you good evening.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2011.04.14 at 07:20 PM
Peter, I said that churches are commanded by Scripture to be united with one another. You're assuming "united" means "cooperation."
Do I really have to make a good biblical case for Christians being united (Eph. 4:1-16), and local church autonomy being secondary to Scripture?
When do you answer my questions?
Can a local southern baptist church refuse an invitation for a joined worship service at a local church of a different ethnicity based on their racial biased toward that ethnicity? Or, does the reason they refuse matter?
I believe they're free to refuse; but, the reason matters. Same goes with supporting NAMB. Churches are free to refuse; but, the reason matters.
Posted by: Jared Moore | 2011.04.14 at 07:35 PM
Peter, I said that churches are commanded by Scripture to be united with one another. You're assuming "united" means "cooperation." Jared, it doesn't make any difference what you think I'm assuming. You specifically said, Scripture commands churches to unite. Now, where in Scripture does it command autonomous local churches to unite?
Secondly, Jared, just making a reference to Eph. 4:1-16 goes exactly how far in proving your point? Your commentary is hardly relevant to the biblical passage.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2011.04.14 at 07:57 PM
Peter, where did I say "Scripture commands churches to unite"? Can you show me? I said that Scripture commands churches to be united. I even explained that this is possible even apart from "teaming up." (This is why I think you take my comments out of context... because you do.)
Also, local churches are made up of Christians. The command(s) in Ephesians apply to all Christians; and when he especially speaks of one baptism, one Spirit, etc. that unites all of us as the basis for our unity. Are you really going to argue that local churches, THE church, shouldn't be united? I'm NOT necessarily talking about cooperation, but unity.
Now, will you please answer my question: Can a local southern baptist church refuse an invitation for a joined worship service at a local church of a different ethnicity based on their racial biased toward that ethnicity? Or, does the reason they refuse matter?
I believe they're free to refuse; but, the reason matters. Same goes with supporting NAMB. Churches are free to refuse; but, the reason matters.
Posted by: Jared Moore | 2011.04.14 at 08:11 PM
Jared, I hate to interrupt such a scintillating dialogue between you to, but, no, messengers don't represent churches, which is why they are labeled 'messengers' and not 'delegates'. The terminology and the thinking behind it are important, because it is important that there be no connectionalism between the SBC and churches.
So, no church ever votes for SBC presidents, or trustees, etc.
I'm thinking that you don't have a healthy, or at least a fully informed view of Baptist polity. If you did you would never use the terminology you use about submitting to an agency leader's authority.
This horse is about dead, bro. Something new tomorow?
Posted by: William | 2011.04.14 at 08:16 PM
Jared
You now have the nerve to ask, "where did I say "Scripture commands churches to unite"? and attempt to squelch the above litany with "I said that Scripture commands churches to be united" as if we were discussing local church unity. Do you know how completely confusing this is, Jared?Here's what you've said:
Know I am through. I tired of this nonsense.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2011.04.14 at 08:49 PM
William,
Be my guest. Honestly, I don't think I've exchanged with one more confusing in presentation in a while.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2011.04.14 at 08:51 PM
Thanks for the encouragement fellas.
Posted by: Jared Moore | 2011.04.14 at 09:01 PM
William,
I understand Baptist polity; but, I'm evidently not great at explaining it. The difficulty is in the fact that we have parachurch organizations, and our autonomous interaction with these entities.
Also, I disagree with you. Messengers do indeed represent local churches. They're voted on by those churches; and sent to vote as representatives of those churches.
Here's a quote from the sbc annual meeting website: The Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention consists of representatives, or "messengers," as they are called, from cooperating churches, who gather to confer and determine the programs, policies, and budget of the Convention. Each church may be represented by up to 10 messengers, depending on church size and Cooperative Program giving amounts, ensuring equal accessibility for small and large congregations alike. http://www.sbcannualmeeting.net/sbc11/Messengers.asp
Maybe you don't understand how the sbc works? Or, maybe you need to write whoever put the "messenger info" on the sbc annual meeting website to correct their "terminology"?
Posted by: Jared Moore | 2011.04.14 at 09:52 PM
Jared,
The first line you logged on this thread was, "First, I always regret posting on your blog. Rarely do you represent my views as expressed in full context." Hence to suggest you came here expecting encouragement is a stretch. Nor should encouragement be expected when the issue on the table spawns provocative exchange not to mention when one continues to hurl insidious insults like "you're twisting my words" or "this blog sucks." What one can and should expect is fairness and civility, neither of which you were slighted so far as I can tell, Jared.
Now, you've had more than ample space to be as clear as you can be. It's time now to let the exchange lie. I'm content for others to judge whether or not I gave your words fair hearing.
And, I'm content--as well as fairly confident--for others to perceive the fundamental confusion displayed in the comments you logged, especially the nonsensical attempt to switch your intended meaning of your assertion that the Bible commands churches to unite as applicable to local church unity rather than the obvious meaning of uniting local churches. I cannot believe you actually thought we wouldn't notice. But, again it could be the old Southern-Baptists-in-the-south-are-nothing-but-a-bunch-of-hillbilly-bimbos trajectory displayed in all its unglory ;^)
Thanks for the exchange and have a great day, Jared.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2011.04.15 at 07:35 AM
There are important distinctions here which language in the annual doesn't explain.
You have referred repeatedly to churches voting on trustees, etc. Not the case. Never has been.
Posted by: William Thornton | 2011.04.15 at 09:13 AM
I have been following numerous blogs of this sort very closely over the past several months and now feel ready to write my book "The Odd Couple: Reformed and Non-Reformed in the SBC". Can Predestined Elect and Whosoever Will truly walk in agreement? Two distinct threads of thought in one denomination is a paradox to me. Whether it's ecclesiology, theology, methodology, or missiology, we obviously have a great gulf between the brethren.
-Max
Posted by: Max | 2011.04.15 at 10:55 AM
To say that that the Calvinism is the reason for the lack of a distinctively baptist ecclesiology is ridiculous. If the convention had listened to Graves (Calvinist), there would be no unscriptural mission boards for these fellas to improperly apply their understanding of the universal church.
Posted by: David Campbelll | 2011.04.24 at 11:34 PM