9 Marks Ministries: An Official Ministry of the SBC? by Peter Lumpkins

9Marks Ministries, an organization headed by Mark Dever, Senior Pastor of the Capital Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC made history in two significant ways at the 2011 Southern Baptist Convention in Phoenix, Az. First, they stepped in the gap and offered a workshop for convention attendees during the down-time created by the convention schedule change >>>

More significantly, however, is the second way 9Marks made history: 9Marks Ministries had an official booth in the exhibit hall of the Southern Baptist Convention...a first. According to the exhibitor policy (revised 09/2004)--a policy which is maintained exclusively by the Executive Committee-- primary exhibitors are limited to SBC entities. In addition, not only are some particularly named "secondary" exhibitors listed, but also,

Other groups may obtain space if they are sponsored by an SBC entity or Woman’s Missionary Union, or if that SBC entity has Convention responsibility for the area of work represented by the group (i.e., Conference of Southern Baptist Evangelists sponsored by the North American Mission Board)

Hence, 9Marks fits the "other groups." Word on the street has it the WMU sponsored their booth.  Actually, however, the official documents say Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary sponsored 9Marks.

Is this a new trend? Will ministries which cater to a decidedly non-mainstream ecclesial-theological perspective continue to gain sponsorship from SBC entities?  Will Founders Ministries find an entity to sponsor them next year?  Odds look pretty good.

With that,  I am...

Peter

Comments

[kim]

Peter,

Been out of the loop for a little while. Family things to tend to. Just getting to read some of your recent articles. Don't know what to say on your two parter on Kevin Ezell. So many things he said just disturbs me greatly. Who we partner with doesn't matter anymore?! We don't check that stuff? Really?! CBF doesn't ring a bell? He talked about being able to compete now in the church planting arena. Really?! That's our job now?!

I'm also glad you pointed out that Acts 29 has policies on who they'd rather partner with, and what kind of churches they'd like to see planted, but SBC gets all the grief for showing our concern with Acts 29! So they're allowed to have concerns and prefernces, but not us?!

I hope SB start getting informed on what's happening in their convention. In my opinion, and from my research, a lot of this has been framed in the churches and the convention in a way that hasn't raised the red flag, except for some. It's starting to, but it may be too late.

[John Daughtry]

Pete Thank you for keeping us informed on what is really happening at the convention. The leadership of our convention have taken the counsel "with the young men" (I Kings 12:8) which is splitting us further apart as Southren Baptist.

John D

[A. Price]

Well, 'good bye' to the SBC as we know it! It's only a matter of time. Wonder where they, (the new 'hierarchy'), think the money will come from now?
Like I said before, I've nothing against the Calvin/Reformed movement aka. Acts 29-- Just go forth and 'form' your own Convention then!!!! Please!!!

[Bob Hadley]

I am glad that I have come across your site. I will bookmark it and look forward to your comments and insight. It is time for our convention to decide what direction it wants to go with respect to Calvinism. If we as a convention do not speak to that issue, it will be settled for us by the Calvinists and that I am afraid will be a sad day. It is late but it is not too late, just yet.

Grateful to be in His grip.

><>

[Max]

John D,

As I was reflecting on SBC matters recently, the very verse you cite came to mind. There is no doubt that the young, restless and reformed have the ear of certain SBC leadership. As Kim notes in her comment, most Southern Baptists don't have a clue about these developments and associated ecclesiological/theological drift ... yet.

Max

[Bill Pfister]

Peter, I don't know you personally but I am bothered by the way this website has an agenda of going after great people and entities like Mark Dever, 9 Marks, Founders, SBTS and SEBTS.

9 Marks has been present at almost every convention I've attended for the last several years. They always give away tons of free books and offer great workshops at the SBC. I have benefited by several of Pastor Dever's talks. I could be mistaken but I remember 9 Marks being on the floor last year as well.

So they have a slightly different soteriology than you. So they have a slightly different ecclesiology than you. In fairness, their doctrine lines up closely with many of our founding SBC fathers, especially in their soteriology, although it may be in a minority today in SBC life.

Are these differences so great that you need to incite your readers into a mob attitude to drive Calvinists out to form their own Convention? Just look at some of the comments people have posted here calling for these entities and people to form a new Convention. The SBC has had both streams present from the beginning. We cooperate for the cause of missions. I'm good with that. If you preach Jesus to all, let's partner.

I wish you would use your blog for unity and not division.

Bill Pfister
Taylors, SC

[Chris Roberts]

Since I wasn't in attendance this year and have been a bit busy to keep up with all the news from the convention, I didn't realize 9 Marks had a booth present. Glad to hear it! A tremendous ministry doing great work. Thanks for the info. Also glad to see SEBTS supporting more good ministries.

[Thomas Lowe]

For the Calvinists out there scratching your heads wondering why those 95% in the SBC want you out of leadership positions and out of the denomination in general as of 2011 is it this:

Your ideology was founded and nurtured by an unrepentant pre-meditated murderer.

King David murdered Uriah BUT he genuinely repented to God and was restored. John Calvin had no repentance over his actions concerning the execution Michael Servetus the Spaniard. And as a servant of Christ I cannot willingly follow such a man who claimed that his conclusions of the Bible should be the Summum Bonum for the entire Body of Christ.

Calvinism is a disease that spreads like cancer and rots everything it touches. I've hear John Piper and others attempt to dismiss Servetus's murder as an action of the times they lived in. What bunk! Can anyone honestly state that life for Christians in 1500's Geneva was worse than Christian's from 34 AD to 300 AD when Satan was attempting to crush the Church while it was in its infancy? If so, why didn't Jesus or Paul command the death of those who opposed them both in the secular and spiritual realms? Why did they pray for their human opponents?: Because "...Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." Paul and the Eleven relied on God to deal with men in His time and Calvin and his followers can't stomach a slow moving God. In fact I think a lot of them perceive a patient God as a doctrine "worse than an unbeliever."

Mr. Lumpink please keep fighting this doctrine of demons. I'll be praying for you and the SBC.

[Chris Roberts]

"Mr. Lumpink please keep fighting this doctrine of demons."

One is thus curious if Lumpkins considers Calvinism a "doctrine of demons".

[peter]

And just why would such pique your curiosity Chris?
with that I am...
Peter

[Chris Roberts]

Call it old fashioned curiosity. Doesn't matter how many cats it kills off, it keeps coming around.

[peter lumpkins]

Kenneth,

Were I you, I'd carefully qualify what you mean by Calvin's views being those of many who preceded him, particularly Paul and Jesus. The last I read, Jesus nor Paul planned the capital punishment of a single "heretic."

As for your opinion that Mohler's response was "pretty clear and to the point" I disagree. After admitting the words I expressly mentioned were my chief concern, I don't think he did well in explaining precisely how SBs have lied about the nature of homosexuality. So, while what Mohler said may have been consistent with what he says elsewhere, the bulk of his response was irrelevant to my concerns.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

All,

I took Les' comment down for the simple reason that so many were logging comments aimed at him. This thread is not about Les.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

If I didn't write the assertion, imply the assertion, encourage the assertion, or allude to the assertion, please, for fairness' sake, do not associate me with the assertion.

With that, I am...
Peter