Tannerville - Welcome To My World

August 28, 2003 @ 10:24 pm by Pressed

My friend has purchased a boat and trailer for a cheap price and somehow it has ended up over at my house in our barn. This wouldn’t be so bad except for the fact that the boat and trailer both are ancient. In fact it is quite possible that this boat was on Noah’s Ark because it is so dang old. Because of its age the trailer is really rusty and so we came to the conclusion that we needed to sand it down, prime it, and paint it. Easy job huh? HAHAHAHA! Yeah RIGHT! The thing is full of rust. Then as we go to take the tires off the trailer we only get one side off and the other side just happens to not want to come off at all. Then we get the bright idea to try the lights and they don’t work either! So now we have to not only sand the thing down, but we also have to rewire it as well. As I was lifting the trailer up tonight it slipped off of the stand it was sitting on and fell on my arm. I then turn and stub my toe on a big ole piece of concrete which actually ripped a big ole chunk of toe nail right off my foot. That was a bloody mess. All this to say that we started a project that at first looked small but has suddenly become so much bigger. Worst thought of all is that once we get the trailer done we then have to paint the boat…

___________________

It has now been exactly 66 days 2 hours 1 minute and 30 seconds since my car was stolen from the Muny parking lot in June and I have yet to get my car back. It was stolen and wrecked and after that I had a four and a half week battle with the insurance company who investigated me the whole time. Then once the body shop received approval to fix my car it took them four weeks to finish it. When I went to pick it up after it was done I found a huge hole in the bumper, a paint chip in the door, and worst of all my headlight units just pulled right out of the front of the car! Needless to say I didn’t accept it in that poor condition. That was last week. I am hoping that it will be done tomorrow, but I wouldn’t doubt it if it took another week. This has been one heck of a summer.

_________________

I have been working on SYATP stuff for our youth group and then I suddenly discovered that a Youth Minister in town that I always got together with and planned SYATP events with has left his church. This puts me in an interesting spot because I basically have to plan a SYATP Rally by myself for the whole community. Most of the churches in our area are without a youth minister, possibly all of the churches except for one or two. That is amazing to me… I feel kind of alone, and a little more responsible to reach the teens in our community because they don’t have much else. Hopefully there will be some new Youth Ministers come in to some of these other Churches that will be willing to work together… but for now I get to be the leader of the sinking ship. Good thing is that God is the captain and I think he knows what he is doing…

____________

RPM is our Wednesday night youth program at my church. This past Wednesday was awesome and I think God is showing us a little glimpse of what the future holds. It was a night filled with enthusiasm, energy, and excitement, which is something that has been lacking for a little over a year and a half now since some pretty nasty things happened in our church with the old YM. I am excited because of the amount of potential that these teenagers have and I simply hope that I can do my part in serving God to fulfill the purpose of the church and our group, “to make disciples.”

We went to the local newspaper office in town and picked up about 20 bundles of old newspapers for some games that we play on Wed. nights. This week the youth were to try and build a shack that could hold three people with only newspaper and tape. Once that game was over we had a huge paper fight and about 80 newspapers were ripped apart and thrown back and forth in our room. By the time it was over the entire youth room was covered, ankle deep, in newspaper. It was quite possibly the biggest mess I have ever seen… the poor janitor…

Pressed

Permalink  |  Comments (2)  |  Filed under: The Story Of My Life

Kione Greek, Still Full Of Life

August 25, 2003 @ 10:03 pm by Pressed

When I was working on my undergraduate degree I had to take some language classes in order to receive my degree. I ended up taking Elementary Greek I and II and Intermediate Greek I. Now, once again I find myself taking Greek in seminary. As I sat in class today listening to the teacher I developed a greater appreciation for this language. Doing it a second time not only refreshes my memory but it helps me to understand things even better. In fact I wish I would have taken it more seriously when I had it the first time because I gained a skill that would have seriously enhance my bible study if I would have used it. It certainly isn’t easy but it is well worth the time and effort.

I am amazed time and time again at how different the Greek language is from English. The way they wrote the original Greek transcripts enables us to gain far greater understanding of the text than just simply reading the English translation of it. The English language uses sentence structure to determine meaning. For instance, in the sentence “Jack smacked Jill” we understand in English that it was Jack that did the smacking and it was Jill that got smacked. If you changed the sentence to “Jill smacked Jack” then it would completely changed the meaning. Now we understand the sentence to mean Jill did the smacking and Jack was the one who was smacked. In Greek the sentence structure does not determine meaning at all, instead it is each individual word that determines the meaning. In Greek if you want to understand the meaning of the sentence “Jack smacked Jill” then you would look at the way each word was written. By understanding the endings and stems of the words, you can determine the meaning of the sentence. It doesn’t matter how you arrange the sentence because it still means the same thing unlike English. Ok, that is all well and good, but you are probably thinking, so what? What’s the big deal? Well because the Greek language does not use sentence structure for meaning it has the ability to use the sentence structure for something far greater, emphasis.

When you write something that someone else has said it is very difficult to understand the true purpose of an English sentence because we have no way of knowing what tones, facial expressions, and gestures people are using when they speak. The exact same sentence can mean two different things depending on how the sentence is actually said. These are things that do not carry over into writing and so it creates serious misunderstanding. I began to notice this when I started my blog. I have posted well over one hundred entries and many times people completely misunderstand what I say. Not because I said it wrong, but because they could not understand where I was coming from because they could not hear my tone of voice or see my eyes or facial expression. The English language causes sentences to lose meaning in this manner. However the Greek language does not do this. Instead the tone and emphasis of a sentence is determined by the sentence structure. This means you can know when a writer of the New Testament is stressing a certain point or is putting emphasis on something that we should know. This is just one of the many things about Greek that will lead anyone to a greater understanding of the text. Facing facts, you simply cannot understand or determine true meaning of certain passages without help from studying the original language. It is a sad, sad thing that many seminaries and schools around the world are no longer requiring these languages to be taught, because these students are loosing a vital part of study.

If you are a bible student take my advice, do not forsake these languages whatever you do! They may be hard and a lot of work, but it is far more valuable to know them than it is to simply rely on text that has been translated for you. Even if the text is translated correctly, you can’t always get the true meaning of a sentence because the English language leaves out so much.

Pressed

Permalink  |  Comments (5)  |  Filed under: The Story Of My Life

The “Controversy” in the SBC: PART IV ‘The Conclusion’

August 22, 2003 @ 11:50 pm by Pressed

If you are just now reading this series of posts this is Part IV. Please go back and read Part I, Part II, and Part III before continuing.

So what exactly is the “Controversy” in the SBC? Some would say it is a political battle for power. Others would claim that it is a spiritual battle for truth. Then again some might say it is a mixture of both. Of course you also have the fourth category of people who have no clue what is going on but they just want something to complain about.

Since 1979 when this all began the conservative Southern Baptists have argued that the controversy has always been theological in nature. I agree that something had to be done about the spread of liberal theology and higher critiscm. Having teachers in our seminaries and leaders in our convention who do not believe that Jesus is deity and who also discredit the virgin birth and the resurrection was a disgrace to southern Baptists and I must give props to the fundamentalists for recognizing the downward spiral of truth sinking down the drain in the SBC. Now it is 24 years into the “controversy” and when you look at the differences between the SBC and the CBF it is clear to see the evidence that this still remains to be a spiritual battle. It is clear that the SBC would most likely look exactly like the CBF is now had the conservative resurgence never occurred and to me that is a scary thought. I certainly am not saying that the conservatives are perfect by any means, but I think that the 12 years of CBF’s existence has proven beyond any doubt that theological liberalism is alive and well in the old “moderate” leadership of the SBC.

“CBF talks a lot about “missions and ministry.” Yet, the question needs to be asked: “What exactly does ‘missions and ministry’ mean in the context of the liberalism that permeates every area of CBF?” More specifically, with CBF’s low view of the seriousness of sin, its lack of emphasis on repentance of sin, and its self-declared deficiency in evangelistic zeal, what does “missions and ministry” mean?

To the degree that CBF/Mainstream leaders, churches and individuals have embraced theological liberalism, their commitment to evangelism has diminished.” (MBLA) And yet isn’t the evangelism the driving force of the church, missions, and ministry? Shouldn’t we be in the business of fulfilling the great commission? These types of spiritual and theological issues that we have discussed throughout this series of posts is what the battle in the SBC has ultimately been about.

Isn’t it more than just a spiritual issue, was there a political battle for power involved? Yes I believe so, but not just on one side, but both sides are guilty of this very thing. I am amazed at the number of CBF moderates who grill the SBC for their shrewd political tactics and yet they are guilty of the same. I also recognize the fact that had none of these political battles taken place, there would have been no chance for the conservative southern Baptists to make any changes or advances towards truth in our denomination. If we chose not to get involved in the politics then we would basically be giving everything up and tossing the battle for truth aside because there is no questions that the moderates would use politics for their own agendas. I am really not saying that either side is justified in their actions, but I want you to recognize that if you want to lynch the fundamentalists for their shrewd political tactics you better bring enough rope for the CBF too.

I am aware that this is no black and white issue by any means. Neither side is perfect which can be expected, since there is not a denomination in the world that can claim that title and never will be. I think people expect far to much from denominations full of people prone to the same human mistakes as everyone else. When we place all our faith in man we will be disappointed every time, nothing will change that. I can certainly see why people have issues with each side but from my perspective I am in the pursuit of truth, not political truth but theological truth and I think the fundamentalist side is certainly on that same pursuit. Now have they used unethical tactics to get where they are at, maybe or maybe not that depends. Was there another way of doing things for the fundamentalists? Maybe, but then again maybe not. At this point I am far more prone to follow a group of people who seek biblical truth and who attempt to apply that truth not only in their denomination but also in their lives even if they have messed up in the way they handled it than I am to follow a group of people who embrace unbiblical methods and lifestyles and choose not to remove those things in their denomination or their lives. I find myself in a struggle to remove the bad and embrace the good in my life. I find myself seeking the truth of God and allowing scripture to change my life instead of allowing my life to influence what I believe about scripture. I do not always get to that point by completely biblical means and I mess up a lot, but that does not change my focus nor my goal and this is the position I see the fundamentalist side of the SBC in. Perfect? Nope. On the right path? I certainly believe so!

The battle has now spread to our state conventions. “And just as there were competing visions for the future of the SBC, there are two very different and competing visions for the future of the Southern Baptist state conventions and for the 41,000 churches that make up the SBC. One vision says: The Southern Baptist Convention, with its commitments to missions, evangelism, moral purity and theological integrity, best reflects who we are, what we believe and where we want to go as a convention and as a church. The other says: The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (and increasingly, the “new BGCT”), with its commitment to unrestrained “freedom,” undefined “diversity” and unlimited theological tolerance, best reflects who we are, what we believe and where we want to take our churches and our state convention.” (MBLA)

As I have mentioned before this battle has already taken place in the Missouri Baptist Convention. The conservatives have resumed power and the moderate/liberals have broken away and formed their own convention in Missouri. It is interesting to me that when the battle was raging there were thousands of people there who were interested in what was going on and wanting to be involved. Now that the battle is over not that many people show up or show interested at all. Some just don’t agree with the politics or some of the things that have gone on. Some are disgusted with the business dealing with the 5 agencies that changed their charters in order to become self electing boards. Some just like to be in the heat and when nothing is going on they have no interest. And all of them sound like a bunch of immature, spoiled brats who didn’t get their way so they are simply going to quit. What ever happen to people who were willing to stand up for what they believe regardless of circumstances? What happened to the people who are willing to stand for what is right in the face of what they consider wrong? What ever happen to the people who would stick around to understand why things are the way they are? Instead the new policy is to run away when there is conflict or when you disagree. In fact I go to seminary with several people that have that attitude. They are upset at what is going on so they could care less about the convention. Instead of sticking with it and standing up for what they believe is right they simply throw in the towel and thumb their nose at the heathens in the SBC who are not spiritual enough because they make mistakes. This is our next generation of leaders… and the thought makes me shudder!

Pressed

P.S. These are real issues that have been going on in our convention for quite some time and it does affect a lot of people. However, some people get the idea in their heads that we are so caught up in spiritual, theological, and political battles that we don’t have time for real ministry in a real world with real people and that couldn’t be further from the truth. To assume or think that is simply a ludicrous idea. Maybe it seems that way because of the amount of time spent discussing the controversy which all seems to be filled with negative issues, but there are good things as well such as missions, ministry, evangelism, worship, fellowship, and so on. I do believe that the battle for truth enhances our ministry and evangelism. Some people also have the strange idea that the SBC, its agencies, and its churches claim to be the ‘final authority’ when it comes to these issues and that is simply untrue as well. I would say that scripture is the final authority of truth and our pursuit of that truth will lead us to meet more needs and will guide us to be about the Fathers business.

NOTE: I must give credit where credit is due! Most of this information is from the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association. They have given me written permission to simply copy and paste the information but I have chosen to re-write some of it in my own words as I understand it.

Permalink  |  Comments (2)  |  Filed under: MBC & SBC

The “Controversy” in the SBC: Part III “The Baptist Faith & Message”

August 21, 2003 @ 8:05 pm by Pressed

This is the third part in a series of posts. If you have not read Part I or Part II then please go back and read them first.

In this discussion of the SBC Controversy we have seen what caused it and why the splinter group CBF exists. A multitude of concerns have been raised about the liberalism that permeates every area of the CBF and they have been unable to provide answers. When it comes to political movements there has to be some “issue” to rally around. The CBF needed an issue that would take the heat off of them and allow them to exploit the issues of the SBC. That issue came in 1998 with the addition of the article on “the family” to the Baptist Faith & Message and the 2000 revised Baptist Faith & Message statement (which included the article on the family). The leadership of the CBF/Mainstream coalition realized that this was the issue they needed, because if they framed it properly they could potentially turn the hearts of Southern Baptists against the “Fundamentalist” leadership of the SBC.

However, the CBF/Mainstream leaders show their true colors once again by attacking the leaders of the SBC for the 2000 BF&M without ever addressing the very reasons why such revisions and additions were deemed necessary by conservative Southern Baptists.

Here is what the MBLA has to say about the changes in the BF&M:

“While much has been written regarding the theological arguments, we will look briefly at the context that gave rise to the 2000 revised BF&M. Thus, to fully understand the underlying significance of the revised BF&M statement, it must be understood in the context of the current SBC/CBF controversy as well as the post-modern American culture in which we live.

As one prominent CBF leader once told this writer, “everything comes out of a context.” Indeed he was right, and the 2000 revised BF&M came out of a context. That context was a culture increasingly hostile toward the very concept of absolute truth and a growing commitment to “religious pluralism” with its belief that Jesus Christ is just one of many legitimate paths to God. Unfortunately, this ideological/theological shift did not occur just among the unbelieving or within the “liberal” denominations, but had severely infected the left-wing of the Southern Baptist Convention — the CBF.”

The family and human sexuality has become a big issue in our current culture and it certainly should be a growing concern of the SBC. The revised article in the BF&M about the family allowed Southern Baptists to speak out clearly about the biblical principles that govern the family. “By stating in a positive manner what the vast majority of Southern Baptists believe, this statement challenged those who, while claiming “Southern Baptist” credentials, were sending a very “uncertain sound” out into a world desperately needing to hear the truth” - Moran.

The Baptist Faith & Message speaks clearly as it should:

…that marriage is between one man and one woman for a lifetime thus negating the idea of homosexual marriage. We can understand why the CBF/Mainstream has such a problem with the revised article seeing that the CBF-funded Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America advocates the ordination of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons and the CBF-funded BJCPA played a leadership role in the production of an extreme pro-homosexuality political training manual and several CBF churches allow its ministers to perform gay marriages and have openly homosexual members serving on the deacon board, in the choir and as Sunday School teachers.

…that the only legitimate expression of sexual intimacy is within the confines of marriage, thus negating the idea that homosexuality is “a gift from God” or that “bisexuality,” which is promiscuous by definition, is somehow a behavior to be protected. Hmmm. That seems to fly in the face of the CBF published pro-homosexual “church resource” that was published to let churches know that all sexuality is a gift from God and that a person does not choose to be homosexual but instead they are born that way.

…that children, from the moment of conception, are a gift from God, thus negating the idea that God is “pro-choice,” or that abortion is biblically acceptable. I would think that the CBF would have a problem with this too since some of their leaders have worked in “coalition efforts” with planned parenthood and since they do align themselves with organizations whose leaders have openly declared their support of the partial-birth abortion procedure.

The CBF leaders and related organizations declare themselves to be Southern Baptists and yet they boldly and publicly hold beliefs that the majority of Southern Baptists do not believe. There is a large number of leaders who openly support abortion and homosexuality and yet are identified as Southern Baptist, even though they don’t hold to the belief of Southern Baptists. This created a need to further define what Southern Baptists believe as truth based on the inerrant, infallible word of God.

The SBC’s article on the family was a direct kick in the face to pro-abortion/pro-homosexual activism, which ruffled the feathers of many members of the CBF. However the revision that created the biggest outcry from the CBF/Mainstream leaders was the section of the family article calling for wives to “submit” to their husbands. Obviously this comes from Ephesians 5:22-23 which states: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church…” and Colossians 3:18 which states: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” The BF&M revision states that “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”

At first I asked myself, why in the world was this such a big issue? I know the stance of most CBF/Mainstream leaders on abortion and homosexuality and I can understand their frustration with the revision of the Baptist Faith and Message, but when it comes to wives, submitting to their husbands what is the big deal? Strikingly the heart of this issue is the CBF’s commitment to women serving as senior pastors. The very concept that wives should “submit” to their husbands or that “the husband is the head of the wife,’ is seen by CBF leaders as a direct assault against women in ministry, most specifically, women serving as senior pastors. Dr. David Currie, who heads the National Network of Mainstream Baptist organizations, stated in a September 2000 interview in Baptists Today: “I personally believe God does call women into the ministry and I’m thrilled when a local church calls a woman to be their pastor.”

I simply sit here in amazement at this. If the very idea of wives submitting to their husbands is a direct attack on women as senior pastors then the CBF/Mainstream leadership should not simply be attacking the BF&M but scripture itself! {sarcasm} Shame on the SBC for basing the changes of the BF&M on scripture, that is just uncalled for! {/sarcasm}

Ok, now there is even another area where CBF/Mainstream leaders cried out in unison, which was over the changes in Article One of the revised BF&M entitled, “The Scriptures.” This area goes to the very heart of the whole SBC controversy that has raged within the SBC since 1979. Dr. Morris Chapman sums it up in saying, “The core difference between these two groups [conservative SBC leaders and CBF/Mainstream leaders] is their beliefs about the authority of God’s Word… The moderates believe the Bible contains God’s Holy Word. Southern Baptist conservatives believe the Bible is God’s Holy Word.”

Three distinct changes were made in this section of the Baptist Faith and Message:

1. The section that referred to the Bible as “the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man,” was changed to state that the Bible “is God’s revelation of Himself to man.”

2. The section that states the Bible has “truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter” was followed up with this addition, “Therefore, all scripture is totally true and trustworthy.” - This eliminated the “wiggle room” for those who argue that not all Scripture is true, that the Bible contains errors and contradictions and that the Bible is not historically and scientifically accurate.

3. The statement “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” replaced the statement: “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”

The third change to this article created a vicious attack against the SBC. The CBF/Mainstream leaders claimed that the Southern Baptists had “rejected Jesus” and “exalted the Bible above Jesus” and that Southern Baptists “worship the Bible.” Isn’t it interesting that the CBF remain virtually silent regarding the liberalism that clearly violates scripture and permeates every area of the CBF and yet they universally burst out in a verbal attack against the SBC over the removal of the statement identifying Jesus Christ as the “criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted.”

From this point on I will directly quote the MBLA as they make several interesting and awesome points that I cannot say better myself:

While CBF/Mainstream leaders were quick to condemn conservative Southern Baptists for approving the 2000 revised Baptist Faith & Message, where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…former CBF Coordinating Council member, Dr. Kirby Godsey, president of Mercer University, argued in his 1996 book that “Jesus is not God,” that “Jesus did not have to die,” discounted the virgin birth as “unimportant,” and declared that “universal redemption… finds strong support in Holy Scripture.” Interestingly, CBF is housed at Mercer University and Dr. Godsey’s book was published by Smyth and Helwys, the CBF-funded publishing house.

where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…former CBF Coordinating Council member Ron Sisk, pastor of Crescent Hill Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, publicly denied the exclusivity of Christ — the idea that there is salvation only in Christ. Sisk stated: “I certainly don’t believe that any one tradition has an exclusive corner on God. I would never limit God’s salvation to those who share my own perspective or my own understanding. I would respect the traditions of others, both Christian and non-Christian, for the truth which they reveal. I would say Christ’s spirit operates in places where Christ is not named or known.”

Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…former CBF Coordinating Council member Dr. Molly Marshall, a leading feminist theologian and former professor at Southern Seminary, openly identified herself as an “inclusivist” in her doctoral dissertation. In her book, No Salvation Outside the Church? A Critical Inquiry, based on her dissertation, Marshall articulates her viewpoint that there are other ways to salvation than belief in Jesus Christ. She also argues that those who never hear the gospel will be given another opportunity to respond to God after death. Dr. Marshall is currently a professor at Central Seminary, one of CBF’s 11 “partnering” schools of theology.

Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…Dr. Alan Neely, who has served on CBF’s “World Missions Ministry Group” and as a CBF “breakout” leader, rejected the idea that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, stating that such a view is “not my theology” because such a view “reflects arrogance, ignorance, and superficiality.” A former professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and the first executive director of the Alliance of Baptists — which claims to have “provided much of the leadership” of the CBF — Dr. Neely stated clearly the theological condition of SBC seminaries prior to the 1980’s when conservative Southern Baptists began to influence the course of the convention. In a March 5, 1990 article in Christianity in Crisis, Dr. Neely identified the “beliefs of classical fundamentalism” as “the infallibility of the Bible, Virgin Birth of Christ, substitutionary atonement, bodily Resurrection of Christ and the pre-millennial Second Coming,” and then goes on to say: “Until the 1980’s, for example, I never knew a Southern Baptist seminary professor who affirmed all of these doctrines.

where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…former CBF Coordinating Council member Dr. Paul Duke used “Jesus” as “the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted” when he concluded that: “Homosexuality is not a major concern of the Bible. The Ten Commandments say nothing of it. The four Gospels say nothing of it. Jesus apparently said nothing about it.” Dr. Duke then goes on to state: “Having taken the time to study the [biblical] text, I must tell you - I cannot with confidence say that the Bible condemns all forms of homosexual behavior.” Dr.

Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…Jann Aldredge-Clanton, a leading feminist theologian and author of In Search of the Christ-Sophia, stated in her book: “…Jesus is not just the last and greatest of Sophia’s children, but is Sophia herself in the flesh. In other words, Jesus is not merely Sophia’s child nor Sophia’s prophet, but Sophia incarnate.” She further states: “When people make the historicity of the virgin birth, the historicity of the miracles, and the historicity of the resurrection their prime concerns, they miss the significance of the Christ-event.”

Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…the CBF-funded Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America issued its 1995 statement calling for the ordination of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons, arguing also that such persons should not be disqualified for denominational leadership positions by virtue of their sexuality.

Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…four CBF “partnering” schools of theology admitted to having open admission policies for homosexual students and when the president of a fifth “partnering” school, Central Seminary, endorsed the Baptist Peace Fellowship/Alliance of Baptists pro-homosexual church resource. Interestingly, former CBF moderator Carolyn Weatherford Crumpler also endorsed the pro-homosexual church resource.

Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…three of CBF’s 11 “partnering” schools — Wake Forest University (Wake Forest Divinity School), Duke University (Baptist House of Studies at Duke) and Emory University (Candler School of Theology at Emory) voted to allow same-sex ceremonies in their chapels.

Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders when…

…CBF leader Dr. Paul Simmons, a former professor of Christian ethics at Southern Seminary, argued in his book, Birth and Death: Bioethical Decision-Making, that “God is truly pro-choice” and that “Abortion may at times be understood as the command [of God] to control population growth.”

Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders about the liberalism espoused by their fellow CBF leaders? Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders against those who had stripped Jesus of His divinity and His exclusivity in matters of salvation? Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders against those who had re-created Jesus as pro-choice and as the creator of homosexuality? Where was the universal outcry from CBF/Mainstream leaders against those who had applied a fabricated “Jesus” as the “criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted?”

It was in this context that messengers at the 2000 annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention voted to approve the revised BF&M statement, saying in essence: “We can no longer silently stand by while those who call themselves ‘Southern Baptists,’ re-create a ‘Christ’ in an image they are personally more comfortable with.” As conservative, Bible-believing Southern Baptists, the SBC messengers said in essence: We cannot — we will not — silently stand by…

…while the pro-homosexual faction of the CBF re-creates a “Christ” that has no problem with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered sexuality.

…while the pro-abortion faction of the CBF re-creates a “Christ” supportive of a woman’s “right” to abort her unborn child.

…while the feminist faction of the CBF calls on people to worship the “Christ-Sophia,” and re-creates God as “Mother.”

…or while the inclusivist/universalist faction of the CBF re-create a “Christ” committed to the salvation of the unrepentant and the unbelieving.

The conservative leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention understood clearly that where there is a low view of Scripture, there is also a low view of the Christ of Scripture. The conservative leadership of the SBC understood clearly that when Jesus Christ is divorced from Scripture and then used as “the criterion by which the Bible was to be interpreted,” there is no limit to the theological/spiritual perversions that can arise. Likewise, conservative SBC leaders understood clearly that the only Christ we can know that can save us from our sins, is the Christ of Scripture — the same Christ that calls all men everywhere to repent of their sin.

Thus, the conservative leadership of the SBC spoke clearly, concisely and with a prophetic voice in warning Southern Baptists to beware of those who profess a “Christ” who bears little resemblance to the Christ of Scripture and who exalt personal experience and personal opinion above Scripture. And the conservative leadership of the SBC spoke clearly, concisely and with a prophetic voice when they sounded the alarm against those who had re-interpreted Scripture in order to re-created a “Christ” more to their personal liking, and then applied this “fabricated” Christ as “the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted.” Indeed, Dr. David Currie said it well in a recent article in his newsletter: “Division in Southern Baptist life is the result, most of all, of our belief in a different Jesus! Mainstream Baptists and many fundamentalist [pro-SBC] Baptists have a different, unreconcilable visions of the Gospel.” (Jan/Feb 2001 Texas Baptist Committed Newsletter)

This concludes Part III as we have discussed the reasons for the changes in the BF&M and the reasons for the outcry of the CBF in view of those changes. There will be one more post that will sum up the “Controversy” in the SBC and there I will present my own views as well in Part IV, so once again stay tuned…

Pressed

NOTE: I must give credit where credit is due! Most of this information is from the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association. They have given me written permission to simply copy and paste the information but I have chosen to re-write some of it in my own words as I understand it.

Permalink  |  Comments (5)  |  Filed under: MBC & SBC

The “Controversy” in the SBC: Part II “The ‘Real’ Face of the CBF”

@ 12:25 pm by Pressed

This is the second part of The “Controversy” in the SBC. If you have not read Part I, please go back and read it before reading Part II.

In 1998 there was a “contrast” between SBC and CBF published by the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association (MBLA) which was based off of a fully documented publication entitled: Cooperative Baptist Fellowship: Serious Questions for Serious Consideration. The MBLA published their contrast in order to provide a brief contrasting format of the significant differences between the leadership of the SBC and the CBF.

As I list the differences in the leadership, written by the MBLA, I would also like to directly quote them on this issue:

“As this contrast is presented, it is important to note several things. First, we certainly acknowledge that no human institution is perfect and that the sin nature of man transcends theological labels. However, when the “celebration” of illegitimate “diversity” replaces commitment to biblical Truth as the basis of fellowship and unity, to what shall we anchor ourselves — to what shall we look to establish acceptable boundaries for theological and moral prescriptions? Secondly, while we do not suggest that everybody supportive of CBF is “liberal,” it is equally clear that liberalism has most certainly found a comfortable home within CBF. Likewise, CBF leaders who publicly identify themselves as “theological conservatives,” yet have participated in the exalting of unrestrained “freedom” above biblical Truth, have not only sent out an “uncertain sound” into the world, but have contributed greatly to a growing attitude that diminishes the seriousness of sin as well as the significance and necessity of repentance.

Lastly, while conservative Southern Baptists argued that the issue in the SBC controversy was theological in nature, it is important to note that theological liberalism does not operate in a vacuum or in a void, but that it manifests itself in various ways. This contrast demonstrates clearly that CBF is full of the manifestations of theological liberalism and provides a glimpse at what the Southern Baptist Convention WOULD LIKELY HAVE LOOKED LIKE HAD THE “CONSERVATIVE RESURGENCE” NEVER TAKEN PLACE

The SBC has no leaders that deny the deity of Christ, the need for His sacrificial death or the importance of His virgin birth.

But CBF does.

The SBC has no feminist theologian leaders calling for the worship of the “Christ-Sophia.”

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders calling for the ordination of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons.

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders declaring that God sometimes commands a woman to abort her unborn child for the purpose of population control.

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders advocating federal funding for abortions or the elimination of parental notification and parental consent laws so minors can have an abortion without their parent’s knowledge.

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders proclaiming that the Bible does not condemn all forms of homosexual behavior.

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders calling for the ordination of women as senior pastors.

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders that have worked in “coalition efforts” with Penthouse International, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Planned Parenthood.

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders who refer to God as “Mother.”

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders that have signed a declaration stating that Biblical scholarship is an area of common ground between Baptists and atheistic “secular humanists.”

But CBF does.

The SBC has no leaders that have worked for the passage of such pro-homosexual legislation as the Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA) granting minority-status to homosexuals/bisexuals based solely on their sexual behavior.

But CBF does.

The SBC does not embrace churches that ordain or “marry” homosexual persons.

But CBF does

The SBC is aligned with no organization whose leaders have openly declared their support of the partial-birth abortion procedure.

But CBF is.

The SBC is aligned with no organization that gave all of its “mission grants” (in 1997) to churches that welcome and affirm homosexuality.

But CBF is.

The SBC is aligned with no organization whose top leader has defended the reproduction and distribution of child pornography.

But CBF is.

The author of this MBLA material is Roger Moran. Soon after much of this written material was released Moran received a letter from CBF coordinator Dr. Daniel Vestal. Vestal requested that Moran publicly recant and apologize for the material that was written about the CBF. “So, I appeal to you as a Christian brother to stop these salacious and damaging attacks…I ask that you stop the inflammatory language and the seeping generalizations…Stop accusing us of endorsing child pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. We have never done so and are trying to join hands with other Christians to resolve these and other problems in our society…” Vestal also sent a letter to Roger Moran’s pastor, Gary Taylor.

If you would like to read the actual letters for yourself they can be found on the internet, simply click the links below:

Vestal’s Letter To Moran
Vestal’s Letter To Moran’s Pastor
Pastor’s Letter To Vestal
Moran’s Letter To Vestal
Vestal’s Open Letter To Moran

Moran responded with a list of 15 questions directed at Vestal claiming public proof of the very things Vestal asked Moran to quit accusing CBF of. Here are the 15 questions that Moran asked Vestal. Vestal of course did not respond:

Does it not matter…

…that a significant portion of CBF leadership and CBF-related organizations consistently align themselves with Religious Left groups supportive of homosexuality?

…that the CBF-funded BJCPA played a leadership role in the production of an extreme pro-homosexuality political training manual?

…that the CBF-funded Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America advocates the ordination of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons?

…that numerous members of the CBF’s Coordinating Council serve (or have served) on the governing board of Americans United, a participating organization in the National Religious Leadership Roundtable which exists to support and affirm gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons?

…that the CBF’s Coordinating Council includes the executive director and a board member/treasurer of The Interfaith Alliance, also a member of the National Religious Leadership Roundtable which claims that its existence confirms the broad base of religious support for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons?

…that the president of the CBF-funded Baptist Women in Ministry served (until recently) as associate pastor of University Baptist Church in Austin, Texas, which was “kicked out” of the Baptist General Convention of Texas for ordaining a homosexual as a deacon? (Kathy Manis Findley, pastor of Providence Baptist Church in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a former president of Baptist Women in Ministry, received a mission grant from the Alliance of Baptists in 1997. According to Stan Hastey [executive director of the Alliance of Baptists], that church also has a “pro-gay stance.” Findley is a member of the CBF’s Coordinating Council.)

…that the CBF-funded, national, moderate newspaper, Baptists Today, operated for years out of Oakhurst Baptist Church in Decatur, Georgia, which has ordained openly homosexual deacons, named a homosexual to the chairmanship of the deacons’ board, and ordained a homosexual minister?

…that Wake Forest Baptist Church in North Carolina — whose pastor, Richard Groves, served on the Interim Steering Committee of the CBF and from 1991 to 1995 on the CBF Coordinating Council — allows its ministers to perform gay marriages and has openly homosexual members serving on the deacon board, in the choir and as Sunday School teachers?

…that the Alliance of Baptists, which claims to have “provided much of the leadership of the [Cooperative Baptist] Fellowship,” has openly declared its support of homosexuality, giving all six mission grants in 1997 to churches that “have a pro-gay stance?” (Kathy Manis Findley’s church was one of those churches.)

…that you, Dr. Vestal, as CBF coordinator served on the BJCPA board of directors with Carole Shields, president of People for the American Way, whose organization has been working in the courts to legalize homosexual marriages?

…that the BJCPA, which receives about a quarter-million dollars each year from the CBF, played a significant role in an extreme pro-homosexuality AIDS conference sponsored by the AIDS National Interfaith Network (ANIN), an organization headed up by two homosexual men?

…that the CBF’s AIDS resource packet, which recommended ANIN as an AIDS resource, re-defines the family to include “gay families and lesbian families” by virtue of their “enduring covenants?”

…that the CBF’s AIDS resource packet declares that: “We do not choose our sexual orientation, but rather we ‘awaken’ to it?”

…that former CBF Coordinating Council member Dr. Paul Duke (a leading Baptist advocate for biblical acceptance of homosexuality and [formerly] a professor of New Testament at the CBF-funded McAfee School of Theology at Mercer) states in his two part series entitled: “Homosexuality and the Church,” that: “Having taken the time to study the [biblical] texts, I cannot with confidence say that the Bible condemns all forms of homosexual behavior?” (Dr. Duke led a CBF Pre-Assembly Institute by the same title at the 1994 CBF General Assembly)

…that a significant portion of CBF leadership and CBF-related organizations consistently oppose conservative Christian organizations that have stood firm regarding the sinfulness of homosexual behavior (organizations like James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, Don Wildmon’s American Family Association, Beverly LaHaye’s Concerned Women for America…), referring to such groups as the “Radical Religious Right?” (In 1995, it was you, Dr. Vestal, that signed the statement published by the CBF-funded Center for Christian Ethics, condemning the “Radical Religious Right,” stating that: “We are alarmed because the Radical Religious Right poses significant dangers to our churches, our political system, and our American way of life.”)

Vestal and many CBF leaders did attempt to slight the negative press on their association with homosexuality by creating a very weak values statement on the issue. Referring to CBF’s statement on homosexuality as “a middle-of-the-road solution,” CBF coordinator Dr. Daniel Vestal stated: “I do not want us to fragment over this… I don’t want anyone to leave over this.” In 2000 thru 2001 this was an issue in the CBF as many of its members rose up against the values statement.

It is also important to note that CBF published its own pro-homosexual “church resource” entitled: “HIV/AIDS Ministry: Putting a Face on AIDS.” Arguing that “sexuality is a gift from God,” and that it is the role of the church to “educate our children and young people about sexuality, sexual identity, and sexual orientation,” the CBF publication states: “During pregnancy, the fetus is developing characteristics that will determine the person’s sexual orientation. Therefore, a person does not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.” The CBF publication also redefines the family to include “gay families and lesbian families” by virtue of their “enduring covenants.”

The BGCT chimed in with their support of the CBF by issuing six articles found in the Baptist Standard. However, rather than an honest attempt to address legitimate concerns raised they simply attempted to downplay the legitimacy of the concerns by making statements like, “Does fact necessarily lead to truth? Do pieces of verifiable information always direct toward accurate conclusions?” Knowing full well that the concerns about CBF are public knowledge and therefore they could not challenge the factual accuracy of the MBLA.

The differences between the CBF and the SBC are fact and public knowledge, which cannot be disputed. Not even the major supporters of the CBF could deny the facts, and yet their leaders scream ’stop accusing us of the very things that we do!’ Why does the CBF want to hide their true face from the public? Why would they want to stop the MBLA from publishing information that spreads the facts to the churches? Maybe because the facts are ugly.

This concludes Part II as we have dealt specifically with the CBF. In Part III we will deal with the issues of the revision of the Baptist Faith and Message in 2000, which gave the CBF/Mainstream an issue to rally around. Stay Tuned…

Pressed

NOTE: I must give credit where credit is due! Most of this information is from the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association. They have given me written permission to simply copy the information but I chose to re-write most of it in my own words as I understand it.

Permalink  |  Comments (4)  |  Filed under: MBC & SBC