12 Witnesses

Has it been twenty years since Sir Mixalot introduced, “Baby’s Got Back” to the world culture? What a legacy. For those who don’t know, this song made Sir Mixalot a “one hit wonder” in the American pop-scene. It is meandering tale of Sir Mixalot’s preference for girls with large posteriors. Can I say that? Anyway, this is no endorsement of that song. If you have not heard it, do yourself a favor and keep it that way.

Nevertheless, Dan Smith, aka Whiteboy DJ, has parodied this song into a music video, called “Baby’s Got Book,” talking about how he likes girls with big Bibles.

Although there is nothing offensive in this song, if you are offended by Christians taking songs that are sexual in nature and transforming them into comedy involving our Christian sub-culture and its relationship to our Bibles (of which there are now more translations and pseudo-translations than any one man can count), you should not watch this video:

Baby’s Got Book

I first saw it at Youth Camp and found it referenced again on Frank Turk’s blog.

For my wife on her last published birthday.

Today is my wife’s 39th birthday, the day when women in America traditionally stop telling their age.

My wife is funny, brilliant, kind, gracious, tender hearted and deeply spiritual.

Yes, I married over my head, but that wasn’t hard to do.

Here’s to the bride of my youth, the mother of my children, and the love of my life.

Why am I always defending somebody? Is it because all of my compatriots shoot their mouths off and are deserving of reprimand? If so, they would not need a defense.

Ben Cole’s response to Danny Akin, concerning the Alcohol Resolution and published in the Dallas Morning News, has elicited a response from Dr. James Merritt. Dr. Merritt is a former President of the SBC and Pastor of Cross Pointe, the Church at Gwinnett Center. I found the response posted at the Arkansas Razorbaptist(s) site.

In the “Comments” section, Ben writes kindly toward Dr. Merritt and says that he will not respond. I called and asked him about it, and he just said he was going to let it go.

Probably wise. Ben has better things to do, and so do I. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to address Dr. Meritt’s article. There are some glaring issues that I have been unable to get past, so I am publishing my thoughts, now several days old.

In order to understand my comments clearly, I will post Dr. Meritt’s words in italics and my comments in bold.

Just a few notes of observation in chronological order:

1. To label anyone who advocates abstinence as “older, narrow fundamentalists” is a gross and misleading caricature. First which of the 5 fundamentals does Ben Cole deny? Second, there were more than a few of the “younger” crowd that voted for the resolution. Third does “diverse” mean liberal? There are “diverse” people who call themselves Christians and even evangelicals that support gay marriage and monogamous homosexuality–is Ben Cole one of them?

Ben Cole never labeled “anyone” nor “everyone” holding the position of abstinence as “older, narrow fundamentalists.” I am an abstinence advocate and a friend to Ben. I also did NOT support the resolution. This is the true meaning of Ben’s use of the word “diverse,” addressed again in the next paragraph. We hold different conclusions but still work together and are comfortable with one another’s convictions. His description was a thumbnail sketch of the debate within the convention. Having been there, I affirm that his description, while not definitive, is accurate in general.

Moreover, Dr. Merritt is about to do a lot of talking about straw men. To insinuate that the word “diverse” means “liberal” or in some way equates Ben with those who do not share the Biblical view of homosexuality - even support “gay rights,” is the worst of straw men. It certainly discounts Dr. Meritt’s insinuation that Ben is muddying the waters and that he is attempting to clarify them.

2. Is alcohol abuse and drunkenness possible without alcohol? Can the “nth” drink which finally causes the line to be crossed to drunkenness and alcoholism be taken if the first drink never is? With the answer obvious, these tragedies then can indeed be traced back to alcohol!

This is a wonderful hedge around the law. It is a thought that I apply to my own life, but when authoritatively applied to the lives of others, it becomes pharisaical. You can read more of my thoughts on this subject in my article, A Hedge Around the Law.

3. No one is condemning all use of alcohol–this is a straw man. Alcohol has its medicinal purposes (just as Paul said to Timothy) and no one is putting taking one drink or moderate drinking in the same category as drunkenness as indeed Akin make plain.

“No one is condemning all use of alcohol.” Not so, Dr. Merritt. In an article released by Baptist Press, Resurgence Architect Dr. Paige Patterson concludes that the use of alcohol by any Christian is tantamount to sin. You can read it for yourself:

FIRST-PERSON: Concerning alcoholic beverages

4. Cole exhibits a gross ignorance of the difference between the wine/strong drink of Bible days and that of today. His entire argument in one sense is irrelevant because it is comparing apples and oranges. It would be as if one would advocate that a car should not travel more than 25 mph because a horse at that speed traveling through the streets of Jerusalem would be dangerous in bible days so the speed limit of today applies accordingly. The alcohol content of wine today would be the equivalent of much strong drink in bible days!

To call Ben Cole grossly ignorant of anything raises my eyebrows. Both of them. Saying such a thing discredits one’s own argument, to say the least. Rather, it is an overstatement of one’s case to say that the Biblical witness of wine vs. strong drink is simple and that Ben has misapplied his argument for slightly fermented grape juice to “strong drink.” Much of this is speculation on the part of scholars as to what was the actual alcoholic content of what people were drinking in that day. There is no “hard evidence,” so to speak. To base his critique of Ben on such speculation is to toe the line of arguments past without surety of their own soundness.

5. Again marriages cannot fail because of alcohol if neither party drinks, no one gets killed by drunk drivers if no one drinks, and children do not have food robbed from their tables if no one drinks. So, alcohol is indeed a destroyer of marriages, menace to families, and a highway murderer. The gun/bullet analogy is laughable. A person with a bullet in a gun knows exactly when he is a menace to others–when he points his gun at an innocent person and fires. No one knows when their line of moderation in drinking is crossed into the danger zone–which is exactly why some people can “hold their liquor” better than others. There is no one “line fits all” standard for moderation which is why the bullet analogy fails. Furthermore there is no harm to a Christian’s witness by having a bullet or a gun in their home–the same cannot be said if Budweiser cans fill the refrigerators and litter the house.

Again, a fine hedge. If we were to be pharisees, this would be one of the first preventive measures adopted. This is just the reason many within our culture reject our witness. We adopt rules and seek to enforce them but when looking for them in the Word, they are absent. They see us as ungrounded, and they are right.

And speaking of pharisees, is there any evidence that THEY were tee-totalers?

6. No one is trying to deny anyone their 21st Amendment rights–again another straw man. On the other hand just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. The Supreme Court has ruled abortion on demand for all intents and purposes legal–is Ben Cole pro-life? Would Ben Cole have fought the abolitionists 150 years ago because slavery was then legal? When it comes to Christian convictions and biblical morality the Constitution is to put it bluntly irrelevant–at least to an older narrow fundamentalist!

Talk about a straw man!!! To imply that Ben Cole is anything other than pro-life is unconscionable. To create such a straw man while denouncing straw men boggles my mind.

Speaking of the argument that Ben has created a straw man - that no one is trying to deny anyone their 21st Amendment rights - I refer Dr. Merritt, and all of you, back to Dr. Patterson’s “First Person” article mentioned earlier. I remind you that he concludes that it is a sin for any Christian to do anything other than abstain from any form of alcohol.

7. Again the statement that “it is not true that the temperate consumption of alcoholic beverages leads to debauchery” simply is not universally true. The chain smoker comes from the one who smoked his first cigarette. The drug addict comes from the one who first tried drugs. It is true that not all temperate consumers of alcohol become alcoholics but this is a totally different statement than Cole makes and no one is saying any thing differently. Furthermore, no one is saying categorically that abstinence is the only acceptable position for Christian believers (as opposed to say a pro-life position which Southern Baptists do believe is the only “acceptable” position for Christian believers). What Akin and others are saying is that the abstinence position is the wisest and most responsible position for a Christian believer where Cole would say a moderation position would be–the question is which case has the strongest biblical backing.

Another effort at pharisiacal law building to prevent law breaking. I might add, at this point, that if you did not read my article, A Hedge Around the Law, you might click on the link above. This action is pervasive and seems good, but it ends in the binding of one’s soul in a web of legalism. Truly evil. If we strive to become outwardly pure, we almost always become inwardly shallow and easily rejected by our culture (and our God) - missing the opportunity to become inwardly intimate with God which produces an outward holiness that even the darkest of lost souls can recognize.

Also, Ben never argues for moderation to be the view of every Christian. As to which case has the strongest Biblical backing, simple hermeneutics would say that the moderation position is more easily documented from the Word. My point, and I believe Ben’s point, is that there is room for diversity in our views on the subject. Again, that word does not mean that I support the homosexual agenda nor am I anything other than pro-life. Just for the record.

8. Concerning alcohol and church leadership, God himself holds Christian leaders to higher standards as evidenced by who was eligible for the priesthood in the Old Testament and the requirements given for pastors and deacons in the New Testament (see also James 3:1). It is neither out of line from a biblical standpoint nor from a practical standpoint for the church to require a higher standard from their leadership in terms of alcohol use or tobacco use for that matter.

God’s Word is clear on the issue of leadership and leaders being held to a higher standard. Dr. Merritt and others, however, do not get to set that standard. It is not more holy to believe like they (we, actually) do because they believe it. The proposition is arrogant at its core, though I am sure Dr. Merritt is not an arrogant man. The notion, however, centers on the idea that “we are right, and therefore we get to decide who is best suited for leadership,” ie, NOT Ben.

9. Cole himself stretches the “flexibility” and “nuances” of the bible to the breaking point. It is glaringly evident that nowhere does he mention the key text in this matter (and other matters of potential gray areas) which is I. Cor. 8. That text is the sine qua non for any discussion on alcohol. Paul’s entire point (which is so plain it cannot be denied or diluted) is the trump card over Christian liberty is Christian love. In other words liberty which is not limited by love becomes license. Paul knew there was nothing inherently wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols just as Akin and others know that there is nothing inherently wrong with taking a drink of wine with a meal. But then Paul dropped the love bomb on the liberty platform–if steak becomes a stumbling block I will not eat it (v.9)–and according to verse 13 he never did again. Now the key question–is there anyway that having a Budweiser at a ballgame or wine– or a Bloody Mary, rum and coke, gin and tonic for that matter–in a restaurant can be an enhancement to one’s Christian witness? Put another way is there anyway those scenarios can be stepping stones to a weaker brother’s walk with God? Conversely is it more likely those scenarios would harm one’s Christian witness and be stumbling blocks to a weaker brother’s walk with God? To most if not all (except to some young, “diverse” evangelicals) the answer is patently obvious. So, although I have the right to drink, because of Christian love and my desire to avoid any potential stumbling block to other Christians not to mention anything that could damage my witness to unbelievers I will pass– as I have all of my life to no regrets.

1 Cor. 8 is the reason that I don’t personally drink. I agree with the argument and it is probably the one thing with which I would myself respond to moderation advocates in an earnest debate. Nevertheless, Dr. Merritt again creates a straw man out of Ben by suggesting that he is arguing for “Bloody Mary, rum and coke, gin and tonic” drinks all around.

If you want a lesson is nuancing, read Dr. Patterson’s work on the greek word [oinos] in the First Person article. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

The purpose of my writing this article is not to reopen the alcohol/moderation debate. Like Ben, I tire of the discussion - because it is not much of a discussion. Very rarely are we able to find many who will engage in reasoned (as in “come let us reason together”) discussion. Rather, we find that our predispositions, personal histories and raw emotions govern our words - on both sides.

My purpose in writing this article is to remind every single last Southern Baptist leader that their words will be scrutinized and answered on issues concerning the direction of this convention. Though I personally agree with Dr. Merritt’s position, I am not about to allow him, or anyone else, to issue such a missive and have it be the last word from the power structure - a structure that has become far too accustomed to having their word unquestioned.

(Or, “Why Miss Mary is my newest hero.”)

A few weeks ago I posted an article on programming evangelism. It sparked a few comments and some good discussion. It further produced an opportunity for CB Scott to write a series of articles while I was at Youth Camp, which were hailed across a few blogs.

My position is that programming times to evangelize people is artificial and is not well received by our culture. In fact, I have personally heard several folks decry our efforts through this method by saying that we are not interested in them or what they have to say, but in convincing them that we are right and they should change their minds to believe as we do. Kind of a cosmic competition over who is right.

Not that I think this is what we are trying to accomplish, it is just their perception. However, perception is reality and we have to deal with it.

We have got to move to a more natural and holistic approach to evangelism. As a Christian, I am a missionary and I must take the Gospel. It is all a part of the same thing and we do ourselves, and our mission, great harm when we compartmentalize our faith.

Such compartmentalization also gives many the opportunity to exclude themselves from service in this area. By saying that they are unavailable to serve during the appropriate “time for evangelism,” they convince themselves that they don’t have to evangelize at all.

On Sunday, I preached on the Great Commission, saying that it is “Our Commission,” and “My Commission.” At one point, I even had the congregation say, along with me, “This is my commission.” I said that we had to get up and go and “rub off” on the lost in the world around us.

Imagine my complete astonishment when somebody heard me and took me seriously.

Miss Mary is a retired educator and went to the funeral of a former co-worker. At this funeral, she saw some other former co-workers who used to leave about 4:00 pm and delve into the world for hollow comfort.

Miss Mary told the Women’s Bible Study that she used to worry about them but never said anything. Upon seeing them and remembering that she had just said, “This is my commission,” she said she just asked these guys, “Are you ready for this? What if this were your funeral? Would you go to Heaven?”

Their response? “Uuuhh, I guess so.” Miss Mary, “Well you don’t need to guess, you need to know,” whereupon she proceeded to share the gospel with them.

My wife came home from Women’s Bible Study on Monday night with this story.

Miss Mary is my newest hero. Yes, because she stays awake during my sermons, but also because she is a real evangelist who is taking the lost around her as her responsibility.

Trying to be patient and also trying to abide by Wade Burleson’s plea for those in the blogosphere not to take up his offenses within the IMB, I post this article with as moderated a tone as I can achieve.

On the flagship of SBC blogs, SBC Outpost, it has come out that both Jerry Corbaley, chair of several committees and one ominous sounding sub-committee at the IMB, and Bob Pearle, pastor of several SBC luminaries such as Paige Patterson and former IMB Trustee (rotating off at Greensboro), had violated Executive Session materials in personal conversations with Ben Cole.

You can find the relevant back and forth in comments 26, 28, 34, 47 & 49 of the article New VP.

Why is it that Wade is singled out for “violating Executive Session materials” that were already made public outside of the IMB BOT when Tom Hatley, noted in these accounts as being apprised of the situation by Ben Cole himself, ignores these other two trustees much more clear violations? Even though Dr. Hatley is no longer the chair of the BOT, should not the current chair deal with Dr. Corbaley’s public confession that he violated Executive Session? He readily agrees to judgment from the BOT. That’s easy - he knows its not coming.

If there are those who doubt the existence of a caucus group within the IMB BOT, this should provide plenty of food for thought.

What Dr. Corbaley is not forthcoming about is the nature and function of his subcommittee, which is to research “the field,” seminaries and other trustees for issues on the field. After a long list of statements that affirm a desire to be “open,” and the apparent effort to do so, Corbaley then obfuscates the issue posed by many questions in the thread. It was a sharp change of gears, to be sure.

If he doesn’t want to answer every nit-picking question, then why does he do it so well until we arrive at this one?

Well, that is another series of posts, I am afraid. For now, I would like to call for the BOT of the IMB to deal with these admitted breaches of confidence in the same way it dealt with Wade Burleson’s supposed breaches: Remove Dr. Corbaley from all committees and responsibilities within the BOT.

Holding my breath? Not likely.

This won’t happen because the difference between Wade and Jerry is that one is working closely with the power structure within the IMB BOT and the other stands opposed to it. It pays dividends to have Dr. Corbaley in the positions where he now serves. It pays dividends to have Wade Burleson in no positions of leadership or influence within the Board.

Ethics Daily’s Bob Allen has posted a story concerning Frank Page’s position on Women in the ministry. Bob quotes the SBC President as stating that he affirms the BFM 2000’s stance that the office of pastor is limited to men according to Scripture.

He then spends the rest of the article quoting Page’s doctoral dissertation at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth. The quotes affirm women in ministry for “any office in the church.” Page also affirms, in his dissertation, the ordination of women, under the understanding that ordination is recognition of the Holy Spirit’s calling on one’s life.

A few thoughts here:

This story will certainly confirm the suspicions those who believed the rumor that Frank was a “liberal” that circulated during his presidential candidacy.

I have known many, I am one, who were more “moderate” as students and became more “conservative” as I got older and studied the Word for themselves, under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit. I’m not knocking Theological education. I am a firm believer in it and was pretty conservative in the day, but I am much more so as I took the tools developed in Seminary and grew in the Lord.

This story is not new to me. I had heard that “the machine” in Ft. Worth was digging through everything available on Dr. Page immediately after the election. Why not before? They really didn’t think they were in the minority. In truth, this was easy to get as dissertations are kept in the library as published works.

More on SWBTS’ involvement later.

This is a foolish and slippery slope on which these folks are now treading. Have you ever said anything you wished you could take back? Ever said anything that you now realize was youthful exuberance now tempered with wisdom and experience?

If those things are not to be taken into consideration, then I know of at least one Seminary President is about to face the same scrutiny. What is good for the goose…

I received a call from a missionary in the 10-40 window today. He called to encourage me and thank me for the blog that I had been posting over the last months. Of course, I thought of the report on SBC Outpost that told of Dr. John Floyd, BOT Chair, saying that morale on the field is low because of blogging.

I asked the Missionary if he had read that statement and he said he had. He chose not to speak of Dr. Floyd personally, but said the accusation was “one of the most ridiculous things [he] had ever heard.” He went on to say that morale on the field was low, but it was the Trustees who were making it so.

It has also been my experience that Missionaries were positive about the information they were able to get from blogs. They had indicated to me that they were in the dark, and kept that way purposefully, concerning the IMB.

Maybe both views are right. Maybe the M’s are upset about what the BOT is about but never would have known it without the blogs. If this is the case, I suppose you could level the charge that the blogs are responsible for informing the folks on the field and that the knowledge of Trustees playing politics with the IMB is lowering morale.

What do you think about this situation? Is the charge accurate and, if so, why is it accurate?

Echoing German wartime lingo, “all is calm on the eastern front.” Not that I want to be associated with the Nazi war effort. It’s just so fitting for the day.

The IMB BOT meeting in Richmond has produced little in the way of news. There was a list of committees announced by Dr. Floyd. In them was a committee, chaired by Jerry Corbaley, that was a continuation of a previous committee. It has something to do with mission personell. It is not yet clear what this committee will do.

Because it seems to be the revival of a prior committee, I feel the obligation not to hit the panic button. I do admit that my first thoughts were that this committee was going to police missionaries on the field, taking the responsibility for that action away from the IMB staff. I think it prudent, at this point, to wait and see.

Wade Burleson has reported on his blog several things of note:

He did attend the private Forum, which Dr. Tom Hatley sought to prevent on his way out of office.

There was a prayerful mood within the forum.

He met with new BOT Chair, Dr. John Floyd and that meeting was productive.

The commission that is to research and present findings concerning Wade’s motion at the SBC will be appointed by Dr. Floyd and Wade intends to allow them to work.

It seems to me that Wade is actively pursuing the mending of fences with fellow trustees at the IMB. I hope (and sense) that it is working. That process will be a slow one, as healing relationships always are, but I think it is off to a promising start. The future will tell the tale.

Read it all at Wade’s blog:

An Anniversary and a Fresh Start at the International Mission Board

Dr. Frank Page, our new SBC President, has released an article through Baptist Press on the NEW Southern Baptist Convention.

I found it inspiring and honest. I hope you will, too.

Read it here:

FIRST-PERSON: The new Southern Baptist Convention