At the upcoming Roundtable meeting in Arlington, the debate is already ensuing concerning the nature of any potential fellowship – what it is, will be, or will not be. I have spoken with several who have raised the issue to me, even today.
I am one of the organizers of this event, and I am also one who was concerned as this potentiality arose. I voiced my concern to the others involved and was received well. Allow me, if you will, to address my concerns and share the general response of the Roundtable’s organizers.
My first thought, when I read the title of the Roundtable, was that the initials SCCBF were, shall we say, unfortunate. Unintended, but still… That might not mean much to many, but among conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention, having CBF in your initials is not kosher, so to speak.
The other thought I had was that the funding of another missionary sending mechanism would be a group that is juxtaposed against our current Southern Baptist Missions efforts.
Let me be clear. My concern is for the reformation of Southern Baptist entities. I have no desire to leave the SBC, but a great passion to call all of our entities to cooperate with fellow CONSERVATIVE INERRANTISTS for reaching the lost. The issues that are now dividing us seem trivial to me. I want the SBC to accept that they are trivial issues, and should not be ones that separate us from one another. They are “third tier” issues.
The response from my colleagues was genuine. We do not desire to leave the SBC nor do we desire to compete with the SBC. We desire the SBC use Southern Baptist men and women who are also Conservative Inerrantists. On issues of interpretation, particularly the issue of Spiritual Gifts (which seems to be the lightening rod issue that represents all the other cooperation issues) none of us can claim orthodoxy as an absolute. There are a good many Conservative Theologians who view these issues with some diversity.
So what of the Sandy Creek-Charlestonian Baptist Fellowship? Dwight told me that he had been reading the history of the Sandy Creek Baptists and was so moved by what he had learned that he was drawn to the name. A friend advised him that the Charlestonian influence was also profound, and as it would seem that thoughts and history from both places seemed relevant, the name ensued.
What of the purpose of and future of such a group? The purpose of such a group, should anything of that nature be born, and this was shared from Dwight McKissic to me today, would be for the encouragement and fellowship of like minded pastors and laymen.
What about church planting? Southern Baptist Churches plant other churches all the time. They also associate with each other, often times, to do it. I received an email today asking for Southern Baptist Churches to join together in aiding a church plant in our area. The mailing address came from our Association and I was one of several Southern Baptist pastors to receive the email. I affirm and encourage every Southern Baptist Church to plant other churches and to associate with other churches to accomplish the work. Such things should never be left to NAMB or the IMB alone. If all we do is throw money at missions, then we are doomed for failure. We, ourselves, must engage.
Such action will not be the purview of this Roundtable or the design of any fellowship this Roundtable fosters. As Dwight told me, “I wouldn’t even know how to do such a thing.” For those who are thinking that we are about to hit the “eject” button on the SBC, I assure you, that we are committed to the betterment of the SBC through Conservative Cooperation.
Concerning the Roundtable, we are looking into the ability to provide a live feed on the internet. It is possible that the feed will not just be audio, but may be a live video feed. Hold on to your hats.
By the way, this idea just hit me today. I was already in an email conversation with Micah Fries and asked him what it would take. By the time he emailed me back, he had already made arrangements and someone else seeking out venues for a feed service. We are rapidly making it happen for a little bit of money (under $50) and equipment we already have. Would somebody like to tell me again why the SBC, and primarily the IMB, cannot create a live feed for their Board meetings? Especially with the resources available. I mean, we’re just poor small church preachers and look what we are doing, y’know? ;)
Also, if you are coming to the Roundtable, you need to make reservations. When you register on the website for Cornerstone Baptist Church – Arlington, you can let them know if you need a ride and if you are bringing other guests. Lunch is provided free of charge.
I hope to see you there.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
micah
on Nov 20th, 2006
@ 3:56 pm:
Art is right on about this post. I’m excited about the meeting and confident of the possibilities to strengthen current relationships within the boundaries of the SBC.
As to the video streaming, Art is very optimistic. I am too, but we’re still working out the kinks. If all goes well it will hopefully happen. Keep praying!
Tim Rogers
on Nov 20th, 2006
@ 6:55 pm:
Brother Art,
Sorry, but I will not be able to make this roundtable. I do wish there were a way I could be there. Of course I do believe I would be the odd man out. The reason I get this feeling is what you say in this post. You say; “My concern is for the reformation of Southern Baptist entities.” I believe this is the very differences that we have. I do not see a need for reformation of the SBC’s entities.
I will be praying for all who attend and their traveling mercies. I pray that you get much of what you desire accomplished as God’s will dictates.
Blessings,
Tim
Alan Cross
on Nov 20th, 2006
@ 9:10 pm:
I’ll be there, Art. I’m still working on my travel arrangements, but I’m committed and have let the church know. I have no idea what to expect, but I also called Dr. McKissic and had a very good conversation with him. I believe that he is genuine and just sincerely seeks to form a fellowship of like minded pastors and leaders. Isn’t that what the Founders have done within the SBC regarding the issue of Calvinism? That seems to have worked very well.
Tim,
I am so sorry to hear that you aren’t coming. I would have loved to have talked with you. Even though we disagree on quite a bit, I love dialoguing with you, because I don’t find you disagreeable. I think we would have had a fine time! Some other time, perhaps.
Bob Cleveland
on Nov 21st, 2006
@ 9:03 am:
Art:
My concern isn’t with the name (SCCBF) or even how it is perceived by anyone. My concerns are for whether it should be done at all, and I’ll be there to express them. Also, I have some thoughts as to what a conference on the Holy Spirit should really have. I’ve been to some that had no real meat in them, for someone who wanted more than head knowledge of scriptures about Him.
My computer bible has more of that than I’ll ever have.
Brian Hatcher
on Nov 21st, 2006
@ 9:49 am:
Art, I will be there and would love to meet you in person.
Brian Hatcher
One Alias
on Nov 21st, 2006
@ 1:39 pm:
Art,
Wish I could be there. I am in spirit.
cb5512
on Nov 21st, 2006
@ 7:51 pm:
Bob The Greek has my proxy.
cb
Dorcas Hawker
on Nov 21st, 2006
@ 8:13 pm:
I’m saving my vacation days for the convention next June, but I am praying for all of you.
David Rogers
on Nov 22nd, 2006
@ 8:28 am:
While I am in general sympathy with the stated objectives of the Roundtable, I deeply hope that no decisions are made that would in anyway lessen the effectiveness of both the IMB and NAMB to fulfill the role assigned to them by Southern Baptists. As much as possible, I believe, we need to avoid anything that would give the impression of setting up competing sending and support structures.
Art Rogers
on Nov 22nd, 2006
@ 9:06 am:
David,
You and I are in complete agreement on this issue. Everyone to whom I have spoken that is coming ti the Roundtable is in agreement with that.
micah
on Nov 22nd, 2006
@ 9:40 am:
David-
I completely agree with you! I’ve spoken with Art on the phone to confirm this desire and I was encouraged to hear from him exactly what he’s told you. I just posted on this very topic, if it might be helpful. You can read it here.
micah
on Nov 22nd, 2006
@ 9:41 am:
For some reason the link above is not working, try this: http://friesville.net/blog/?p=611
Prof Dan
on Nov 22nd, 2006
@ 10:11 am:
I had email Dr McKissic’s assistant that what would be best is to take advantage of Skype’s http://www.highspeedconferencing.com/. With this anyone could enter the discussion and ask questions via a phone or using their Skype account. There is a web based software where people can “raise their hands” to ask a question and the operator can approve, letting the question be heard by everyone. Another option would be to have people text in questions. These options would be 1. much easier than streaming – it is more difficult than it seems, 2. allow for questions and people who do not have access to computers to call in by normal phone.
micah
on Nov 22nd, 2006
@ 10:56 am:
I can’t speak for Art or the other hosts, Prof. Dan, but I fear that the time crunch that is involved in this event would prohibit that sort of involvement. Streaming, or archiving, the video files may be the best option.
Alan Cross
on Nov 22nd, 2006
@ 1:11 pm:
Questions: Regarding the statements against developing a new funding mechanism, why do have to affirm some kind of “pledge of allegiance to the CP and all things Southern Baptist” before every conversation we have? Is the aura of fear that this whole thing is about to fall apart that strong? How much creative thinking is squashed because we have to affirm to the denomination that we are not fomenting revolution? Isn’t this meeting at the heart of what it means to be autonomous, yet desirous of cooperation? Isn’t it positive when churches desire to come together to advance the Kingdom?
I’m all for the roundtable, but it will be a waste of time if we are more afraid of what we shouldn’t say, than we are of what will happen if something isn’t done. We’ve been waiting . . . waiting . . . waiting . . . tick, tock, tick, tock . . . for the IMB BoT to address these issues in an effective way. They seem to be happy not to do so.
I am not an advocate of an alternate funding structure at all. I don’t have time or energy for that. The one we have works fine and I am very supportive of it (there’s my pledge, see?). However, I AM an advocate of getting otherwise qualified missionaries to the field that have been denied service by the new IMB policies. What is the answer to that? I don’t know. I wish the IMB would just reset everything to pre-November 2005 so we can all go back to our business. But, I do not feel that we should be hampered by political considerations or the fear of disenfranchisement that will keep us from hearing what God might be saying. The power of the blogs has been that we have been open to new ideas and open communication. Let’s keep that going. Time is short and those without Christ remain without Him while we dither over gnats, camels, and sacred cows.
Just some thoughts.
David Rogers
on Nov 22nd, 2006
@ 6:17 pm:
Alan,
I think it is possible to interpret what I am saying (as well as Micah and Art) as not in conflict with what you are saying here. I pray God would give us all much wisdom.
Alan Cross
on Nov 22nd, 2006
@ 8:17 pm:
David,
I didn’t say what I said to disagree with you guys as much as I just wanted to make sure that we didn’t retreat from truly discussing issues and practical ways forward because we were afraid of how things might look. I’ve seen lots of people muzzled for fear that things will come across the wrong way, myself included. We should definitely use wisdom and affirm as much as we can. I am in favor of the CP and our current mechanisms, but I am not in favor of the policies of the people who are running it right now. Obviously, none of us are.
Bob Cleveland
on Nov 23rd, 2006
@ 7:53 am:
For the record, I am not, in principle, against a new funding mechanism for missionaries. Mainly because I know it’s God Who’s doing the funding of the IMB (et al) and we’re powerless to have any impact on that.
We can, however, obey Him.
Art Rogers
on Nov 23rd, 2006
@ 8:27 am:
Part of the issue is that if we are setting up a competing entities, then we vacate our voice concerning the SBC entities. Every SBC church I know of partners with other ministries outside the CP giving and “SBC causes.” The question is not whether or not we should do that. We should.
Churches should be planting other churches, in America and worldwide. We have two other churches meeting in our building right now. One is a Hmong mission church, and one is a Korean church already incorporated. We are fostering both works until they are able to stand on their own. We also invest in numerous other ministries that aren’t CP/SBC.
The question is whether or not we are breaking away from the SBC. I am not, nor will I get close to even being perceived to be in that position.
Also, if we start up a funding mechanism, not only are we mimicking the CBF in structure and purpose (if not in theological agreement), we let everyone else off the hook. NAMB and the IMB can rationalize that there is no need for them to change to be more inclusive as there is now a group that can meet your needs. This is not accurate (as no small group of churches can resource Southern Baptists the way these two organizations can) nor is it healthy.
David Rogers
on Nov 29th, 2006
@ 3:53 am:
Art (and others),
Though I am in total sympathy with Art’s most recent comment, I do think it would be healthy to be able to openly dialogue among all who share the same concerns, without any taboos, in order to at least get the various options, and possibilities of dealing with the issues at hand out on the table.
Rex Ray
on Nov 29th, 2006
@ 10:43 pm:
Baptists to discuss diverse views on worship
By TERRY LEE GOODRICH STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER
ARLINGTON — Cornerstone Baptist Church will host a discussion Dec. 5 on forming a fellowship for Baptists and other evangelicals, including those with formal worship and those with more emotional, less structured styles.
Many in the second group say spiritual gifts such as prophecy and speaking in tongues continue today, rather than having ceased after the church’s first-century beginnings.
“We’re hoping for a fruitful dialogue,” said the Rev. Dwight McKissic Sr., Cornerstone’s pastor. He said he hopes attendees will “explore fellowship opportunities for Baptists who are committed to unity while recognizing our diversity.”
The International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention in November 2005 said it would no longer appoint Baptist missionaries who use “a private prayer language.” Trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary decided in October that the seminary will not tolerate the promotion of speaking in tongues. At a seminary service during the summer, McKissic said he sometimes speaks in tongues when he prays.
Some theologians say the practice was a spiritual gift during the early days of the church but that some Christians misused it as a way to elevate themselves; others say it has a valid place in modern times.
McKissic said the issue will play a minor role in the discussion.
An invitation letter to pastors and other Christian leaders, sent by McKissic and the Rev. Wade Burleson of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Okla., said they hope a fellowship will allow diverse views while recognizing the belief that the Bible is inerrant. The meeting is open to Baptist pastors and church leaders as well as leaders of other evangelical churches.
McKissic said the proposed fellowship will be modeled after the cooperation of three differing Baptist traditions in the United States more than two centuries ago.
The Charlestonian tradition, named for First Baptist Church of Charleston, S.C., used formal or liturgical worship, carefully crafted sermons and a more traditional, less prominent role for women in worship, McKissic said.
The tradition of Sandy Creek Baptist Church in Sandy Creek, N.C., was characterized by gospel folk tunes and altar calls during which preachers moved among the congregation, he said. Worshipers were free to testify in church, say “amen” or “glory” and run, shout or dance if moved by the Holy Spirit. Women played a more prominent role in worship.
The third tradition was that of Silver Bluff Baptist Church in Silver Bluff, S.C., where free and enslaved blacks worshiped in a fashion similar to that of Sandy Creek. The two groups sometimes worshiped together.
In the late 1700s, the Charlestonian and Sandy Creek traditions merged into the United Baptist Church.
McKissic said he is excited about Burleson’s involvement in the discussion.
“His church is more Charlestonian, and the one at Cornerstone is more Sandy Creek,” McKissic said. “We don’t cross every ‘t’ and dot every ‘i’ the same.”
Burleson said the purpose of the meeting is to show that Christians who agree on essentials of the faith “can cooperate, worship and minister together, although we might differ on the style of worship or private prayer language.”
The Rev. Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, said in a statement that he will be out of state and unable to attend the conference, but that the call for unity “is a great cause” and he hopes the event goes well.
This report includes material from The Baptist Standard news publication and Star-Telegram archives.
- IN THE KNOW If you go
Roundtable discussion for Baptist pastors and other evangelical church leaders
Free; reservations for lunch required by Thursday (Nov. 30) 11a.m. to 2 p.m. Dec. 5
Call 817-468-0083
Cornerstone Baptist Church 5415 Matlock Road, Arlington, TX
My brother-in-law, Joe Deupree, sent this to me.
Rex Ray