12 Witnesses

I was taking my daughter to school a couple of weeks ago and found this sign stuck in the median near her school. I was so struck by it that I dropped my daughter off and came back, parked in a nearby parking lot and took a picture with my digital camera, which I just happened to have.

Note that the message of the sign promises great things: Executive level income and it is implied that you can earn that kind of money from home.

Then notice the sign’s design. The sloppy nature of it cries out that whomever made this sign does not, themselves, have executive level income or they could have had it professionally designed and printed. When I took the picture, I didn’t even notice the smudges on the face of the sign that suggest that even when it was hand drawn, it was not done well.

It’s just a great example of false advertising. Anyone with sense knows that the person making this offer can’t deliver what they are promising.

Within the Christian life, I can see so many parallels here. Of course, the world does not deliver on what it offers - though I admit that the advertisement for sin can sometimes be done in a more enticing way.

My first thought, though, was not the comparison to sin. My first thought was the constant promise that I have heard throughout my life in the SBC: Just trust us. We know what is best.

This premise behind this promise has gotten us into trouble. The issues at the IMB started us off with the avalanche of SBC membership saying, “no more.”

The issue, of course, is the problem of vector.

Let me explain. If V1 is the true vector and V2 is one degree separated from V1. While near the origination point, V2 is very near V1. In fact, the closeness may well be almost imperceptible and, for many, irrelevant. The further away from the origination point, however, the distance from the the true vector becomes evident. At some point, those desiring to be in the “right place” become intolerant of being in the “wrong place” as they see their chosen direction moving farther away.

This is what has happened during 2006. A great many in the SBC have said that the direction offered by those who ask us to simply allow the direction be left to them, “We are off the mark.”

Frankly, it became evident that the message and the delivery from those asking us to “just trust us” are not the same.

However, we are now in the discussion about the direction of the SBC, and that can’t be anything but good. Vision, theology and practice deserves to be defended and explained. That is nothing but healthy.

For a great delineation of these thoughts, check out Marty Duren’s return from his blog fast: The Great Divide.
Just a few thoughts. Yours?

This is my favorite minute and a half of TV ever.

Linus.

Let me say that I have NO intimate knowledge of the intricacies involved in the Missouri Baptist Convention. I have known for a little while that the MBC was suing some agencies for control. I have learned much more since I posted a link and some comments in my last article, Messy MO.

What concerns me is the mess being created on a state level when issues of control arise.

Let me clarify that statement. Among Baptists, we recognize that we do not have the privilege of controlling one another, though that is what is being attempted in MO and in other places, including the SBC. We can’t control each other individually nor can we control other churches. Authority rises from the individual submitted to God, through the local church to the various associations, be they local, state or national.

We only associate ourselves as members of one church at a time, but our churches often associate with other organizations and churches to do ministry. I’m not talking about some “dual alignment” thing, either. We give money to a lot of ministries and we do it alongside other churches. Anyone donate to a local Christian campground, not owned by your association or state? I have been a member of a church who did. So did a lot of other Baptist churches in the area. Our church now gives to several other ministries not owned by our association but supported by us and others.

The other option is not to partner. No one can tell you what to believe - that’s a double edged sword, too - but they don’t have to work with you, either. If we have someone who is out on a limb, theologically, we can pull our cooperation from them. That’s about it, but we can do that.

My problem is that we are talking about doing that with folks over things that shouldn’t divide us to that level. At some point, you have to find balance, for crying out loud. We all have nuances to our beliefs. Are we going to divide so much that there is nothing left?

Balance. Cooperation is voluntary. For it to work well, there must be balance.

By the way, the division to restrictive interpretations of Scripture on things with such rich, diverse and orthodox views as moderation, PPL, worship styles, Reformed Theology and cultural engagement is out of balance.

Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? When will people understand that if we insist on uniformity, we can get it, but only by running everyone else off.

The whole point of cooperation is that we can do more for the Kingdom together than we can apart.

Mo. Baptist board forms investigating committee - (BP)

Let me say first that my heart breaks for the MBC. The disunity and strife with which they struggle is nauseating - the kind of sickness that stems from watching people who are hurting, but for whom you can do nothing.

The stuff with The Journey is puzzling. Some disjointed thoughts… Questions of autonomy are beginning to arise. You can’t turn a website over to someone else (especially a secular someone else) and then fail to enforce content controls. The men in the meeting that are critiquing this church, no longer a “plant” at 1,400, are probably pastoring churches that are not nearly so innovative at engaging a lost culture.

My chief concern is that this state convention could be the national convention and I sense is on the road to exactly that.

Back to The Journey, this story is a good lead in to my next editorial on cooperation among Baptists. Let’s get the discussion started before I post, though. That’s a new twist.

What level of control does any convention have over any of its member churches? Is autonomy absolute? What solution is there if someone “gets out of line?”

Here’s another thought line, if that one doesn’t suit:

What obligations do you have to your local Association, State and National Conventions? If they are “out of line,” then what?

How did the PPL (Private Prayer Language, if you are new to the conversation) issue become the spotlight issue among all of those things that make up the current discussion? Among those things dividing us, we have the Authorized Baptizer guideline at the IMB (International Mission Board); the anti-Calvinism/pro-Reformed issue lurking and making appearances from time to time, whether by sermon from Ergun Caner or Johnny Hunt or motions concerning the theological position from the floor of the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) as we had in Greensboro last year; the debate surrounding Resolution #5 on boycotting the Alcohol industry, now brought to further prominence by John Sullivan, Florida’s State Convention Exec., who promised a complete exclusion of all folks in leadership unless they affirm that the one and only valid interpretation of Scripture concerning alcohol agrees with his - to the rousing applause of those gathered and in spite of the diligent exposition of the texts by Voddie Baucham just prior and which arrived at a different conclusion; and let us not forget the long running divide over worship styles, recently elevated to the collective conscious of the SBC by Executive Committee Chairman, Bill Harrell - who has also been known to weigh in against Calvinism as well. All of these issues fall under the question of Sufficiency of Scripture, BFM (Baptist Faith and Message) and where our authority to establish cooperational standards ACCORDING TO DOCTRINE lies.

There are probably several factors that have come together to make the PPL issue the main focus of our discussion.

Of course, the trail of this issue begins with Jerry Rankin, who has professed to having a PPL prior to being hired as the President of the IMB, winds through opposition to him within the IMB BOT (Board of Trustees) and other places in the Convention, makes a significant turn in the implementation of the restrictive policy at the IMB concerning missionary candidates (that has a very detailed history of its own), gains notoriety in the blogosphere starting with Wade Burleson who “vocalizes” his dissent (before being silenced by a policy aimed directly at him) by starting a blog, and followed by numerous others, including myself. *Deep breath* At this point the trail has now become a road that leads to Greensboro where Wade Burleson makes a motion that the Executive Committee study the goings on at the IMB (not just the PPL, but it is included in the motion). This motion gets differed to the IMB, whose study is ongoing.

All of the while, the other issues mentioned in the first paragraph are taking center stage in turn and the PPL issue is just one of so many. Add to that the fact that Wade pleads for peace in the blogosphere so that the ad hoc committees are allowed to do their job. This certainly takes the spotlight off of both the PPL issue and the Authorized Baptizer issue at the IMB as most bloggers honor that request.

At this point, our road seems to have come to a dead end of sorts. At least the construction of it has come to a standstill. Enter Dwight McKissic, newly elected trustee at SWBTS (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary), who preaches a sermon outlining his experiences and understanding of Scripture concerning the issue of a PPL, both of which are favorable to its existence. The significance of this sermon lies in the fact that Dwight has been a part of the Resurgence/Conservative structure and was highly thought of among conservatives in Texas and the SBTC (Southern Baptists of Texas Convention - the “conservative” state convention of Texas); Dwight was a newly elected Trustee to SWBTS; Paige Patterson, Resurgence Architect and friend to Dwight McKissic, is also President of SWBTS and said by some to be “behind” the PPL policy at the IMB. No evidence of Dr. Patterson’s direct involvement has ever been produced.

Dr. Patterson then pulls the video from the online Chapel archives, although he makes it available for purchase. The controversy begins to escalate and is picked up by local media in the DFW area and, of course, the blogosphere. Eventually, it is picked up by others within the Baptist media.

*satire alert* Another aside, I think this is actually a new fundraising initiative for the Seminary as they are likely not to sell as many copies of all other chapels combined. *end of satire*

The BOT at SWBTS, under the leadership of Dr. Patterson, adopts a resolution that, in effect, states that any person that interprets Scripture in a way that allows for the existence of a Private Prayer Language could not serve at SWBTS. Of course, if no one knows that such a position is held by the candidate or employee, it is a moot point. Also, it is called a resolution and not a policy, but it is enforced and has the weight of a policy. Keep in mind, resolutions have no authority, and this thing does, making the term “resolution” ironic, at best. I call it the “Don’t ask, don’t tell non-policy policy.” That’s the short version.

Now we are on the beginnings of a highway that has a high mark of traffic when Wade Burleson announces the Roundtable and quits blogging until early December. Along with that, there seems to be an absence of any other developments in any other issue of division within the SBC, with the exception of the adoption of a resolution by the SBTC speaking against PPL during its meeting in November. This is on the same topic as the issue concerning Dwight McKissic, so it fuels the Roundtable discussion, rather than moving away from it.

An interesting note, here, the BGCT had a real opportunity to steal the show by dealing with the scandal in the valley where accusations of embezzlement of convention funds have surfaced, but they failed to deal with them in any significant way during their meeting. Their failure to allow the messengers access to the information is as “un-baptistic” as you can get, but still does not draw the spotlight. I think that because it was the BGCT many in this discussion, who consider themselves conservatives despite the libelous accusations of some, did not see it as directly relating to them or their churches. This drew a moments attention, but was not enough to grab the spotlight.

Back to the Roundtable. Dwight McKissic is the central figure in the Roundtable discussion. It was his idea, as was the Conference on the Holy Spirit. He and his church hosted the event (and all were grateful for the fine meal and generous spirit!). Since the main issue for Dwight is the PPL, the buzz surrounding the Roundtable has been about PPL. It is the topic the secular media perceives to be the subject of the entire discussion.

I think that the actions from SWBTS and the SBTC have done as much to make this issue the spotlight issue as anything. Don’t misunderstand this statement. I am not accusing them of doing anything inappropriate. I am saying that the timing of their actions, taken with the timing of the sermon and the Roundtable, have been very instrumental in raising this issue above the others in the conversation.

Let me say this clearly: I am aligned with Dwight on this issue, but it is not my only issue, nor is it my main issue.

The thing I have said repeatedly, that I said at the Roundtable and at the Press Conference, is that the PPL issue is not the root, but the fruit. It is the fruit of this controversy as is the worship style issue, the Calvinism issue and the rest.

The root is the struggle to define Southern Baptists as inclusive of those with differing interpretations of Scripture or to be exclusive of those who do not believe as “we” do (whomever “we” might be to the person speaking).

This conversation has been, and should be, about the continuing narrowing of parameters of cooperation among those who call themselves Southern Baptist.

Next: Southern Baptists right to choose with whom they will cooperate.

Another reason I am thankful for our President - wise words:

First Person: Gifts & Fruit

The Roundtable audio files are now available for download:

Wade Burleson’s Introductory Statement

Testimony Introduction

Dwight McKissic’s Devotional message

Lifeway Study Request

Resolution Proposal

Closing Session (open mic)

I am unsure if video is going to be made available at a later time. I certainly hope so, though it may not be good enough quality to redistribute. In the mean time, enjoy the audio.

It has been broken down into segments for easier download and to handle the traffic a little better.

Just a few places you can read the media’s take on the Roundtable. Feel free to ask questions of clarification, etc.

Hannah Elliot, ABP - Leaders at Texas conference join McKissic’s call for more freedom

Tammi Reed Ledbetter, SB Texan - Arlington roundtable seeks SBC policies not exceeding BF&M

Tammi Reed Ledbetter, Baptist Press - Organizers cite common ground on prayer language issue

(I would clarify that while we are on common ground on this issue, our common ground is the acceptance of diversity on the theological matter surrounding this issue and others.)

Associated Press, Dallas Morning news - Pastors back ‘private prayer language’

Nathanial Jones, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram - Change on prayer policy is sought

More to come as they are released. Feel free to email me any additions you may think need to be on this reader.

This Resolution was presented to the Roundtable. The mechanisms of the SBC allow for each member of a Southern Baptist church, in good standing, to submit to the Resolutions committee up to three Resolutions for consideration. There may only be one name on each resolution. If you would like to submit a resolution, you may do so by electronically by email, with your credentials sent in by mail, or you may send everything in by mail to the Resolutions committee.

We encourage you to write a resolution and submit it according to the guidelines you can find at sbc.net under the bylaws (bylaw 20) and under the extremely helpful guideline page.

RESOLUTION ON PARTNERSHIP AND FREE RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION

WHEREAS, the unique and historic contribution of Baptists has been the articulation and affirmation of principles of religious liberty, defined as the protection of the freedom of individual conscience from doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to God’s Word or not contained therein, as well as the freedom to form and propagate beliefs within the sphere of religion; and

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists have labored to protect the freedoms of religion in every context, both internationally and within the United States, even when those religious beliefs were contrary to the generally accepted confessions of faith adopted by Baptists;

WHEREAS, there has been a general willingness among Southern Baptist churches to respect the religious opinions and practices of non-Baptist churches, with the recognition that mutual respect and religious tolerance does not imply endorsement or affirmation of those religious opinions and practices; and

WHEREAS, among Southern Baptist churches there remains since the original founding of the Southern Baptist Convention a respect for freedoms of religious expression and a diversity of religious practice in matters related to public worship styles, the use of musical instrumentation, liturgies, Bible translations, and preferred forms of public proclamation of the Holy Scripture; and

WHEREAS, the guarantees of free religious expression among Southern Baptist churches extend to the individual members of those churches who may, under the leadership of the indwelling Holy Spirit and in accord with the Word of God, choose to worship privately in their personal devotion through songs, prayers, and other expressions of spiritual discipleship consistent with the pursuit of personal holiness; and

WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention has refrained from adopting any restrictive parameters on expressions of public or private worship and has preferred to recognize confessional and experiential latitude among member churches as an intentional effort to maintain a commitment to religious liberty and ensure peace and harmony among member churches; and

WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention recognizes a greater strength in cooperative missionary ventures by the participation of churches with every liturgical preference, whether contemporary, blended or traditional; and

WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention recognizes that the task of world evangelization and church planting is a much more important component of our obedience to the Great Commission of Jesus Christ than is a prolonged discussion among Baptists about acceptable and unacceptable worship practices, whether those practices take form in public or private expressions;

NOW BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in San Antonio, Texas, June 12-13, 2007, reaffirm our fundamental Baptist distinctive as advocates of religious liberty, especially as it relates to free expression in the public and private worship of followers of Jesus Christ; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we are opposed to any attempt to narrow the parameters of cooperation among Southern Baptist churches to limit the full recognition, participation, and partnership among member churches on account of preference for worship styles or acceptance of spiritual practices consistent with the teachings of Holy Scripture; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we reaffirm our belief that the individual conscience is free under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God to worship the Lord accordingly through acts of private devotion and spiritual discipline, service to the church through spiritual gifts, and public testimony of Christ’s redeeming work in their lives for the sake of the Great Commission; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that we recognize the full partnership of all Southern Baptist churches in our global mission endeavors through their contributions to the Cooperative Program, their prayer support for convention work, and their consistent witness for the advance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is the letter to the President of Lifeway.

If you were unable to attend, but would like to add your voice, you have permission to reprint this letter, add your name and send them yourself.

December 5, 2006

Dr. Thom Rainer, President

Lifeway Christian Resources

One Lifeway Plaza

Nashville, TN 37234

Dear Dr. Rainer:

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and congratulations on your first year of service to Southern Baptists as the President and CEO of Lifeway Christian Resources. We wish to thank you for the innovative strategies you have already implemented at Lifeway to build this unique ministry of Southern Baptists to equip churches to fulfill the Great Commission.

In particular, we are writing to thank you for the ministry of Lifeway Research, now guided under the careful and commendable leadership of Dr. Brad Waggoner, to whom we have copied this letter. As we understand the new ministry of Lifeway Research under your leadership, it is your desire to equip church leaders with insight and advice that will lead to greater levels of church health and effectiveness. One of the areas where we feel a special need for research and education is in the area of spiritual gifts.

As you are well aware, our convention has been experiencing a heightened discussion concerning the continuation of all spiritual gifts, specifically the gift of tongues, and the proper use of these gifts in the context of public and private worship. There are some who are suggesting that one view or the other is the sole view of Southern Baptists on this issue. It is our belief that diversity rather than uniformity characterizes Southern Baptists on this issue, and we would welcome in our churches any assistance that Lifeway can give for us to better teach these issues of biblical interpretation to our congregations.

Therefore, we are requesting that you consider employing the resources of Lifeway to conduct a survey of Southern Baptists, much like the recent study on this issue of Calvinism, to discover where Southern Baptists are on the issue of tongues, private prayer languages, and the acceptability of their use within our denomination. We further request that you consider having Lifeway Christian Resources prepare and present a series of doctrinal studies for Southern Baptist churches to help understand these complicated issues of biblical interpretation that now present themselves for our convention’s consideration in a new way.

May the Lord richly bless as you allow him to use you for his purpose and glory. Please trust that we send this letter of request with our prayers in your behalf.

Sincerely,

Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

Wade Burleson

Benjamin Cole

Arthur T. Rogers