It’s been an almost overwhelming couple of weeks, so forgive me, please, for not sharing my thoughts on the Jimmy Carter/blogging pastor summit. I am still under the gun, so I’ll try to give you the machine gun report on my many, many thoughts.
I wasn’t invited, so it saved me having to say, “no.” Not that I don’t respect the office of President, but right now, if George W. Bush called me and asked me to come meet with him and give him spiritual advice, I would have pray about it. I’m just that covered up.
Jimmy Carter’s politics, particularly his domestic politics, were terrible, in my opinion.
Jimmy Carter’s professed theology is interpreted to be universalism (see Bart Barber’s post on the subject), although his comments are interpreted as implying “Common Grace” by others (see Wade Burleson’s comment in the same post thread). IF he is privately an evangelical, but doesn’t publicly say so in order to keep from building up walls with unbelievers, then he has put politics before the Gospel, and that is the idolatry of position over the worship of the One True God.
I am suspicious of some of the participants leading toward this “convocation of Baptists.” Specifically, I think Bill Clinton would love to get in the White House and values voters – led, ostensibly, by Southern Baptists – have gained ground in the political arena here in America.
My question, though, is this: Must we believe EVERYTHING alike to address issues of social justice in the world today? Or, can we partner with those who differ either slightly or greatly on issues that are not a matter of cooperation in the specific mission of spreading the Gospel.
To be sure, I am not cooperating with anyone in the matters of specifically sharing the Gospel if they don’t hold to the actual Gospel message.
Let me reframe this: Can Rick Warren work with Barack Obama in dealing with the AIDS crises in Africa?
Or, can Bob Roberts work with the Government of Viet Nam to invest in the cities of that communist nation?
Or, can Craig Gross (xxxchurch.com) work with porn producer Ron Jeremy to keep young girls away from predatory porn producers that will use them and throw them away?
Here’s why I ask this: I believe that working with others who don’t believe the Gospel as I do, I have doors open to the nations, but also to the people with whom I am working. In other words, can I be a light to Jimmy Carter? Can Rick be a light to Barack? Can the guys at xxxchurch.com be a light to the producers of porn?
Are we not allowed to infiltrate and become missionaries to those close to home? Who look like us, but don’t believe like we do?
Why must we be missionaries only to those who are far, far away from us?
Do you ever wonder that the program and giving of the IMB far outweighs that of NAMB? Well, the church should be winning North America, sure. But we aren’t, are we?
Not without getting next to people who don’t believe the same way we do.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Emily
on May 24th, 2007
@ 10:35 am:
Thanks for posing these important questions. It reminds me of what my New Testament professor has said about one of the major differences between the way Jesus and the Pharisees viewed holiness.
The Pharisees thought that their holiness was something to be protected from pollutants, like prostitutes, tax collectors, and demoniacs. They believed that if they had any physical contact with such sinners, or even stood in their vicinity, they would be tainted and dishonored. So, they went to extraordinary lengths to prevent being in the company of sinners.
Jesus, on the other hand, knew that his holiness was something that did not need protecting. In fact, the holiness of Jesus was infectious, so much so that he purposely sought out the prostitutes, tax collectors, and demoniacs, trusting that the Spirit of God would use his righteousness to attract those with whom he interacted. Rather than have sinfulness “rub off” on him, Jesus’ holiness “rubbed off” on the sinners, bringing many of them into the Kingdom of God.
It is certain that this matter is far too complicated to categorize into something “black and white.” Yet, I cannot help but wonder if Southern Baptists don’t have more in common with the Pharisees than with Jesus, at least in regard to our perceived “doctrinal purity” that we don’t want “tainted” by any unworthy associations. Its just a thought…
-Emily
Emily
on May 24th, 2007
@ 10:46 am:
BTW: Its Barack Obama (with a “c”).
:)
Art Rogers
on May 24th, 2007
@ 10:52 am:
Oops! Sorry. I’ll fix it.
I was in such a hurry, I didn’t check it first. :|
Cyle
on May 24th, 2007
@ 11:12 am:
I have a solution. Deal with world hunger here. Deal with prejudice across the street. Care for the sick, thirsty, homeless, addicted and deceived within five miles of my home. It’s too easy to go to meetings, make proclamations, send money and pound the pulpit. It’s easy because, by and large, it’s non-threatening to the darkness. How effective has the UN been at solving any world problem? How effective has any denomination been? How effective could a local church be? How powerful is one Christian who acts like a Christian where he or she lives, works, and plays? I’m too confused to think on a macro level. I’m going micro.
volfan007
on May 24th, 2007
@ 11:13 am:
Jesus ate with sinners. Jesus reached out to sinners. but, i didnt see Jesus joining with false prophets for the purpose of feeding the 5,000, nor for doing city wide evangelistic campaigns.
i also dont remember seeing paul and peter joining with simon the sorcerer to start churches, or to heal the sick, either.
now, can i build a house with jimmy carter? sure. if he can tell me where to hammer what. and, can i eat supper with bill clinton? sure. he and i probably like the same kind of foods….seeing that we’re both bubba’s. but, i wouldnt feel right about joining with people to start churches, or to spread the gospel, who dont even beleive that Jesus is the only way to heaven. i just dont think that the Lord would want me to be unequally yoked with people who believe in seven Jesus’ , or who believe that it’s ok to be gay, or who think that genesis 1-11 is a myth. i just couldnt do it and feel like i was doing what the Lord would want me to do.
david….volfan007
bloginafogpastor
on May 24th, 2007
@ 12:34 pm:
The Bible has one short phrase to help us here: “Be in the world but not of it.”
In my way of thinking I always took this to mean that I must live in the world, in contact with the world and reach the world. It means I must be an influence on the world.
The “boundary” side of the coin is that I cannot allow the world to influence me. I agree that with many of former President Carter’s statements I could not knowingly join together in an evangelistic outreach or even what this appears to be, a gathering of those unequally yoked.
Randy
on May 24th, 2007
@ 1:27 pm:
Jimmy Carter is a theological liberal. Jimmy Carter has made statements that seem to reject the Gospel. By attending this meeting Baptists make Carter relevant as a leader among Baptists. He does not deserve such a leadership role and Baptists would do well to ignore him as any leader. The Episcopal Church USA for years allowed men such as bishop Spong to be seen as Christian leaders in their denomination and now that denomination is a theological wasteland. SBC people would do well to learn from such mistakes when Theology is treated in a trivial manner.
John Fariss
on May 24th, 2007
@ 1:30 pm:
Well said! I basicly have two types of blogs on my favorites, just as I have two types of books in my library: those I trust and can turn to when I feel the need of affirming my already held convictions; and those with which I may disagree, but will nonetheless challenge me. Your line of reasoning affirms convictions I already hold and at the sime time, challenges me to be more Biblical and Christ-like. Thanks!
Cyle
on May 24th, 2007
@ 1:32 pm:
You don’t have to be disengaged from lost people in order to be disengaged from unorthodox Christian organizations and churches. We shouldn’t be asking the world how far we can go with the Mormons before they equate us with the Mormons. We should be asking the Lord how far. There is the idea that culture is more accepting of Jimmy Carter types. I seriously doubt that lost America has a clue what Carter believes. They do, however, know that he builds houses for Habitat. Again, I can build a house for someone without being involved with Carter or the NBC. The people who are focusing on cultural engagement seem to think that you can’t stand for the truth and do that.
Art Rogers
on May 24th, 2007
@ 1:53 pm:
Again for clarification…
I am not about to get in bed with anyone IN A MISSION EFFORT unless they believe the Gospel – the actual Gospel.
However, I am very interested in getting involved in the lives of lost people and even those who are liberals, so that I can shine the light of God’s truth into their lives.
I want to be the thermostat, not the thermometer – the one evaluates the temperature in the room and causes it to conform, the other evaluates the temperature in the room and conforms itself.
I not marching in any parade Jimmy Carter is leading. Like most Southern Baptists, I have a problem with his theology AND his politics. He is on the losing end of both here.
However, I will build a house with him. I have been a part of several churches that worked with Habitat – my last church hosted an office for them in our building for free. It’s a good thing that we ought to be doing.
I just got off the phone with Marty and he said that they repeatedly mentioned in the meeting that they were not seeking to start a new denomination or try to get all Baptists together on all things.
That’s fine.
It’s the “to accomplish the Great Commission” phrase that bothers me.
Marty said that we had to remember that for moderates, building houses is part of the GC. For us, it’s more about the proclamation of the Gospel.
What Carter means when he talks about GC is still up in the air.
I don’t really care to go to the meeting. If I did go, however, it would be in a desire to be a conservative evangelical light to those who I think are mistaken in their view of God and His Word.
Clear, yet?
David Phillips
on May 24th, 2007
@ 3:00 pm:
Art,
You said, “Marty said that we had to remember that for moderates, building houses is part of the GC. For us, it’s more about the proclamation of the Gospel.”
I would say that the proclamation of the Gospel is both building houses and talking to people about Jesus.
Let me relate a story:
Mother Teresa was invited to speak a Harvard Chapel several years ago. When she got up to speak at the bastion of conservative thought (sarcasm intended), she told them that unless they came to Jesus they were all going to hell. That was the essence of her message. When she was finished, she received a standing ovation. Why? Why can she tell people they’re going to hell and get applause and if you or I do it we might get a right cross to the chin? She had the credibility to say it.
Unfortunately, we stand on a hill and tell people their going to hell and they mock us. They don’t listen because we don’t seem to really care. We demonstrate that we don’t care when we’re not building houses or we’re not feeding people or clothing people or visiting people in the prison or anything like that. Do we not realize that the mark of a Christ-follower is not many times you told people about Christ but taking care of people and their needs, which are physical, spiritual, emotional and fiscal? (See Matthew 25 if there’s a question on that)
Jesus healed people, raised peopled, forgave people, loved people, touched the untouchable, and he referred to it as the kingdom coming. He never proclaimed the gospel because he was the gospel. So maybe we need to become the gospel, instead of just speaking some words.
The reason Jimmy Carter has a voice and credibility DESPITE his horrible domestic and foreign policy, and to some degree maybe his theology (I don’t know I’ve not read anything he’s said because to me he’s irrelevant) is because he builds houses. Why does Angelina Jolie have crebility in our culture? She’s trying to do something about kids in Africa. Same for Madonna. Same for Bono.
I’m not arguing for Jimmy or Bill or Mike or Bob or George, or the CBF, SBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, ESPN, ACC, SEC or FOX. And I want to make it clear that there’s no knocking Art, I agree with what he’s said.
But we’ve got to get out this mindset that proclaiming Christ is simply opening up our mouths and saying something. The problem we have is that there really is a disconnect between what we say and what we do, and people today are smart enough to see that.
Aaron Weaver
on May 24th, 2007
@ 3:09 pm:
I guess Volfan and I won’t be spreading the Gospel together – the Genesis part of your litmus test disqualifies me.
However, you should know that there is a theology behind Millard Fuller’s hammer. Following in the footsteps of fellow Baptist Walter Rauschenbusch, Fuller (founder of Habitat) argues in “The Theology of The Hammer” that the Christian faith demands more than just talk and singing:
Fuller writes…
“We must put faith and love into action to make them real, to make them come alive for people” (7). This theology is also about bringing together diverse peoples, churches, and organizations to help build houses and establish viable communities. Even though those involved may have diverse political, philosophical, or theological preferences “we can agree on the imperative of the Gospel to serve others in the name of the Lord” (7).
That passage from Fuller’s book sounds similar to the purpose of the New Baptist Covenant. Bringing Baptists together from across the theological spectrum, the upcoming Celebration plans to “promote peace with justice, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, and care for the sick and marginalized.”
Doesn’t sound like a bad deal to me.
And moderates are not the only ones who believe that the GC demands a biblically-based social ethic in addition to an emphasis on “saving souls.” Your very conservative brothers and sisters from the participating African-American denominations share this same understanding.
Art Rogers
on May 24th, 2007
@ 3:14 pm:
David,
Brilliant comment.
Aaron,
I note that your comment dovetails in with David’s quite well.
GeneMBridges
on May 24th, 2007
@ 3:17 pm:
Jimmy Carter is a theological liberal. Jimmy Carter has made statements that seem to reject the Gospel. By attending this meeting Baptists make Carter relevant as a leader among Baptists.
This is a non-sequitur. Does Al Mohler sharing the stage with a Roman Catholic on Justice Sundays make the Pope relevant as a leader among Southern Baptists? Does Mohler sharing the platform at Together for the Gospel make R.C. Sproul or Duncan Ligon (Presbyterians) relevant as leaders among Baptists? Will it lead us to abandon baptism for paedobaptism? If we’re going to argue in one direction, we should argue the other too.
A. I’d like somebody to define “social justice.” That’s a nebulous concept. It can mean anything from you and I going out with Carter to build a house for Habitat this weekend to rank socialism.
B. I don’t think anybody is advocating missions and evangelism as a cooperative effort here. Rather the issues involve “social justice.” Granted evangelism and missions intersect with social justice, but they aren’t the same. I agree, “What is the GC?” is a good question folks should ask.
C. I personally agree that we need to consider what it means to be seen with Carter or Clinton, but the same is true of Condi or Bush. I’d be more comfortable if the theological leadership of these groups was the center. Is the presence of Carter and Clinton for the sake of “celebrity recognition” alone or is it for other reasons? I’d also be more comfortable if folks like Piper or MacArthur were there too, or ARBC, or a known political conservative, like H.W. Bush. Yeah, I know, he’s Episcopalian.
D. I’m more concerned about Land coaching Romney than Burleson and Cole visiting Carter.
Amy Downey
on May 24th, 2007
@ 3:31 pm:
Art,
I think the point being missed, perhaps not so much by you and Duren because you are at least attempting to think rationally, is that it will not be Cole or Burleson who are doing the defining … regardless of Burleson’s naivete on the subject. It will the NBC who does the defining and herein lies the danger. The folks of the NBC are not evangelical but are inclusivist at best and universalist at worst.. From now, for better or worse, Burleson and Cole and others will be defined by the decisions of the NBC and not the other way around.
Amy Downey
Art Rogers
on May 24th, 2007
@ 3:40 pm:
Amy,
Really?
I think that Gene made a good point concerning this with the associations of Dr. Mohler and the Pope, for instance.
People always define us the way they want to define us. I think that anyone who tries to nail Ben Cole (or Wade) to a liberal or even moderate position (theologically) reveals that their own intellectual shortcomings (an inability to discern) or their predilection to paint him (them) that way for their own political comfort or gain.
Just my take on it.
David Phillips
on May 24th, 2007
@ 3:48 pm:
Gal. 1:10 (ESV)
For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Emily
on May 24th, 2007
@ 4:32 pm:
Amy said:
“It will be the NBC who does the defining and herein lies the danger. The folks of the NBC are not evangelical but are inclusivist at best and universalist at worst.. From now, for better or worse, Burleson and Cole and others will be defined by the decisions of the NBC and not the other way around.”
Interestingly enough, I feel the same way about how I am ofen “defined” by my association with the Southern Baptist Convention and the way the SBC has been “defined” by the media (where, for better or worse, being a Southern Baptist = being white, angry, hating religious minorities and homosexuals, and voting Republican).
In theory, I could re-phrase your concern and warn my fellow Baptists to beware their association with the Southern Baptist Convention: “It will be the SBC who does the defining and herein lies the danger. The folks of the SBC are ‘spooky fundamentalists,’ separatistic at best and militantly aggressive at worst. From now on, for better or worse, any who joins them will be defined by the decisions of the SBC and not the other way around.”
Association with other believers always carries the danger of being painted with too broad a brush, especially in our increasingly more divided society. In both cases–the NBC and the SBC–God help us all.
-Emily
Emily
on May 24th, 2007
@ 4:50 pm:
As an aside: I am a part of the Southern Baptist Convention and received my education at Southern Baptist schools. So, I have been forced to accept with some discomfort, the various inaccurate “colors” I have been painted as a result of people who’s figurative paintbrushes are too broad. I’m used to it by now and anticipate it will only get worse in the future.
cb scott
on May 24th, 2007
@ 6:19 pm:
Art,
Thank you for this post. As I told Villa Rica; “If Art had been with us we would not be in this mess.”:-)
Seriously, I did ask President Carter two questions:
1. What is the number one reason for this effort? He said to fulfill the G.C.
2. Are you saying you believe we should deny ourselves, take up our Cross and follow Jesus to fulfill the GC.? He said yes.
Based upon that I have sought people to pray he would do what he said he would. I was talking about the REAL GC. It is for President to seek to fulfill the GC as you and I understand it.
cb
Bart Barber
on May 24th, 2007
@ 6:46 pm:
Art,
For my part, I objected not to the fact that these gentlemen went to meet with President Carter and Dr. Underwood, but that Wade Burleson followed up the meeting with a post stating that the thing that unites them is the gospel of Jesus Christ. I objected simply to point out that the gospel is precisely what divides Carter (and Godsey, and several of the others) from me.
I personally could attend the meeting, so long as:
1. None of the organizers would be empowered to speak for me about anything.
2. Attending the meeting did not equate to the joining of anything or contributing money toward anything.
Now, clear those two obstacles and there are no reasons why I wouldn’t go.
But, busy guy that I am, now they need to show me a compelling reason why I would go. What are they going to do that I can’t already do where I am? I have no interest in a revisionist attempt to change what it means to be Baptist or to put sticks into the eyes of the SBC (i.e., to create a “true Baptist witness”). I do want to minister to the physical needs of the world (secondary to the sharing of the gospel), but I’m already doing that through the SBC.
What makes this meeting good stewardship of my God’s time and money? Especially presuming that I’m not bitterly opposed to the SBC?
Bart Barber
on May 24th, 2007
@ 6:48 pm:
I thought I was quite clever putting the line through “my” and following it up with “God’s”, but your blog ate my <span> tag, and now it just looks silly.
Paul Burleson
on May 24th, 2007
@ 8:11 pm:
Art,
Emily has spoken, in my judgment, a profound word. Since we all will be painted, to some degree, by those with whom we are in some fashion affiliated and none of them are perfect, we might as well …1) pray for those groups, 2) present our particular views of the truths of scripture when the opportunity arises, 3) preserve as much as possible a civility between all involved and, for goodness sake, 4) not be controlled by the fear of what someone will think, say, or infer from our faithfulness in relating to all people in love, even those with whom we might disagree in some fashion.
Kaylor
on May 24th, 2007
@ 9:49 pm:
Art: You make excellent points! Thanks for your reasoned take on this issue. I hope you will give serious consideration to attending the Celebration.
Colin
on May 24th, 2007
@ 10:40 pm:
Gene and Bart have some really good questions.
Mohler on stage with Papal delegates not giving them legitimacy is a good point. But like CB said, the goal is the GC with the NBC. If John Piper mentions an author in a sermon, do you think that has no effect on that author’s sales among Piper fans? If Piper invites Driscoll to preach in his pulpit, does not Driscoll increase his “fan” base? There is a sociological element to association that cannot be denied. The question is whether the negative trumps the positive.
Further, in view of your question, Art, if you were to partner with a non-gospel-sharing organization for social justice, what would that do? What would be the point of sending someone a thousand miles to another country to give a cup of water in “_______ Organization’s” name? If it is not followed up by the gospel at some point, what is the point, since you have the means through the SBC to do the same thing, gospel in tow?
Last, thinking micro like my brother above, if your church sends out money to an organization to do “social justice” and there exists people in your own community that are in the same need????
Kevin Bussey
on May 24th, 2007
@ 10:55 pm:
Art,
I would meet with anyone who wanted my input. I would be cautious but I have learned that I can learn from anyone. I may not agree with them but I’ve learned that listening is valuable to me.
Tim Rogers
on May 25th, 2007
@ 5:03 am:
Brother Art,
Cyber-space must have gobbled-up my last comment. I thought it went through but it must not have made it as I received an error after my post and Foxfire shut down on me.
Anyway, I want to ask a question, and it is in now way to question your or anyone else’s intent on this meeting.
Why do those 18 that originally met not unite with the SBC and do the same thing? We have outlets to feed the starving, shelter the homeless, and show the love of God through social ministry.
Blessings,
Tim
Geoff Baggett
on May 25th, 2007
@ 7:16 am:
So, Art … why weren’t you invited? Are you no longer within the inner sanctum? ;)
You said … and asked “Here’s why I ask this: I believe that working with others who don’t believe the Gospel as I do, I have doors open to the nations, but also to the people with whom I am working. In other words, can I be a light to Jimmy Carter? Can Rick be a light to Barack? Can the guys at xxxchurch.com be a light to the producers of porn?”
I think there are two answers to your questions. Philisophically, “Yes!” But practically, “No.” It is a bit of “apples and oranges” to compare emulating Jesus, who was a “friend of sinners” in order to love them into the Kingdom of God, to partnering (or entering into a covenant relationship) with non-believers and people labeled as “Christian” (or “Baptist” for that matter) but who believe in suspect, false, or even heretical doctrine for the purpose of “doing good stuff.” Jesus did not “partner” with or enter into any “Covenant for a New Century” with people of other faiths. He didn’t seek to bring all semi like-minded people under one faith unmbrella. His was a radically different, peculiar, message. Instead, he entrusted His new message to a small group of people and gave them the responsibility to go and tell the world.
We should do no less.
Bottom line, there are ample outlets for faithful believers to reach out and do ministry, including social justice focus ministry, within the context of the church … even the local church. But I think it unwise (perhaps even foolish) to enter into covenants (I think we need to actually think through the implications of that word, covenant … no one is really talking about that) with people who hold non-orthodox beliefs and doctrine to accomplish anything. Unity is a noble goal, but unity at what price?
Unity (with anyone and everyone) must not be our “be-all-end-all” goal. Sometimes such feigned unity has much too high a price. I believe that God is much more concerned about the purity of His church.
Just this humble pastor’s opinion. Of course, I wasn’t invited to any meeting either. :)
volfan007
on May 25th, 2007
@ 7:50 am:
hey yall,
i would like to hear an answer to tim roger’s question. the sbc is already doing all the things that this nbc will supposedly do. so, why dont they just join us? i mean, they’re baptist. we’re baptist. why dont they just join us as we feed the hungry and provide disaster relief and petition washington for moral laws and start churches, etc.?
david …..volfan007
Art Rogers
on May 25th, 2007
@ 8:19 am:
Colin,
Partnering with unbelievers accomplishes an impact on two cultures: the ones we are reaching toward and the one at home that sees us as uncaring and isolationist.
And I give everything in the Name of Christ.
And Tim,
The truth is that Southern Baptists are doing great here with our disaster relief, but we are NOT doing what needs to be done outside of the US. Where is our outreach to Darfur? What are we doing with the AIDS epidemic in Africa? It is just a patently false argument to say WE are already doing that stuff. WE ARE NOT.
***Speaking of our Disaster Relief…***
Our DR is already partnered with folks who believe diametrically opposed to our values – the Red Cross!!!
We are the feeding arm of the Red Cross in a disaster, yet the Red Cross openly promotes equality within homosexuality. Here’s a couple of links that refer to that: Concerned Women for America & ZNet Commentary (which refers to the fact that the Red Cross is “…tireless in his search to find common ground for homosexuality…”.
That means, for all those who have argued against this, you need to make a motion on the floor of the Convention this year that we severe our relationship with the Red Cross – or at least a resolution, which must be submitted by tomorrow, btw – or declare yourselves hypocrites. At the very least you have to QUIT CLAIMING THAT WE ARE “DOING IT BY OURSELVES.” Because we aren’t doing it on our own.
If all that we are doing is Disaster Relief (which is a GREAT thing) then we aren’t doing it alone anywhere.
Or, of course, you can agree with me that when we work with others we are a light to all involved and that we speak for Christ and ourselves – and not in the name of the homosexuality promoting Red Cross.
Oh, and by the way, do Wade, Marty, Ben, CB or even Dwight speak for me?
If you say, “no,” then you validate my argument. You recognize that I can work together with others but still speak for myself.
If you say “yes,” then you ignore the evidence that all of us have claimed to speak only for ourselves as well as periodically disagreeing with each other – publicly – revealing that you have a penchant to reach that conclusion regardless of the evidence.
Or, that’s just the way I see it. :)
A 10-40 Windows Missionary
on May 25th, 2007
@ 5:53 pm:
Art,
Some have said, above, that the SBC is already doing all of the things which the NBC wishes to accomplish. If that be true, why are there so many SBC churches in decline? Why have over 10,000 SBC churches not baptized a person in 2005? Could it be that we are so puffed up with ourselves that we do not see the our neighborhoods and cities in the USA going to hell?
Cyle
on May 25th, 2007
@ 9:30 pm:
This may sound heretical to us Baptists, but could there elements of cooperation that are keeping us from faithfully carrying out the Great Commission? Is it the primary job of a Christian (and a local church) to cooperate, or to carry out the commission? If we look at what’s happening in the SBC, we’re full of cooperation and not very full of missional people and missional churches. Why do we expect associations and conventions to do the work that we as individual Christians and local churches are called to do? For instance, we support a local food pantry. Does that absolve us of the responsibility to feed the hungry? We give money to missions. Does that release us from the need to go ourselves? Many, many, many SBC churches give financially to the Cooperative program and to their local associations without giving themselves to following the command of the GC. So, maybe we should be less concerned about cooperation and more concerned about Commission.
Bryan Riley
on May 26th, 2007
@ 2:46 am:
We need to remember that we are ambassadors for Him, that means carrying the Kingdom of God and representing it to “nations” that aren’t a part of it. If someone is proclaiming a different message or a different kingdom, then that is all the more reason to advance the Kingdom there. (I’m not saying I agree that all who will be there are proclaiming a different kingdom, but it is ironic that the biggest naysayers are focused on their belief that unbelievers are there. It seems that would be reason to go.)
Ron West
on May 26th, 2007
@ 6:06 am:
Art,
I wonder why there was not the same level of scrutiny over the long time relationship and cooperation of Jerry Falwell and Sun Myung Moon, a man who said Jesus was a failure and he was the true Messiah and the U.S. was the great Satan. This did not seem to bother Falwell when it was to his advantage to seek money and help from Moon. Why was there no criticism of the long time association of Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler and othe leaders of the Pseudo-Conservative Resurgence with the Coors family beer industry, the tobacco industry, the Moonies and the John Birch Society while participating in the Council on National Policy. They have worked hand in hand with this organization for over 20 years. It seems like most people have a double standard when it comes to leaders of the resurgence.
Tim Rogers
on May 26th, 2007
@ 7:56 am:
Brother Art,
You said; “Where is our outreach to Darfur? What are we doing with the AIDS epidemic in Africa? It is just a patently false argument to say WE are already doing that stuff.” You know, I have gone on the BWA website, and maybe I missed it, but I do not see where they are reaching out to Dafur. Also, their Aids/HIV efforts are not even endorsed by them. What the say on their website is; “**Neither the Baptist World Alliance nor its Division of Baptist World Aid necessarily endorses any of the projects or programs included in the HIV/AIDS database. Additionally the country information is taken from UNAIDS and does not necessarily reflect the views of the BWA.*” I wonder why? They desire us to partner with and send money to support an effort they do not even endorse. I know this is not about the BWA, but the fact remains that they are doing what the New Baptist Covenant seeks to fulfill. Put something together that we say we can be a part of so we can make ourselves feel we are doing something and oh, BTW, call it Baptist.
Also, you have formed a question that no one is asking. I have never asked or insinuated that Wade, Dwight, CB, or Ben speaks for you. For the life of me I do not know where that question came from. I merely asked, why former President Jimmy Carter and the rest do not join us? You say we are not doing anything outside of the borders of North America in general and the US in specific. Isn’t that what Dr. Ken Hempill was given a job to perform? Also, isn’t Dr. Bobby Welch supposed to be working through the IMB to set up some of these efforts?
Blessings,
Tim
Geoff Baggett
on May 26th, 2007
@ 8:17 am:
10-40 Missionary -
Your question, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the issue. Your “cause” (dying churches) does not match your “effect” (not enough “things” accomplished – whatever that is). As a missionary / missiologist, you should know the answer to your own question. Church death is simply a part of church life, just like human death is a part of human life. Churches live out a life cycle, grow old, and most eventually die. The sad reality is that we are entering into a cycle where many of our churches are either entering or are already well into their “twilight” years. Sadly, the focus of many, many of our churches is, indeed, inward rather than outward.
But the answer is to keep “giving birth” to new congregations that will share the Gospel, multiply into new congregations, and carry on the cycle of church / Gospel life. The answer is in vibrant, reproducing local churches … the pattern of the New Testament. The answer is not to enter into covenental strategic partnerships with other organizations and individuals who do not share orthodox doctrinal values.
Truly, I believe that Cyle has addressed the “crux” of the biggest, grandest, greatest issue that is facing Southern Baptists … “hiring out” our Gospel responsibilities through the pooling of funds, i.e. “cooperation.” I sincerely believe that our efforts at cooperation may have actually “inoculated” our churches and Southern Baptists against a true fulfillment of the Great Commission … because they think they are already accomplishing it by mailing money to someone.
Cyle, my friend, you have just breached the “first rail” of Baptist political life. I hope you’re ready … ;)
David Phillips
on May 26th, 2007
@ 10:47 am:
Geoff, Cyle, et. al.
I will repeat what I blogged about last year, with a quote from Alan Hirsch’s latest book, The Forgotten Ways:
We have outsources missions to NAMB & the IMB and as such created an institutional organization. It has come back to bite us.
Southern Baptist’s don’t do social work. We leave that to NAMB and our missions centers. We don’t do work around AIDS victims. We have no policy to minister in Darfur. We share Jesus with words, not much action. Where we have not been involved in social ministry, we have little credibility. We have got to get it in our minds that today, credibility will be required for sharing Christ.
Art Rogers
on May 26th, 2007
@ 12:51 pm:
Tim,
I didn’t mean to confuse you. I thought I had explained the rationale for my question in the succeeding paragraph, but I’ll try again.
The question is being raised that if you attend a meeting (NBC/Carter) then the leaders and/or the organization then speaks for you and anything they say can be laid at your feet.
Obviously, I disagree and used as an example my relationship with the aforementioned bloggers. We have met together and talk through blogs, emails and phone calls, yet we speak for ourselves alone. I don’t even put the name of the church I pastor on this blog so that no one says that I am claiming to speak for them – I don’t. I’m a Baptist and I speak for myself.
Cooperation does not mean uniformity.
Cyle,
I agree in the micro-missions. We have farmed out our missions and that has been the slow degrading of our mission hearted center into a more inwardly focused position.
Yet, if you desire only local church missions, then you lead down the path of Landmarkism and that leads to the dissolution of the CP and the SBC.
Rather, we must do both cooperate and activate.
This is not necessarily cooperating to do missions, though. Please remember, my contention is that by cooperating with others to help the poor, widow & orphans, rescue the oppressed, we are a light to them AND to those alongside whom we work.
Kaylor
on May 26th, 2007
@ 12:52 pm:
Tim: Not sure how you missed the BWA’s efforts in Darfur or with regards to HIV/AIDS.
Here are just some of the links on Darfur/Sudan:
http://bwanet.org/default.aspx?pid=466
http://bwanet.org/default.aspx?pid=282
http://bwanet.org/default.aspx?pid=283
http://bwanet.org/default.aspx?pid=286
And here are just a few of the links on HIV/AIDS:
http://bwanet.org/default.aspx?pid=284
http://bwanet.org/default.aspx?pid=535
http://www.bwanet.org/default.aspx?pid=135
http://bwanet.org/default.aspx?pid=380
http://bwanet.org/default.aspx?pid=343
Are they doing enough? Probably not. But they are doing a lot more than most Baptists.
Art Rogers
on May 26th, 2007
@ 12:55 pm:
Tim,
I almost forgot… It is you who introduced the red herring, here. No one is talking about the BWA here. Whether or not they are involved in the “social justice” issues has no bearing on us, since we are not either. The only conclusion that anyone can make from your argument is that “since they aren’t doing it, we don’t have to do it, either,” which is not true, obviously.
A 10-40 Windows Missionary
on May 26th, 2007
@ 10:39 pm:
Geoff,
I agree and disagree with your comment to me…I agree that we should continue to plant churches, both in the USA and around the world. Where I have a problem is the statement that churches have a life cycle, as do humans…that we are born to die. I know of quite a few churches which have outlived a whole lot of people.
But my thrust was as you said, too many of our churches i the USA are inward focused. Jesus told us …”As you go…” not “As you stay, locked within your own stained glass…”
As someone who wants to see the world won to Christ, it is more than a little disconcerting to see how those responsible for sending me, praying for me, supporting me have so little regard for their neighborhood or city.
Tim Rogers
on May 27th, 2007
@ 4:07 pm:
Brother Art,
I honestly do not understand how you can say that by me using the BWA as an example, I have introduced a Red Herring. According to reports, “The core group of those who gathered were representatives of organizations that are members of the North American Baptist Fellowship (NABF), a regional affiliate of the Baptist World Alliance.” The BWA is the umbrella under which this organization appears to be uniting. Where is the Red Herring?
Also, I have never implied, or did not mean to, that by joining a group whatever they say you believe. Just because Rick Warren partners with Barak Obama to fight Aids it does not mean that Rick Warren believes what Barak Obama does about theology. Having said that, if Barak Obama publicly states he believe giving out condemns and clean needles will put an end to Aids, then Rick Warren, whether he believes it or not, would be viewed as believing it. Why? Because they have covenanted, whether formally or informally, together to fight Aids. According to the very title of the gathering (The New Baptist Covenant) there is a uniting of theology coming together. Those involved may believe in the exclusivety of Jesus Christ in salvation, but those in leadership (former President Carter, Dr. Godsey) have made statements to the contrary. Having done so they have now set the standard as for the theological bend of the covenant.
That is how I see it. I have no thought concerning your theological bend, other than what you have stated and how I have seen in your writings. I believe you to be conservative in your theology because of your writings.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim Rogers
on May 27th, 2007
@ 4:09 pm:
Brother Art,
Sorry, the word “exclusivety” should be “exclusivity”.
Blessings,
Tim
Marty Duren
on May 28th, 2007
@ 8:33 am:
DavidVF-
“Why don’t they join with us?”
That is exactly the arrogant attitude that keeps the SBC an island unto itself as it relates to other denominations. “We are more right than you are.” “We can do things better than you can.”
We don’t say it like that, but that is the way it comes across.
Dr. Rankin told a story once about a meeting he was in where surprise was expressed that the SBC would be willing to partner with any other mission agencies. The perception we tended to give was that we had more toys than anyone and no one else was invited to play with us.
Of course, when we do try to partner with like minded Great Commission Christians overseas, it arouses the ire of the Landmarkist cabal, as we saw in west Africa last year.
Art Rogers
on May 29th, 2007
@ 2:31 am:
Well, Tim, there are now two issues with the BWA. First, it appears you were mistaken about their involvement. Kaylor has listed several links to help you find their involvement in the issue. Because there were so many links, my blog thought it might be spam and held it for moderation until I found it tonight. Look above your last comment a few places and you will find that it has appeared in the comment thread.
The second issue of it being a Red Herring simply means that whether or not they are doing it (and we all know that they are not us nowadays) doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not we should be doing it. I’ve already explained that if they aren’t, it doesn’t excuse us from doing what we must.
No one has suggested that we re-partner with the BWA and the SBC has made a distinctive stand in its separation from the BWA, so what they are doing or not doing is not relevant.
Now then…
These two statements…
and
…are in direct conflict with one another. Your reasoning is internally inconsistent and illogical. It must be one or the other and cannot be both at the same time.
Further, I would say that they first quote is accurate and the second couldn’t be further from the truth.
If Barack Obama starts advocating the passing out of condoms in public schools, I am not about to assume that Rick Warren advocates the same thing. In fact, because of what I know about him, I would assume just the opposite.
Just as you said of me, you believe that I am a conservative, because you have read what I write, yet my name is alongside others you would not call conservative on the Memphis Declaration. Your allow me to speak for myself and what others believe, even if we are covenanted together in the MD, does nt speak for me.
Again, it must be one way or the other. I think it is the “speak for yourself” way. But there is no way I can convince all those who have derided Jimmy Carter over this issue that I am right and they are wrong. I can only say that they conveniently ignore such covenants when it’s the Red Cross and our Disaster Relief Ministries.
Once again, for the record, I am not joining the New Baptist Covenant and I am not trying to fulfill the Great Commission with Jimmy Carter at the head of the parade. I pray, along with CB, that he does it and does it well, but we are in disagreement over that, so far as I can tell.
Please separate my thoughts on working alongside the lost on non-evangelistic things, from an advocation that the SBC join the NBC.
On the other hand, I am frustrated that Mike Huckabee has pulled out of the speakers’ line up. I know it was a political thing for him to even be in the line up, but he was a strong, theologically conservative voice, and I was glad that he would be there to represent such to the group.
Let me go back to that point and then we can move on. I read tonight that a certain Seminary Prof and Pastor in Kentucky thinks that participating in this kind of conversation is foolish because it won’t produce anything meaningful. That’s my understanding of what he wrote.
That’s absolutely true, if you write off all those at the conference as people upon whom you can have no effect. If you can’t reach them, you shouldn’t bother. As I said before, when people look a little like us – they claim to be Christians – but they don’t believe exactly the way we do, we feel no need to reach out to them with the Gospel. Instead we push them away.
So the lost pagan in Africa, we embrace and invest our lives in trying to reach, but the moderate CBF’er, we push away – we can’t get too close or we get theological cooties.
Hey, I’m a conservative and everybody who reads this blog knows it. I have not even the slightest moderate stripe in me, but I want to reach out to them the same way that I want to reach out to the lost. I think I am right and they are wrong. Can I not build a framework to possibly share my thoughts with them? That’s such a waste of time?
What that thought is actually saying is, THEY are a waste of time.
How very hyper-Calvinistic of us all. Or is it just pride and triumphalism?
Art Rogers
on May 29th, 2007
@ 2:37 am:
Tim,
I’m sorry. I just picked up on the difference between your two statements quoted above. The first is about whether he actually believes something and the second is that he is viewed as believing something.
I get it.
I just think you are wrong, for the reason I stated above. I wouldn’t assume that Rick believes anything that Barack says he believes because they are working together to stop AIDS in Africa. I know Rick (through his writings) and would trust what he says about himself. I also think most people would.
Here’s where you can pick up my train of thought about the Red Cross and how everyone ignores that one who decries Jimmy Carter.
Kaylor
on May 29th, 2007
@ 9:08 am:
Because a lot of inaccurate comments have been made about Jimmy Carter, I wrote a column for Ethics Daily that works to set the record straight: Jimmy Carter is not the Anti-Christ (http://ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=8985). I hope that this will help stop the false allegations about Carter and the Celebration.
Art Rogers
on Jun 8th, 2007
@ 7:46 am:
Gene Bridges has been out of the blogosphere for a bit and just saw Colin’s response to him. He sent me this email and I am posting the contents here so he doesn’t have to do so.