What The Statement Says…What It Doesn't Say

It Says: "[…The Baptist Faith & Message] is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention."

Of course. This is simple historical fact. The Southern Baptist Convention has never adopted any other statement of faith.

It Doesn't Say: "The Southern Baptist Convention has never reached consensus on any other doctrinal beliefs beyond those contained in the BF&M"

Of course not. This would contradict simple historical fact. Consider, for example, the resolutions that we adopt every year. These often touch upon points of doctrine. Their adoption adds up to the Southern Baptist Convention expressing a consensus of approval of these resolutions, including the doctrinal beliefs specified therein. These doctrines are not contained within a "statement of doctrinal beliefs", but they are nonetheless items upon which the SBC has expressed doctrinal consensus. Consider, for example, how this resolution goes beyond what the BF&M says about both the doctrine of man (that man has dominion over the earth) and the doctrine of stewardship (that it extends beyond "time, talent, and material possessions" to now include "earth and environment"). Yet the SBC has now expressed a consensus upon these points of doctrine (which is good, because they are clearly biblical). It would be unworkable to have employees required to research and affirm every resolution ever adopted by the SBC. The resolutions are not a part of our "instrument of doctrinal accountability." But they are items of doctrinal consensus for the SBC, and as such, they deserve the notice of our boards of trustees and should guide them in their establishment of policies and practices (as should the BF&M).

It Says: "… is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention."

Yes, and Amen! Trustees ought never to make any policy or practice apart from the guidance of the BF&M. Furthermore, I would make a stronger statement even than this—Trustees had better not make any policies or practices that contradict the BF&M. Wherever it speaks, I believe that the BF&M's role is even stronger than that of a guide.

It Doesn't Say: "… is sufficient in its current form to regulate trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention, with the result that trustees ought not to adopt any policies or practices regarding doctrinal matters not explicitly contained within the BF&M unless and until they obtain prior approval from the SBC."

See how easy that was? I just made a motion and statement that says precisely what the folks on the other side wanted us to vote on. Simple. Plainspoken. Specific. So, because of what it says and what it doesn't say, even I endorsed this motion and voted in favor of it. If someone who authored this can endorse and vote for the statement (and I did so before the first word of debate and long before anyone cast a vote), then it doesn't mean what folks are spinning it to mean. By the way, just because I posted this, don't fail to comment on my previous post. I really want to hear your opinions.

San Antonio Hindsight: Part Four

A Consensus Proposal: Explicit Referendum Powers?

Should agency trustees be accountable to the Southern Baptist Convention? Here, it seems to me, is a question that occupies a fundamental position in our current debates and upon which some measure of widespread agreement is feasible. Should agency trustees be accountable to the Southern Baptist Convention? I answer yes. At the risk of putting words into people's mouths, I'm going to guess that Wade Burleson, Ben Cole, Art Rogers, Marty Duren, C. B. Scott, Les Puryear, Alan Cross, Robin Foster, Jeremy Green, Wes Kenney, Jerry Corbaley, David Worley, Tim Guthrie, Peter Lumpkins, Joe Stewart, etc., etc., etc., will all agree. I'll be shocked if anyone in Southern Baptist life responds negatively to that question. With such widespread agreement on an underlying principle, people can build consensus—especially people led by the same Spirit. It all boils down to asserting a right akin to the secular political process called referendum. I think it is unwise to set up an automatic referendum situation. That's one reason why I oppose the current assertion by a few people of the BF&M as a maximum doctrinal statement for the agencies (among other reasons). No good framework exists for determining which policies and practices are doctrinal and which are not. The ultimate effect of the recommendations in Dr. Chapman's sermon at the SBC would be, in my estimation, each board of trustees bringing a dozen items every year for review by the convention. Inefficient and onerous—the people of the SBC don't want to deal with all of that folderol. Not having to rubber stamp every little decision is one of the reasons why we have a trustee structure in the first place. I do not affirm any system that forces the Southern Baptist messengers into an automatic referendum of new doctrinal policies and practices. For Southern Baptists to have to vote, 150 years later, to affirm the Abstract of Principles for SBTS is idiotic. I do, however, believe that the Southern Baptist messengers ought to be able to provoke a referendum of any trustee policies and practices that we WISH to take up. Furthermore, the mechanism for doing so ought to be accessible and reliable—messengers ought to be able to know clearly their precise avenue of recourse, and it ought to work the same way every time for every issue. Our polity does not allow the convention to instruct the agencies; therefore, our referenda amount to the expression of an opinion, for or against. But remember, the SBC is the indispensible source of funding for these agencies. Believe me: They pay attention to the opinion of the SBC. Currently, our bylaws and rules of order are structured in such a way as to try to slap down as many initiatives from the floor as is possible. In most cases, I believe this is a wise approach (for one thing, it helps to stem our bureaucratic accretions somewhat). Nevertheless, if you give people the impression that they cannot gain a fair hearing at the annual meeting, you are courting the eventual rise of denominational junta after denominational junta—you force people to seize power in order to have influence. I believe that this right of referendum is already possible within our current structure. Nevertheless, I can understand why somebody might conclude that such an action is not really possible, whether it is technically possible or not. So, I'm suggesting that Southern Baptists could clarify and codify an explicit right and procedure for elective referendum of trustee or Executive Committee actions by the body of convention messengers. Should it require a simple majority or 2/3 to bring a trustee action to the floor for review? A simple majority or 2/3 to overturn a decision? Should the process take a single year, or should the trustee body have a year to prepare a response or propose a solution? Should the proposed referendum have to be filed in advance, as our resolutions are now? I'm open to persuasion on these specific issues. I'm specifically interested in hearing from those on the "other side of the aisle"—does this seem a workable solution to you? What say you?

San Antonio Hindsight: Part Three

Word of the Year: Irenic

The report of the Committee on Resolutions was, in my analysis, reflective of President Frank Page's peaceful spirit. Any resolution that had the slightest whiff of any controversy whatsoever made its way into the wastepaper can. The committee's anti-controversy policy was evenhandedly applied to all parties. As soon as I saw the report, I was more than happy to leave the Resolutions report alone entirely and respect the committee's quest for peace. It was a good enough disposition of this year's flood of resolutions. Nevertheless, allow me to observe that this approach to resolutions, if applied year-after-year, will eventually become counterproductive. Consider, for example, the heated debate over the meaning of the vague EC statement on the BF&M. At least two submitted resolutions dealt squarely and specifically with this topic: Les Puryear's and mine. Neither resolution was ambiguous. Les did a good job of writing his. I think I did a fair job of writing mine. The Committee on Resolutions decided to trash both of our resolutions. The SBC (through no fault of the Committee on Resolutions) wound up adopting a vague statement that both Les Puryear and I supported and in favor of which we both voted. Conflict can be constructive when it resolves something. Consideration of either of our resolutions would have been definitive—would have resolved something. We avoided that moment of contest in San Antonio, but as a result the conflict remains entirely unresolved. I don't savor the idea of the SBC becoming like the members of a disfunctional family who caustically argue with one another every night without achieving any resolution. Neither do I savor the idea of the SBC becoming like the members of a disfunctional family who stuff it all in and ignore matters of difference until the unresolved conflict kills the relationship. Rather, we ought to give our convention processes the opportunity to address differences frankly and to bring some resolution to issues hanging up in the air. Eventually, a dogged determination to avert substantive conflict will only make it fester. But for one year—this year especially—the Resolutions report was a breath of fresh air. Thanks, Dr. Page.

San Antonio Hindsight: Part Two

A Personal Perspective

The San Antonio Convention had personal significance for us in several ways. First, on Monday evening Tracy and I walked into the Marriott Rivercenter hotel. We had to overcome some things to do so. Five years ago we brought to that hotel an infant boy that we were adopting. That overnight was a mystical, amazing experience—I never realized how quickly God can knit together the hearts of parents to their children. The next morning, moments before the legal deadline, the birthmother called that hotel room to announce that she had changed her mind (which I fully affirm is her right to do). We bundled up the one who, in our hearts, was our little boy, and we gave him away. Then we slunk out of the Marriott Rivercenter. I deliberately did not book a room for us in that hotel, but I knew that we wouldn't be able to avoid the convention hotel for the entire week. Sure enough, there we were on Monday night. My feelings were a strange mixture. Somewhere walking around San Antonio is a five-year-old boy who was almost my son. That kind of pain doesn't go away entirely. But on the other hand, walking around San Antonio with me was a four-year-old boy who is my son…and an eleven-month-old daughter crawled a good bit of the Convention Center to boot! Our confidence in what God has done gave us the courage to return to what was once the site of a disaster in our lives.

No More Live-Blogging

I just can't do it. It feels sacrilegious to be typing away on my computer, blogging during church. I won't ever attempt it again. Sorry.

Meeting People

I met a bunch of new people this week. Les Puryear is a great guy, and a few minutes chatting with him was one of the highlights of my week. I got to meet Marty Duren, of Fox News Channel fame :-) . I met Dr. Russell Moore. Chadwick Ivester is a brand-new acquaintance. I met Tim Guthrie, who appears to be doing great after the heart attack. I met Alycelee. I tried to keep Bob Cleveland from stepping out into traffic. I never did find Dorcas Hawker. I'm skipping about fifty people. Sorry. And then there are all of the people whom I already knew but got to see once again. Top of that list is Harold & Betty Ray. I look for them every year at SBC. Bro. Ray has been the Director of Missions at the Mt. Zion Baptist Association in Jonesboro, Arkansas for a long time. He was a ADoM at Associational Boys Camp in 1981 when God made plain to me His calling upon me to preach. I have a lifelong love in my heart for the Rays. Of course, there were many others.

Conclusion

These are some personal reflections about San Antonio, and they will probably be meaningless to the vast majority of my readers. But, this kind of entry is helpful from time to time if for nothing else than to remind you that this is a blog, not a newspaper. :-)

It's the Text, Stu...Wait, We Don't Use That Word

We didn't vote on the debate. We didn't vote on Morris Chapman's sermon. We voted solely upon the text of the EC statement, and that text is so vague that a dozen different interpretations of it are already floating around the SBC. Please note, before anyone alleges that I am spinning out of sour grapes, the indisputable fact that I endorsed the motion before it ever came to the floor for discussion, and at a time when the messengers had just minutes before (in the announced 1VP results) demonstrated plainly that this body of messengers was not sympathetic to Wade Burleson's movement. What possible reason can you give for me to have endorsed that motion at that particular moment other than the one I have expressed publicly—that I had honestly concluded that I agreed with the statement? Any statement on this topic with which I and Les Puryear both agree is, by definition, a vague statement. (Bro. Les is a great guy, but everyone must concede that he and I represent the two opposite poles on this particular question) David Rogers has an excellent and introspective post about the antipathy between political expediency and plain speech. David, to his credit, is much better at the latter than the former. David the denominational politician obviously wasn't my candidate. David the thinker and plain speaker is much more to my liking. I don't think that David ever gave up plain speaking, but in political life one is always surrounded by people who do much of your speaking for you, as obviously took place with David. Anyway, the post is here, and I highly recommend it. I think that the EC statement on the BF&M is a victim of precisely the phenomenon about which David writes. The statement was crafted for political effect, and somewhere in the process it ceased to say what its supporters wanted it to say. It belongs in the category of political expediency rather than open communication. This reason, I believe, explains why the statement is so vague. I propose that we do something entirely out of the ordinary—let us seek open communication about this contentious issue, and in so doing, let us seek peace rather than political advantage. Let us put up in 2008 a plainly written statement. Perhaps we just ought to take Dr. Chapman's statement in his sermon (lifted from Wade Burleson's site):

(1) Any practice instituted by an entity in the Southern Baptist Convention that has the force of doctrine should be in accord with the Baptist Faith and Message and not exceed its boundaries unless and until it has been approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and secondly, (2) If an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention adopts a confession of faith separate and distinct from the Baptist Faith and Message and it includes a doctrine unsupported by our confessional statement, the entity should request approval from the Convention prior to including the doctrine in its confession.

Now that sermon, my friends, says things plainly (but, unfortunately, we did not vote upon the plainspoken sermon, but upon the vague politically expedient text). Do you notice all the things Dr. Chapman's quote possesses that are not in the EC statement? It is specific and pointed. It spells out the procedures involved. Yes, there is a phrase or two that cries out for meaningful definition ("that has the force of doctrine"???), but Dr. Chapman's statement is leap-years beyond the text upon which we voted. The clear specificity of Dr. Chapman's sermon is precisely the attribute that causes Wade Burleson to want to quote it now, in the aftermath. It is also precisely the attribute of Dr. Chapman's words that made them precisely what our dissident brethren did not want to be contained in the motion. Dr. Chapman's sermon is the kind of plainspoken communication that clearly leaves everyone certain whether he stands in agreement or in disagreement. But, I remind you, we didn't vote upon Dr. Chapman's statements. But we should have. So, let us take a blunt, plainly worded statement like this and schedule time on the platform next year for an even-handed debate of the measure. Rather than give unrebutted time for the CEO to deliver a stump speech, let us have Dr. Chapman and an equally articulate spokesperson from another point of view speak to the concept. I think Dr. Al Mohler might be a great choice, although he may not appreciate an unsolicited nomination to an unanticipated task. Let's follow clear and careful rules of debate and do everything possible to produce more light than heat. Then, let us have a brief time of floor debate followed by a vote. And if the text of the statement actually says something clearly, then we'll all know where we stand, and we'll all need to move forward from there. Those who plot movements according to political expediency will object, but I am confident that there are more of us who are drawn to open communication. That fact is the hope of the SBC.

San Antonio Hindsight: Part One

Here begins my post-convention analysis. Why shouldn't I—everyone else is doing post-convention analysis! But I am going to try to delve a little deeper than some of the stuff I'm reading elsewhere.

Part One: Who Came and Who Didn't

A lot more didn't than did! In fact, on Wednesday night a large portion of the meeting hall had been walled off to prevent attendees from sitting three-to-a-section. Final registration totals were a full third less than predicted. Baptist Press reports that the largest number of those who came (unsurprisingly) were residents of Texas. Indeed, nearly one in five messengers was a Texas Baptist (see the story here). Yet the story does not break out attendees by state convention, but only by state. The voting results suggest that the BGCT simply did not show up in large numbers. Reports that BGCT messengers were going to bus in from Waco for the 1VP vote turned out to be bluster. That fact, in turn, suggests that liberal Baptists in the BGCT care not at all what happens in the SBC, and conservative Baptists in the BGCT don't appear to be all that interested, either. If one cannot mobilize a significant anti-Conservative-Resurgence/anti-CR-leadership faction in Texas, one cannot do it anywhere. I walk away from this year strongly encouraged about the probable outcome of our future meetings in Indianapolis and Louisville.

A Funny Thing Happened in San Antonio

On Saturday night, I was walking from the Residence Inn over to the Convention Center when I first spotted it. The sign to the Crockett Hotel lured visitors inside to the "Landmark Restaurant." I immediately resolved that I needed to gather a group of all those who have been recklessly accused of being "Landmarkers" in the past year and enjoy a meal there together, just so I could take a picture and blog about it, pulling the chain of those who stereotype us. Well, the week got away from me. We tried to go once, but learned that the restaurant only serves breakfast. Finally, early this morning, I was able to get Dr. Malcolm Yarnell to walk over with me for breakfast at the Landmark Restaurant. We walked inside to the hostess station, where the following conversation took place:

Hostess: Table for two? Us: Yes, please. Hostess: Do you have your coupon? Us: We don't have a coupon. Hostess: OK, do you have your room number? Us: Well, we aren't guests at the hotel. We just wanted to eat breakfast over here. Hostess: (Awkward, puzzled silence) Us: Are you not set up for people to pay with cash? Hostess: Well, actually, the restaurant exists to serve breakfast to the guests at the hotel. Us: OK, I'm sorry. We saw the sign outside and thought it was a public restaurant. Hostess: You're welcome to dine at the breakfast buffet in our sister hotel, the Menger, just across the street.

Disappointed, we walked across the street and ate the recommended breakfast. Later in the day, Dr. Ergun Caner called Dr. Yarnell at which time Dr. Yarnell communicated our disappointment at being shut out of the Landmark restaurant. Dr. Caner's reply? "Of course—they're closed communion!" :-)

A Vignette that Says it All

I was sitting on an aisle in a relatively unpopulated area of the convention hall this morning during the Southern Seminary report. Discussion and questioning followed the report. While the discussion was ongoing, I noticed and made eye contact with one of the only other people in the section, a man who appeared to be in his sixties—older than me, but not old by any sense of the word. I smiled at him, but he had a troubled look on his face. He got up and crossed the ten-foot distance between us. Arriving at my seat, with a voice of grave concern he bent down and said to me, "What have I missed? All we did last night was reaffirm the BF&M, right?" I said, "Sir, somehow two different interpretations of last night's vote have emerged." "But all we did was reaffirm the BF&M, right?" "Well, we reaffirmed it as a guide for our agencies." "But all we did was reaffirm the BF&M, right?" He grew more insistent the longer we spoke, and in his concern this simple sentence was all he could say. I couldn't even get his name from him. It is clear to me what HE meant when he cast his vote last night. That makes two of us.

Dr. Mohler's Second Home Run

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's report was NOT just another report. I think that Dr. Mohler has spoken a word that will encourage and unite Southern Baptists. Don't miss it.

Politics of the BF&M Recommendation

The topic of discussion this morning on blogs is the BF&M recommendation. Please note that the topic is not the greater than 2-to-1 victory of Jim Richards, because some are humble in victory while others cannot resist the temptation to gloat and grandstand even in contrived victories. So, I'm glad to speak about the BF&M recommendation, which I endorsed before it ever came to the floor. Ask yourself, friends—how is it "spinning" motivated out of "sour grapes" when one makes an endorsement long before the item even comes to the floor? By making this endorsement, I have apparently puzzled a large number of people of all blogging persuasions. I have offered an explanatory post that works through the text. Now, I offer a political explanation. Here, in my opinion, is what happened:

1. People who would like to prevent trustees from addressing any theological measure beyond those addressed in the BF&M wanted the Executive Committee to adopt a statement to that effect.
2. These dissidents wanted to craft their statement in such a way that one could not argue against it without, basically, arguing against the BF&M.
3. A strategy was reached to borrow from the recent slogan "sufficiency of the Bible" and speak of the sufficiency of the BF&M.
4. But to make the recommendation fit this strategy, it couldn't really say outright what the dissidents wanted it to say. But political considerations trumped accuracy and the statement went forward in this fashion.
5. Last night, after the 1VP election was finished, I sat down to take a look at this motion and to determine how I was going to vote. SBC motions are too important for us to vote by emotional political reaction. Each vote ought to reflect a carefully reasoned and prayerful choice. When I cut through all the balderdash and read the actual text of the statement, I realized the mistake made by the folks with whom I often disagree—they had nuanced the statement so much for political reasons that it no longer said at all what they wanted to say.
6. I immediately endorsed the measure, right from the floor of the convention.
7. At least one conservative was at a mike last night to speak in favor of the motion from this vantage point, but, like many speakers last night, he did not get to speak to the issue because time ran out.
8. We voted on the actual statement, but now we are being told that the interpretation is what will be enforced.

Many, many people on my "side of the aisle" are apoplectic in their opposition to this recommendation, largely because they know of at least a few people who will bring down yet another year of heartache upon the SBC by ignoring the text of the statement and asserting something else. But I am not bound by anyone else's reading of this. I have yet to see anyone show me where in the text of this statement it contradicts anything I am saying.

The EC Statement, Line-by-Line

I learn upon browsing on over there that Wade Burleson has asserted that the SBC has instructed our agencies and institutions that they "do not have the right to narrow doctrinal parameters beyond [The Baptist Faith & Message]." So, let's just look at the statement line-by-line:

1. "The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed, nor a complete statement of our faith, nor final and infallible…" Pretty self-explanatory stuff here. Our confession does not address everything, does not function creedally, can be amended, and might be wrong.
2. "… nevertheless, we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention…" Simple historical fact here. Southern Baptists have never adopted any other statement of doctrinal beliefs.
3. "… and such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees…" The BF&M needs no other clarifying document in order to serve as a guide to trustees. There is no list of primary, secondary, and tertiary doctrines in the document. The document itself, as it stands, speaks for itself and is sufficient as a guide to the trustees. I should note, some people seem to be asserting it as the only sufficient guide to the trustees. But such a belief would be heresy, and I think that people really just aren't thinking through what they are saying. "Only sufficient" is language that we Baptists generally reserve for speaking about the Bible. Thankfully, the text of the statement says nothing of the sort. So, the BF&M is precisely what this statement says it is: One document that is sufficient to serve as a guide to the trustees.
4. "… in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention…" The statement flatly affirms that trustees are the ones authorized to set the policies and practices of our entities. We as a convention absolutely expect them, when considering any policies and practices, to take into consideration the content of the BF&M.

Here's a Question for You?

Since what Wade Burleson and others have said quite clearly what they really wanted Southern Baptists to say—that the people of the Southern Baptist Convention oppose the adoption of any doctrinal policies that go beyond the BF&M—why didn't the motion just, quite simply, say that? Because that motion could not pass at the SBC...that's why. The interpretative vagueness of the statement was necessary to secure its passage; therefore, it must necessarily govern its application.

Unintended Consequences of Convention Actions

A little political analysis and conjecture here:

Action:

Southern Baptists defined "Cooperative Program giving" as only the giving of a portion of undesignated monies through both a state convention and the SBC.

Consequence:

The splintering of more state conventions.

In those state conventions where conservatives are dissatisfied with the theological stance of the state convention, they will no longer be able to give around the state convention and count that giving as CP giving. Although this will not prevent them from sending messengers to the SBC, they will not be able to have a leadership influence in the convention because they will not have enough "CP giving" to meet present standards. Their choices? Lose their influence in the SBC, militantly work to change their state conventions to match their convictions, give to fund ministries contrary to their convictions, or create separate state conventions in order to be able to give more CP dollars. I'm not ready to make any evaluation (would this be good or bad?) of any aspect of these suggestions at this point. I need to think about it more first. But I do see clearly that, although the Executive Committee did not mean to incentivise churches to form new state conventions, they have done precisely that.

Endorsements, Part Next

I endorse the motion to adopt the Executive Committee's statement on The Baptist Faith & Message as the statement of the convention. Although I respectfully disagree with Dr. Chapman's interpretation of this statement, as I also disagree with Wade Burleson's interpretation, I see nothing wrong whatsoever with the actual text of the statement itself. Our confession of faith is a sufficient guide for our trustees. It is not the only sufficient guide. The Bible is also a sufficient guide. Trustess ought to and must consult The Baptist Faith & Message before making any doctrinal guidelines. I have no problem with the text of this statement, and I wholeheartedly endorse its adoption as expressive of the sentiments of the convention.

Informed Consent?

I pose two questions tonight. One looks backwards and has a definite answer. The other looks forwards and asks for prediction:

1. Since 1925, have Southern Baptists ever elected anyone as President or Vice-President who has, as David Rogers has done, publicly stated and demonstrated that he is not in agreement with The Baptist Faith & Message?
2. Will the nomination speech for David Rogers tomorrow afternoon make it clear to Southern Baptists that this is precisely what they are doing if they elect him as First Vice-President? In other words, will Rogers's nomination speech fairly disclose to the Southern Baptist Convention messengers that Rogers has publicly expressed disagreement with The Baptist Faith & Message, or will the nomination be an attempt to trick Southern Baptists into electing someone without their informed consent?

I'll not be available to interact much with the comments, but you are invited to give your answers to these two questions in the comment thread. Of course, those who would rather spin than answer are invited to do that in the comment stream as well.

Questionnaire Edit Update

For those who have been following this story: See this update.

My First Live-Blog

It is a strange experience. I ought to be sitting there paying attention to church, but there I am typing away on my computer. I have this strange phobia that my mother is going to walk in and catch me not behaving in church (at least she's not up in the choir where she can stare me down). My Mom did a great job helping us kids do well in church—I credit it as "means"…one of the things God used to bring me to Himself at such an early age (not quite 6). I doubt that I'll be able to interact with the comments much. It is tough enough just to get the posts up. We'll all talk it through after the whole thing is over. Also, I'm not promising to be present for everything. I'll be in a meeting today, so I won't be much of a source for Pastors Conference happenings today. Other than that, I hope to keep you up-to-date.

Pastors Conference: Dr. Jerry Vines

Acts 8 "The Chariots are Changing"

Summarizing the Book of Acts

The Savior went up. The Spirit came down. The Saints went out. Evangelism: The whole work of the whole church the whole of the age. The book of Acts is full of divine encounters. Illustration: Dr. Vines met a young man on the train in Texas. The man was headed to Houston to talk to a preacher about getting saved. His fiancée refused to marry him until he was saved. Dr. Vines led him to Christ. That is a divine encounter, to meet someone traveling just to get to know Christ. The story of the Ethiopian Eunuch was a divine encounter.

Point One: A Prompt Soul-Winner

(v. 26) Phillip, the Spirit-filled Baptist deacon (Amen from Bro. Bart). "Normally we do not think of Baptist deacons and angels at the same time." :-) The angel conveyed with a sense of urgency the need for Phillip to go and be a witness. "Arise and be going." Phillip arose and went—no hesitation, complaint, or disagreement. He could have said "not me...I'm busy...let's appoint a committee...let's vote on it" But the Bible is very clear about evangelism. "You do not vote on the commands of the Lord Jesus Christ." [Even this congregationalist agrees] A liberal referring to evangelism in Dr. Gray Allison's evangelism class said, "I just can't get that out of the New Testament." Dr. Allison said, "Of course you can't; it's in there to stay!" Instead of saying "not me" he could have said "not now." Phillip was in the middle of a "big meeting"—an exciting revival. But Phillip left it to go to the middle of nowhere in response to the Holy Spirit. "If you are not willing to tell one person about the Lord Jesus, then you are not worthy to tell multitudes about the Lord Jesus." [WOW! Great quote.] He could have said, "not there." It was a desert road where one could expect nothing. "God puts us in strange places for His providential purposes." [Amen, from an Arkansan in Texas ;-) ] But he said none of those things...he went. God uses a prompt soul-winner: someone who is obedient and observant.

A Prepared Sinner

A man prepared by the Spirit of God to hear the message of soul-winning. He was an important man. He is a minister of finance for the Candacy—a man of influence and power. None of the things that made this man a great man made this man a saved man. He was a lost man in need of Jesus. There is a growing Universalism in our country in many places. He's a religious man. He had been to Jerusalem to worship. He was probably a God-fearer (potential Jewish proselyte). [sorry...Dr. Vines...I stopped paying attention...Dwight McKissic just walked up. Please, nobody smear his reputation simply for his sitting here. He's just a kind and generous man.] Churches are either fry or freeze. The service is either "religious smackdown" or a dry, dull, dead service. People need to hear Spirit-filled worship, Spirit-directed preaching, and a Spirit-inspired invitation. He's a responsive man. The Spirit called Phillip to make contact with the chariot and Phillip ran to him. There are people out there who can be won to Christ if we are willing to attach ourselves to the lost people around us. The Spirit will direct us to people who are responsive. "The church will do the most for the world when the church is the less like the world but the church is called to go into the world to make contact."

A Powerful Scripture

The place where he was reading was about the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord. "Of whom is the prophet speaking?" Talk about a lead-in to a soul winner! All of the Bible points to our Savior. Phillip opened his mouth and began at the same scriptures and preached (evangelized) Jesus to him. When you're preaching Jesus, that's good preaching. When you are not preaching Jesus, you are not preaching.

A Personal Salvation

Jesus walked over 70 miles one-way to be baptized—don't tell me it's not important. If you want to have a rapture before the rapture, you get involved in telling somebody about Jesus and see them come to salvation. [The word that speaks of Phillip being caught away is the word from which we get the word "rapture."] Irenaeus said that the Eunuch became an evangelist and led the Queen Mother to Christ. The chariot is now a gospel buggy with a bumper sticker that said "Honk if you love Jesus." But the chariots are changing. Illustration: Sitting by a young man on a plane—a computer scientist with two degrees from Harvard. Tatoos and rings in his ears. The chariots are changing racially. We must strip away every vestige of prejudice to catch those racial chariots for Christ. The chariots are changing religiously. Your next-door neighbors may be Hindu and Buddhist rather than Methodist and Presbyterian. Teens are learning to witness by text-messaging. One blog a second is popping up on the Internet. We can use those blogs as places to be evangelists [Does he see me back here?] Amidst those changing chariots, there are two unchanging constants. We have the same gospel of Jesus Christ that is meeting the same people in need of Christ.

Pastor's Conference: Dr. Paige Patterson

Dr. Patterson is sharing a testimony about Christ's victory in spite of opposition. Unfortunately, I came in just at the last minute and have missed several of the points. I'll share some impressions:

1. He spoke of the difficulty of seeing one's spouse suffer for ministry. Now there's somebody who knows whereof he speaks.
2. "I'm the worst possible genetic combination—part Irish and part Texan. That means that I'll meet you in the parking lot any day any time." But Christ works to change that in him.
3. The only way to learn to exercise the Christian graces of loving your enemy is to have an enemy...to pray for those who despitefully use you is to have people who despitefully use you.
4. God's graces are always abundant beyond heartache and opposition.

At Adoniram Judson's spot of imprisonment in Myanmar, Dr. Patterson lay on his back with his feet in the air. There Judson's feet were hoisted on the stocks with his feet in the air for his imprisoners to beat the soles of his feet. He kept himself entertained by translating the Burmese Bible while being punished. Judson died with only 7 churches to show for his work, greatly opposed and apparently a failiure. But his work became the seedbed out of which the entire nation came to Christ. "The glory that shall be revealed is greater than all the suffering!" Dr. Patterson quoted a passage that I had reason to quote recently: "The anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God." I am continually amazed at the restraint that this godly man demonstrates in the face of great opposition.

The Baptist Renaissance

This morning I have this quote from 1VP candidate David Rogers:

…At the same time, it would appear a certain sector within Southern Baptist life has taken on the mission to accentuate everything that distinguishes Baptists from other evangelical Christians to such a degree that our essential unity and spiritual communion with the wider Body of Christ has been downplayed or even resisted.

David's words, coming as they have within the last few hours, provide the perfect starting point for my final pre-convention post on this blog. I appreciate everyone's patience with my silence of late. I'll have to tell you about the funeral sometime.

I Support a Renewal of Baptist Identity

I received a kind comment from OKPreacher (his screen name a reference to geography, I am certain, rather than to homiletical prowess). The comment was on yesterday's post, but it was clearly anticipative of this post. That gives me a chance to reply to a comment in the original post—not something you get to do every day!

Bart, I appreciate your blog and everything you have to say. My concern is that we as Southern Baptists arn't focused on the most important problems facing us. For example, a renewal of baptist identity isn't going to help us reach more people for Christ. I would encourage a renewal of Christian identity amoung Baptists and all who claim to be Christians. From what I have experienced as a pastor is that most Southern Baptist members don't understand what it means to be a Christian. They don't understand the very basics of how to grow as a Christian. Sure they say they believe the Bible is inerrant and they give to the Lottie Moon Offering, but for them being a Christian is going to church on Sundays. Until we have a renewal of Christian identity, who cares about baptist identity. When Jesus raptures His church, it won't just be baptists going. Lets focus on what is really needed, a Christian identity that results in bring billions of people into God's Kingdom.

This brother and I agree more than perhaps either of us recognizes. I support a renewal of Baptist identity because it is precisely what we need in order to focus on the most important problems facing us and to renew our Christian identity. The heart of the Baptist movement is a desire for congregational authenticity and purity, coupled with a belief that the New Testament contains instructions for having just such a church. One key theological basis for Baptist practice is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit—particularly the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the church. The seventeenth century Baptists mostly came to Baptist life from Anglicanism, convinced that the ills of the state church were the result of a church led by lost people who therefore were disconnected from the Holy Spirit. The problems of churches in the seventeenth century were the problems of the world around them. The Baptists saw the solution in the construction of (to quote Roger Williams), a "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." In other words, the world ought to be able to see a clear difference between itself and the church. In their quest for authenticity, the Baptists concluded that authentic leadership was not enough to produce an authentic church. Authenticity must extend to the church's membership. The New Testament congregations were fellowships of professed believers only. The very grounds of New Testament unity were devotion to the teaching of the apostles (preserved for us in the Bible), their common immersion, their gathering at the common table, their shared contribution and labor in the common mission, etc. While recognizing and availing themselves of strong pastoral leadership (have you successfully talked your entire congregation into moving to another country together?), they made the work of the church pertain to its every member. I agree with OKPreacher that there are many Southern Baptists who "don't understand what it means to be a Christian." Indeed, I would assert that there are many Southern Baptists who are not Christians. This is precisely why we need a renewal of Baptist identity. Tom Ascol's resolution on Integrity in Church Membership needs to be enhanced to incorporate language about believer's baptism—one indispensible part of maintaining a regenerate church membership—but I think something like Dr. Ascol's resolution exemplifies an important manner in which we need a renewal of Baptist identity. The fact that such a resolution might not receive unanimous support in the SBC is powerful evidence of our problem; however, the fact that so many people would support it is a strong reason for hope in our future. I hope that it passes with some mention of believer's baptism this year. So (forgive me some measure of oversimplification) Baptist identity boils down to a congregation of believers empowered by the Holy Spirit for 100% participation in the church's mission. Nobody on the bench. I believe that it is the God-endorsed, Bible-prescribed tonic for what ails us. I just can't believe that we are considering the election of a First Vice-President who publicly disagrees with The Baptist Faith & Message and whose primary concern is that we might be too Baptist. Why would someone worried about too much emphasis upon being Baptist even want to be an officer of a Baptist organization? Aren't there enough generically evangelical organizations in the world that need a vice president? I love David and have greatly enjoyed our intermittent conversation over the past year, but his quote just befuddles me to no end.

I Support Biblical Christian Unity

...which is something altogether different from ecumenism (even in its evangelical variant). What is biblical Christian unity? I agree with The Baptist Faith & Message.

Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ's people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament..

I ask you, dear brothers and sisters, what is it that impedes a people from prevailing spiritually? Does the fact that there is a Methodist church across town keep your church from being what it ought to be? Not at all. Does the fact that brothers and sisters within your congregation bicker and fuss ever get in the way of your church's effectiveness? You bet it does. That's where we see a breach of Christian unity. We need to focus on inter-congregational unity, not neo-ecumenical schemes like the "city church." Running headlong after ecumenical entanglements will only make things worse—every ecumenical movement in history has had as its ultimate result the further fracture of the Body of Christ (Church of Christ, anyone?). Until we are ready to be united in sound biblical doctrine, we are not ready to be united. Our source of cooperative unity has always been doctrine, not missions. Roman Catholics were busy about missions before modern Baptists emerged, but we didn't unify with them. The Anglican Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts was around for nearly a century before Baptists formed the Baptist Missionary Society. Congregationalists had organized for missions in America before the Baptists. If missions is the basis for our unity, then why did we create separate missionary bodies rather than just joining up with these groups? Because they weren't Baptist…that's why. Many Baptists (and put my name at the top of the list) are not going to foot the bill to plant Presbyterian churches, Methodist churches, Anglican churches, or Pentecostal churches. That is our historic position. If the planting of these kinds of churches is a worthwhile effort on our part, then we have sinned and are schismatics for forming anything like the Southern Baptist Convention to begin with. If we should be unified with them today, we should have been unified with them all along. Indeed, many of them were far closer to orthodoxy then in 1845 they are right now. I agree with the BF&M—let us cooperate with other Christians on any and all things that do not compromise our convictions. If that is why David means by "our essential unity and spiritual communion with the wider Body of Christ", then I do not see how any renewal of our Baptist identity could ever endanger this kind of cooperation. If David means something else thereby, I would like to know exactly what he means, and how it fits in with what the BF&M has to say on the subject.

Jim Richards Blog Interview

I see that Peter Lumpkins has followed up his Mac Brunson interview with an interview of First-Vice-Presidential candidate Dr. Jim Richards.