Trouble in Fundy Paradise?

BibleboyII. You had some excellent points. Your rebuke is accepted. The point I was trying to make is that you seem to accept everything the SBC throws at you. I am saying that is simply not true. Examine the facts for yourself. I gave you a few to chew on. The SBC has written that the CBF is liberal and the CBF says that the SBC is now not conforming to SBC history as Baptists.

There are men on both sides that are practically and theologically loose and there are men on both sides that are both theolocially and practically conservative.

The fact is that liberals and fundamentalists have been around since the beginning of time. Jesus addressed them.

The way I see it is that the current leadership wants to become like a denomination and not leave it as a convention only. Ever see a denomination maintain its stance on scripture from its inception? Can you think of one?

 

It was in the Baptist papers and in the local Ft. Worth paper several times.

 

It was in the Baptist papers and in the local Ft. Worth paper several times. </font>[/QUOTE]Not only that, a number of us were part of the seminary community during that time so we know firsthand what went on. Furthermore, the Texas Baptist Collection of the BGCT has reams of documents related to the Dilday firing including quite a bit of 'behind the scenes" material forwarded by "conservative resurgence" people whose consciences were bothering them.

There's plenty of evidence if you want to see it. Most people have just made up their minds and won't consider the facts because it would complicate their lives.

 

It was in the Baptist papers and in the local Ft. Worth paper several times. </font>[/QUOTE]Not only that, a number of us were part of the seminary community during that time so we know firsthand what went on. Furthermore, the Texas Baptist Collection of the BGCT has reams of documents related to the Dilday firing including quite a bit of 'behind the scenes" material forwarded by "conservative resurgence" people whose consciences were bothering them.

There's plenty of evidence if you want to see it. Most people have just made up their minds and won't consider the facts because it would complicate their lives. </font>[/QUOTE]The papers would be a start. However, I am sure that we all understand that not every word printed in newspapers turns out to be the truth or even correct. You know that I am not opposed to reading material that comes from a point of view other than my own (remember I read E. Earle Ellis' book about Pauline Theology at your request). If you all could post some links to relevant sources it would be helpful. Likewise, some testimony by the actual people (SWBTS trustees)involved would be good for starters. However, what I do not want to see is more of the same old same old... "I know a guy (unnamed source) who knows a guy (another unnamed source)who said that somebody (third unnamed source) said..."

[ September 27, 2003, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

And I say again:

Baptist polity does not enter the picture regarding the SBC seminaries because they are not Baptist Churches! Dr. Kelly (and anyone else who attempts to link "Baptist Polity", which relates specifically to church government, to the administration of the seminary trustee boards) is equivocating on the issue of Baptist Polity. Therefore, his logic his is flawed and his conclusion is invalid.

 

He is not off the reservation. He is just wrong in his logic. That happens to us all from time to time.

I don't know. However, I hope that he understands that the SBC seminaries are not churches and that Dr. Kelly's logic makes his argument invalid as I have pointed out.

Again, I don't know. However, what I do know is that Dr. Patterson did not fire a single soul when he came to SEBTS in 1992.

 

That is a gross assumption on your part. Just because I do not swallow everything that the CBF and Mainstream Baptists throw at me does not mean that I accept everything that the conservative SBC says without question either. I have eyes with which I read and a brain with which I think and draw conclusions for myself. Guess what, it was Dr. Patterson who helped teach me to consider all sides of an issue, to think critically, and to formulate my own conclusions.

I know of no mainline Christian denomination that has embraced theological liberalism and continued to prosper and grow as part of the Body of Christ. However, I also know that the Southern Baptist Convention is the only denominational organization to embrace theological liberalism and then return to a conservative biblical stance.

Something that you seem to be missing is the fact that the SBC technically only exists for those few days each year when its delegates are gathered for business at the annual convention. The rest of the year all of the autonomous local churches (who cooperate via the SBC) make all of their own decisions, determine all of their own budgets, and establish all of their own church constitutions and by-laws etc., etc., etc. The SBC has no control over them (the local churches) nor does it have any mechanism by which it can gain such control. Likewise, if the SBC ever tried to exercise such control over the local churches, all they (the local churches) would have to do in order to remain autonomous is withdraw their support from the convention.

Again, all of this talk about "control, connectionalism, and SBC politics" and the lame attempt to say that the conservative SBC leadership is "departing from traditional Baptist Polity" is an equivocation of the term "Baptist Polity" when applied to our seminaries, Lifeway, and our Mission Boards. None of these SBC organizations are autonomous local churches. They are branches of the SBC organizational structure which are funded by the Cooperative Program. Therefore, each of these branches of the SBC organizational structure is accountable to the direction of and policies set forth by the delegates each year at the annual Southern Baptist Convention.

[ September 27, 2003, 06:03 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

You are mistaken on this point Bibleboy. My conservative credentials are as solid as anyone's and I have supported the general direction of the current SBC leadership since the beginning of the resurrgence. The term "Baptist Polity" does indeed speak to how individual, autonomous churches deal with matters internal to the local body. However, the term also involves how churches relate to one another and how churches cooperate to form and govern denominational structures and agencies. Historically, in the SBC realm, local church Baptist Polity has created, informed, and instructed denominational Baptist Polity. Nearly every (if not every) significant and lasting SBC movement originiated at the local church level. The founding of the SBC, the origins of SBTS, the momentum and creation of the Sunday school and mission boards, the creation of the CP, the conservative resurrgence, Baptist disaster relief work, FAITH evangelism, etc..., all were examples of local Baptist Polity creating a denominational polity and then utilizing this unique denominational polity to act on a larger scale.

Dr. Kelly's concerns are valid. If the SBC ExCom is the sole member (read: owner) of the corporations of each of the seminaries, there is no need for boards of trustees at these institutions (powerless trustees are, in essence, no trustees). If there are no real trustees at these institutions, then the level of actual, meaningful involvement by the members of the supporting SBC churches has diminished near to the vanish point.

Think back to how the resurrgence was accomplished: individuals in many local SBC churches worked to inform other individuals who informed many other individuals in many SBC churches until there was a clear majority of SBC churches willing to send messengers to annual meeting over a 10+ year span to elect conservative SBC presidents and board nominees until the seminaries had a sufficient number of conservative trustees required to turn these agencies around.

It was a long and difficult road to get to a conservative majority on the trustee boards. But it is good that it is such a long and difficult road. This difficult process guarantees that if any group of Southern Baptists desires to dramatically effect the direction of the SBC, it would take 10 plus years of majority votes at annual meetings just to get to simple majorities on the trustee boards.

Dr. Chapman's plan would streamline the process so that the only meaningful board would be the SBC Executive Committee. This would be a significant change in denominational Baptist Polity.

The current Polity has served us well. There is no need for a change. If Dr. Chapman is concerned about the trustees "stealing" the seminaries by making them self-perpetuating agencies, he could work with the trustees to ammend the agency charters so that any vote to become self-perpetuating would have to be approved by a super-majority of messengers at 2 consecutive SBC annual meetings.

Finally, when a long time, loyal conservative resurrgencer like Dr. Kelly expresses concerns as gravely as he has, we must, at a minimum, take a pause.

 

That is a gross assumption on your part. Just because I do not swallow everything that the CBF and Mainstream Baptists throw at me does not mean that I accept everything that the conservative SBC says without question either. I have eyes with which I read and a brain with which I think and draw conclusions for myself. Guess what, it was Dr. Patterson who helped teach me to consider all sides of an issue, to think critically, and to formulate my own conclusions. </font>[/QUOTE]

I know of no mainline Christian denomination that has embraced theological liberalism and continued to prosper and grow as part of the Body of Christ. However, I also know that the Southern Baptist Convention is the only denominational organization to embrace theological liberalism and then return to a conservative biblical stance. [/QUOTE]

I cannot think of any church denomination that started out strong that is not liberal today. That happens in almost every organization. It often happens in business and secular organizations. The first genration starts it. The second maintains it. And the third loses it. But The Worldwide Church Of God became a Christian denomination from being a non-Christian or cult organization . Also I don’t believe it would have been very likely that the SBC would have returned had it been a denomination and not a convention. A denomination has the power to rise or fall solely on its leadership. But eventually most fall because of trying to control and just give up.

There is no perfect system. Even Jesus had troubles with Judas. Here is the perfect example of perfect doctrine teaching all His disciples and one turns against Him. To avoid any kind of serious wrecks just deal with the problems as they come. Jesus dealt with the liberals and hyperfundamentalists all the time. Control will not solve all problems.

Hitler was supported by the Christians in the beginning. You see what his power and control did for the country. Ultimately you cannot control people. If you stop and think about it. It was those in the SBC who believed the Bible who eventually brought people back to where they should be. It was not ever wielding power and control that did. Long before the conservatives took over the SBC I was a student at SWBTS and always was taught how to interpret scripture well. In fact it corrected me from some of the nonsense I learned at a dispensational, rationalistic church I attended for years. Thanks to men like Dr. Lorin Cranford who spent time answering my questions well.

From what you wrote it appears to me that you have not had any dealings with volunteers at the state or national level as a pastor. In one church I pastored there were three people who were volunteers at the sate level. (Before I came to that church I was told this and was excited) They would come back after their meetings and give me a run down on what happened. Always the things they would say without exception was about the direction they wanted the churches to go. So it was a case of tell the volunteers before you tell the pastor.. Often they would come home talking about how some church was doing so well. I got so tired of hearing such nonsense that once I told them they could lead in that effort if they would like. They looked at me as if to say we don’t want to do that. It would be too much work. I had talked with the pastor of one of those churches because we knew each other from seminary and he basically told me things were exaggerated. Also the state introduced their own magazine instead of sticking with the state paper they had for years where people could respond to articles and issues

 

Hello Jonathan,

This is how I understand the general use of the term "polity": The form or constitution by which any institution is organized; the recognized principles which lie at the foundation of any human institution.

So, I guess that I was a bit over the top in the way that I expressed what I was trying to say about Dr. Kelly's comments. In the heat of battle ya know... LOL. However, I still have a huge problem with those who would try and use the subject at hand to make it seem as if the SBC is in some way trying to remove the autonomy of the local church. That simply is not ture.

Additionally, I am trying to say is that the SBC has every right to take steps to ensure that some group (any group) does not or cannot simply walk off with its seminaries because certain people have been put into places of authority that would wish to do such a thing. The seminaries are not autonomous they are bought and paid for and maintained by the SBC Cooperative Program. They are connected to and beholding to the desires and wishes of the delegates at the annual SBC. No one can get around that issue.

Perhaps the current proposal should be reworded to indicate that the SBC Executive Committee is the one true and sole owner of the SBC seminaries. As such the SBC ExCom has one veto power over the seminary trustee boards with respect to any move on the trustee's part to make themselves self-perpetuating and not subject to the will and ownership of the SBC.

 

I am not a pastor nor do I have any desire or calling to pastor churches. However, you are incorrect in assuming that I do not have experience in dealing with state conventions and/or local associations. Just so you are clear, my church is an incorporated church. I sit on the board of directors. Additionally, I have sat on the Adminstrative Council of my church for years. In both postions I have been privilaged to work along side my pastor in various state convention and local association issues. The point that you still seems to be missing with respect to my comments is that all SBC supporting churches are completely autonomous. Even if you have state convention volunteers as members of your chuch and they attempt to get you do things that the state folks say there is no way for the state convention to force you as a pastor of an autonomous church to do so.

For example, the local association in my area is very liberal. We are a conservative church. The local asociation has a history of only funding church plants that embrace its view of liberal theology. Something like Ninty-five per of the church palnts that they have started over the past 5-6 years have failed within two years. It is a shame and a waist of resources. Therefore, my church has chosen not to give a signle cent to the local association. Additionally, we are working with a group of likeminded conservative churches to establish a new local association. It will not have a building, staff, and almost no overhead costs. The pastors of member churches will simply meet in one of our member churches to conduct business. Its sole purpose will be to plant new conservative SBC churches. The state convention which is moderate at best is begging us and our likeminded group of pastors/churches not to do this. At first they tried to tell us that we could not start a new local asociation. Why do you think that is? They are scared to death that it will be suscessful.

 

I am not a pastor nor do I have any desire or calling to pastor churches. However, you are incorrect in assuming that I do not have experience in dealing with state conventions and/or local associations. Just so you are clear, my church is an incorporated church. I sit on the board of directors. Additionally, I have sat on the Adminstrative Council of my church for years. In both postions I have been privilaged to work along side my pastor in various state convention and local association issues. The point that you still seems to be missing with respect to my comments is that all SBC supporting churches are completely autonomous. Even if you have state convention volunteers as members of your chuch and they attempt to get you do things that the state folks say there is no way for the state convention to force you as a pastor of an autonomous church to do so.

For example, the local association in my area is very liberal. We are a conservative church. The local asociation has a history of only funding church plants that embrace its view of liberal theology. Something like Ninty-five per of the church palnts that they have started over the past 5-6 years have failed within two years. It is a shame and a waist of resources. Therefore, my church has chosen not to give a signle cent to the local association. Additionally, we are working with a group of likeminded conservative churches to establish a new local association. It will not have a building, staff, and almost no overhead costs. The pastors of member churches will simply meet in one of our member churches to conduct business. Its sole purpose will be to plant new conservative SBC churches. The state convention which is moderate at best is begging us and our likeminded group of pastors/churches not to do this. At first they tried to tell us that we could not start a new local asociation. Why do you think that is? They are scared to death that it will be suscessful. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree with you. But what I am basically saying is that it makes it extremely difficult when people come from state meetings to try and tell you as a pastor how to run the church. Many times I thought to myself, "Haven't these guys ever read the Bible?' Some of us pastors would discuss these things and just shake our heads. Sometimes some of those things they say are pure nonsense. I wouldn't consider them liberal. But I sure wouldn't consider a number of them very good conservative theologians either.

 

Does the Executive Committee appoint trustees to the seminaries?
Dr. Kelly's address can be heard at www.nobts.edu
Click on chapel then the date (Sept 4 I believe) and you can hear him eloquently and without mentioning names spell out the issues.

I just think that Dr. Kelly knows more than he has let on in the past. Why else would he NOT go along with PP?

 

I completely agree that this move does not remove local autonomy. But what it does do is streamline the process for agency takeover. If the ExCom is able to overturn any seminary trustee vote, then the ExCom will control the seminary. Then the only strategy that is required to control the seminaries is to gain a simple majority on the ExCom.

There is a reason that the current process requires such a long time to turn the agencies of the SBC. It acts as a barrier from short sighted messenger movements or emotionalistic appeals to the messengers at any single or 2-3 annual meetings.

It took 20 years to recapture the SBC. Dr. Chapman's plan sets up a process in which it will take far less time for other groups. Bad idea.

So, if I understand you correctly, the main concern here is that we do not want the seminary trustrees to be able to vote to become a self-perpetuating board and, as a result, become purely autonomous without any real accountability to the messengers...and indirectly, to the churches? If this is the concern, I share it.

Then let's deal with this specific issue by having each board of trustees ammend each institution's charter to mandate that any such change be approved by a 75% majority of the messengers at 3 consecutive annual meetings.

Dr. Chapman's plan would enable the ExCom to move far more quickly and does not subject the process to extended reflection. Say that the ExCom decides that a seminary should close. Dr. Chapman's plan would allow the ExCom to rule on this immediately with no check on any possible irrational motive.

This plan simply places too much power in the SBC Executive Committee without any real process check by the messengers.

 

Originally posted by gb93433:

I would venture to say that nearly every member of every church, if you asked them, has some differing idea on how the church ought to be run. It is the pastor's job to preach the Word, to teach the people sound doctrine, to exhort them to Holy living, to educate the members of the church with respect to content of that church's constitution and by-laws, its purpose statement, and its vision statement, etc.

When you have a doctrinally solid church constitution and by-laws, a clear purpose statement derived from Scripture, and a cogent vision statement (which reminds the people of the church's purpose) you have all the tools you need to deal with people trying to tell you how to run the church. However, the key is to first teach the members sound doctrine. Then when someone comes along with a suggestion you can ask them to explain how that suggestion fits within your church's clearly defined constitution and by-laws, purpose statement, and how it meets one or more of the goals of the purpose statement. Then ask if they can explain their suggestion within the scope of the church's vision statement. Finally, do as you suggested above and tell them if they can demonstrate that their suggestion is doctrinally sound and helps to achieve the church's defined purpose (from the purpose statement), and are able to communicate the suggestion to the congregation within the scope of the vision statement, then they (acting under the pastor's supervision and authority) are free to head up putting the suggestion into place. If they or the suggestion fail in any one of these points its not for your church and the idea is discarded.

 

Jonathan,

I could agree with what you proposed above. One thing to keep in mind about what you said regarding the ExCom is that in order to gain a simply majority on that committee a group would have to win the office of SBC President several years running. The only real power that the SBC President has is that he appoints the members on the Committee on Committees (or whatever it is called). So a likeminded group would have to hold the office of President long enough to gain a majority on the Committee on Committees which in turn would have to seat its chosen people on the ExCom. Such a process would require a grassroots movement among likeminded SBC delegates (to win and hold the office of President) and would take quite some time as well.

 

I would venture to say that nearly every member of every church, if you asked them, has some differing idea on how the church ought to be run. It is the pastor's job to preach the Word, to teach the people sound doctrine, to exhort them to Holy living, to educate the members of the church with respect to content of that church's constitution and by-laws, its purpose statement, and its vision statement, etc.

When you have a doctrinally solid church constitution and by-laws, a clear purpose statement derived from Scripture, and a cogent vision statement (which reminds the people of the church's purpose) you have all the tools you need to deal with people trying to tell you how to run the church. However, the key is to first teach the members sound doctrine. Then when someone comes along with a suggestion you can ask them to explain how that suggestion fits within your church's clearly defined constitution and by-laws, purpose statement, and how it meets one or more of the goals of the purpose statement. Then ask if they can explain their suggestion within the scope of the church's vision statement. Finally, do as you suggested above and tell them if they can demonstrate that their suggestion is doctrinally sound and helps to achieve the church's defined purpose (from the purpose statement), and are able to communicate the suggestion to the congregation within the scope of the vision statement, then they (acting under the pastor's supervision and authority) are free to head up putting the suggestion into place. If they or the suggestion fail in any one of these points its not for your church and the idea is discarded. </font>[/QUOTE]I did almost as you suggested. But it put me up against the SBC folks in the mind of the volunteers. Some of those volunteers just bought everything they heard because it was SBC. On one occassion I told the deacons we should pull our money out of the Baptist Foundation of Arizona. I did not believe it was wise nor biblical to be investing money in things as a church monies that were given for the ministry and the running of the church. The money was not guaranteed in the BFA. It was told to us that it was being used to start chruches. But when I spoke with one of the pastors he told me it was just like borrowing money from a bank. They were loaned the money and expected to repay the loan. But when I talked with the deacons they accused me of being anti-SBC. I told them why it was wrong and later the church lost almost all of its money except that which was in a local bank. The BFA was being investigated by the Securities and Exchange commission and I didn't even know it. The deacons trusted the state SBC and assumed I should too.

If the churches are autonomous why does the SBC spend so much time on their agenda and promoting it. I see so much of Nashville promoting a new Bible and new programs. How about teaching people to disciple others. It doesn't cost much money to spend time with people as Jesus did teaching them to walk with God. As James might say it's not so much about talking as doing.

 

I'm afraid that I don't follow your question here. What is the SBC promoting that diminishes the autonomy of the local church?

Lifeway is a business. Likewise, so is B&H Publishers. It is their purpose to sell the materials that they produce and stock.

That is the responsibility of the the local church and individual Christians (Matt. 28:19-20; Eph. 4:11-12). Granted, this is another reason why Lifeway and B&H promote various Bibles, discipleship programs, and other materials. In this way they come alongside the local church and seek to meet the need for discipleship materials. However, the suff is not free and those who wish to use it have to buy it.