Frustrated and Disconnected

By now it should be obvious that I have fallen well short of my goal of posting on a more regular basis. Needless to say, the events surrounding the passing of my dad a few weeks ago kept me away from blogging. Once again I want to thank everyone for your prayers and words of encouragement during that difficult time.

It's not just the situation with my dad that has kept me away from blogging. Truth be told, part of the reason I haven't been active in posting or even commenting lately is that I'm feeling a bit disconnected from things right now. I wasn't able to make it to the conference on the Holy Spirit, and I won't be in San Antonio in June. Since I am not pastoring at the present time (and haven't for nearly a year), I'm not really drawn toward discussions related to church leadership or other topics of interest primarily to pastors. And frankly, I've been in a bit of a spiritual dry spell lately. I simply cannot understand why God would give me a gift and a passion for preaching and teaching but not give me an opportunity to utilize them. Going through the search process this time around has given me more of a negative attitude toward the institutional church, as I perceive that many (if not most) of our churches are like Samuel was when God sent him to the house of Jesse to anoint Saul's successor---interested mostly in human standards regarding one's qualifications.

Despite my feeling frustrated and disconnected at times, I'm not planning on going anywhere. In some ways, for me to stop blogging would be an acknowledgment that I don't really expect God to put me in a place to use the gifts and passion He has given me. However, I'm foolish enough to believe that if God calls someone to a particular ministry He will give that person an opportunity to carry out that ministry---even if the person doesn't have a seminary degree and 5 years of experience in a growing church!

The Long Goodbye

I apologize to my readers for my long absence from the blogosphere, but March was the worst and most emotionally draining month of my life thus far. With all of the personal difficulties and even tragedies that I have been through over the past few weeks, following the issues surrounding the Southern Baptist Convention has not been a high priority for me.

After almost a month of refusing to eat, my dad, Richard Augustus Sweatman, passed away around 7:15 Monday morning, March 26, at the age of 78. Dad was a private man, so I won't share in such a public forum a lot of details about what happened. Basically, after a couple of incidents where he fell or could not stand up on his own, he simply decided he was ready to go. Despite all of our efforts to get him to change his mind, he would not eat or let anyone take him to the hospital. Over the next couple of weeks Dad told us where his insurance policies and important papers were and that he loved us and was proud of us. While I am thankful that we had plenty of time to say everything we wanted and needed to say (especially since my wife and I live in another state and could visit him only on the weekends), it was difficult watching the strongest man I ever knew gradually waste away by his own choosing. My brother was finally able to get him to the hospital on March 18, but by then it was too late. That Friday he was taken from the hospital to a hospice center, where he peacefully died Monday.

In addition to losing my dad, I had the honor---and the responsibility---of leading his funeral service. In keeping with his wishes, we had a private graveside service with family and a few close friends. Leading that service was the hardest thing I have ever done, but I am glad that I did it. I don't believe that anyone outside of his family could have adequately described my dad. I shared about how Dad was his own man: a quiet man who led by example rather than by words; a private man who even as a young boy preferred to go fishing in the swamps of South Carolina by himself rather than hang around with other kids; a working man who did not retire from his job as a construction foreman at 65 but worked as long as his body let him; a strong man both physically (continuing to work about 2 or 3 hours after his lung collapsed) and especially in his will. I then gave a brief summation of the gospel and closed with the Apostle Paul's words from 1 Cor. 15 about the hope of the resurrection we have through Christ.

Please continue to pray for our family, especially my mom and my sister, who lived at home with Dad. While this has been hard on all of us, they were the ones who took care of him every day.

Are We Going to Build Bridges or Burn Them? (Part 2)

In Part 1 I began this series by listing some of the various types of diversity found within the Southern Baptist Convention. We are a very diverse people demographically, in style and methodology, and even in certain areas of doctrine. Many Southern Baptists see this diversity as a strength, showing the world that even though we differ in many ways we can come together in unity because of Jesus. They espouse building bridges to connect these diverse people and groups in fellowship and cooperation for the sake of missions and evangelism. Other Southern Baptists believe such diversity---in style, methodology, and especially in doctrine---is a threat to our Baptist identity and heritage. They advocate separating from those who differ from them in one or more of these respects, a path that I refer to as bridge burning. In this post I want to focus on three Southern Baptist leaders who support building bridges---Thom Rainer, Morris Chapman, and Bill Curtis.

My use of the bridge metaphor is based on an article written by Lifeway president Thom Rainer after he spoke at the Baptist Identity Conference at Union University. In this article, Rainer mentions a number of the doctrines over which Southern Baptists disagree and basically says we should have fellowship and cooperate with one another in spite of our disagreement on these issues:

I am a part of a denomination that has many tracks but few bridges. And if we don’t start building some bridges quickly, God’s hand of blessing may move beyond us...

I spoke last week at the Baptist Identity Conference at Union University in Jackson, Tenn. From an outsider’s perspective, one might conclude that the crowd was like-minded. After all, it was a gathering of mostly Southern Baptists.

But I knew better. Present were five-point Calvinists and others who would not affirm all five points. Also in attendance were cessationists and non-cessationists, people with differing views of women in ministry, bloggers, and print-media writers. There were some who thought leaving "Baptist" out of a church’s name was wrong; and there were others had already taken the denominational label out of their church’s name. The views on eschatology held by the attendees were many.

It was a diverse group of Southern Baptists indeed.

I spoke to many people before and after my formal presentation. One person commented to me, "Dr. Rainer, I better leave you before people start wondering why we are speaking with each other." Admittedly, his comment was meant to be humorous. But it did have a sting of truth in it. The labels had already been applied. The sides had been chosen. And you had better be careful about the side you chose or the people with whom you associated.

I reject that line of thinking.

As far as I knew, everyone at that conference was my brother or sister in Christ. As far as I knew, everyone was a Bible believer. I refuse to let labels keep me from building bridges...

I understand the risk I am taking by writing these words. But silence is not an option. I must be about building bridges...Though I am a fallible and sinful person, I will seek God’s power to stay true to the following:

1. I stand firm on the inerrant Word of God. I support without reservation the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

2. Though I may disagree with some on secondary and tertiary issues, I will not let those points of disagreement tear down bridges of relationships with brothers and sisters in Christ.

3. I will seek to join with those who will work together on the common causes of missions, evangelism and the health of the local church.

4. I will seek God’s will in prayer before I write or speak a word of disagreement against another brother or sister in Christ or even a non-Christian. I will seek to see the plank in my own eye before pointing out the splinter in another person’s eye. I will follow the truths of Matthew 18 when I feel that I need to confront a brother or sister in Christ.

5. I will spend more time rejoicing in the Lord (Phil 4:4).

6. I will seek God’s power to have a more gentle and Christlike spirit (Phil 4:5).

7. I will pray that the lost and the unchurched world will know me by my Christlike love.

Such is my commitment.

If God so leads, I invite you to join me in building bridges.

Another SBC leader who would like to see more bridge building in the SBC is Executive Committee president Morris Chapman. One several occasions, most recently at the Executive Committee meeting February 19, Chapman has made it clear that, while we must always remain vigilant against those who would seek to undermine or deny the truthfulness and authority of Scripture, the time has come for Southern Baptists to stop fighting and cooperate for the sake of the Kingdom. He issued a clarion call for all Southern Baptist conservatives to come together in his message "The Fundamentals of Cooperating Conservatives," delivered at the 2004 Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis:

We must never cease to be vigilant against heresy. This is always the task of faithful Christians. However, crusades cannot last forever. Again and again we have debated vigorously that the conservative resurgence was theological, not political; that our objective was doctrinal purity, not political control.

If this is true, the crusade phase of the conservative resurgence has passed. The stated goals have been achieved. The battle has been won. Now there are other tasks at hand. We cannot linger at the base camp of biblical authority. We are a people who not only believe the Book; we are compelled to live by the Book. Biblical concepts such as surrender, sacrifice, righteousness, and holiness must consume our hearts and minds. We must plant churches on almost every corner of every block in this nation. And we must take the gospel to the ends of the earth. This is our biblical mandate. This is our commission.

In the spring of 1990 after it was announced I would be nominated for president of the Convention, I pledged to Southern Baptists that I would “enlarge the tent, lengthen the cords, and strengthen the stakes,” those same words stated in Isaiah 54:2

My promise was to all Southern Baptists who believe in the absolute authority of God’s Word. Then as now, there were those who rejected biblical fidelity and have excluded themselves from the historic convictions of Southern Baptists. They have excluded themselves from the pledge I made...

A mistake of some fundamentalist movements in the past has been the belief of the adherents that to be right with doctrine is to be right with the Lord. True righteousness was too easily discarded in favor of a type of dogmatism that was stifling and demoralizing to other Christians. In other words, right doctrine was equated to righteous living. They are not one and the same...

It is the sin of Pharisaism when good people, whose theology and ministry are above reproach, are slandered, discredited, or ostracized simply because they refuse to blindly follow particular political posturing. Innuendos, unfounded rumors, sly winks and nods are as deadly as an assassin’s bullet and usually as ungodly.

Could Southern Baptists fall into the error of Pharisaism? Could we ever, while priding ourselves on orthodox beliefs, be out of fellowship with the Living God and the true saints of God? The threat is real. I am concerned…now that we have affirmed by vigorous endeavor that Southern Baptists are people of the Book, that we will develop a censorious, exclusivistic, intolerant spirit. If this occurs, we will be the poorer for it. It will not only result in narrower participation in denominational life, a shallower pool of wisdom and giftedness in our enterprises, and a shrinking impact upon the world, but we will be in the unenviable position of being right on doctrine but wrong with God.

NAMB trustee chairman Bill Curtis is another prominent SBC leader who understands the importance of building bridges. In an interview with South Carolina pastor Chadwick Ivester, Curtis encourages Southern Baptists to unite together within the boundaries of the BFM 2000 and cooperate for the sake of missions and evangelism [material in brackets is mine]:

As it stands, there seems to be two major groups in the SBC, and they view this situation differently. Group A fears the contemporary worship movement and the increasing number of pastors who are Reformed [or those who have a private prayer language or who believe the Bible does not require total abstinence from alcohol or who believe...]. Group B fears a further "narrowing" of the convention based upon personal preferences and generational methodologies. What you have is two different groups looking at the same issues from totally different sides. And that’s where, for Southern Baptists, a choice must be made: Are we going to make preference issues a test of fellowship within our convention? Or are we going to say, "No, we have a document which serves as a statement of our collective beliefs called the Baptist Faith & Message 2000. We’re going to let that be the document that helps us define who we are. And when there are opposing positions which can exist within the confines of that document, we’re not going to break fellowship over those issues but move ahead together to fulfill our primary mission as a convention—fulfilling the Great Commission." ...

In the long term, however, our ability to sustain that missionary effort will be dependent upon the degree to which we, as a people, can work together. My concern is with the potential fallout from a further narrowing the SBC tent. The choice to limit cooperation even further will affect our capacity to support missionaries and to fulfill the Great Commission as a convention.

Thom Rainer, Morris Chapman, and Bill Curtis speak for many Southern Baptists when they call on us to join together in spite of our differences in style, methodology, and doctrine. They believe that cooperation in missions and evangelism is important enough that we should focus more on those things that unite us (missions & evangelism, the BFM) than on those things that divide us (worship styles, methodology, or specific interpretations on issues such as the sign gifts, eschatology, and soteriology). This does not mean that these men, and others who favor a bridge building approach, are soft on doctrine. I would be highly surprised if these men did not have strong positions on each of these contentious issues. However, they understand that, while all doctrine is important, there is a difference between essential doctrines and nonessential doctrines. They recognize that there is a difference between issues where the Bible is absolutely clear and those where the Bible is less clear. And they understand that the primary reason the SBC exists is not to define what Baptists believe on every single issue, but to facilitate cooperation among autonomous churches so that we can more effectively and efficiently take the gospel of Jesus Christ to all peoples.

In Part 3 I will look at some SBC leaders who, in my opinion, seek to lead us down the path of burning bridges with those who differ from the supposed majority view of Southern Baptists on a number of issues not addressed in the Baptist Faith & Message.

Are We Going to Build Bridges or Burn Them? (Part 1)

By now it should be obvious to anyone familiar with the Southern Baptist Convention that we are a diverse group. People from a variety of races, ethnicities, and languages make up our convention. Our churches range in size from a few people to several thousand people. We have churches in sparsely populated rural areas, small towns, suburban neighborhoods, inner cities, and cosmopolitan city centers. Our churches meet in small frame buildings, brick edifices with steeples and stained glass, cathedrals of stone, modernistic prefabricated structures, schools, movie theaters, individual homes, and almost anyplace else where people can gather. In our churches we sing hymns, contemporary praise songs, musically complex anthems, Southern gospel songs, ancient psalms, and many other styles of music accompanied by piano and organ, rock-n-roll band, orchestra, 5-piece country or bluegrass band, recorded music, and even a cappella. Our pastors wear suits, polo shirts and khakis, Hawaiian flowery shirts, jeans, even t-shirts and shorts. We have pastors with multiple doctorates, pastors who did not finish high school, and everything in between. Our churches have Sunday school and home cell groups, RAs/GAs/Acteens/Mission Friends, AWANA, and TeamKID. We reach out to others through weekly visitation, GROW, FAITH, relational evangelism, revival meetings, community service ministries, VBS, seeker-sensitive worship services, the NET, and many other programs, or even without a program.

It's not only in areas of style, methodology, or programming that we are diverse. We are also quite diverse in doctrine and theology. While we have a shared doctrinal core as articulated in the Baptist Faith & Message (and we have some disagreements over that), on other issues Southern Baptists have a wide range of beliefs. We have Calvinists and Arminians, cessasionists and continualists, every type of millennialist as well as some preterists, KJV-only folks and those who read The Message, those who believe the Bible allows drinking alcohol in moderation and those who believe the Bible demands total abstinence, those who engage the culture and those who try to separate from the culture, complementarians and egalitarians, Landmarkers and ecumenists, and so forth. On most of these issues Southern Baptists can be found at the extremes as well as all points in between.

While many of us view such diversity as an essential part of the unity to which Jesus calls His people, others are uncomfortable with or even suspicious of the diversity that now exists within the SBC. Many of them view changes in style, methods, or programming as compromising with the world. Some believe the church should be a refuge from the surrounding culture or simply wish to recreate the world they grew up in. Others believe that theological diversity inevitably results in syncretism or theological liberalism. However, some degree of diversity is unavoidable. We live in a society comprised of various subcultures; to reach people in all of these subcultures requires us to have cultural diversity within our churches. And like it or not, the SBC is going to have to tolerate a degree of theological diversity within its ranks if we are going to continue to play a vibrant role in God's redemptive mission. The Bible is not absolutely clear on every single point of doctrine. Because the Bible comes to us across wide barriers of time, culture, and language there are things within it that we cannot understand with certainty. Regarding such things, it is not uncommon for people who affirm the truthfulness, inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture to use sound exegetical and hermeneutical principles and come up with different interpretations of these issues.

We can respond to the diversity within the SBC in one of two ways. We can build bridges to join with those who differ from us in matters of style, methodology, and even theology (within the bounds of the BFM), or we can burn bridges with those who differ from us in these areas. People on both sides sincerely believe they are being faithful to the cause of Christ. Within the leadership of the SBC are advocates both approaches.

In Part 2 I will focus on some of the leaders in our convention who are in favor of building bridges.

SBC Executive Committee: "BFM 'Sufficient Guide' for Trustees"

During its meeting earlier this week, the SBC Executive Committee adopted a statement affirming that the Baptist Faith & Message is a "sufficient guide" for Southern Baptist entity trustees in establishing doctrinal policies. The Baptist Press article announcing this development states in part:

The Executive Committee, in response to a BF&M-related motion at last year’s annual meeting in Greensboro, N.C., stated that it "acknowledges the Baptist Faith and Message is not a creed, or a complete statement of our faith, nor final or infallible, nevertheless we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention." [Emphasis is mine.]

It remains to be seen what effect, if any, this statement will have when the IMB Board of Trustees revisit the policies on private prayer language and baptism at their March or May meeting. They are already on record as declaring, "While the Baptist Faith and Message represents a general confession of Southern Baptist beliefs related to Biblical teachings on primary doctrinal and social issues, the IMB retains the prerogative and responsibility of further defining the parameters of doctrinal beliefs and practices of its missionaries who serve Southern Baptists with accountability to this board."

It is my hope and prayer that the IMB and all of our other entities will heed the Executive Committee's statement and repeal any doctrinal requirements other than the BFM. If they refuse to comply voluntarily, the convention needs to require that they do so. Not being an expert on the SBC Constitution & Bylaws, I do not know if this can be done without revising the bylaws. But even if the bylaws have to be revised, we need to ensure that all of our entities are operating according to the same doctrinal standard. No Southern Baptist who is in agreement with our general doctrinal statement should be rejected by any of our entities because he or she does not share a particular interpretation that has not been officially adopted by the SBC.

Sheri Klouda: "I Was Let Go 'Because I'm Female'"

I encourage you to read Sheri Klouda's interview with WFAA-TV in Dallas/Fort Worth. In the interview she makes some strong statements about the events surrounding her departure from Southwestern Seminary. The following statements, if true, make me even more outraged about what happened and the way that it happened:

"I was told that I was a mistake that trustees needed to fix," she said. "Those are the exact words." And she said she was told she could no longer teach at the seminary for one simple reason. "Because I am a female," she said...

But Dr. Klouda said she was deceived as well by Seminary President Paige Patterson. "Initially, I felt like Dr. Patterson lied to me as far as his intentions," she said. In 2003, Dr. Klouda said she went to Dr. Patterson for reassurance after he had taken over the seminary. Even though Klouda got her degree from Southwestern and had been teaching there for three years, she said she was troubled by Patterson's strict interpretation of the passage from Timothy. "He told me I had nothing to worry about, his exact words," she said. But two years later, she had plenty to worry about. She said while no one challenged her teaching, Dr. Patterson said she was no longer wanted at the seminary as a teacher.

Whether or not you believe that it is proper for women to teach men theology and biblical languages, the issues raised by Klouda's statements should be troubling. If it is true that Paige Patterson misled Sheri Klouda into believing that she would continue in her tenure-track position at Southwestern, then his ability to effectively lead the seminary is compromised. If it is true that a seminary trustee or administrator told Klouda that she was a "mistake that trustees needed to fix," we should be concerned that our leaders are so insensitive to the human aspect of this situation. And should these allegations turn out to be false, we in the SBC should be concerned as to why so many Southern Baptists found such allegations to be plausible.

Someone Who Gets It!

I strongly encourage those of you who are interested in the future of the Southern Baptist Convention to read Chadwick Ivester's interview with NAMB trustee chairman Bill Curtis. In reading this interview I found myself thinking, "Here's a denominational leader who really gets it!" With a clarity that is rarely seen among our convention's leaders, Curtis lays out THE issue that we as Southern Baptists must deal with [material in brackets is mine]:

As it stands, there seems to be two major groups in the SBC, and they view this situation differently. Group A fears the contemporary worship movement and the increasing number of pastors who are Reformed [or those who have a private prayer language or who believe the Bible does not require total abstinence from alcohol or who believe...]. Group B fears a further "narrowing" of the convention based upon personal preferences and generational methodologies. What you have is two different groups looking at the same issues from totally different sides. And that’s where, for Southern Baptists, a choice must be made: Are we going to make preference issues a test of fellowship within our convention? Or are we going to say, "No, we have a document which serves as a statement of our collective beliefs called the Baptist Faith & Message 2000. We’re going to let that be the document that helps us define who we are. And when there are opposing positions which can exist within the confines of that document, we’re not going to break fellowship over those issues but move ahead together to fulfill our primary mission as a convention—fulfilling the Great Commission." ...

In the long term, however, our ability to sustain that missionary effort will be dependent upon the degree to which we, as a people, can work together. My concern is with the potential fallout from a further narrowing the SBC tent. The choice to limit cooperation even further will affect our capacity to support missionaries and to fulfill the Great Commission as a convention.

I'm pretty sure that on some of the controversial doctrinal issues being debated within the SBC Bill Curtis and I have totally different views. But we both agree that on these issues of secondary importance---which are not addressed in the BFM 2000---we can hold differing views and still cooperate for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission. If more leaders like Bill Curtis stand up and speak out, the Southern Baptist Convention may have a bright future after all.

Sheri Klouda: "'Tis a Puzzlement"

In today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram, there is an article by former Southwestern Seminary professor Sheri Klouda in which she discusses some of the feelings and questions she still has about her departure from Southwestern. In the article she says that, while not "brittle and full of malice," she is still "puzzled" about the chain of events that culminated in her forced [my word, not hers] departure from the seminary.

Here are some of the questions Dr. Klouda still has [all material in quotes comes directly from the article]:

1. How could Southwestern's trustees (many of whom are still serving) and then-president elect her to the seminary's faculty if they did not believe her election to be in line with the BFM 2000 (which she "proudly and publicly" signed)?
2. "Is it not fair and right to allow a female professor, hired under the same terms as other faculty members, to undergo the same tenure evaluation process and receive objective affirmation or denial on the basis of her teaching abilities, professional development, scholarly achievements and publications, collegiality and service to the students?"
3. If hiring her was a momentary lapse in judgment or a relaxation of "well defined parameters of objective truth" (as at least one trustee has stated), why did they want her to leave "unobtrusively" and give the impression that the departure were her own idea?
4. "Why didn't someone acknowledge the tremendous financial and emotional burden placed on my family through no fault of my own? Why not, as the Scriptures teach, make right the wrong? After seven years of dedicated service, shouldn't I at least receive an apology?"
   

Dr. Klouda is not the only one who is puzzled and has questions.

(HT: Ben Cole)

A Word from the Field

In the midst of all of our discussions, debates, and even arguments over doctrinal parameters and policies in the Southern Baptist Convention, let us not forget that our words, our tone, and the decisions that are made are affecting the work and the morale of our missionaries. Listen to this statement from Nomad, a missionary serving with the IMB in the 10/40 window:

I can't help but to be discouraged to be overseas and know that my supporters are at odds with one another over things that mostly likely don't have an eternal significance. The very people who are supposed to be praying, giving, and participating, are instead spending all of their time arguing. Looks like Satan has pulled one over on us and is making us think this "stuff" is more important than seeing a lost world reconciled to God. May God have mercy on us!

Let us all remember that, no matter what side of these issues we may find ourselves on, the reason the SBC exists is to support missions work cooperatively through our prayers, our giving, and our service. We do not have to agree on every jot and tittle in order to cooperate. Is doctrine important? Absolutely! Are there points of doctrine that we must take an uncompromising stance on in order to be faithful to the gospel? Certainly! Are there points of doctrine that are not worth arguing over if such arguing hinders our cooperation in missions? You'd better believe it!

Now I'm enough of a realist to understand that we will not all agree on which doctrines belong in which category, but I strongly urge all of us to ask ourselves the following question about each doctrinal issue under discussion: Would I be comfortable standing before God and telling Him that I worked to keep someone off the mission field (or made their journey to the field more difficult) on the basis of this point of doctrine?

I'm also enough of an idealist to believe that we who claim to be born again can discuss, debate, and disagree in a manner that does not hurt the morale of our missionaries or, even worse, bring reproach on the name of Christ in the eyes of the world. While there are occasions where it is necessary to rebuke a fellow believer, most of the personal statements that are being made in these discussions are not biblical rebukes; they are character attacks, which may be the norm for politics inside the Beltway but have no place in the Kingdom of God. I would guess that it is the tone of our discussions, more so than the content, that is causing so much of the discouragement and disillusionment we are beginning to see among our missionaries and missional minded Southern Baptists. Let the discussion continue, but let's make sure that both what we say and how we say it reflect the One to whom we belong.

Private Prayer Language, the Cooperative Program, and Missions

Over the past week or so there have been some intense discussions regarding the issue of cooperation within the Southern Baptist Convention. At the heart of many of these discussions has been the issue of speaking in tongues, especially the practice commonly known as private prayer language (PPL). As most of you are well aware, in late 2005 the trustees of the International Mission Board established a controversial policy disqualifying anyone who practices a PPL from serving as a missionary with the IMB. Complicating the matter is the fact that for years IMB president Jerry Rankin has openly acknowledged that he has a PPL. Further complicating the matter is the fact that many Southern Baptists believe that there is a biblical basis for PPL, even if they do not practice PPL themselves.

I believe that this controversy over the issue of PPL poses a significant danger to the Cooperative Program, and thus to the effectiveness of Southern Baptist missions work. As increasing numbers of Southern Baptists are rejected as missionary candidates because they have a PPL, there is a strong possibility that their churches may choose to redirect some or even all of their financial support for missions either to support these candidates directly or to support another entity that welcomes these candidates. It is also possible that Southern Baptist churches in which the church leaders or a significant number of members believe in or have a PPL may see the IMB policies as a message saying, "If you have a PPL, you are not welcome to participate in the one thing that most defines what the SBC is all about." Even if no one from these churches applies to serve with the IMB, it is entirely plausible that these churches may decide that if the IMB doesn't want people like them to serve as missionaries then it doesn't make a lot of sense to send money to the IMB through the CP.

There is another way that this whole matter of PPL could negatively affect the CP. To be honest, I had never considered this possibility, but it was mentioned in some comments on Wade Burleson's blog. In one comment Geoff Baggett said, "The moment that someone makes the decision to send SBC missionary representatives to the field, knowing that they are active practitioners of glossolalia (even in private), there will be an instantaneous disappearance of CP dollars. The big “sucking” sound. The money will be cut off." (To be fair to Geoff, he made it clear that his church would likely not react in such a way.) In a later comment Peter Lumpkins added, "I have a hunch that, should such views become widespread, our Baptist family would likewise exercise their autonomous right, and unfortunately, the CP would probably be transformed almost overnight into a lamentable, empty hull, gutted of any real likeness to its former missionary glory." (Again, Peter said nothing to indicate that his church would curtail its support for the CP in such a case.)

So if prohibiting people with a PPL from serving with the IMB threatens the CP, and if allowing people with a PPL to serve with the IMB threatens the CP, what should the SBC do? The pragmatic solution would be to do an analysis to determine which option will be less damaging to the CP and pursue it, but somehow I get the feeling that God doesn't want us to make such a decision on the basis of how it affects the bottom line. My personal opinion is that the IMB should rescind its policy and allow otherwise qualified candidates who have a PPL to serve, just as they did for all the years preceding the adoption of the 2005 policy. Of course, a cynic might say that I support such a position because I believe that the biblical support for PPL is stronger than the arguments against it. I would surmise that those who believe that the Bible makes no allowance for PPL would prefer for the policy to remain in force. Thus, we are at an impasse, one that could divide the SBC, result in significant reductions in CP giving, and seriously undermine SBC missions work if it is not resolved. The $64,000 question, or I guess in this case the $200 million question, is how can we resolve this impasse and prevent the CP and our missions work from being irreparably harmed?

Say It Ain't So!

After 15 very successful years, Bill Cowher has officially resigned as head coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers. While most of the experts, and even his own players, expected this to happen, I still held out hope that this moment would not come at this time. In his press conference, Cowher said he was leaving to spend more time with his family. For someone who displayed great emotion throughout his coaching career, Cowher didn't display a whole lot of emotion during his press conference.

Bill Cowher is one of the great coaches in NFL history. Overall his record was 161-99-1, for a .619 winning percentage (higher than Tom Landry, Paul Brown, Bill Walsh, and his predecessor Chuck Noll). In 15 years his teams made the playoffs 10 times, won 8 division titles, appeared in 6 AFC championship games, played in 2 Super Bowls, and won Super Bowl XL. During his tenure Cowher averaged 10 regular season wins per season; since 1992, the Steelers have more regular season wins (149) than any other NFL team.

Here are some interesting tidbits about Cowher's coaching career. Cowher won both his first game (defeating the Houston Oilers 29-24 on September 6, 1992) and his last game (defeating the Cincinnati Bengals 23-17 in overtime on December 31, 2006); both were road games. Cowher's first loss came on September 27, 1992, a 17-3 loss to the Green Bay Packers in Brett Favre's first start as the Packers' quarterback. Cowher led the Steelers to the playoffs in his first 6 season; Paul Brown is the only other coach to have done so.

In his press conference Cowher was careful to say that he was resigning rather than retiring, raising speculation that he might return to coaching after the 2007 season. After all, he is only 49 years old. I just can't bring myself to imagine Bill Cowher standing on any other sideline. He wasn't just the coach of the Steelers; he was the face (or the jaw) of the organization. Cowher is a Pittsburgh native and was a Steelers fan long before becoming a player or coach. After working for the Rooney family, I can't imagine that he would ever feel comfortable working for another owner. And throughout the long history of the NFL, few coaches who had great success with one team approached a comparable level of success with subsequent teams.

Where do the Steelers go from here? Early speculation is focused on Steeler assistants Russ Grimm and Ken Whisenhunt, both of whom are being courted by other teams. Following the pattern of Cowher and Noll, the Steelers will probably focus on a pro assistant coach who also played in the NFL. It will be interesting, because the Rooneys don't have a lot of experience hiring head coaches; this is only the third time since 1969 that the Steelers will be hiring a head coach. Of course, that means that they do a pretty good job of hiring head coaches. While Cowher will be missed, I expect that the Steelers will end up doing just fine.

Incidentally, Cowher's departure means that the coach of my other favorite NFL team, Jeff Fisher of the Tennessee Titans, is now the longest tenured NFL head coach with one team, having been the Titans' coach since 1994. If this season is any indication of the future, Fisher will probably surpass Cowher's 15 years with the same team. Given Titans owner Bud Adams' history with his coaches, this would be truly remarkable.

A Call to Come Together

In a statement released today through Baptist Press, SBC president Frank Page issued a call for all Southern Baptists to seek reconciliation on "divisive issues" and focus on the very reason the SBC exists---cooperation in evangelism and missions:

“I believe that God’s people are more than tired of fighting among ourselves,” Page said. “I sense an overwhelming uprising of God’s people who say that it is time to get on with the issues of missions and evangelism. While we will not ignore our differences, we must pull together in a cause that is greater than any of our own agendas, opinions and interests.

“I believe that God’s people want to get on with Kingdom work.”

Southern Baptists have divergent views on a number of issues, including the sign gifts, ecclesiology, soteriology, eschatology, the role of women in the church, and the use of alcohol. This should not surprise us, as there is an old saying to the effect that whenever you get two Baptists together you end up with three different opinions on something. Because the Bible is not crystal clear to us on every single matter of doctrine, we are going to have differing views on some doctrines. This is OK. This may come as a shock to some, but we can disagree on some issues and still enjoy fellowship and work closely together within our convention as partners in carrying out the Great Commission.

Contrary to what some people seem to think, such cooperation does NOT inevitably result in a theological free-for-all where we end up including pedobaptists, sprinklers, Pentecostals, or even Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and/or universalists within the SBC. Cooperation does not mean that we establish no doctrinal boundaries. Cooperation does require, however, that we limit such boundaries to those issues that are clearly taught by Scripture and/or are core defining doctrines (not necessarily traditional historical beliefs) of Baptists. It is even possible to cooperate in the cause of evangelism and missions while debating our doctrinal differences.

As the various doctrinal differences within the SBC become more pronounced, we are going to have to make a decision as a convention. Are we going to follow the path of demanding doctrinal conformity on biblically unclear and/or relatively minor issues, or are we going to come together for the purpose of evangelism and missions and agree to disagree on such issues? There are many who would take us down each path. I stand with Frank Page in urging Southern Baptists to choose the latter path, for the sake of the Kingdom.

What Is Your Favorite Christmas Tradition?

Practically everyone who celebrates Christmas has over the years developed certain traditions that enhance the meaningfulness of the season. For some, these traditions are an attempt to reconnect with or recreate memories from childhood. Some establish new Christmas traditions as a way of breaking free from the past. Some develop traditions designed to move their focus from the materialistic and/or consumeristic aspects of the Christmas season to something more important. Regardless of the reason for our traditions, they are a very important part of how we celebrate Christmas.

The first Christmas after we were married, Maria and I established a very special Christmas tradition. In the waning moments of Christmas Eve we turn off all the lights except for those on our Christmas tree, and we just sit there in the dimness thinking about the miracle of Christmas. Sometimes Maria sings a Christmas carol or two; "Silent Night" is usually one of the ones sung. Then at midnight we take the Bible and by the light of the Christmas tree we read aloud the Christmas story from Luke 2 and Matthew 2. Even in the years that we have been away from home and didn't have a tree to provide the ambiance, we always read the Christmas story at midnight. In 12 years of marriage we've never missed a year. This simple tradition allows us to retreat from the busyness of the season, the travel and the hauling of gifts to and from our parents' homes, and focus on what it's all about.

What is the most meaningful Christmas tradition that you and your family have established? What makes this tradition so special or meaningful to you?

Happy (Belated) Anniversary!

It seems hard to believe, but it was just about a year ago (November 23 to be exact) that The View from the Hill made its debut. As I mentioned in my first post, the main reason I set up this blog was that some of the blogs I wanted to comment on required a Blogger account, and I figured if I established an account I might as well go all out and set up a blog.

I could not have begun to imagine everything that has happened as a result of this blog. I have personally debated theological issues with seminary professors and other SBC leaders. I have learned more about SBC missions work over the past year than I had in my previous 20 or so years in Southern Baptist churches. My thinking on a number of issues has changed as I have been challenged to try to set aside the lenses of culture and tradition when studying the Bible. People from all over the United States and even around the world are praying for me as I seek the place where God would have me serve. I have been removed from consideration for the pastorate of at least one church because of what I have written on this blog. I have discovered that there are serious problems that threaten the future of the SBC. And I have met a number of pastors, missionaries, and laypersons who give me confidence that the SBC's greatest days may very well lie ahead. I also got a free Pittsburgh Steelers Super Bowl XL championship t-shirt because of this blog (thanks, Kiki & Doug)!

As much as I enjoy blogging, I must confess that at times I have been tempted to stop operating my own blog. These thoughts usually come when I am feeling sorry for myself because I have worked 3 or 4 hours on a post and only 5 people comment or when I have several days when I sit down and can't think of anything to write about and thus hardly anyone visits my blog. Sometimes I feel like I really don't have anything to contribute to the conversation and that I'm just restating what others have already written. But then I remind myself that I really didn't have any grand expectations when I started this blog, and yet it has resulted in so many good things. I have also been greatly encouraged by the affirming statements that many of my readers, most of whom are far more accomplished than I, have made. I've even been encouraged by the fact that some people go to the trouble of writing to express their disagreement with me!

So despite my occasional bouts of self-pity, this blog will go on. Maybe I'll actually post more regularly. Maybe I'll finally come up with a post that gets 100 comments. Maybe I'll even write a post where the reader won't have to scroll halfway down the page to read the whole thing. OK, probably not, but it never hurts to imagine! Anyway, to everyone who reads this blog, I want to express my gratitude for taking the time to read what I have to say.

What It's All About

The following statement in Baptist Press by Southern Baptist Convention President Frank Page is a clear reminder to Southern Baptists of the reason the SBC exists---to facilitate cooperation among believers and churches so that we can effectively carry the gospel to all peoples. He urges Southern Baptists to focus not on those things that divide us, but to center our attention on the great task that we are all called to.

I am calling for Southern Baptists to renew a passion for a worldwide evangelistic and mission thrust. I believe that God’s Holy Spirit can empower a unified mission movement which truly shares the relevant message of Christ with a lost and dying world and continent. It will not be done as long as Southern Baptists "fuss and fight" among themselves. It will not be done if we seek to promote personal agendas and political initiatives. It will be done only when we---even though we are in varying interest groups---decide that the common unified mission task is our prime agenda!

Amen! May it be so, Lord!

The Two Most Important Issues Facing the Southern Baptist Convention---NOT!!!

There is an article in the Georgia Christian Index about Georgia pastor Bill Harrell, who serves as chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Committee. As he talks about the Executive Committee and the SBC, he mentions two specific issues that he believes must be resolved by the SBC---worship style and Calvinism. I cannot say with certainty that Harrell thinks these are the two most important issues facing the SBC, but the fact that in a major article he chose to mention worship style and Calvinism as "two important issues to solve in our Convention" indicates that they rank high on his list.

The article makes it clear that Harrell does not think very highly of contemporary worship styles. Indeed, he seems to believe that contemporary worship is some sort of threat to the church:

“I am afraid,” Harrell declared, “that the contemporary church movement gets people into a casual mindset, which can lead to a casual mindset toward spiritual things, toward God. People who have lowered the bar to attract the world, who have embraced a non-confrontational approach where sin is concerned in order to attract the world, have become so much like the world that they are losing their witness to the world.”

So, contemporary churches are dangerous because they are casual in style, which can lead to a casual attitude toward God. I suppose this is plausible, but no more plausible than saying that traditional churches are formal, which can lead to worship that is lifeless and ritualistic. Just because something is a possibility does not mean it is a likelihood or a certainty. For the record, in the contemporary services I have attended there has been a great deal of emphasis on the greatness of God and His holiness.

I agree that churches that embrace a "non-confrontational approach where sin is concerned" lose much of their witness. However, Harrell is sorely mistaken if he believes this is a problem only in contemporary churches. The gospel can be watered down in a traditional church just as easily as in a contemporary church. In fact, I personally have been in more traditional churches than contemporary churches where this has happened.

What about this idea of lowering the bar to attract the world? I don't see how having a contemporary style lowers the bar. If God is being worshiped in spirit and in truth, the Word of God is being faithfully proclaimed, and people are having real encounters with God, then the bar has not been lowered, whether the special music is a choral rendition of "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" or a guy with long hair and faded jeans singing an acoustic version of "My Savior, My God." The bar is not about style; it is about substance.

I hope Harrell is not implying that churches should not want to attract people who are of the world. I would think that these are the people we would want to attract. Discussing his church's use of traditional elements such as a choir, orchestra, and singing from the hymnal, Harrell states, "The kind of people we attract are the people who want to go back to church." It is wonderful that this church attracts people who used to attend church. They need to be reached, and many of them relate to the traditional service this church offers. But what about those people who have no church background, who are secular and worldly? Should we not try to attract them, not by offering a watered down gospel, but by creating an environment that relates to them culturally?

Harrell's views on contemporary worship don't really bother me. While I find his worries about contemporary worship to be unfounded, I realize that different people prefer different styles. What DOES concern me, however, is Harrell's apparent belief that there is a proper style of worship that distinguighes Southern Baptists from other believers:

First, concerning the matter of worship style, we must decide what identifies us as Southern Baptists. This will be difficult, because we are autonomous, but I believe our Convention leaders need to make a more definitive statement about how we identify ourselves in worship and who we are as Southern Baptists.”

“We are never going to be homogeneous, never have been, but there are some lines we should never cross as Southern Baptists,” Harrell added. “There must be something distinctive about us or we will lose our identity."

Harrell pays lip service to the autonomy of the local church, but he then goes on to say that convention leaders should decide what constitutes acceptable worship for Southern Baptists. Uhh, when did we as Southern Baptists get bishops? Of course there are lines that we should not cross in worship, but those lines should be based on clear biblical principles. Somehow I get the idea that the lines that Harrell is talking about would be based on certain cultural preferences, traditions, and specific interpretations of Scripture.

Harrell apparently has the same level of respect for Calvinism that he does for contemporary worship. I am not a five-point Calvinist, but I don't believe that "too much of the New Testament must be ignored or radically interpreted to embrace the five points of Calvinism." I have a number of friends and acquaintances who are five-point Calvinists, and I assure you that they do not ignore or radically interpret the New Testament.

Harrell refers to Calvinism as a "problem" within the SBC. I don't understand why so many prominent SBC leaders have such a view of Calvinism. Their disagreement with a point of view does not make that point of view a problem for the convention. Calvinism is a legitimate system of theology that has a solid biblical foundation; it is neither heretical nor unorthodox. Calvinism has always been present in the SBC. In fact, most of the leaders of the SBC in its earliest years were Calvinists.

While I don't see Calvinism as a problem in the SBC, I do find Harrell's proposed solution to be very troubling:

Harrell further explained, “I think the problem of Calvinism in the SBC could be solved if we establish one ground rule. If a man wants to start a Calvinistic church, let him have at it. If a man wants to answer a call to a Calvinistic church he should have the freedom to do that, but that man should not answer a call to a church that is not Calvinistic, neglect to tell them his leanings, and then surreptitiously lead them to become a Calvinistic church. That is not to suggest that all of our Calvinistic friends do that, but when it is done it is divisive and hurtful."

It seems to me that the idea of church autonomy would preclude the establishment of a "ground rule" that interferes in the pastor search process. Harrell offers some good advice, not only as it relates to Calvinism but to other issues as well. However, churches and pastors should be the ones making these decisions; we don't need anyone else making a "ground rule" to govern the process.

In pointing to contemporary worship and Calvinism as two of the main issues that the SBC needs to deal with, Harrell has done the SBC a great favor. Not because these are problems that needs to be dealt with; they are not problems at all. Instead, Harrell has inadvertently pointed to some real issues that the SBC does need to address---the lack of respect for church autonomy, the effort to establish uniformity in practice and in doctrine, the belief that one's own views and preferences are THE right ones for everybody, an excessive focus on preserving a distinctive Southern Baptist identity, the inability to recognize the difference bewteen reaching out to people in a way that is culturally relevant to them and watering down the gospel. These are some of the most important issues facing the Southern Baptist Convention, and our response to these issues will determine the future course of our convention.

Which Road Will We Take?

Over the past year it has become obvious that not all Southern Baptists share the same position on every matter of doctrine. I suspect that this has always been true, but some people seem to have been genuinely surprised when they learned that there are Southern Baptists who are Calvinists, who believe that all of the New Testament spiritual gifts are valid today, who accept symbolic post-conversion immersions from non-Baptist churches, who do not believe that taking a drink of alcohol is a sin, who accept leadership by a plurality of elders, etc. Many, and probably most, of the Southern Baptists who hold these views also affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, support the Cooperative Program, and are grateful for the Conservative Resurgence. Basically, they are committed, conservative Southern Baptists. However, for some people these things are not enough to define one as a Southern Baptist; one must also subscribe to a particular interpretation on a whole host of issues not addressed in the BFM, including some of the ones listed above.

There is a strong segment within the Southern Baptist Convention that seeks to exclude, to varying degrees, people who do not subscribe to a certain interpretation on such issues as the ones listed above. Typically this exclusion is manifested in policies that disqualify Southern Baptists who hold such views from service or employment with some SBC entities. The policies passed by the trustees of the International Mission Board in November 2005 and the statement adopted by the trustees of Southwestern Seminary earlier this week are recent examples of this type of exclusion. Now, I'm sure that the trustees of these entities are more than happy to accept money from people and/or churches who hold to such views, but they do not want these people serving with them.

While many, but certainly not all, SBC leaders support the exclusion of these Southern Baptists from various types of denominational employment or service, there are some folks who apparently would like to see these people leave the SBC. Here are a couple of quotes that seem to reflect such a sentiment:

• Paige Patterson, quoted in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram---"I have opposed [speaking in tongues] for all of these years because I think it's an erroneous interpretation of the Bible," he said. "Southern Baptists traditionally have stood against what we feel like are the excesses of the charismatic movement. All we're doing is restating where we've always been."

  Baptists are "the most intense advocates of religious liberty," Patterson said, defending the right of other Christians to believe in speaking in tongues.

  "But don't wear a Yankee uniform when you play for the Mets," he said.

• Ben Stratton, in a comment on Art Rogers' blog---I stand with our Baptist forefathers and say that there is no place in Southern Baptist life for pastors or churches that believe in speaking in tongues, either publicly or privately.

While I try to refrain from putting words into the mouths of others (not always with success), I believe these statements speak for themselves. The implied message seems to be, "If you believe that speaking in tongues is a biblically valid practice, we don't want you in the Southern Baptist Convention." Nevermind the facts that conservative evangelical scholars do not agree exactly on whether "tongues" refers only to known human languages or to an entirely unknown/unhuman language, that there is no direct biblical statement that any spiritual gifts would cease before the Lord's return, that Paul said he rejoiced that he spoke in tongues more than any of the Corinthian believers, that the Bible specifically says not to forbid speaking in tongues, and that the BFM never even mentions the subject. Despite all this, some people have determined that all speaking in tongues is unbiblical and thus has no place in the SBC.

For a denomination that historically has championed the priesthood of the believer/all believers it seems unbelievable that certain individuals or groups would presume to declare that the interpretation they favor is THE interpretation that every Southern Baptist must hold to in order to be fully accepted in denominational life. It is even more remarkable that Southern Baptists have allowed them to do so. Does the priesthood of the believer/all believers allow us to interpret the Bible any way we see fit? Of course not. There are a number of core beliefs that define us as Southern Baptists. That is why we have the BFM---to list those doctrines that we as Southern Baptists share in common and that define us. While not every Southern Baptist, myself included, fully agrees with every clause in the BFM we accept it as the defining statement of what Southern Baptists believe. The way I see it, if the BFM does not address a specific issue then we have freedom to interpret what the Bible says about that issue and still be welcome in Southern Baptist denominational life. If we are going to exclude people from service because of their doctrinal views, we as a convention should be the ones making that decision by amending the BFM. That way there is no uncertainty about what THE Southern Baptist position on an issue is.

We have reached a point in the SBC where we are going to have to decide once and for all which road we are going to take when it comes to dealing with differences of interpretation on issues not covered by the BFM. We can continue down the road of excluding those who, although they affirm the BFM, have different interpretations on doctrines not addressed by the BFM. If we follow this road, however, those who are excluded from denominational service will undoubtedly begin to channel their support (including their money) toward other organizations that actually welcome their service as well as their money. Many will eventually leave the SBC altogether. But this doesn't have to happen. We can acknowledge that, while every doctrine is important, not all doctrines are essential to fellowship or cooperation. We can invite every Southern Baptist who accepts the BFM to be a full participant in denominational life, even if they have a different position on issues not addressed by the BFM. This road will strengthen the SBC by encouraging cooperation and allowing us to focus on the Great Commission rather than squabbling over nonessential doctrines. And this road will help our witness by giving us true unity, a unity where we work together even though we don't agree on everything. The choice is ours. Which road will we take?

Faith: A Hymns Collection from Avalon

Yesterday evening I got my copy of Avalon's new CD Faith: A Hymns Collection. All I can say is, "WOW!!!" I've already listened to it four times. Somehow Avalon has managed to take ten of the most well known and beloved hymns of all time, along with three more recent songs, and present them in a way that is new and fresh. Avalon has always been known for their dynamic harmonies, but on this album they really take it to a new level. They demonstrate a great stylistic versatility on this project---"Jesus Medley" ("Jesus Loves Me"/"'Tis So Sweet to Trust in Jesus") has a gentle acoustic sound; "I'll Fly Away" has a soulful camp meeting feel; they sing "Holy, Holy, Holy" a capella in a very reverential style; "How Great Thou Art" is done with a gradually building rock sound; "Amazing Grace" has a rhythm-and-blues tinged feel to it. The vocals on "It Is Well With My Soul" are simply amazing; their variations in volume and dynamics set the appropriate emotional mood for each verse. My favorites on this album are probably "Great Is Thy Faithfulness," "In Christ Alone," "It Is Well With My Soul," and "How Great Thou Art." This is simply a great CD.

Should We Get Rid of the Baptist Faith and Message?

This afternoon the trustees of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary approved a statement declaring that the seminary "will not knowingly endorse contemporary charismatic practices such as a private prayer language nor hire professors who advocate the practice." (Quote is from this article by Baptist Press.) The new statement was adopted at the request of seminary president Paige Patterson. On his blog Ben Cole has posted Patterson's remarks to the trustees in which this request was made. This action by the SWBTS Board of Trustees is just the latest example of the trend within the SBC of narrowing the parameters of cooperation by requiring adherence to a particular interpretation of Scripture, even on issues where our understanding of the Bible is less than perfectly clear, as a condition of working together.

Why did Patterson and the SWBTS trustees feel it was necessary to make such a move? I cannot say for sure. However, when this controversy first erupted a few weeks ago Patterson characterized the position of SWBTS trustee Dwight McKissic that private prayer language (PPL) is a legitimate spiritual gift, as "harmful to the churches" of the SBC. Apparently the churches of the SBC have never recognized this position as being harmful, because the subject has never been addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message. Many may not agree with this position, but that does not mean it is harmful or dangerous. Since the SBC has not seen it necessary to adopt an official position on PPL, should a seminary that is funded by Cooperative Program dollars---including dollars from churches which believe that PPL is a legitimate gift---adopt a position that excludes Southern Baptists who are in agreement with the BFM and who financially support the seminary? I think not.

Perhaps a motion should be made at the 2007 SBC Annual Meeting in San Antonio to do away with the BFM. If our entities are free to establish their own doctrinal requirements then how can we claim to have a common doctrinal confession? It seems nonsensical for the SBC to point to the BFM and say, "This is what we believe," if the IMB, NAMB, and our seminaries are all saying, "Oh, and if you want to be a part of our ministry you also have to believe. . ." The way things are right now, we don't have one statement of faith; we have several statements of faith.

On second thought, we should not get rid of the BFM. Instead, we should make sure that our SBC entities do not go beyond the BFM in establishing their doctrinal requirements. Any Southern Baptist who is faithful in his or her Christian walk and who affirms the BFM should be welcome to participate in the work of any of our entities for which he or she is qualified.

"Little Men with Little Ideas"

This week in the Editor's Journal section of the (North Carolina) Biblical Recorder's web site Tony Cartledge writes about the role that blogging continues to play in SBC life. While not an exhaustive analysis of how blogs have been helping to shape the conversation on a number of issues within the SBC, the fact that state papers and other traditional media outlets are writing about the blogs indicates that blogs are making some impact. Cartledge lists a few of the most prominent SBC bloggers (Marty Duren, Steve McCoy, Wade Burleson, Ben Cole, Nathan Finn) and points out that even SBC leaders Jimmy Draper and Al Mohler set up blogs (he forgot Morris Chapman).

Even though some of the most prominent and popular leaders in the SBC have their own blogs, a number of SBC leaders still seem to have little respect for the medium and/or those who use it. In a way, the criticism that certain leaders have directed at bloggers is also evidence that blogs are making an impact. The following quote from this article describes how one SBC leader, Southeastern Seminary President Danny Akin, views the blogging phenomenon in the SBC:

Blogs are not universally popular, however. During a plenary session of the trustees at Southeastern Seminary, seminary president Daniel Akin was asked by a trustee to share his opinion about blogging. Akin, who posts many of his writings online, though not in the form of an interactive blog, said blogs are both a blessing and a curse, "a 21st century outlet for extreme narcissism."

Blogs require no accountability, Akin said, allowing people "to make scurrilous, false, untrue accusations against men that I believe are men of God."

Akin said he didn't know anyone who had been attacked more than former SEBTS president Paige Patterson. "Some people have personal agendas," he said, and do things that "are shaming the body of Christ."

"Even if they have legitimate concerns," Akin said, verbally underscroring the "if," they are not expressing them "in ways that are consistent with the Bible."

"I don't really give a rip what most bloggers think," he said. "Most of them are little men with little ideas and little agendas."

I have never met Danny Akin. I have always respected him, but these remarks of his have caused me to lose much of my respect for him. (I doubt he will lose much sleep over this, since he doesn't "really give a rip" what I think.) Ironically, two of the most prominent SBC bloggers---Brad Reynolds and Nathan Finn---are employed by SEBTS. I can only assume that he sees them as being part of that small minority of SBC bloggers who are not "little men with little ideas and little agendas."

To be fair, Akin does have some valid criticisms. There are far too many personal attacks made on blogs. Sometimes bloggers do fail to express themselves in a manner consistent with how the Bible says we are to treat one another. Too often accusations are made without being backed up by evidence. And undoubtedly there are some bloggers who are advancing their own personal agendas.

Unfortunately, these valid criticisms are overshadowed by the tone with which he expresses them as well as the disdain, or even outright contempt, he demonstrates toward most bloggers. The fact that, according to the article, he underscored the "if" when saying "Even if they [bloggers] have legitimate concerns," implies that our concerns are not legitimate. (If you're not convinced, just say it out loud, emphasizing the "if.") Also, I find it disturbing that the leader of one of our SBC entities doesn't "really give a rip" what we think. Akin then goes on to do the very thing he accuses many bloggers of when he describes most bloggers as "little men with little ideas and little agendas."

Akin's last statement indicates that he either has not read what bloggers have been saying or believes that those who do not agree with him and/or Paige Patterson are "little men with little ideas and little agendas." As someone who has been an active part of the SBC blogosphere for over a year I can say that such a characterization is completely off the mark. We may be "little men" in the sense that few of us pastor megachurches or serve in denominational positions, but as I recall Jesus is not too impressed by status. A cursory reading of the dozen most influential SBC blogs reveals that some of the sharpest minds in our convention are engaged in blogging. I have no problem with Danny Akin or anyone else disagreeing with what we have to say or even with how we say it, but I would think that someone as educated as Danny Akin, someone who is looked upon as a spirutal leader, would be able to express disagreement without being contemptuous.