"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

Something I Genuinely Do Not Understand

At the IMB meeting in Kansas City last week I took the opportunity, between meetings, to tour the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum in Independence, Missouri.

During the nineteen minute introductory video of the life of the former President, the narrator said that the Democratic handlers of President Franklin Deleanor Roosevelt chose Missouri Senator Harry Truman as the 1944 Vice-Presidential running mate because he was "a Southern Baptist, friendly with labor, and a well-liked politician."

That phrase stuck with me because I had already made a visit to the First Baptist Church of Independence, Missouri. Even though we arrived unannounced at First Baptist Church, Dr. Kevin Paine gave Ben Cole and I a tour of the historic church buildings. He showed us the old auditorium, and then the new auditorium - built in the 1970's - which has been recently remodeled under Dr. Paine's leadership.

During the tour Dr. Paine explained that President Truman visited FBC frequently, both during his time in office and the twenty years he lived in Independence after leaving the White House. However, like the politician he was, Truman never joined any particular church. Yet the President never hesitated calling himself a Southern Baptist. Traditional lore says that First Baptist Church, Independence, Missouri was the spiritual home of the late President.

Dr. Paine also explained to us the difference beteen the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints, whose headquarters is in Independence, Missouri, and the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), whose headquarters is in Salt Lake City, Utah. During his explanation, Dr. Paine revealed his own Christology (very conservative), his soteriology (salvation by grace through faith), his bibliology (the Bible is sufficient for all faith and practice of the Christian), and his ecclesiology (Christ is the head of His church).

Dr. Paine revealed to us that, shortly after he had become pastor of First Baptist Church, the Missouri Baptist Convention kicked his church and eighteen other Southern Baptist churches in Missouri out of the state convention for their 'dual alignment.' Dr. Payne said that his church had contributed to many Baptist organizations over the years, including the SBC and CBF.

I am a full supporter of all things SBC, and have never believed our convention should separate, divide or splinter. Many people already know that when the CBF formed in Oklahoma in 1992 I nailed on the door of the organizational meeting 95 Theses Against Participation in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Oklahoma. This act led some in the CBF to label me a fundamentalist, while some who are are without controversy true fundamentalists call me moderate or liberal.

I was impressed with Dr. Paine's warm evangelism, his orthodox theology, and his attempts to keep his church focused on reaching the community for Christ. We commended Dr. Paine for his work at reviving the historic downtown church, had prayer with him over his life and ministry, and bid him a cordial farewell. Since meeting Dr. Paine and touring the historic First Baptist Church of Independence, Missouri, a question has continued to plague my understanding. Regardless of one's views on the politics at play within the SBC, I believe the same question must be confusing to anyone and everyone working in cooperating missions ministry . . .

"Why would any conservative agency of the Southern Baptist Convention, whether it be state or national, reject the mission dollars of a church or individual who desires to contribute to that agency's work in reaching the world for Christ through the proclamation of the gospel?"

What does it prove when that agency refuses mission dollars?

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Update: Don Wideman informs me that President Truman was a member of FBC Grandview in the years prior to his Presidency, and upon moving to Independence never changed his membership, but attended his mother-in-law's home church (Episcopal) and other churches in the area, including FBC.

153 comments:

Kaylor said...

Excellent post and questions. I cannot for the life of me think of a good reason why anyone would not accept missions money from an individual, church, or organization that wishes to contribute. The only thing I can think of is that missions is not the first priority of those rejecting the funds.

Bill Scott said...

My Grandma uses the idiomatic expression, "He would cut off his nose to spite his face." It seems that this in some fashion answers the question at hand.

Maybe the action was preemtive, so as to prevent the "rogue entity" from the opportunity to switch over to the dark side (CBC).

Bill Scott

Bill Scott

Anonymous said...

I am not equating the church(es) who contribute to the CBF with the subject of the following quote. I only use the quote because I think it speaks to Wade's question. Whether correctly or not, my guess is that whoever decided not to accept funds from organizations or churches who are dual-aligned with the CBF can be summed up by Dr. R.G. Lee's famous quote:

"You eat the devil's corn and he'll choke you on the cob."

Perhaps it is short-sighted on their part, but maybe they fear that they should not accept funds from a church which also supports a group they feel is less than favorably inclined toward the SBC.

One additional question should be asked: "Is there ANY group, party, individual, or entity of any sort that the SBC should not accept offerings from, assuming the source of those funds is well publicized?

Just food for thought.

Anonymous said...

This is a perplexing question to say the least. When SBC entities accept monies from individuals that are not at all associated with SBC giving (wills of people who are with other denominations or religions) and then not accept from these is just ridiculous. That's what we have come to through this Conservative Resergence, idiocity (is that a word).

Anonymous said...

what a classic quote from a classic preacher...."You eat the devil's corn and he'll choke you on the cob."

great quote. spoken by a true southerner.

david.....volfan007

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said…
Wade,
Dallas Morning News June 12, 2002: "An Oklahoma messenger presented a motion asking the SBC Executive Committee to recognize and accept gifts from only one convention in each state."

On July 4, 2002, I wrote:
Headlines should scream: 150-year old BGCT May Be Rejected from SBC.

If you want to know their reason the motion was not ruled out of order, call their number 615-244-2355. They told me the SBCT was formed because the BGCT was not giving the proper amount of money to the SBC [duhh…where they going with that?], but the motion would not be presented and not to worry.
No one worried about Pearl Harbor. The moderate convention of Missouri has already been rejected.

Wade, here is a letter in part that I wrote our local newspaper that was printed May 11, 2002. It may answer your question.

The SBC wants all state conventions to adopt their 2000 BFM. After two years, several state conventions are opposed and many have not decided.
I believe requiring employees to sign their BFM or be fired is a clever plan to remove unwanted employees, and influence state conventions to adopt their BFM.
The devil could never remove Daniel missionaries but their leaders have. The Baptist majority does not realize their spiritual leaders have become spiritual bosses.
Leaders of the SBC made cobwebs that fooled the majority of trusting people. It is time to vote spiders out of office and get back to being Baptists.
That probably won’t happen. Missionaries will become a ploy in forcing state conventions to sign: ‘If you don’t sign what missionaries signed, your money will not be accepted.’
Missionaries sign or stop getting money. Conventions sign or their money is rejected. A cunning plan indeed as Baptists want to support their missionaries.
Will churches give their money to rejected or accepted conventions? How many will split making that decision?
Looks like more hard times for Baptists because little men want their golden image BFM.
Brother fought brother in coats of blue and gray. Why can’t truth be found?

Mike Ruffin said...

It's an interesting question. I have sometimes wondered why the SBC or state conventions don't ask to see the financial records of all their supporting churches in order to make sure that those churches are supporting only SBC causes. They would find, of course, that our churches support Samaritan's Purse, the Gideons, various interfaith efforts, and quite a few non-Southern Baptist but also non-CBF missionaries.

The question for me is why they only reject the gifts from churches that support CBF missions and ministries. Back in the day when some large SBC churches were giving as much if not more support to independent missions efforts as to SBC efforts, they were not asked to remove themselves from the table. We took their gifts and said "Thank you."

I guess, and it's just a guess, that some in SBC leadership have seen CBF as being in direct competition with them for the same dollars. The fact is, though, that there are a good many Baptists out there who just want to support Baptist missionaries whether they are "Southern" or "Cooperative" or "American" or whatever.

Bob Cleveland said...

I guess to really understand that, you'd have to think like that. Something about not seeing the forest for the trees. Except in this case, perhaps from lofty offices, you can't see the trees; just the forest.

I think that attitude manifests itself in pre-teens, in the form of "Oh YEAH? I'll show YOU!"

Anonymous said...

Wade,

If I may attempt an explanation.... Maybe I'm parsing this issue, but I believe the reason is that, in the view of the MBC, the CBF is a competing not cooperating group. This is view much like if a church was aligned with both the SBC and the United Methodists.

The other option, which I don't believe should raise a concern, would be a SBC church giving to the Cooperative Program AND other missions groups such as New Tribes, etc.

SHOULD the MBC be so legalistic? NO. Should the MBC re-think it's position on dual-alignment? Maybe; but it "ain't gonna happen". In fact here in the great Show-Me state we're MUCH more interested in ferretting out those who might be "emerging" or "pro-alcohol", or "pro-Clippard" -- oops, we took care of that one!

The MBC, right now, is a classic example of the CR gone to an extreme. The resurgence was beneficial and necessary; but we now find ourselves at civil war over tertiary issues among CONSERVATIVES. As you've pointed out, the MBC has done it's best to throw out the "liberals".

Sad state of affairs, really....

Charles

Gary Snowden said...

Wade,

First let me say that I'm sorry I missed the opportunity of meeting you at the recent appointment service in Liberty. I did meet both Micah Fries and John Stickley and Micah indicated in a general direction where he had seen you last, but I guess I either didn't recognize you in person or we didn't cross paths in the crowd.

Secondly, I'm not surprised at all that you and Ben were impressed by Kevin Payne (note correct spelling rather than Paine). He really is a great guy who I've enjoyed spending some time with at pastors' retreats each fall for the past 5 years.

I do have a couple of observations about both your main question about an SB agency refusing mission dollars and what this might mean. The picture is a bit more complicated than it might appear on the surface. The fact is that the MBC will still receive money from the churches that they ousted last fall. I know that for a fact because we were one of the 19 churches along with FBC Independence that were voted out and the MBC still receives money that we send them.

The vote to ouster churches who were not singly aligned with the MBC was designed to deny membership or association and the privilege of voting to those churches that include either CBF or the Baptist General Convention of Missouri in their budgets or who send messengers to the meetings of either of these two groups.

The MBC did not apply the same logic and ruling to churches that have been historically dually aligned with either the American Baptist Convention or one of the National Baptist Conventions of predominantly African American Baptists. What does that reveal?

I think I can safely say that it reveals that the measure of excluding churches that were aligned with either CBF or the BGCM was a punitive measure and an issue of control. The MBC will still gladly receive the money of these churches, but will not allow them to send voting messengers to the MBC annual meeting. They welcome our money but not our voice or influence.

As to why CBF and the BGCM were singled out for exclusion and not other historically dually aligned groups, I think the issue can best be understood in terms of a comparison with a painful divorce. Those who once loved each other deeply can seemingly be capable of equally deep hatred and scorn when in the midst of divorce proceedings or when a separation has occurred. The members of the CBF and BGCM churches were all once very active and committed members of the MBC and the painful division that has occurred has not been without accompanying harsh rhetoric and hateful actions.

I'm not naive enough to suggest that there have not been some moderates guilty of engaging in some of that rhetoric, but a simple comparison of the two state papers--Word and Way on the one hand and Pathway on the other--will clearly reveal which of the two groups has been predominantly in an attack mode from the outset of the controversy.

I have a lot more I'd love to share about these issues, as I've experienced them firsthand, but this is probably the longest quote I've ever posted on anyone's blog, so I feel obligated to heed my colleague Brian Kaylor's advice as reflected in his book and blog title so I'll shut up.

Webster7 said...

Wade, as you said in your 95 theses: "Dual alignment is nothing but a euphemism for a withdrawal from fellowship."

Why take money from someone who has withdrawn fellowship from you?

It's a matter of integrity. The MBC and virtually every other SBC entitiy would never appoint Dr. Payne or people like him to leadership positions within the convention. People who are "dually aligned" simply don't get appointments in the SBC. How could one justify taking money from someone who you don't believe is fit to lead within the convention?

They welcome our money but not our voice or influence.

On that point, Gary Snowden's story tells me that the MBC has an integrity problem, as it does accept the money from people who are not seen as fit to lead (or even have a vote!) in the convention.

Gary Snowden said...

Wade,

One quick follow-up to my earlier lengthy post. I should point out that the SBC on the national level did in fact refuse to receive money from the BGCM. Their reasoning was that there was already a cooperating state convention in Missouri (the MBC). They did not apply that same logic of course in either Texas or Virginia where the moderate conventions were larger and the rival, start-up conventions were those begun by fundamentalists/conservatives.

Just an added reflection on a day given to pointing out inconsistencies.

Kaylor said...

Gary has made a good point about the MBC still accepting money from these churches. But I wonder, Wade, what are your thoughts about the SBC not accepting missions money? As has been mentioned a couple of times on this thread, they will not accept money from the newer convention in Missouri. Missions money has actually been sent back.

Tim said...

Oh, I'm going to be in so much trouble for saying this:

There can be a time/situation when a Mission Sending Organization rejects/sends back contributions to a church/organization/individual.

If that church/organization/individual has participated in something that is overwhelmingly against the integrity of the MSO, then they should send the money back.

For instance: What if the KKK decides that they want to regularly contribute to NAMB. Would it be wrong for NAMB to send their money back? I would say, "No, it is not wrong for NAMB to send their money back." If I was on the BoT of NAMB, I wouldn't want to be associated with a hate group.

So, in at least one instance, I can agree that there is a time/situation when a Mission Sending Organization should send contributions back.

Now, about being dualy alligned... Personally, I think it is ok for a church to be dually alligned. I believe that the organization of the church should send the member's money anywhere they tell it to. If I'm in a mainly CBF church, and 1 person wants me to send their missions money to the IMB and NAMB, then that is where it goes. Frankly, people take priority.

Tim L. Dahl

Monte said...

Yet another reason why we are not building a foundation of loyal Southern Baptists from among our younger generations. They have nothing invested in these age-old squabbles and are only interested in keeping the "main thing the MAIN THING."

I sat with three former missionaries yesterday evening at dinner and we discussed how our convention is losing support of a growing broad-base of godly people who have been cast aside as refuse in the wake of this never-ending controversy. No regard was ever given to the convictions of these people: only where they stood in their political and doctrial loyalties to a certain few. The only thing is, is that after years of this sort of treatment, the number of those who have served among the ranks of denominational service in our agencies and mission agencies is growing steadily, more and more, year after year. They can't ALL be wrong. At what point does this begin to effect the Convention at large to the the extent that it begins to feel the ill-effects and certain consequences for its sins? I believe we're there.

G. Alford said...

As Webster7 said: It's a matter of integrity.

A few years ago the owner of the Liquor Store in the community near where I grew up, and my parents still live, won a considerable amount of money in the Florida Lottery. For whatever reason the owner decided to “tithe” off of his winnings to the little Baptist Church down the road where his Grandmother had often taken him to church as a little boy.

The Church building was both small and old, the members were few and the local economy was depressed... So money was very tight! Receiving this “tithe” would mean much needed new facilities and a new lease on life for this little country church.

To their great credit the congregation rejected the man’s “tithe”… It's a matter of integrity. How could they teach their children that gambling was not acceptable and yet receive this money?

I think this is also true of any SBC agency (including the IMB)… How can they, with any integrity, receive money from those whom they reject as not acceptable for cooperation or service?

Grace to all,

Belief Matters said...

I think it proves that we aren't in it for the money. Why not give all your money to the SBC? Why split it at all? Why not ask those questions of those who choose to be dually aligned? Why not make a choice?

Anonymous said...

Wade,

Let's not forget who split, it was not the SBC, it was the CBF. They left for the expressed purpose of bringing an end to the SBC. People such as Danny Vestal and David Currie made predictions that the SBC would lose thousands of churches. Now the CBF is holding a joint meeting with the American Baptist Convention this coming summer. The ABC has knowingly and openly affirmed homosexuality in many cases. Not ALL, but MANY. Why would the CBF agree to this meeting unless they were not appalled by the ABC's struggle with homosexuality. Is this a road that we would also travel?

John B.

Kaylor said...

John: Your red herrings do not answer the question.

Ron West said...

Wade,
Perhaps you could ask Jerry Rankin. He announced that the IMB would not accept money from the alternate Missouri convention when they sent money to the IMB and if my memory serves me correctly had the treasurer send the money back. He does allow money to be received from the new conventions in Virginia and Texas however.
You might also ask Frank Page why he will not appoint anyone from a church that contributes money to the CBF, even if they give 99% of their money to the SBC and one member makes a designated offering to the CBF through his church.
If you get answers, let us know
Ron West

Anonymous said...

Kaylor, Wade, and All,

In my opinion, it is not a matter of pragmatics [what works]. "WE would get more money for missions if we would compromise doctrine [innerancy for one]." Over and above that, their continuing drift toward joing hands with the ABC, a convention who is knowingly struggling with the viability and acceptance of homosexuality, seems to be at the least worthy of our observation to see if some form of discipline is necessitated. I know, I know, they are not "the church". However, that will not wash.

Red Herring? Give me a break. That is a weak attempt at diverging from the issue.

John B.

Kaylor said...

John: Diverging from the issue is exactly what you were doing. You wrongly used guilt-by-association to try and change the topic to being about homosexuality. By that logic we could not accept money from Jesus because he hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors.

What about a church that is not a part of CBF? Not all of the churches who were kicked out of the MBC are a part of the CBF.

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said…
Alford,
You asked: “How could they teach their children that gambling was not acceptable and yet receive this money?”

Tell the children: “The Lord needs this money and He has taken it from the devil and gambling people as they have had it long enough.”

You asked: “How can they, with any integrity, receive money from those whom they reject as not acceptable for cooperation or service?”

The answer is: Just like the SBC takes money from the old conventions of Texas and Virginia that are rejected from service.

They sell out as hypocrites when money becomes their god, or maybe they think the devil has had it long enough.

Anonymous said...

I would like to respond to webster7 and g. alford. You indicated it was "matter of integrity" and then proceeded to judge the heart of those sending the money. How can you know what is moving these people to do what they are doing with this money? What if they are responding to God to direct their money this way? How do you know what God's intent is to do with that gift? Your statements do not indicate that time was spent in prayer to try and discern where God was leading here. I say that because I did not read this in your comments. If it had been through prayer, then I would have expected to read that in your comment instead of it being an "act of integrity".
G. Alford, you told the story of that little church not accepting that money. You indicated that you did not know why that man gave that money to them. What if God was moving him to do something with that money that would benefit the kingdom? Neither one of us can know for sure because we do not know this man's heart. I can appreciate that church not wanting the money for themselves because it came from the lottery, but could they have not turned around and given that money to the poor in that community, may be to people who were in dire need? Could this have been how God's plan was to unfold? See, what I am hearing you guys say is that you have a certainty as to what God's will is and it does not include anything that could possibly come from anyone who is at a church that decides to give its members a choice or someone who owns a liquor store and was "lucky" to win the lottery.

I just think that sometimes we allow our judgemental nature to get in the way of what God is trying to do. When we do that we are putting ourselves on the throne instead letting God be in charge.

Don Sullivan

Debbie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Webster7 said...

You indicated it was "matter of integrity" and then proceeded to judge the heart of those sending the money.

Don, I didn't say anything about the those sending the money. The "matter of integrity" concerns those receiving the money.

David Rogers said...

I would venture to say that the answer to your question has something to do with another question you asked a few posts back: "Is the SBC a denomination or a convention?" If you answer "a denomination," with the connotations that brings along with it, it makes a certain amount of sense to me to refuse the money of groups that don't fit the "profile." But, if it is a "convention," with the connotations that brings along with it, I am not so sure.

However, the questions about ethics of receiving money, but not allowing influence within the organization, as well as how far do you go in receiving money from whomever (e.g. blatant heretics), are also, in my opinion, legitimate points to be taken into consideration, even if you do agree the SBC is a "convention" and not a "denomination."

Bj said...

It is all about control. The fundamentalist controlled SBC, and many fundamentalist controlled state conventions, do not want what they cannot control.

Any church that hangs on to the idea of "the atonomy of the local church" will sooner or later find herself at odds with the SBC.

Mark said...

Easy answer: It's all about control, it's all about politics, it's all about spooky fundy's and their incessant drive to dominate and manipulate.

(Probably) Real answer: It's complicated and probably messy (like pulling the hair out of your dog's brush -- lots of clumps, but always those few pieces you can never get to) and most likely to be mirrored in a local church should a similar situation arise -- no one would be completely satisfied with the result.

Don: Didn't read G. Alford's post ("How can they, with any integrity, receive money from those whom they reject as not acceptable for cooperation or service?") the same way. Didn't see it as praising the action (G Alford, correct me if I'm wrong) but giving a possible explanation (which is not a defense).

BJ: Count me and my church as among those headed for a collision in our CONVENTION!

Mark Sims
FBC Perrin, TX

Mark said...

Sorry, Bro. Wade, didn't answer your questions.

Mark Sims
FBC Perrin, TX

Anonymous said...

"Don, I didn't say anything about the those sending the money. The "matter of integrity" concerns those receiving the money."

I believe this still goes to my point. If you are not judging the ones sending the money, then how does it affect the integrity of ones receiving it?

Don

G. Alford said...

Rex,

Tell the children: “The Lord needs this money and He has taken it from the devil and gambling people as they have had it long enough.”

You made me laugh so hard my side hurts... Blessings my friend, I needed that comment today!

Grace to all,

Anonymous said...

I've been wondering about all this bad rap on gambling.
to my knowledge, gambling is not evil or a sin but the love of or obsession with gambling that is the problem.

after all if gambling was a sin, I would warn you against investing you money in anything other than a bank account, and doing any action that involves a risk such as asking a girl out or asking her to marry you unless of course she first said she would. also don't enter into any contests or sweepstakes, they might not cost money necessarily but they cost time.

there are many risks in life including sharing the gospel.

if you are after all speaking of obsession with gambling rather than just gambling I suggest you say that.

Michael
(ps gambling is a bad habit to get into I don't suggest it)

G. Alford said...

Don,

Any relationship to the Sullivans in Florida?

I take it from your comment that you prayed before writing your judgment upon me and having done so your comments carry the weight of being “Inspired by the Holy Spirit”?

No… then do not assume a pious attitude with me and come on here and lecture me about my prayer life and tell me that I was judging the motives of anyone – Thank You.

You appear to be greatly confused as you say:

You indicated it was "matter of integrity" and then proceeded to judge the heart of those sending the money. How can you know what is moving these people to do what they are doing with this money? What if they are responding to God to direct their money this way? How do you know what God's intent is to do with that gift? Your statements do not indicate that time was spent in prayer to try and discern where God was leading here.

If you will go back and actually read my post you will see that I never once questioned the motive of the giver… where did that comment come from? The question of integrity was directed toward those who would have received the money, not the giver. I actually said I did not know what his motivation was, and quite frankly that is not at issue here.

The moral of the story (which was true by the way) is that integrity demands that one must be willing to live by the principles they claim to hold, even when it will cost them greatly to do so.

There is a word for those who say they believe one thing and then when money is involved do another… Rex used it in the last paragraph of his comment, look it up.

You also appear to indicate that this gambling Liquor Store owner just might have a closer relationship with God, and is therefore able to know Gods will for this money, over the faithful members of this Baptist Church who turned this money away?

Let me ask you this question “Would you receive “tithes” from an abortion clinic?

Grace to all,

Anonymous said...

Mark said "Don: Didn't read G. Alford's post ("How can they, with any integrity, receive money from those whom they reject as not acceptable for cooperation or service?") the same way. Didn't see it as praising the action (G Alford, correct me if I'm wrong) but giving a possible explanation (which is not a defense)."

Mark, you may be right. It seemed to me that the statement "To their great credit the congregation rejected the man’s “tithe”… It's a matter of integrity." was an affirmation of their action. To me, making a decision as a matter of integrity is wrong. We should make our decisions prayerfully based on the leadership of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Doing this leads to integrity.

Don

Anonymous said...

G. Alford,

Let me start off by saying I apologize for my offense to you. Part of this comes from the hurt I have felt having been rejected in a similar way. I ask your forgiveness.

But I still believe as I indicated to Webster7 that if you are not judging the giver of the money, then why is there a matter of integrity for the receiver of the money? As I indicated in my comment I did know not why that man gave the money. But can God not move in people's lives, even those that might be a gambling Liquor Store owner? For some reason that man wanted to give money to that church. I didn't say it was because he had a closer relationship with God than those people in that church, but in some way he was moved to do it. Who am I to question how God chooses to work His will. God may be working outside our mindset. God could have intended that they take that money and given it to an organization that helps people with a gambling addiction. God may have intended that money to be used for the needs of someone that was coming into contact with that church at that time. I just don't know. But to make a decision based on it being a matter of integrity before asking God if He had a plan for this money is putting your pride before God. You asked me if I would accept money from an Abortion clinic. First thing I would do is to pray to God for discernment and direction. If God chose to be silent then yes, I would take the money and give it to support an organization that was offering alternatives to abortion or something that could lead to the closing of abortion clinics. The irony would be great.

Anonymous said...

G. Alford,

No relationship to the Sullivans in Florida. We are from Tennessee and Texas. Plus I should have signed my name to the #36 comment.

Don

Anonymous said...

a great man died today. dr.jerry falwell died at the age of 73. he went home to glory. God bless the falwell's and liberty u. and thomas rd. baptist church during this time of grief.

david.....volfan007

Anonymous said...

WADE....boy did you get sucked in at FBC-Indep. One of our most high profile involved CBF churches in Missouri!!!
We quit taking their money(MBC) as did the SBC because they were going around the state saying, "we're a Baptist church just like you, with a different giving pattern, will you join us?"...obvious false advertising and misleading. We had to cut-it-off because good conservative churches were getting sucked in to funding liberal causes they hated and despised. The CBF/BGCM in Missouri has the 'tremendous' strength of 36 churches in a state of 1,950 MBC/SBC churches.
Kinda' like a flea on an elephant. Quit focusing on the 'poor fleas'. Use your spiritual discernment or find someone to help you.

Matt Brady said...

Wade,

Wes Kenney has raised some interesting points about this very subject here. He quotes your 95 Thesis. Have your views changed since you wrote those?

Kaylor said...

anonymous: You need to be careful not to report incorrect numbers (36) as fact, especially considering what the Bible says about gossip. It is also wrong to compare your brothers and sisters in Christ to fleas. We are, after all, all members of the Body of Christ.

G. Alford said...

Brother Don,

All is forgiven between us… I also apologize that my illustration offended you; it was not my intention to offend you or anyone else who has faced such a situation.

The story does have a happy ending (so I will now tell “the rest of the story”). After the initial disappointment the Liquor Store owner came to understand just why the Church could not accept his gift and grew in his respect for the members of this small country church. As I understand it he was absolutely determined to do good in his community with this money and with the churches blessings he built a community park with a full playground for the children. Guess where he built it? Directly across the street from the church.

Grace to all,

Gary Snowden said...

Matt,

Before you attack Wade too much on this issue in your praise of Wes Kenney's remarks, I'd love to hear your own response to my questions I asked him on his blog. I simply cannot understand his praise for the prudence of the MBC in excluding congregations that are in direct competition and not cooperation with the Kingdom purposes of the MBC. Please read my comments there and respond.

Wade Burleson said...

Matt,

Nope, they haven't.

Matt Brady said...

Gary,

I'll use Wade's own words to answer:

Thesis #52. "To give to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is to take away from the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma."

Gary Snowden said...

Matt,

I understand that funding one organization might imply defunding the other. What you didn't respond to was the issue of how either CBF or the BGCM is competing with the Kingdom purposes of the MBC. I'm going to copy here what I asked on Wes' blog for clarification's sake:

Can you specify exactly how either CBF or the BGCM is being competitive with the Kingdom purposes of the MBC? That is a generalization that simply will not stand up to any rational examination. Both groups cited are involved in missions outreach, discipleship, leadership training, church planting, and being the presence of Christ in the world. Does the MBC have a unique approach to advancing the Kingdom that somehow omits all of these endeavors?

Wade Burleson said...

Mr. Civil War Photographer Matt Brady (I can't resist) :)

You may be taking away from the BGCO through giving to the CBF, but I can assure you as a former President of the BGCO that I would never reject BGCO missions dollars from a CBF contributing church.

Why would I?

Anonymous said...

G. Alford,

Thanks for sharing the rest of the story. When God's will is done, wonderful things are accomplished. Truely God has used this church to make an impact on this man and the community.

Grace be with you.
Don

Wade Burleson said...

Gary's question about how in the world different Baptist organizations involved in missions are 'competing' for kingdom purposes deserves an answer.

I'm not sure either Matt or Wes are capable of a response that makes logical or missiological sense -- only because the question assumes that those who respond see Baptist Christians of different denominations as 'teammates' and not 'competitors.'

Matt Brady said...

Wade,

I'm quite capable, thank you. Here is my response:

Gary,

Our churches must be good stewards of the money God entrusts to us. That is why we choose to send money to likeminded mission endeavors. If the only criteria for cooperation were claims of loving Jesus and believing the Bible, then we could partner with any denomination and even some cults. We do not all believe the same things about what the Bible teaches. “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). I can work with other denominations on social/moral issues on which we agree, but I do not find it wise to work together to fund seminaries or plant churches with those groups who do not believe what we believe. Take Methodists, for example. I would not fund a seminary that teaches young preachers that they could lose their salvation or how to sprinkle babies. I don’t mind Methodists doing it. They can walk together with those who agree with them. I just choose to walk together with those who I agree with. It seems quite obvious that the CBF does not agree with the SBC. They left because they were in disagreement with the SBC.

Kaylor said...

Matt: You provide examples of doctrinal differences with the Methodists. As you did, I'll use Wade's own words to answer:

19. The irreconcilable differences between the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship seem to be over methodology rather than doctrine.

Matt Brady said...

Kaylor,

I agree. From what I know of Wade's views, he and the CBF do indeed seem to be eye to eye on many doctrinal issues. THe Missouri Baptist Convention, however, does not see so eye to eye with them.

Anonymous said...

Concerning "To give to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is to take away from the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma."

Let me share my experience.

My church offers the choice of 3 giving plans. One plan allows the member the choice to designate the SBC. The second plan offers the choice of designating your money to CBF. The third plan allows the member to split it between the 2 entities. In each of the plans this is 41% of the total offering. The other 59% goes to the state convention and that cannot be changed. So to say that giving to the CBF takes away from the state convention (Alabama) is simply not true in our case. In fact I have been led to believe that this is true for the whole state convention. But if that is not the case, the church would not stand for taking money away from the state convention. It is too important, no matter who is currently running the convention. We have about a 45% to 55% split on the money going to the SBC and the CBF. It is very important to my church that the members of the church be allowed to discern where God is leading them to give.

Just in case you were wondering, anything received that is undesignated goes to the Cooperative program.

I know for some, because my church offers this choice, this would be enough of a reason for not working/cooperating with us in God's work. That truely saddens me.

Don

Gary Snowden said...

Matt,

Your example of Methodists begs the question. We're not talking about other denominations here but Baptists that cherish the historical Baptist principles of separation of church and state, local church autonomy, the priesthood of the believer, the absolute authority of the Scriptures in all matters of faith and doctrine, etc. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Matt Brady said...

Gary,

If the cbf were so likeminded, why did they leave?

Gary Snowden said...

Matt,

Without recounting the history of the Conservative Resurgence which I trust you are very familiar with, I would suggest to you that the ouster of seminary presidents (including Dilday's being locked out of his own office immediately after receiving a favorable job performance review from the trustees) and other steps taken to defame the character of moderate Baptists and destroy their ministries was the chief reason for their exodus. It had little to do with their doctrine but much to do with their failure to play by the new political rules that the conservatives put in place.

Matt Brady said...

Gary,

Let me be more specific. Most Southern Baptists are not open to beer drinking women pastors who speak in tongues and who are "affirming" of homosexuals. The CBF and many of those who agree with Wade have shown their openess to such things. Calling oneself a Baptits does not always make one likeminded.

Lee said...

I have a hard time understanding the logic behind a lot of what has happened in Southern Baptist life in the last 27 years. I had just graduated from college when all the conservative resurgence stuff started up, so I've had somewhat of a ringside seat in churches, in seminary at Southwestern between 87 and 89, and since then.

At that, I do not understand the logic or reasoning of all of the splits, splinters, and walls that have been built regarding cooperation that was never intended to be based on doctrinal conformity or political loyalty. To me, it is as much of an unnecessary tragedy that individuals and churches felt compelled to construct the CBF and the BGCM as it was for those who felt compelled to construct the SBTC and the SBCV. Had Biblical principles been followed in resolving the differences that created these groups, they would most likely not exist.

Bill Scott said...

Matt,
Is "baptits" a term borrowed from animal husbandry or was it a typo?
Bill Scott

Matt Brady said...

Bill,

>blush< My bad!

Anonymous said...

Matt wrote "If the cbf were so likeminded, why did they leave?"

Matt,

If I could sit down with you and share with you my feelings and thoughts on this, then maybe I could communicate better why members of my family and dear friends chose to leave the SBC during this time. I simply do not have the writing skills to convey my answer to your question. But in seeing your response to Gary in which you want to paint them as "beer drinking women pastors who speak in tongues and who are "affirming" of homosexuals" I suspect you are not really interested. If ever you are in Birmingham, AL and you would like to break bread with someone who may not want to sign off on the BF&M 2000, but loves the Lord, I'm your man.

Grace be with you.

Don Sullivan

Matt Brady said...

Don,

I am very interested. There may be many different reasons why individual churches joined the CBF, but that does not negate the fact that there are trong ties between the CBF and many of the most left leaning organizations in the country. See here

Matt Brady said...

Make that "strong" ties. It must be past my bed time. :-)

Big Daddy Weave said...

Matt,

Are our (relatively few) women pastors really beer drinking?

You must have more insider info that I do.

I wouldn't describe my woman-pastor as "beer drinking." Seems such a silly and demeaning statement is better left unsaid.

And you know the CBF doesn't affirm. 99% of our churches don't affirm either. Those churches tend to aligned with the Alliance.

Oh, and the tongues-speaking - that's a Southern Baptist thing. CBF churches have not addressed PPL, Tongues, etc. because well, that's not an issue.

Lee said...

Matt Brady,
I know quite a few people involved in CBF churches, as members and leaders, and I don't think beer drinking or speaking in tongues are issues that are necessarily on their radar screen. From what I've observed, I don't think CBF would screen out missionaries who have a private prayer language, or who scripturally practice the gift of tongues and interpretation, but that wasn't one of its issues with the SBC.

From what I understand, CBF generally doesn't think a breach of cooperation in convention matters is warranted by a difference of opinion in an independent, autonomous Baptist church that feels led to ordain women to both diakonos and episkopos. I've not encountered anyone from a CBF congregation that affirms homosexuality, and CBF itself, while it doesn't have a formal statement of faith, has taken action as a group which pretty clearly demonstrates to me that they do not affirm homosexuality.

Big Daddy Weave said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...

Matt,
I don't think the Missouri Baptist Layman's Association is a very accurate source on CBF. Frankly, from evidence I've seen, it isn't a very accurate source on anything.

Kaylor said...

Matt: Don't forget that not all of the churches that were kicked out by the MBC are a part of the CBF. Not all of the churches have left the SBC, so some of these churches can send messengers to the SBC but not the MBC. What is going on?

And your comment about "beer drinking women pastors who speak in tongues and who are "affirming" of homosexuals" is perhaps one of the most inaccurate and out-of-line statements I have heard. When I hear wild charges that are used to justify the attacks on these faithful churches and their leaders (like Gary), I think of Nehemiah 6:8 where it states:

"Nothing like what you are saying is happening; you are just making it up out of your head."

Matt Brady said...

BDW,

Perhaps I should have divided the issues. I wrongly assumed my intent would be understood.

Your statement about your own pastor affirms the CBF's position on women pastors. If I remember correctly, this is an area where Wade is not in total agreement with the BFM either. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

As for consumption of alcohol, you have eloquently argued in other threads that the SBC has always gone on record as opposing it. Wade and Ben Cole have stated their openness to alcohol consumption in moderation, and I suspect most in the CBF would not take a hard line against it either.

As for glossolalia, do you think a CBF church would be censured for allowing it?

As for acceptance of homosexuality, see the link above. I think it is pretty clear. To be fair, on this subject, I don't think Wade or most of the bloggers who are supportive of his efforts would go as far as the CBF leadership has.

Matt Brady said...

BDW,

Birds of a feather flock together.

Gary Snowden said...

Matt,

I was gone to the store running an errand for my wife when you came back with your beer drinking, women pastors, homosexuality affirming statement. Others have responded well to your statement, which reflects the legacy of Roger Moran in Missouri and his efforts to stir up hatred for other Baptists by his guilt-by-association tactics that simply do not reflect the truth of what either the BGCM or CBF believes. Rather than taking Moran's word for it, why don't you seek to peacefully engage in dialogue with pastors and/or church members of churches that identify themselves with either the BGCM or CBF. I think you'd be surprised to discover that the propaganda you've swallowed is just that.

Matt Brady said...

Kaylor,

The MBC and SBC are separate entities.

As for your second point, see my response to Big Daddy Weave above.

Matt Brady said...

Kaylor, Gary, Lee, and all,

I realize that my statement about beer drinking, women in the pastorate, glossolaia, and homosexuality is inflammatory, but none of you have refuted the clear ties that Brother Moran has pointed out between these practices and the CBF, nor have you denied that Wade and his coalition also hold to many of these same views. The differences between the SBC and CBF are indeed doctrinal. It may be inflammatory to point them out, but they certainly exist.

Big Daddy Weave said...

As a Fellowship, the CBF doesn't demand doctrinal conformity. But, I seriously doubt a CBF church would be censured. However, I also seriously doubt the CBF will be faced with churches that speak in tongues.

Like the SBC, we have our tee-totalers and moderate drinkers. The CBF hasn't been forced to take a hardline against much. Alcohol isn't on our radar.

As to homosexuality, our churches don't affirm. Roger Moran's guilt-by-association research is disingenuous.

Given six steps or less, I suspect we could connect you, me, or anyone else to a "radical" organization or a "radical" political position. Heck, Give me just a couple steps and I can connect Richard Land to groups that affirm homosexuality (NCC) and groups that support same-sex marriage (Reform Jews). Working in issue-specific coalitions (like the ERLC and BJC do) does not mean that an organization supports or endorses the views of its coalition members. Richard Land understands this - so does the BJC and other CBF-affiliated organizations.

That said, I won't deny that perhaps a handful of well-known moderates (see Buzz Thomas) would affirm. But these handful of folks do not pastor CBF churches and do not wield any power in the CBF.

Kaylor said...

Matt: It has been pointed out by several that you need another source besides Moran. I find it ironic that you rely on him considering that earlier today a lot of Missouri Baptists loyal to the MBC met to figure out how to "save" the MBC from the control of Moran. Quit reading Moran's junk and instead do what Gary suggested--start actually talking and, more importantly, listening to those you are attacking.

Big Daddy Weave said...

Matt,

I do agree that many of the differences are indeed doctrinal.

Many many many differences.

And, I can explain away any of Moran's connections. How can I take him seriously? If you read MBLA, you will see where he attempted to connect the CBF to virtual child pornography! Come on! That's just ludicrous!

Matt Brady said...

Gary and Kaylor,

I just read Gary's last comment again and noticed the point about Roger Moran stirring up hatred for fellow Baptists. I can't speak for Mr. Moran, but I don't think he "hates" anyone. I certainly do not harbor any hatred or even bitterness toward those who disagree with me doctrinally. I will work to keep the SBC in line with what I believe Scripture teaches, and that means I will oppose those I think are heading the wrong direction. I would expect them to stand for what they believe as well. Standing for what you believe does not mean you hate those who believe differently.

I am willing to listen to you. I cuold have been doing a lot of other things tonight, but I am conversing with y'all. I do, however, wish you would deal with the substance of Mr. Moran's points rather than simply saying he is hateful and therefore his points are invalid. I thought we were dealing with the issues that personalities believe and not the personalities themselves.

Big Daddy Weave said...

One more thing,

Talk of dually aligned churches is bothersome. I wish the reality was that a church gives to one or the other. However, if forced to make a choice, I do know the CBF would be on the bad end of that deal.

So, for the time being, churches will dually align.

Nonetheless, older folks like my grandma who are CBF-minded and CBF-sympathetic frustrate me. They have much of nothing in common with the SBC anymore, but continue to give to Lottie and Annie instead of giving all of their offering to CBF missions. Completely breaking ties with the SBC is apparently a more difficult task than I'm able to understand.

Anonymous said...

Matt,

The question you asked is why did they leave. That is what I would be speaking to. I cannot speak to the ties that are spoken of in the link you provided concerning the CBF. I cannot speak for the reasons churches left the SBC. I can speak about my own personal experience (I have not left the SBC, but I do not feel apart of it anymore) and those who shared their experiences with me who did leave. If you are interested in hearing that, I can be of service. But if you prefer to believe word for word the view expressed in that link you sent me then it may be pointless. Then again I have done some things I thought were pointless in my lifetime and I learned some life lessons...

Your brother in Christ,
Don

Gary Snowden said...

Matt,

Please go to the sources rather than Moran for your information. The CBF website contains the following statement regarding homosexuality in a section entitled FAQs.

"As Baptist Christians, we believe that the foundation of a Christian sexual ethic is faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman and celibacy in singleness. We also believe in the love and grace of God for all people, both for those who live by this understanding of the biblical standard and those who do not. We treasure the freedom of individual conscience and the autonomy of the local church, and we also believe that congregational leaders should be persons of moral integrity whose lives exemplify the highest standards of Christian conduct and character.
Because of this organizational value, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship does not allow for the expenditure of funds for organizations or causes that condone, advocate or affirm homosexual practice. Neither does this CBF organizational value allow for the purposeful hiring of a staff person or the sending of a missionary who is a practicing homosexual."

This is an official statement adopted by CBF's Coordinating Council in 2000. Rather than trying to take what some pastor someone sometime might have said about CBF's stance on homosexuality, why not let the organization speak to the issue with in its own words?

I think you're probably confusing beer-drinking issues with "some" and by no means all groups that are labelled as "emergent" but to say this is a CBF issue is patently false.

I will concede that on women in the pastorate, many CBF'ers interpret the Scriptures differently than do many in the SBC, but that would also be true of many other conservative, evangelical groups.

Regarding glossalalia, that too is a non-issue among CBF or BGCM congregations.

This will be my last comment in this string as I've already written far more than I ever have in any comment string. Let me just encourage you to pursue some peaceful dialogue with self-identified moderate Baptists regarding these accusations you're making rather than accepting Roger Moran's accusations as the truth.

Big Daddy Weave said...

Ok, allow me to engage Roger Moran's research...

1. "And no CBF-related organization is more deeply involved with liberal, pro-homosexuality groups than the BJCPA"

Moran continues by quoting BJC General Counsel and Directors who praise the work of PAW and ACLU on RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ISSUES.

The BJC only deals with Religious Liberty and her essential corollary, the separation of church and state. Other organizations like ACLU and PAW that tackle MANY MANY issues also deal with church-state causes. Thus, on occasion the BJC will coalition with such groups on RELIGIOUS LIBERTY issues ONLY.

Similarly, your CP-funded Richard Land-led ERLC has found it acceptable to work with the National Council of Churches and Reform Jews on various issues such as anti-tobacco activism.

Thus, we don't have to agree on every-single issue to work together in the political arena. So, when Moran connects the BJC to porn and partial-birth abortion - that's an unfair connection. The BJC works with those groups ONLY on Religious Liberty issues. Again, Richard Land works with many of those same organizations (NCC) only on certain issues. The NCC and ERLC definitely disagree on abortion but I don't see Roger Moran making a similar connection.

Matt Brady said...

BDW,

I would agree that saying all CBF supporters are child pornogrophers or homosexuals or alcoholics, etc. is way over the line. It is unfair to paint with a broad brush. What Moran does, however, is to point to key leaders of the CBF and notes their individual leadership in other organizations which do support some very ungodly activities. Men or women who hold such divergent doctrines and work with such leftward groups have no place in leadership in SBC life here I don't begrudge them believeing whatever they do. They just can't be leaders of the SBC. Therefore they acted correctly in leaving. Regarding the point of the original post, the MBC simply affirmed the Missouri churches in their decision to leave.

I am in hearty agreement with you that those who do not like the clear conservative direction of the majority of Southern Baptists over the last three decades really should work together in their own convenition/fellowship, and make the break definitive and clear. Many on the right did that years ago. If we would find those with whom we agree and work with them, we would be able to spend a lot less time bantering with one another and more time doing other kingdom work.

Matt Brady said...

Gary,

I've enjoyed the conversation. Thanks for taking the time. It is clear we don't see eye to eye, but maybe we'll run into each other some time. I'd be glad to hear your experiences.

Debbie said...

Matt Brady said: "I will work to keep the SBC in line with what I believe Scripture teaches"

This is very disturbing Matt. Notice all the I's in this sentence. Especially that last part of your sentence. Since the SBC is made of autonomous churches, are you saying there is no room for disagreement, that all doctrine is fundamental and should be in line with what you personally believe scripture teaches. A little clarification may help me to see where exactly you are coming from. I just had a shiver down my spine as I read your comments.

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said…
True story: A Christian radio tower was destroyed in Fairbanks, Alaska by vandals. A Baptist church was receiving donations to rebuild the tower. $1,000 was given by ‘ladies of the night’ who wrote they enjoyed gospel music. The church rejected the ‘tainted’ money; whereas the ladies asked why it was ‘tainted’ since a lot came from their members.

Matt Brady,
You wrote: “It seems quite obvious that the CBF does not agree with the SBC. They left because they were in disagreement with the SBC.”
That’s true. You asked, “Why did they leave?”

Keith Parks was president of the IMB for 12 years. Missions had always been the glue that held Baptists together, but the powers that be argued it was doctrinal conformity. He was close to being fired so he left and helped to start the CBF that kept priority on missions.

It’s impossible to walk a straight line if you can’t see a point in the distance. But you can go straight if you see TWO points where you’ve been.

Likewise, you can tell where you’ll end up if you realize what you’ve done. The Conservative Resurgence has:
1. Fired opposition.
2. Changed organization names.
3. Proclaimed Disney boycott.
4. Changed structure of the IMB.
5. Asked missionaries to follow God-appointed leaders regardless of agreement or understanding.
6. Required priesthood to submit to the group.
7. Required missionaries to sign BFM which makes it a creed.
8. Forced over 100 missionaries from the field.
9. Fired 15 missionaries in one day.
10. Wives submit to husbands.
11. Decreed only men could be pastors.
12. Missionary applicants have to be baptized a certain way.
13. Missionary applicants have to pray a certain way.
14. Missionaries have to weight a certain amount.
15. Control and dominance.
16. “ “ “
17. “ “ “

So the question arises: ‘Who left who? Move over Catholics; the big dog is moving in!

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray,

I cannot post my name or other info, but I would REALLY like to talk to you. We could be "kinsmen." Please contact me at this e-mail address flboy@mac.com when you have time.

Thanx,
IMBM

Bart Barber said...

Rex Ray said: "Missions had always been the glue that held Baptists together, but the powers that be argued it was doctrinal conformity."

I guess Rex is waxing nostalgic for the good-old days when Baptists didn't fuss about doctrine but were simply "stuck together" by missions. The good old days of W. B. Johnson? No, wait, I mean, J. P. Boyce? No, wait, I mean, J. R. Graves? No. J. B. Gambrell? No. B. H. Carroll? No. I. T. Tichenor? J. M. Frost? F. H. Kerfoot? J. M. Pendleton? No.

Rex, can you help me find these time periods when Southern Baptists were not jousting over "doctirnal conformity"? So far the only period that I can find that fits that description is 1861-1865 (when most Southern Baptists were rather preoccupied with other things).

Since the day that John Smythe characterized all other Christian belief as apostate and Satanic by reference to the Beast of Revelation (viz. The Character of the Beast), Baptists have usually been a doctrinally confessional people.

Anonymous said...

LUKE 9:46-50 (NIV)

"An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. Then he said to them, "Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all—he is the greatest."

"Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us."

"Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you."


Unity is not uniformity. Uniformity is not unity. Unity is unity; uniformity is uniformity.

ml said...

To Anonymous and his "list" of errors,

Why do we assume that the priesthood of the believer is a thought-free-for-all dislocated from any "group" boundary or other doctrinal accountability? I think this is a faulty assumption of what is meant by "priesthood of the believer." It was never intended to be and is not synonymous to our modernistic idea of academic freedom at the university level. Also I think that another missing understanding about SBC life is that while churches are autonomous and non-creedal, the institutions are not churches and are compelled to submit to the authority of the SBC at large. Hence missionaries are not similar to church staff. They are convention staff who must come under the convention umbrella. This was clearly articulated by Dr. Lea to his last Ph.D seminar at SWBTS of which I had the privilege to be a part. SO if you do not like the direction, then the answer is to change your leaders. But that would not change the basic set-up of the convention structure at large. Either way, there is still going to be a level of accountability inherent to the structure. The question is how much do you feel most comfortable with? If you have not seriously grappled with the connection between missions and doctrine I would highly recommend two helpful sources: Mark Dever's, "Nine Marks of a Healthy Church," and John Piper's, "Let the Earth Rejoice."

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said…
Bart Barber,
I’ll confess my ignorance of the men you mentioned as I only know of B. H. Carroll and not much about him.
All I know as a kid, people would ask me if I was going to be a missionary like my uncle Rex Ray when all I wanted to do was play ‘cowboy and Indian.’ His son took over his work in Korea and retired after 39 years. His wife told me until Keith Parks became president of the IMB about all they heard from the IMB was their paychecks.

I remembered her words when Parks wrote in the Baptist Standard, February 11, 2002, “Our charter states that the ‘purpose of the SBC is to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of Southern Baptists for the propagation of the gospel at home and abroad.’”

So where did this charter start (“elicit, combine, and direct the energies”)? All that was needed after Parks was to add ‘control and dominance’ over our missionaries.

Parks told me after he gave speeches about the ‘glue’, people would ‘correct’ him saying the glue was ‘doctrinal conformity.’

Park’s letter went on to say, “It has never been clearer that the fundamentalist leaders have changed the very nature of the SBC. We must not lose the very heart of the gospel and the distinctive missions commitment of our heritage. We must find a way to be true to both. The IMB no longer provides that option.”

Bart, could you tell me how in the world did our first and great missionary, Judson, accomplish anything for the Lord without the constant control of the IMB? Maybe that’s the answer—something outside of this world.

Anonymous said...

Matt Brady,

Your comment characterizing the CBF as "open to beer drinking women pastors who speak in tongues and who are 'affirming' of homosexuals" is both offensive and, in my experience, inaccurate. Since you made the charge, can you back it up with real examples? And by the way: linking to Roger Moran's website is not sufficient--I mean concrete examples of what you charge, naming names and giving specifics, since it is you who made the charge on Wade's blog, not Roger Moran.

Matt, have you ever heard the expression, "You can disagree without being disagreeable"? If not, then just ask, "What would Jesus do?" Would He articulate something He disagreed with? Probably, at least if if it were sufficiently significant. But He would focus on the MAIN THING--He didn't hesitate to reveal Herod Antipas for what he was, because that was the main thing. When He encountered the Samaritan woman at the well, He revealed her lifestyle--but He did it without calling her names; He did it in pursuing another agenda, which was spreading the Gospel, and He did it in a private, loving way. He certainly disagreed with adultery, but when woman caught in adultery was brought to Him, He didn't tell her she was a slut and deserved being stonned; He saved her physically, restored her, and changed her life. If you disagree with issues, I have no problem with it. We can agree to disagree if necessary. But while it may help you in playing to a base (or at least a segment of the convention), it neither gives you credibility, advances the cause of Christ, nor even wins agruments (if that is you agenda) to make charges about organizations and individuals which are offensive and which you do not substantiate. Please rethink your methodology. At least that is my opinion, for what it's worth.

John Fariss

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

Wade, post like this show why you are not a Biblical conservative. It's not just about the doctrine you hold to but also how you live out that doctrine. To hold to the inerrancy of the Word and yet to seem to have no problem with those who do not (CBF) is a dangerous inconsistency.

I've often defended you (in my small world of influence) against those who want to label you a moderate/liberal. But I have seen an increasing "lifting of the veil" of where you really stand.

In the end the CBF and SBC cannot stand together and survive. That kind of compromise is an offense to Jesus and a hindrance (not help) to the preaching of the gospel.

We've yet to see the true colors of the CBF. In time, the immorality and heresy will increase. Without the belief and conviction that the Bible is God's Word, they have nothing to ultimately stand on and sin will increase.

My true hope is that when that happens, those who are sincere brothers and sisters in Christ and a part of the CBF will repent, get out, and get back on track.

Wade Burleson said...

Rev. Chris,

Like Spurgeon once said, "I have had the blessing of believing in my old age the same fundamentals of the faith that I held dear in my young age."

Like the Prince of Preachers, I have not changed -- the lifting of the 'veil' you mention would reveal the same man I was twenty years ago.

I am, however, convinced that much of what we conservatives have railed against others has been politically and control motivated rather than Biblically motivated. Why?

Because when it comes time to put the inerrant word of God into practice I see many who claim the title 'inerrantist' (as do I), fail to display the fruit of the Spirit in relationship with others, convey an unwillingness to accept the Bible as 'sufficient' in all areas of faith and practice, and are more concerned with politics than the gospel.

I'm hoping to change that patiently, steadfastly and one Southern Baptist person at a time.

Belief Matters said...

Wade, Is it railing aganist the CBF to ask them to clarify their views on issues that contradict the BFM? But at last I would also add is it too much for the current leadership to return to our historical baptist principles which our convention was founded on.

I am afraid the answer to both questions is that it is too much. I believe that CBF is far too liberal for the SBC to dance with at this point in time, and I believe that the SBC leadership is far to political.

This is why I hae basically given up and will focused on the ministry given to me in the local church.

Belief Matters said...

....and to learn grammar and typing skills. :)

Anonymous said...

Rex. I am another IMB m who must remain anonymous. I have read your comments and also those of other Ms who seem to agree with you. But on this particular post, I must say I disagree in the main. Here are my responses to your charges against those who led the Conservative Resurgence and especially our IMB leadership. Please excuse that I will not be following up with other posts because, frankly, I don't have the time. Our present SBC and IMB leadership are not perfect. But it seems so many here can find little or nothing to praise them for. I love all of you in Christ. But I love (and know) many men and women who are doing their best to serve Jesus the best way they know how. Please, for the sake of the Gospel and the lost, let's either find something good to say about our convention and missions agency or else not say anything. I am working to win the lost, not an argument, so please forgive this long entry and any malice or ill-will that you may perceive it to contain.

Rex said:
Resurgence has:
1. Fired opposition.

Yes, those who opposed the conservative direction of the convention. I wasn't around then, but did the previous more liberal leadership give equal authority and position to those they felt "opposed them"?

2. Changed organization names.

What's wrong with that?

3. Proclaimed Disney boycott.

Again, what's wrong with that? It was a voluntary action.

4. Changed structure of the IMB.

In my opinion, for the better. Nothing is perfect, but our present strategy and structure are based on an effort to win the masses. If it turns out this is not the best structure, we can change it again. Hindsight is 20-20.

5. Asked missionaries to follow God-appointed leaders regardless of agreement or understanding.

Again, what's wrong with that? Would you prefer that every M do "what is right in his own eyes"? If so, why wouldn't I just come overseas as an independent. I gladly submit to my leadership as unto the Lord knowing they are responsible for leadership decisions they make. If/when they require me to do something I feel is blatently unbiblical, I will resign (and hopefully without continuing to throw barbs at them afterwards).

6. Required priesthood to submit to the group. I am not sure what you mean by this.

7. Required missionaries to sign BFM which makes it a creed.

I signed it and it is not a creed. I also agreed to the '63 BF&M. No difference in reasoning. If I had disagreed with the 2000, I would have resigned before signing.

8. Forced over 100 missionaries from the field.

No sir. These people chose to leave their service with the IMB. They can still serve on the m field through one of several other good agencies. Some of these people who left are my frields and I love them; but their bitterness speaks ill of them imo.

9. Fired 15 missionaries in one day. You mean the 15 who would not agree to serve with our IMB under criteria voted on by Southern Baptists? I respect their decision to obey their consciences, but you slander those who were trying to represent Southern Baptists by requiring that Ms agree to our convention's statement of faith.

10. Wives submit to husbands.

This is a biblical teaching.

11. Decreed only men could be pastors.

Again a biblical teaching. Those who have a different interpretation can serve with other agencies. I would not feel I had the right to be a Methodist while insisting on male-only pastorates. I respect their interpretation, while disagreeing with them. However, the long-held SBC interpretation is male pastors.

12. Missionary applicants have to be baptized a certain way.

The biblical way. BTW, I am not in total agreement with the new guidlines, but it seems a small thing.

13. Missionary applicants have to pray a certain way.

Not true sir. This is an exaggeration. BTW, I don't have a PPL but have no problem with those who do.

14. Missionaries have to weight a certain amount.

You mean the BMI requirement? As someone "on the edge" I am concerned about this one too, :-)but it is merely an attempt to send the healthiest Ms possible. Must every requirement and rule be criticized? I agree with it even though I struggle to meet the requirement.

15. Control and dominance.

Sir, respectfully, "leadership" involves and necessitates some "control". I don't always agree with those who supervise me. I am not a blind "patsy" willing to follow anyone anywhere. But each and every leader I have had tried to lead with humility, sincerity, and godly zeal. "Domination" is an ugly accusation.

16. I love you in the Lord.

Sorry I must remain anonymous. My work demands it.

With sincerest respect,

Long-term IMBmtoo

Anonymous said...

Bro Chris
please explain just what you are "conserving" the term biblical conservative must have a definition for you to use it- simple question- what do you "conserve"
although i'm miles apart from wade-(theology) he must be called a biblical conservative. what else can you call him?
John Daniels
the "lets call the other guy a liberal" just does not work any more- wade is not a liberal, you may call me one- i won't argue, but becasue you disagree with wade do not challege his love or respect for god's word.

Wade Burleson said...

Belief Matters,

I am not asking for the CBF and SBC to dance together -- I am asking for the SBC to be cordial, friendly and gracious to people in the CBF who are on the dance floor. If Baptist churches and individuals wish to partner with CBF let them do so without railing against them -- if they wish to give to SBC causes as well, let them -- this is not about CBF'ers providing leadership for the SBC, it is about the SBC refusing to make CBF the enemy.

We need more of a kingdom mind rather than a denoninational mind and when we SBC'ers can live the grace they teach, we will make great strides for the kingdom.

Matt Brady said...

John,

I linked to Brother Moran's web site, because he has entire site to devote to pointing out the differences between the SBC and CBF. Missouri Baptist Layman’s Association You may not like the implications and some may take them farther than is fair, but the facts that Brother Moran lists are documented with links so that anyone can click on them and check the veracity of the claims.

Furthermore, per your example, if Jesus can point out Herod for who he was, what makes it wrong to point out the CBF for who they are? I am not calling them a "slut" or trying to demean them. I'm just pointing out what their leadership stands for.

Again, y'all are free to believe whatever you want. There is just a clear difference between where the SBC stands and where the CBF stands.

I have to sign off for a while. I'll be glad to continue the conversation, but it will have to be after prayer meeting tonight.

Matt Brady said...

That previous link should be:

www.mbla.org

Missouri Baptist Layman’s Association

Gary Snowden said...

Well, it's a new day and despite my statement last night that I was making my final comment on this post, I simply couldn't let Chris Hilliard's wild accusations pass. He writes above, "We've yet to see the true colors of the CBF. In time, the immorality and heresy will increase. Without the belief and conviction that the Bible is God's Word, they have nothing to ultimately stand on and sin will increase."

I wish that Chris would demonstrate from CBF's own documents that they lack the belief and conviction that the Bible is God's Word. He simply cannot do so because that is a slanderous lie. I seem to recall the Bible saying something about bearing false witness.

I'll say to Chris what I said to Matt Brady. Rather than letting the enemies of CBF define their beliefs and doctrines for them, please go to the original sources. I'll even help you in that process by referring you to Daniel Vestal's statement regarding CBF's view of the Bible. Here is what the head of CBF says his organization believes about the Scriptures. Don't take Roger Moran's word as the gospel when it comes to defining any moderate Baptist group. Let their own words be the basis upon which to judge and discern their positions.

Wade Burleson said...

BDW,

Very nice responses. Please know that my question a couple of weeks agao of you on Baptist Life was inappropriate. In hindsight, it should not have been made in a public forum and I sincerely apologize and seek your forgiveness.

I have learned from my mistake and if I have questions of a similar nature in the future I will contact you by phone or email. I plan to make my apology known to you on the Baptist forum as well.

Matt Brady said...

Gary,

So much for my last word as well. (I really am headed out the door) I did not ask anyone to take Roger Moran's word for anything. I'm asking people to look at the words of CBF leaders that Roger quotes and links to for verification. The problem with statements made by CBF leadership is that sometimes they contradict their other statements. Brother Moran clearly points that out.

R. L. Vaughn said...

Long-term IMBmtoo wrote, "These people chose to leave their service with the IMB. They can still serve on the m field through one of several other good agencies." To this I would add -- "or no agency at all". The great number of missionaries from other agencies and from local churches testify that the IMB does not control whether missionaries are on the field. Their authority stops in their own realm.

Anonymous said...

Dear Matt,

I say again: YOU made the accusations, not Roger Moran. Had he made the statement about "beer drinking women pastors who speak in tongues and who are 'affirming' of homosexuals" on Wade's blog, and linked his proof to a specific part of his website which gave credible examples, I suppose I would accept it as his proof (although on his site, I do not see concrete examples of this). However, he did not (unless "Matt Brady" is a pseudonym, and I assume he has more integrity than that), so it is your responsibility to offer proof, not his. What is your proof?

And again I say: they way you phrase your comments are offensive to me. They certainly seem inconsistent with the Jesus I know (both from experience and from the Gospels; and by the way, there isn't a "CBF Bible" that is different from the one you read). And anyway, I'm still a Southern Baptist, although the church I serve does contribute some funds to the CBF. And the CBF leaders and members I know do not stand for drinking beer, speaking in tongues, or affirming the practice of homosexuality; and while many are open to it, there are no more than a handful of female pastors in the CBF. If you want to disagree with something that the CBF actually is for, disagree with the issue. But making up a "strawman" like "beer drinking women pastors who speak in tongues and who are 'affirming' of homosexuals" is both inaccurate and offensive.

John Fariss

Bob Cleveland said...

Dare I say that I think the only thing that's really changed in Baptist circles is the advent of blogdom? Think of the folks you disagree with most, and ask yourself how upset you were before you knew all this stuff.

All the discussion about the BFM? How much of that was there down here in the trenches 5 or 10 years ago?

Tongues? Calvinism? I doubt there was that much heated discussion of those things, in typical Baptist churches before, unless of course FBC Pelham is atypical. And I think it's very typical!

So there you have it, and the acrimony which flows was always there, just directed elsewhere by anyone who didn't live in a vacuum. Except for the folks who don't show any of that, now.

I sure cannot see any reason to be upset or abusive in language about anything related to scripture! In fact, quite the opposite.

Carry on. I think it's all fun, myself.

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said…
Long-term IMB too,
Thanks for making my point. You’re the type of person the IMB desires. May God bless you in your work for the Lord, and I say that sincerely.

Monte said...

This all reminds me of that scene in "Fiddler on the Roof" when the Jewish men in the village nearly break out into a brawl over the story they tell of a horse sold. Who knows how long the story had been circulating, but every time the subject came up, they began disputing and fighting over the age of the horse all over again. So it is with this squabble over CBF. The moment anyone mentions it--off we go. And is there ever any resolution? Never! "Why can't we all just get along?"

Big Daddy Weave said...

Wade,

Apology accepted.

Thanks

Big Daddy Weave said...

Matt,

Enjoyed the conversation last night. Allow me to pick apart some of Roger Moran's research.

He wrote:

"The SBC has no leaders that deny the deity of Christ, the need for His sacrificial death or the importance of His virgin birth. But CBF Does"

Kirby Godsey has never been a CBF leader. Kirby Godsey was never involved in the SBC pre-1979. Kirby Godsey was merely the President of Mercer. Yes, his theology is liberal. Yes, his book ticked off quite a few moderates. In fact, some mods were mad at Kirby for years. Not me though, I'm thankful for Kirby's leadership at Mercer. Mercer thrived while every other Georgia Baptist school sunk in numbers and never improved academically. Under Godsey, Mercer became a first-rate private university with some great grad programs including a business, law, and medical school. Godsey was confined to Macon - never a CBF leader.

"The SBC has no feminist theologian leaders calling for the worship of the Christ-Sophia. But CBF does."

Again, Jann Aldredge-Clanton is not a CBF leader. Hosting a CBF breakout session does not make a person a CBFer. In the past, non-Baptists and non-Christians have hosted breakout sessions. They are just 50-minute informational discussions on a wide variety of subjects. Clanton led a session years ago because she wrote a pro-women-in-ministry book. A true feminist like Clanton would likely not find a home in the CBF. After all, 99% of our churches don't use gender inclusive language during services. That's a deal breaker for a feminist. One of my good friends is an Agnes-Scott feminist. She's Alliance and has nothing positive to say about the CBF.

So many of Roger Moran's examples involve folks that never were CBF leaders. I'd have an ounce of respect for Moran if he actually went after KNOWN CBF leaders like Vestal or Nash. But connecting Vestal and the CBF to a handful of liberals who are not involved in CBF-life is disingenuous.

If you have a specific question about Moran's research, I'm game for addressing those too.

Anonymous said...

bdw,

i guess the thing that comes to my mind immediately from your response is....

1. why would jann aldredge-clanton even be asked to speak at a breakout session of the cbf with her views? that alone says a lot to me about the cbf.

2. would you not say that mercer is a university that many cbf people look upon as one of "thier schools?" would that not be fair to say? and, if it is fair to say that mercer is a school that the cbf crowd would encourage people to attend, then why would they encourage anyone to go to a school that's led by a liberal? once again, saying a lot about the cbf crowd.

david.....volfan007

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

I stand by my post. I reiterate:

"It's not just about the doctrine you hold to but also how you live out that doctrine. To hold to the inerrancy of the Word and yet to seem to have no problem with those who do not (CBF) is a dangerous inconsistency."

You can't "dance" or partner with heresy. Despite brother Gary's claim, the CBF does NOT believe the Scriptures to be God's Word. Let's be honest with the semantics game here. I knew all about their claim that they believe in the "authority and inspiration” (but only under the Jesus Lordship) of the Word which is code for "nice but with lots of errors".

Again, I reiterate:

"We've yet to see the true colors of the CBF. In time, the immorality and heresy will increase. Without the belief and conviction that the Bible is God's Word, they have nothing to ultimately stand on and sin will increase." In time homosexuality WILL be welcomed and flaunted in CBF churches. In time serious heresy will evolve as people bypass God's inerrant Word with "new" revelation since it is to be interpreted “under the Lordship of Christ” (code, “The Bible may say such and such but in the end I go with Jesus if He tells me something different”).

The Fellowship states (with my thoughts in parenthesis), “The Fellowship believes in the divine inspiration (like Shakespeare’s writings) of the Bible and its authority in the lives of Christians, who are free to follow and interpret it under the Lordship of Christ (so, the Bible authority thing only goes so far). Christians are responsible under God for their interpretation of Scripture. In regards to scriptural inerrancy, the founding document of the Fellowship states:
We want to be biblical – especially in our view of the Bible. That means we dare not claim less for the Bible than the Bible claims for itself. The Bible neither claims nor reveals inerrancy as a Christian teaching. Bible claims must be based on the Bible, not on human interpretations of the Bible. (In other words “NO”, we don’t believe it is without error. I find the last line the most insane. So, we go to the errant Bible to see what it inerrant proclaims about itself? Crazy.)

Should the SBC partner with the CBF? Not at all.

They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.
1 John 2:19 (NASB)

Anonymous said...

I frequently find it quite useful to read, listen to, and think about views that may be very different from mine. I work at a regional state University, graduated both undergrad and grad from large state flagship Univeristies, and have a seminary degree.

Going to hear views and opinions that I may strongly disagree with often helps me understand the people I deal with on a regular basis. Sometimes hearing things from a different perspective forces me to take off the glasses I'm comfortable wearing and consider how much of what I read in a text is a product of my background.

I appreciate a good service/meeting where I can be reminded of the beliefs that we all hold dear and have those truths affirmed again.

At the same time, I think it is very important that we listen and try to understand views that we don't share, particularly if those views are those that we encounter as we minister to the world around us.

Now I don't know enough about the CBF annual meeting to know if that is the appropriate place to do that (is it more akin to a professional conference on a number of different topics or a church business meeting), but to say that inviting someone to speak to a group implies the group's endorsement of what the person is saying is a bit of a stretch.

David Eaton

Anonymous said...

i just received our state paper today...the baptist and reflector in tn...and, the lottie moon offering is about to set records. i guess a vast majority love our missionaries and believe in the imb and want to give to it.


david...volfan007

Big Daddy Weave said...

Volfan,

"1. why would jann aldredge-clanton even be asked to speak at a breakout session of the cbf with her views? that alone says a lot to me about the cbf."

BDW: According to Roger Moran, Aldredge-Clanton led breakout sessions in 1992 and 1995. Her controversial book, In Search of the Christ-Sophia: An Inclusive Christology for Liberating Christians, did not come out until October of 1994. Our General Assembly is held in June. Since 1995, Aldredge-Clanton has not been invited back to lead a CBF breakout session.

That said, as a female and a theologian, Aldredge-Clanton was at the forefront of advocating for women's ordination. In 92 and 95, it would have been quite appropriate to invite such a figure to speak on women-in-ministry. Leading a breakout session at the CBF is not akin to speaking at your annual meeting or preaching at your pastor's conference. Our General Assembly is relatively small and throughout the 3-day period, the CBF hosts dozens of breakout sessions. Some are attended by only 20-30 people. Others get a much larger audience. Inviting a person to led a session is not an endorsement of every word that person has ever spoken or written down.

"2. would you not say that mercer is a university that many cbf people look upon as one of "thier schools?" would that not be fair to say? and, if it is fair to say that mercer is a school that the cbf crowd would encourage people to attend, then why would they encourage anyone to go to a school that's led by a liberal? once again, saying a lot about the cbf crowd."

BDW: Yes, Mercer is our school. I love Mercer. Though I never went to Mercer, many many many of my friends did. I lived next-door to Mercer-Atlanta (McAfee) for a year. I played doubles tennis with many of the professors on a regular basis. And with Dr. Underwood (formerly of Baylor) as their President, I have great hopes for the future of Mercer and the New Baptist Covenant.

Kirby Godsey was the President of Mercer for 27 years. His book, When We Talk About God, Let's Be Honest (which by the way is a great book), came out in 1996. Godsey had been President for almost 17 years at that point. As much as that book ticked off some people, they weren't going to oust Kirby Godsey. While other GBC schools had suffered from financial aid scandals, declining enrollment, and terribly low academic standards - Mercer survived and had become a top-notch University. Kirby's theology is his own. He's a liberal Baptist. But his role was not to be the theologian-in-chief. He did his job and did it well. But, you won't find Kirby's theology being taught in the Religion Department at Mercer or at McAfee. And you also won't find Mercer students being spoon-feed either.

Anonymous said...

Rev chris and Matt
noticed that mark driscoll (sure is taking some heat right now) is speaking at southeastern baptist seminary. what would roger moran say about that guilt by association. he is emergent you know, he might even drink?
by the way CBF cooperates with over 10 agencies and organizations that the sbc coooperates with also- better kick habitat for humanity and wycliff translators out of sbc cooperation they are "tainted"
John Daniels

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

My discussion is with the SBC working with the CBF. As for your other examples, don't think they aren't on the radar as well. We must always be diligent to watch out for compromise, blasphemy, heresy, etc. So, again. My post stands.

John, being liberal is not just doctrine but how that doctrine is lived out. If I believed in "Christ-Sophia" would that make me liberal? Yes. If I believed it to be wrong and yet was willing to call a staff member who held to that view, would that make me liberal? Yes. Maybe not in theology but in practice. Both are dangerous.

Big Daddy Weave said...

Nobody has mentioned this, but from what I've experienced and read, many African-American congregations (National Baptists usually) are dually aligned with either the ABC-USA, SBC, or CBF.

Those dually-aligned NBC-SBC churches have been supporting CBF-affiliated ministries for years such as the Baptist Joint Committee. Further, those same dually-aligned churches are members of the North American Baptist Fellowship, Baptist World Alliance, and hopefully will participate in next January's celebration of the New Baptist Covenant - all groups that the SBC does not support.

Does the MBC still accept money from these dually-aligned churches? If so, why? Inconsistency?

Debbie said...

Rev. Chris: What's dangerous seems to be your statements.

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

What do all these examples prove anyways? If the truth be told, true Biblical conservatives in doctrine and practice would LOVE to end ANY compromising relationships. That takes time, research, and making sure that processs is done Biblically. It took quite a long time to gain control of the convention. So, the rest can't happen over night.

And regardless, with these other examples, just because their MAY be compromise there doesn't mean we should compromise everywhere.

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

And how so Debbie? In all seriousness, I want to know why you feel that way?
Weren't similiar things said when the conservatives were fighting for the convention? But it was a necessary fight in the end, right? I believe so.

Debbie said...

Rev. Chris: The liberals are extreme, but so are you. The liberals go to far to the left and miss large passages of scripture, yet you go all the way to the opposite extreme, missing large portions of scripture. In my opinion you are as wrong if not more so than they are.

There was a battle 20 years ago there should not be a battle now. It's turning into that because of people with your ideology but it should never be a battle to cooperate on non-essentials.

Your post to Wade questioning his conservatism was out of line. Grace is not accepting all doctrines or cause to be labeled liberal, it is however accepting people where they are and treating them as all human beings should be treated, not with a sword but with kindness. Remember when Peter cut off the guards' ear when Jesus was arrested? What did Jesus do? It seems that it's hard for some to comprehend that Jesus was harder on the religious leaders aka Pharisees than he was even on the woman who committed adultery. I think it's time to wake up to this fact of scripture before it's too late. 100% pure doctrine does not save you and it's not even a guarantee that one is sanctified. It most times means that one just listened well in seminary class or to the sermons.

Debbie said...

BTW: Did Jesus ask the woman who poured perfume on his feet if her theology was lined up correctly before he accepted her gift? I didn't notice the widow who gave her last mite being asked about her theology either.

Anonymous said...

They should do what the pastor who was outspokenly opposed the lottery did when his when his wife won their state lottery. When the blood-thirsty media asked him what he thought about the lottery after his wife won, he replied, "The devil's had that money long enough!"
For humor challenged readers: this was not intended to be taken literally!

Lee said...

If unfounded accusations, false inuendo and name calling are the standard operating procedure for self-proclaimed "true Biblical conservatives" on a crusade to purge the SBC of heresy, then I think that pretty well explains what has happened to those who don't believe tertiary doctrinal issues should be a test of SBC cooperation. It should also be a sign of what the future holds.

Chris articulated it very well. It's a matter of declaring one's self to be a "true Biblical conservative," to justify "gaining control of the convention." By insinuating that your opposition is not "true" or "Biblical," or "conservative," you remove any obligation on your part to follow the Bible's instructions for dealing with conflict among the family of Christ. Adding a few "hot button" accusations, as Matt did by using both "beer drinking" and "affirming homosexuality" in the same sentence helps solidify your position. The words are already out, and when you're called upon to point to the evidence, you merely have to say, "Well, they may not be doing that now, but if they are the heretics we say they are, they'll eventually get around to it."

At the Holy Spirit conference a few weeks back, Dwight McKissic and Wade Burleson made a genuine, concerted effort to invite those who openly disagreed with their position to sit down, present their views, and then had a noted Bible professor explain how both views could cooperate, not only in the same denomination, but in the same church. Gee, I wish that would be the model we would follow for future disagreements in the SBC.

Belief Matters said...

Debbie, if you belief the wrong things about Jesus one cannot be save? Theology matters! What you belief (doctrine) determines how you live. Theology is very important!

Anonymous said...

LUKE 9:

"Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us."

"Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you."


What would the Lord Jesus say about the topic being discussed above? What He said.

Do it.

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said…
David 007,
You said the Lottie Moon offering is about to set records and “I guess a vast majority love our missionaries and believe in the IMB and want to give to it.”

I agree “a vast majority love our missionaries” but how do you conclude they believe in the IMB and what it is doing? Baptists have always wanted to support our missionaries. But to indicate the IMB is right because of the money does not give an honest evaluation of what people think.

Rev Chris Hilliard,
Will you agree the Bible contains the inerrant Word of God? I do.
True—False test:
1. It’s impossible for God to tell a lie.
2. It’s impossible for God to ‘breath’ a lie.
3. It’s impossible for God to ‘inspire’ a lie.
4. Lies of the devil are in the Bible.
5. Lies of men are in the Bible.
6. Ignorance of men is in the Bible.
7. Stupidity of men is in the Bible.
8. Just because words are truly told in the Bible, does not mean all words are breathed or inspired from the mouth of God.
9. All words in the Bible are not inerrant.
10. Jesus said the Holy Spirit is to teach us.

I’m tired of people looking down their noses and telling me I don’t believe the Bible.

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

Rex,
If you can’t see the clear contradiction in your own post, I’m not sure I can help. You believe parts of the Bible are God’s Word, NOT in it’s totality. Your definition of “God’s Word” is skewed and misunderstood. Without error doesn’t mean # 4-7 aren’t in there. It means God inspired them to be put in there and they are recorded exactly to the letter as the event occurred and without error in its historicity. But I digress..

Debbie and Lee,
Thanks for responding. You seem to have missed what I posted earlier. Being conservative is not just doctrine (I have little doubt Wade waivers here, though I’ve not discussed or read about his view on every “essential” of the faith) but it is also how you live out that doctrine. I believe you’ll recognize this quote, “"What a person's doctrine is determines how they will live." (Wade Burleson) I whole heartedly agree. As well, how a person lives reveals the doctrine they truly hold to.

You really perplexed me with the comments about my “ideology” and battling over “non-essentials”. Go back and read. The issue is the same as 20 years ago. God’s Word. Not only must we hold to the inerrancy of the Word but we must not be “unequally yoked” with those who deny it. That is all I am pointing out. That is compromise.

BTW, Jesus didn’t have to ask. He already knew.

But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, 25 and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man. John 2:24-25 (NASB)

Anonymous said...

chris hilliard,

amen!


rex,

people dont give to things that they dont believe in.

the lottie moon offering is about to set new records.

david.....volfan007

Debbie said...

Rev. Chris said: "I believe you’ll recognize this quote, “"What a person's doctrine is determines how they will live." (Wade Burleson)"

Yes I do recognize it and one of the first doctrines I learned in this church was the doctrine of grace, being kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another as Christ forgave me. Living that out first and foremost because if one doesn't the rest doesn't mean anything. That quote to me was freeing because the chains of legalism were falling off. The doctrine of Christ is freeing not binding. If one believe this, one lives in the freedom of Christ.

I disagree it's the same battle., it's not even near the same battle as 20 years ago. I think some are wanting to relive that battle, but it shouldn't be a battle. One cannot live off of the glory of 20 years ago.

Also I support those giving to the CP not because I agree with the IMB but because I don't think the missionaries need suffer because of the IMB and it's recent decisions. I think that's the message being given. It really doesn't matter the reason that giving is up....at least not to me. It's up and that's reason for rejoicing.

The danger in what you are saying is that you say is that you are on constant watch for someone to slip up, yet you may be the one slipping up and not even realizing it. I would say that there would be those who agree with you on this but would disagree with you somewhere else. They may be the next ones you are watching, or you may be the next ones they are watching. Cooperation in the non-essentials frees one from "watching". Frees one to live their Christian life.

Debbie said...

belief matters: We are not speaking of essentials, but non-essentials such as eschatology, private prayer language, Calvinism or non-Calvinism etc. Complete cooperation with those who would disagree with us in these areas. I would agree with your statement which is why we are to give the gospel to those who are lost. But remember, it's belief in Christ that saves us. But I do agree with you, it's belief in Christ of the Bible. As we grow we learn more and more about Christ etc. Phil. 1:6 would cover this.

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

Debbie,
I agree with most of what you shared. I think you have misunderstood my post. Please don't lump be together with all the others posting here.

I do not agree with all the IMB has proposed. I'm still filtering that through the Word.

I am an "ex-pharisee" who has also been freed from legalism. I am not looking for anyone to slip up. I am seeking to go strictly with the Word in my ministry and hope the SBC will as well.

My sole reason for entering this discussion was Wade's clear willingness to walk hand in hand in ministry with those of the CBF. They do not hold to the inerrancy of the Word. They are a denomination/"fellowship" that is dangerous because of this. As I posted earlier, we have yet to see the heresy and compromise that will come into the CBF.

Can we be "yoked" with them? I believe not.

Wade's post was not about the recent IMB stuff or "non-essentials". It was about WHY would the MBC not accept missionary money from churches tied to the CBF.

Anonymous said...

Dear Chris Hilliard,

I appreciate the tone of your last post to Debbie. You sound "real" there. But let me point something you have repeated, "We have yet to see the heresy and compromise that will come into the CBF." I am sure you believe that. I have read your reasons; I don't agree with all of them, but see where you are coming from. But please consider a couple of other factors too.

Before Christ saved me and called me into the ministry, I was a police officer. I was a detective, then for several years after I left the PD, I worked as a security consultant in private industry. One of the first lessons that an investigator has to learn is that when you form an opinion about a crime, from that point on, you tend to see only that which reinforces your opinion, and minimize or ignore everything that contradicts it. Guess what? When I became a student of the Bible, I found myself doing the same thing; and I don't think I am unique.

Yes, the Bible warns us against being unequally yoked, and that two cannot walk together unless they are agreed. But does that mean agreement in every matter? My 29th wedding anniversary is this weekend, and we found out the hard way that we don't have to agree on literally everything to still walk together--as long as we agree on where we are going and how to get there. But we don't have to be in lock-step, marching like a couple of soldiers in formation. In fact, there are times one of us can stop to tie shoelaces or admire a flower, then catch up with the other. There are times we can disagree, and still find our back to each other.

Chris, I guess what I'm trying to say is (1) that cooperation is possible over a wider arena than what you seem (hear "seem," I could be wrong here); and (2) be careful not to form an opinion (as of the CBF and those who participate with it) too soon, because it can throw your perception and judgment off, which is what your prediction about the CBF sounds like. Aren't we called to go by reality, rather than by what someone, anyone (even ourselves) thinks the future will hold?

Best!

John Fariss

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

John,
Totally agree on your second paragraph. What protects me here is the Word of God, conviction of the Holy Spirit, and the accountability from the church body. It is a lifelong growing process.

No, it doesn’t mean we need to agree in every matter. I have not advocated that. In fact, my last post made that clear. An example, the IMB has made some decisions I’m not comfortable with. But I have no problem supporting them and working with them.

1) Sure, but the essentials can’t be compromised. We can debate what IS essential but I’m convinced the inerrancy of Scripture is one. I hold to it and do not desire to knowingly yoke in ministry with those who are against it.

2) My opinion is based upon their own statements about the Word of God. As for the “we have yet to see” comments, it is an inevitable that this will take place. Why? When you go outside God’s word you will go astray. That goes for all of us. They believe that “in the divine inspiration of the Bible and its authority in the lives of Christians, who are free to follow and interpret it under the Lordship of Christ.” That’s code speak for, “The Bible is our authority unless Jesus tells us something different.” So, if they disagree with what Paul was inspired by God to write about homosexuality because the Lord revealed to them otherwise, they can promote another doctrine, viewpoint, etc.

This is already happening elsewhere. The Alliance is proof of that.

"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
Matt 7:16-18

But, it takes time to allow the fruit to bloom and grow. We have yet to see…

Debbie said...

With all due respect Chris, I believe you are seeing wrong. I don't have to defend Wade, he does a fine job of that himself. I do think you need to read all he has written and not just parts. Without possibly meaning to you have just done a "guilt by association" and if that were the case I too would be criticized. I do not just deal with Southern Baptists.

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said…
Rev Chris,
Your reply made me smile; I’ll repeat your own words to you: “If you can’t see the clear contradiction in your own post, I’m not sure I can help.”

I will add my ‘paraphrase’ in brackets.

You said, “Your definition of God’s Word is skewed and misunderstood. Without error doesn’t mean # 4-7 [errors] aren’t in there. It means God inspired them [errors] to be put in there and they [errors] are recorded exactly to the letter as the event [errors] occurred and without error in its historicity.”

Talk about contradiction—you’re saying plain and simple because God put errors in the Bible, there are no errors.

Will you agree that Scripture—God’s Word, is truth and without the least bit of error?

Will you agree that untruth is NOT Scripture even though it’s in the Bible?

Will you agree that some untruth is easily detected such as the lie of Moses in Deuteronomy (his reason why he couldn’t go to the Promise Land) since the real reason is told by God in Numbers?

Will you agree the Bible cannot be read as a math book, but for understanding we must rely on the Holy Spirit?

As grain and shaft are separated by wind, truth and untruth of the Bible must be separated by the Holy Spirit.

To call someone a non-Bible believer because they believe the Bible has errors is nothing but politics talking.

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said…
David 007,
Lottie Moon is like a great ‘bill pasted in Congress with some pork’ (IMB) attached to it.

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

Debbie,
I am in complete agreement with your last post.

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

Rex,
Politics? Where did that come from? Never called anyone an “unbeliever” if my memory serves me write.
Your paraphrase was quite inaccurate. I’ll help.

“Your definition of God’s Word is skewed and misunderstood. Without error doesn’t mean #4-7 [The devil lying, men lying and being stupid and those stories accurately reported by God without the least bit of error in their historicity] aren’t in there. It means God inspired them [those true stories] to be put in there and they [true stories] are recorded exactly to the letter as the event [true stories] occurred and without error in its historicity.”

Will you agree that Scripture - God’s Word is truth and without the least bit of error? Yes
Will you agree that untruth is NOT Scripture even though it’s in the Bible? No

Of course the Bible isn’t a math book.

Anyway, you seem to completely misunderstand the inerrantist view. Here’s a hint:

From the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (Article XIII):
“We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.”

As for the grain and shaft analogy, this is the real reason for the division amongst many. One claims the Holy Spirit told them one thing about Scripture and another claims the Holy Spirit told them the opposite. Who’s right? The one who’s “revelation” is in line with the Word.

With that, I'm over and out. Willing to read but done posting. It was fun.

Anonymous said...

Dear Chris,

I regret you are taking yourself out of this conversation, but if that is the answer you have reached after careful consideration and prayer, so be it. But I feel led to point out a couple of things:

One, you say, "They (I assume here you mean the CBF, i.e., those Baptist Christians who contribute to it) believe that 'in the divine inspiration of the Bible and its authority in the lives of Christians, who are free to follow and interpret it under the Lordship of Christ.' That’s code speak for, 'The Bible is our authority unless Jesus tells us something different.' So, if they disagree with what Paul was inspired by God to write about homosexuality because the Lord revealed to them otherwise, they can promote another doctrine, viewpoint, etc." As one who contributes to the CBF (as well as the SBC), I can assure you ONE that it is wrong as a blanket statement, and TWO that I don't even know any CFB'ers who believe that--and I know quite a few on the eastern seaboard. And I even know CBF'ers who affirm (although they may not emphasize) the inerrancy of the autograph copies of the Scripture--for that matter, I could be considered one of them.

The other thing is that you are confusing the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship with the Alliance of Baptists. They are two different organizations altogether, something I think Big Daddy Weave has already pointed out. Please don't make your mind up whether or not the facts fit. WWJD?

Blessings,

John Fariss

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

Okay, you pulled me in for a moment.

Go back and read. I gave the Alliance as an example of where things can (and I believe will) lead. I did not confuse the two.

Which statement? Here is what the CBF believes from their site(with my thoughts in parenthesis),

“The Fellowship believes in the divine inspiration (like Shakespeare’s writings) of the Bible and its authority in the lives of Christians, who are free to follow and interpret it under the Lordship of Christ (so, the Bible authority thing only goes so far and my statement earlier stands about two having a different "revelation" from Jesus.). Christians are responsible under God for their interpretation of Scripture. In regards to scriptural inerrancy, the founding document of the Fellowship states:
We want to be biblical – especially in our view of the Bible. That means we dare not claim less for the Bible than the Bible claims for itself. The Bible neither claims nor reveals inerrancy as a Christian teaching. Bible claims must be based on the Bible, not on human interpretations of the Bible. (In other words “NO”, we don’t believe it is without error. I find the last line the most insane. So, we go to the errant Bible to see what it inerrant proclaims about itself? Crazy.)

So, if you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, you don't agree with the CBF's own statement.

Anonymous said...

At the risk of repeating what someone else has said (I did not have the hour or so needed to read all posts), the motivation for rejecting churches and/or money is pretty clear. When the SBC pronounced that it would not accept any money from BGCM, it removed the reason for existance for the convention in the minds of many. The sole function of a convention (in most Baptist minds) is to do things that individual churches cannot effectively do. If any organization cannot give money to those projects, it is of no use and will be ignored by many.

The bragging that I hear from the SBCT about their budget seems unjustified. The fact that they send roughly half of their budgeted contributions to the SBC is really embarrassing. They should be sending even more--they have few (if any)institutions that are dependent on their budget for support (or even survival). But this is a "selling point" and sounds good to a lot of people who don't think carefully about how budgets must be made and what deserves support--including my own church.

In some ways I look forward to the day when the SBC decides that it can afford to not accept money from the BGCT. When that day comes, I am sure that they will promptly move to refuse our contributions and a lot of churches who have kept their heads in the sand (regarding Baptist politics) for the last decades will have to make a decision.

The results of the Missouri conventions and restrictions may indicate how this will play out in Texas as well--and I am sure it is being watched carefully for that information.

Bennett Willis
Lake Jackson, Texas

Anonymous said...

Chris,

You do understand that your interpretation of CBF's statemts are not binding on the CBF, right?

With that--I am off to pack for the weekend. It is our 29th Wedding Anniversary. Life is so much fun!

Blessings to all.

John Fariss

R. L. Vaughn said...

Wade, thanks for the update on Harry Truman's membership. I had always thought he was among the Baptist presidents. Glen Stassen (usually a careful historian) writes, "During his teenage years, he attended Benton Boulevard Baptist Church in Kansas City, where he was converted and baptized in the Little Blue River."
Harry Truman as Baptist president

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

Are my interpretations completely wrong? If so, how so?

With that I am officially and truthfully out.

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said…
Rev Chris,
First of all, “unbeliever” is considered a lost person. Right? I said, “To call someone a non-Bible believer because they believe the Bible has errors is nothing but politics talking.”
I did not falsely accuse you of calling people lost. If fact, I did not say YOU called anyone anything.

My statement was the general belief that inerrantists have toward people that don’t believe the Bible like they do. Some even go as far as calling us liberals.

So your reply starts off looking for sympathy. Was that to make the readers swallow your explanation of why my paraphrase was quite inaccurate?

BTW, my “paraphrase” was the one word, “errors” added 4 times to the one thing you referred to 4 times. They were:
1. #4-7
2. them
3. they
4. event

Maybe instead of “errors” I should have said “lies.” Then I could have written:

‘Talk about contradiction—you’re saying plain and simple because God allowed lies in the Bible, there are no lies.’

Chris, ah, you bring out the big gun, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy—the “Strict Interpretation” which excludes the six other interpretations since the 300 scholars at Chicago could not agree on just ONE interpretation. In fact the “Strict Interpretation”, accepted by the SBC, has 12 qualifications that may be accepted and still be called an ‘Inerrantists.’ The first one being that ‘inerrancy’ only applies to the original manuscripts. Skipping to the last page it reads:

Exposition
“The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by…reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. Where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been ILLUSIONS.”

Chris, must inerrantists see illusions, and believe those that can’t are second class Christians. Hey! That’s like the king having a perfect suit until someone said he was naked!

In summery, inerrancy is a recipe that ‘conservatives’ have for believing the Bible. Moderates have their receipt and both produce the same Gospel, the same major and minor beliefs. So why argue which recipe has to be accepted when they produce the same ‘cake’?

Chris, like you said, “It’s been fun.”

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said…
I should have given Bob Cleveland credit for the ‘cake part’ as I believe he was the first to give that illustration.

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said…
PS,
Since everyone has left for greener pastures I’ll take one more shot at making a final conclusion.

1. How did Christians spread the gospel for almost 2000 years without the word ‘inerrancy’?
2. How much time has been spent on squabbling over what the word means?
3. In 1978 (I think that’s the year); if Chris had been added to the 300 scholars that met in Chicago to choose a definition, instead of 8 definitions, there might have been 9. HA
4. With 8 definitions of inerrancy and 12 qualifications for the one that SBC preferred, how can people be so narrow minded in denouncing (won’t let others have leadership positions in the SBC or be missionaries) those who picked one of the other 8 definitions?
5. Since ‘inerrancy’ is NOT mentioned in the BFM, it must be a third tier item, but some use it as a ‘password’ to join the ‘in crowd’.
6. Inerrancy has become a controversy almost as much as baptizing babies for salvation.
7. The word has split conventions: The president of the new SBTC, Miles Seaborn who later was put on the Board of SWBTS, stated, “Every one of us is a warrior to preserve God’s INNERANT Word and he would not give another nickel of his tithe to anywhere he thought was UNGODLY.” Their executive director, Jim Richards said, “Theological agreement will be the first foundation of the new convention. Those who depart theologically will be identified and called to repent. To the foes of SBTC, we say we’ve not in competition with you, but we’ve been called to contrast you.”
8. It has become like a second god to some—one man yelled at a SBC, “We have OUR INERRANCY and no one is going to take it from us!”
9. For the above reasons, I pray the word ‘inerrancy’ will go back to where it came from—the SMILING lips of the devil.

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

Rex (and to all who actually read every post)
My apologies on the "unbeliever" "non-Bible believer" mistake. That was simply from reading your post too fast. Honest mistake, honest confession.

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

In all seriousness Rex,
I honestly believe I completely know and understand your and the moderate/liberal viewpoint on Scripture. I totally disagree and believe it is wrong but I "get it".

When you write things such as this:

‘Talk about contradiction—you’re saying plain and simple because God allowed lies in the Bible, there are no lies.’

Which comes know where close to what we believe or even hint at, I see little chance of helping you understand why we have the conviction we do. My hope was that you (and others) would understand even if you did not agree. Yes, I ultimately would like to convince you but if not, to at least have a litte intellectual honesty about why the other side stands where it does.

I'm convinced that many on the more moderate/liberal side really believes we don't truly believe in inerrancy (and we all secretly know it) but we are just playing semantics games to win fame, power, prestige, money, etc. Sad. Though an exception may exist here and there, it simply isn't the case. We are people of deep conviction about what God's Word says about God's Word and cannot go against our conscience. I would never ask you to do the same either for that would be sin.

Off to prepare two sermons from God's Word.

Preach the Word! In season, out of season...

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said…
Rev Chris,
Thanks for explaining “reading your post too fast” that caused your honest mistake.

Maybe you are reading/writing your own words too fast to understand what your words are saying. Now for the third time, I will quote you and explain from my eyes what your words mean to me:

You wrote: “Your definition of God’s Word is skewed and misunderstood. Without error doesn’t mean # 4-7 [errors/lies/ignorance/stupidity] aren’t in there. It means God inspired them [errors/lies/ignorance/stupidity] to be put in there and they [errors/lies/ignorance/stupidity] are recorded exactly to the letter as the event [errors/lies/ignorance/stupidity] occurred and without error in its historicity.”

Why do you say, “…without error in its historicity”? Does “in its historicity” give wiggle room for “without error”? Is your statement false unless you say “in its historicity”?

Since the Bible is the greatest history Book ever written, “in its historicity” is not needed and only makes the water muddy.

I will restate your words using only one of the # 4-7 with its proper pronoun, and omitting “in its historicity”.

“Without error doesn’t mean ignorance is not there. It means God inspired ignorance to be put in there and ignorance is recorded exactly to the letter as ignorance occurred and [the Bible is] without error [ignorance].”

That’s why I say your statement contradicts itself. In short it says, ‘The Bible has no errors, because the errors in it are recorded exactly the way they happened.’

Chris, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says someday these ‘errors’ will seem as illusions. How many illusions have you seen?

I’ll tell you about one ‘illusion’ that has been corrected by the Holman Bible. Every translation has the girl dead in Matthew 9:18, but the Holman has her alive which agrees with Mark and Luke.

How do the ‘powers that be’ that promote inerrancy (every word true) really believe what they preach when they change what Scripture says?

I’ll say again that ‘inerrancy’ is more political than truthful

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said...
Rev Chris,
I don't expect you to reply to this because 'out of sight' is out of mind.