Conservative? Liberal? (And I’m not talking politics)
Apr 21st, 2008 by Nathan White
Apparently, Steve Gaines cannot evangelize with Sola Scriptura. Over at the Founders blog Gaines is quoted as saying:
“It would emaciate my evangelism if I couldn’t walk up to a total stranger and say, “Jesus died for you.” There’s some people who can’t do that. They can’t do that. They say, “Jesus died for the elect, I hope you’re one of them.” – Steve Gaines
Thankfully, Tom Ascol (gently) goes on to point out that the term “Jesus died for you” is absent from the new testament. How can we take men like Gaines seriously when things like this continue to resound from Southern Baptist pulpits?
Furthermore, Ascol hits on a reoccurring theme in Southern SBC churches in recent years:
“I mean no disrespect, but this highlights much that has gone wrong with the conservative resurgence in the SBC. Too many are willing to thump their Bibles and boldly declare its inerrancy while denying its sufficiency in for matters of faith and practice. If the Bible is inerrant (and I am fully convinced that it is), then shouldn’t it be treated with more respect than is shown by those who blatantly neglect (church discipline) or add to (evangelism) its clear teachings?” – Tom Ascol
Sadly, church discipline, besides in the grossest of sins, is largely ignored in the Southern Baptist Convention, particularly in the large churches. Additionally, evangelism, as Gaines so wonderfully displayed, is built upon extra-biblical and theologically weak/inaccurate principles.
And this is supposed to be a conservative resurgence? This is supposed to be “I believe the Bible”? No, my friends, this is nothing but old liberalism in new clothes. For the very essence of liberalism is deeds over creeds. That is, what we *do* or how we *live* is more important than what we *teach* and what we *believe*.
Furthermore, the sister of liberalism, or I should say, the means by which liberalism is channeled into the hearts and minds of otherwise professing conservatives is *pragmatism*. That is, a practice is deemed good and right based upon the results it produces. Evangelism that says “Jesus paid for *your* sins”, and other similar methods, though not found in scripture, do indeed produce more converts, and so these practices are embraced. In the same vein, the refusal to practice biblical church discipline and the faithful roll-purging that goes right along with it likewise produces very large numbers and very large congregations, and are thus deemed good and right because of these statistics.
And so we have the wolves of liberalism dressed up in garments likening conservative sheep, but on top of that, attempts to scratch below the surface are also met with firm opposition. Today, I was sad to see an update on the Jerry Vines First Baptist Woodstock John 3:16 conference page:
There will be no live or archived audio or video of this conference via the Internet.
No audio, no internet, no record of what is being taught? Let us hope and pray that they are being very precise in that audio will be available, but simply not ’streaming’ or downloadable over the internet. Otherwise, this would be a blatant attempt to avoid accountability, plain and simple. Oh, the truth that is at stake concerning John 3:16! Can we honestly say that these men are interested in truth if they won’t even expose themselves to critique? Let us hope and pray otherwise.
My friends, the essence of liberalism, which can be a very dangerous and damning ideology, is that we are to dumb down/nullify the scriptures to the point where what it says doesn’t offend, and what we want it to say produces the greatest visible effect in our own eyes. Add to that a refusal to be held accountable and you have the perfect storm of ignorance. Oh, how I tremble when I see where these men and the myriads of people following them are headed; oh, how you should tremble as well.
Let us not waiver in holding forth the word of life and truth; let us not be dismayed at the attacks calling for unity in the way of compromise; let us honor our Savior and the Word of truth which “He has revealed to us in these last days” by taking great pains to rightly divide the word of truth and thus prove our love for Him.
RE: “Can we honestly say that these men are interested in truth if they won’t even expose themselves to critique?”
-They will be exposed to critique, as I’m registered to attend the conference.
.
Nate, I think when they said there would be no archive audio/video, they meant that no recordings would be made. Which is weird to say the least. Surely they will have written record, one would think, but that may not be the case either.
I think they do want to keep the activities quasi-private. It appears that it is almost conspiritorial, a “boys in the backroom” political meeting of sorts. By publically offering it, it appears open, when in fact that was so no one could say that they were caught skinny dipping together in a private pool
Oooo Andrew! Sneak in a recorder…
A few minutes ago, another student and I were talking with Dr. Nettles about this conference. (Dr. Nettles had heard of the John 3:16 Conference, but had not heard the news about ‘no Internet feed.’)
As the other student was speaking about the lack of access to the teaching of the John 3:16 Conference in contrast to Building Bridges or T4G, Dr. Nettles quipped, “Well, you can only have access to the teaching of the John 3:16 Conference if you are a part of a special, select group. The Conference is limited in its efficacy to those who are irresistibly drawn there.”
My mind works so slowly that it took me a second to catch the joke; my first reaction was, “Wait, but I’ve already paid!”
Andrew–
That is absolutely hilarious.
Also, I hope to see your thoughts on the conference up on SBF!
Related to the substance of this post, I know of an SBC church in your state, Nathan, that has just forced out a lead pastor and a youth pastor for being Calvinists.
The faith statement for this church is quite old and is straightforwardly Calvinistic.
Both pastors were up-front about their soteriology in the interview process, though neither one used the label “Calvinist.” The preacher has preached expository sermons from an unashamedly Calvinistic standpoint for seven years.
It is just now the label that has the deacon board up in arms, and they claim that they received counsel from denominational higher-ups to get rid of the Calvinists for the sake of protecting their church. Things have not been done biblically or constitutionally (re: the church covenant) and men of God have been slandered and lied about in the process.
Pragmatism is more than merely a dangerous pitfall: it can become an idol that demands its own sacrifices.
Sounds all too familiar. In my former SBC church the deacons were defined by the Constitution/By-Laws as Elders. But, here is the thing, the control of their decisions was not within the Deacon Board. It was controlling figures outside the board. First it was dishonest to label them Deacons when indeed they were defined as Elders, second, it was a betrayal of their trust that they should seek counsel from “authorities” outside as to how they should rule the church. In the end, though Calvinism was on the table as the major complaint, it was extra doctrinal polity that even had oversight (presbytery) over the Pastor.
I hope, though I know it is filled with pain for all, that names are named. We really need to be forthcoming with information. There is far too much inuendo and accusation that comes from the “non-Calvinist” majoritarian party without naming names. We do not want to be of that kind.
Thomas, I agree with your last sentiment there and would name the church happily, if not for the fact that the controversy is on-going, and naming the place right now would have the effect of making it worse for the pastor (there is a small movement to re-hire him in the works.) Some on the side of the deacons are scouring the ‘net looking for references to their church for just that reason.
I understand, Gordan (spelled it right that time
). There is a time for every purpose. In my own situation there was alot of secret communications going on, much of which I only became aware of at the last moment or after the inquisitions. My wife still is grieving the circumstances and betrayals by those we thought were supportive.
Gordan,
Thanks for sharing that story, brother. I know that you too are a pastor in an SBC church, and I trust and pray that things are going better than in this case.
It is amazing how much power deacons have, one issue, and then of course how much power pragmatism has over everything. It seems like so many are consumed with ‘what works’, i.e. what they can boast in and boost their salary with (whoops, did I just say that out loud??).
What if the tables were turned? Let’s say a person who held to an Arminian view was a lead pastor at a church which held to Reformed doctrine (at the time, no one saw a problem with it) and it was later decided that they should no longer allow someone who was Arminian in belief to be a pastor or hold any type of authoritative position in their church? In your opinioins, would it then be the right thing to do to dismiss this Arminian pastor?
Hue,
In almost every form of church government, there are proper and improper ways to go about changing pastors.
Now, in order for the “tables” to be truly turned in this case, it would not only have to be an Arminian pastor, but he’d have to be preaching in a church whose official faith statement was explicitly Arminian, and in which many members were still Arminian. Then you’d have to have a handful of Calvinistic deacons hold several secret meetings and engage in a series of bullying tactics against the pastor. The Calvinists would have to declare at some point, based purely on their own tastes, “This is a Calvinisitic church!” When shown the faith statement, they’d arrogate to themselves the power to declare, “That’s not what this church believes.”
So, if we’re truly going to turn the tables in this specific case, then, no, it would not be okay for the Calvinists to get rid of the Arminian pastor like that. That would be sinful and arrogant.
Gordan,
Then you are saying that it is acceptable to dismiss the pastor as long as it is done correctly?
Hue, yes, theology would be a valid reason to dismiss a pastor, provided, as I said, that things are done decently and in order, and in accordance with the rules that the church has previously covenanted together to keep.
In my former SBC Church the constitution required the teaching of the historic confessions of the SBC, the established confession was the BFM ‘63. Many members were not even aware that it had been replaced. The Pastoral staff was at fault. They were not abiding by the constitution which they had by oath sworn to uphold. Part of the constitution required that the teaching staff keep the congregation informed as to the policies and polity of the SBC, its programs, et cetera. As a member from 1988- 2007, I never knew that church to have ever fulfilled that contract. When we attempted to change the constitution to make it more likely that the requirements of it were kept, all the darkness in the congregation broke loose .
We purposely proposed a change to the 1689. The point, not that I like starting fires or anything, was to bring to the fore the situation. The deficiencies had been addressed in business meetings and church council, in meetings with the Pastor, but no action was ever forthcoming from the leadership. It took drastic mearsures to pique interest. What we found was that the people did not care about their oaths and convenants. In the end, I and the most senior deacon, left unceremoniously as the “dark” ones, demonized. Another deacon who remains, who I study with, relates that I am still blamed for “the problems”. The “old blood”, it came to light, was the true authority behind, and the threat to the Pastoral Staff. In the, it was these powers that constituted the government.
The reason that I relate this Hue, is that all of this “sick” churchianity could have been avoided by speaking the truth in love and doing it. You see, it does not matter what the circumstance is, it does not matter what the prevailing theology is. What does matter is intergrity and honesty. If a pastor has changed his theology he should be up front. The other leaders should be informed, the church in the right season. The same openness should accomodate any member who has questions and challenges. (I came to find out that before becoming a member some Calvinist brothers were driven from this same church, a clear violation of the principles found in the BFM.) Never should there be, as was in my case, telephone conferences between people who had no rightful reason to be speaking outside the parties of first concern. Nor should conspiracies of power be the status quo as we had. If the government of the church is operating correctly (if not it is dead while still alive), the proper channels according to the by-laws and constitution should be sufficient to answer the question of what to do. If they are not functioning, it is either a sign that the order of governance needs checking against Scripture, or that there is no adherence to the government.
In a healthy environment, people know the right venue for grievance. They know the appropriate channels of accountability. In the end, since we believe in a Sola Scriptura, even with a congregational/elder/deacons form of governance, which the BFM most clearly upholds, the decision as to the means of addressing established doctrinal defection should be easily orchestrated. One of the things that has made that difficult is the idea of soul competency and liberty of conscience. It is not because they are inherently problematic, but the reality of what they mean Scripturally is not taught. That is because the lack teaching doctrine is an endemic problem in the SBC. Our faith is not for people to make up their own minds about. And, though we may be wrong, we should always be reformers, this too is reflected in the BFM. We are either always reforming, or, when we are wrong, we are not just wrong, we are dead wrong. It is Scripture alone that is our final rule for faith and practice, and that is where it should be taken. What confessions teach us is that there are ideas that we bind ourselves to and if that is the mutually accepted agreement then integrity would teach us that we should adhere to it, or through the mechanism of the priesthood of believers, change what is not upholding the faith.
To take a breath, it should not matter if there is a change, how we handle that change is really how the world will know that we are His disciples. These are not isolated problems. What we see at the level of the local church we see at associational and convention levels. It is a really unhealthy polity, and that, grounded in lackadasical approach to doctrine. It shouldn’t be this way among Baptists, but this is what we have come to.
What it came down to in my church was not primarily doctrine, that was the impetous, but the conditions that are born out of their misapplication. Our situation, and what the “bad boys” were doing was not being done behind closed doors. What was done by those who opposed it was. I was assigned to a committee on the constitution by the Pastor and the church council by vote. What the opposition did not want was someone who would study what existed and the Scripture and propose that truth be exalted over the machinations of men to a congregation who had been put to sleep by the status quo. When the Church resorts to magisterium, rather than the Priesthood of Believers, we’ve taken a quantum leap backwards in time.
The Church of which Gordan speaks is similar to the one that I left. One has to ask how the congregation, especially the Elder/deacons, came to reject or be ignorant of the founding documents…