-They will be exposed to critique, as I’m registered to attend the conference.

Otherwise, this would be a blatant attempt to avoid accountability, plain and simple

.

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

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!”

Also, I hope to see your thoughts on the conference up on SBF!

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.

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.

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.

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??).

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.

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…