State of the SBC

[Zenas]

Basically it means for me that those who took over teh leadership of the SBC introduced and rammed through the annual Convention policies that violated most of what I was taught in how Christ wanted us to live our lives and treat others; i.e. with tolerance, gentleness and ethically.

They have treated those with whom they do not agree, professors and missionaries, very badly and they have interfered with others Christian missionary work in Europe. I expect in Asia also, but I know more about Europe having lived there off and on for 6 years. They, basically, have bribed or attempted to bribe Central and European Baptist preachers. Bribe in the sense of taking them to expensive hotel for several days of meetings and then put pressure on them to begin acting like current American SBC'ers pushing their agenda.

When I was in Moscow working at the seminary there one summer a Russian Baptist pastor said to me, "My church has just about recovered from the damage done by the last American Baptist group who came to 'help'.

To me the current leadership of the SBC are liberal in the sense that they take liberties with scripture, quoting proof texts to prove their point while ignoring other scripture to that would weaken their stance point. Also, to me, their actions in the way they have treated missionaries, professors and others who did not totally agree is unchristian ... IMHO.

There is more, but you get my drift.

Crabby, much of what you are saying about professors and missionaries being treated badly is true. But they were treated this way because they would not leave quietly. In any organization, whether a demonination, a business or government, those who sign the paychecks have a right to insist on loyalty from those who work there. It is just wrong for an employee to voice disapproval of his organization's goals, and even undermine them, and at the same time expect to be treated well. People in politics understand this very well. When their party is voted out, they leave quietly and then try to bring about change from the outside.

Furthermore, it is true that ultraconservatives were generally excluded from Southern Baptist life until the 1980's. So it works both ways.

By 1980 the SBC was headed in exactly the same direction as the mainline Protestant denominations. If it had not been for the conservative resurgence, the denomination would be dying by now just like the Episcopal Church, the UMC and the Presbyterian Church USA.

 

[nodak]

Soul sufficiency means that when a person is truly saved and truly willing for God to explain the Scripture to them, He does. It means no mediator between God and human beings other than Jesus.

It DID NOT and NEVER DID mean you could believe anything you wanted and still call yourself Southern Baptist.

It meant flat out belief that God would, if we listened to Him, give us all the same message.

But then, prior to 1979, there was NO SBC denomination.

It was a convention. Plain and simple, without a few at the top deciding they knew better than the rank and file what God was saying and you could get in line or get out. (By the way--many that chose to get out AGREED with the theology of the CR EXCEPT in the matter of soul sufficiency.)

There was no battle for the Bible where I lived. We were ultra conservative inerrantists to begin with.

But we believed in Jesus as our mediator, not a priest. Today many of us see leadership in the SBC functioning as Roman Catholic priests and bishops.

It is probably hard to imagine for some, but the old congregational governance waiting for consensus under God was something to behold.

I've seen opposing sides come to "win" the day, seen God move as adults wound up in tears of repentance, and seen no one "win" as God's will for a church was made clear.

Far different from one man "casting visions."

Basically for me it comes down to Lordship. Is Jesus head of His church, or a man.

We used to answer Jesus.

And we used to believe every single church member was responsible to keep it that way and be about the ministry of the church.

 

[govteach51]

Soul sufficiency means that when a person is truly saved and truly willing for God to explain the Scripture to them, He does. It means no mediator between God and human beings other than Jesus.

It DID NOT and NEVER DID mean you could believe anything you wanted and still call yourself Southern Baptist.

It meant flat out belief that God would, if we listened to Him, give us all the same message.

But then, prior to 1979, there was NO SBC denomination.

It was a convention. Plain and simple, without a few at the top deciding they knew better than the rank and file what God was saying and you could get in line or get out. (By the way--many that chose to get out AGREED with the theology of the CR EXCEPT in the matter of soul sufficiency.)

There was no battle for the Bible where I lived. We were ultra conservative inerrantists to begin with.

But we believed in Jesus as our mediator, not a priest. Today many of us see leadership in the SBC functioning as Roman Catholic priests and bishops.

It is probably hard to imagine for some, but the old congregational governance waiting for consensus under God was something to behold.

I've seen opposing sides come to "win" the day, seen God move as adults wound up in tears of repentance, and seen no one "win" as God's will for a church was made clear.

Far different from one man "casting visions."

Basically for me it comes down to Lordship. Is Jesus head of His church, or a man.

We used to answer Jesus.

And we used to believe every single church member was responsible to keep it that way and be about the ministry of the church.

Another person who understands what is going on....Good post!

 

[Havensdad]

Soul sufficiency means that when a person is truly saved and truly willing for God to explain the Scripture to them, He does. It means no mediator between God and human beings other than Jesus.

It DID NOT and NEVER DID mean you could believe anything you wanted and still call yourself Southern Baptist.

It meant flat out belief that God would, if we listened to Him, give us all the same message.

But then, prior to 1979, there was NO SBC denomination.

It was a convention. Plain and simple, without a few at the top deciding they knew better than the rank and file what God was saying and you could get in line or get out. (By the way--many that chose to get out AGREED with the theology of the CR EXCEPT in the matter of soul sufficiency.)

There was no battle for the Bible where I lived. We were ultra conservative inerrantists to begin with.

But we believed in Jesus as our mediator, not a priest. Today many of us see leadership in the SBC functioning as Roman Catholic priests and bishops.

It is probably hard to imagine for some, but the old congregational governance waiting for consensus under God was something to behold.

I've seen opposing sides come to "win" the day, seen God move as adults wound up in tears of repentance, and seen no one "win" as God's will for a church was made clear.

Far different from one man "casting visions."

Basically for me it comes down to Lordship. Is Jesus head of His church, or a man.

We used to answer Jesus.

And we used to believe every single church member was responsible to keep it that way and be about the ministry of the church.

No one changed that. What happened were a bunch of liberals infiltrated the church, and started extending this idea past where it was supposed to go, saying that this meant that (in the case of some schools) we could not demand that our teachers at Seminary actually believed Jesus rose from the dead, paid the price for our sins, etc.

NEVER has this been the case in Baptist history. From the very beginning, their was a minimum agreement on essential doctrine for participation among churches. The SBC went the right direction, affirming that they (we) do not 'convention' with heretics...that the scriptures clearly forbid them (us) from yoking together with those who deny certain cardinal doctrines. This is right, good, and scriptural.

Also, "soul sufficiency" is not, and has NEVER been, a license to deny the proper leadership structure of the church, submission to our pastor/elders in the church, etc. Nor has it EVER meant that God just poofed knowledge into our head. God gave us teachers and preachers...WHY? If we can all just know everything we need to know by ourselves, there is not a reason for such...

 

[govteach51]

No one changed that. What happened were a bunch of liberals infiltrated the church, and started extending this idea past where it was supposed to go, saying that this meant that (in the case of some schools) we could not demand that our teachers at Seminary actually believed Jesus rose from the dead, paid the price for our sins, etc.

NEVER has this been the case in Baptist history. From the very beginning, their was a minimum agreement on essential doctrine for participation among churches. The SBC went the right direction, affirming that they (we) do not 'convention' with heretics...that the scriptures clearly forbid them (us) from yoking together with those who deny certain cardinal doctrines. This is right, good, and scriptural.

Also, "soul sufficiency" is not, and has NEVER been, a license to deny the proper leadership structure of the church, submission to our pastor/elders in the church, etc. Nor has it EVER meant that God just poofed knowledge into our head. God gave us teachers and preachers...WHY? If we can all just know everything we need to know by ourselves, there is not a reason for such...

But the teachers and preachers are at a different level now, or think they are. I AM in control. I KNOW what is best. Even if the church member is right who are you to question me because I AM THE PASTOR. They are too worried about ME,ME, ME rather than tending the flock.
The new pastors are thinking that they are now infallible. Reminds me of an Episcopal style church. And there is nothing coming from the pulpit worth listening to anymore. When you listen to the plan of salvation for the 4th Sunday in a row, and the church is full of long-time saved members, it makes you wonder.
As far as the seminary is concerned, I went to SWBTS in the 1980s and I couldn't tell you a prof I had who didn't believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus, etc.
As far as I am concerned this entire conservative movement ( and I am VERY conservative) was and is political.

Alright, I've said my 2 cents.

 

[mandym]

I am amazed at those who claim to be conservative but use the same old tired and false arguments the ultra left has made against the Conservative Resurgence. The two do not line up consistently.

 

[govteach51]

I am amazed at those who claim to be conservative but use the same old tired and false arguments the ultra left has made against the Conservative Resurgence. The two do not line up consistently.

Once again, know nothing about me, nor T.B. Matson, Penrose St. Amant, or "Boo" Heflin....

 

[Robert Snow]

Once again, know nothing about me, nor T.B. Matson, Penrose St. Amant, or "Boo" Heflin....

One problem is the "blame the liberal" mindset that so many here have. They seem to think that every one who disagrees with their stance is a dreaded liberal. They are unable to see the truth that everyone doesn't fit into the neat little pigeon-hole they have constructed.

I remember, after first being saved, hearing my pastor say that the other churches in our area that don't use the KJV only or that actually allow their women to wear pants were liberal and probably didn't even really know the Lord!

I now attend a SBC church and it would not be considered liberal by most standards, accept my first pastor perhaps.

 

[govteach51]

One problem is the "blame the liberal" mindset that so many here have. They seem to think that every one who disagrees with their stance is a dreaded liberal. They are unable to see the truth that everyone doesn't fit into the neat little pigeon-hole they have constructed.

I remember, after first being saved, hearing my pastor say that the other churches in our area that don't use the KJV only or that actually allow their women to wear pants were liberal and probably didn't even really know the Lord!

I now attend a SBC church and it would not be considered liberal by most standards, accept my first pastor perhaps.

Yeah, these are the same people who think that because I taught in a public school for 30+ years I am some sort of Marxist, Leninist, or Maoist warping the mind of the nation's children....never mind I have voted Republican since 1976.

 

[quantumfaith]

Yeah, these are the same people who think that because I taught in a public school for 30+ years I am some sort of Marxist, Leninist, or Maoist warping the mind of the nation's children....never mind I have voted Republican since 1976.

Etu Brutus?

 

[nodak]

Ah yes, the liberal label.

Were there liberals in the SBC before 1979?

Absolutely. But that doesn't mean everyone that disagreed with the CR was a liberal.

In order to understand what some of us considered SBC, get and read "Institutes of Religion" by E Y Mullins and "Doctrines Baptists Believe" by Herschel Hobbs. Make sure you get the Hobbs version, as the same title was later given to me in Discipleship Training by a different author and is very different.

Then compare those to the the BFM2000.

Is Jesus Lord of your life? Or are "timeless truths" Lord of your life? If the latter, who decides which timeless truths? I know you will answer the Bible. But to be honest, it requires an interpretation to make the judgement call.

There was a time when Baptists could allow each other a bit of wiggle room--as in "I disagree with you so let's continue to study the matter." Young earthers and old earthers could work together for the salvation of the lost.

As to labels, I daresay 99% of the old SBC were conservatives--neither liberals nor fundamentalists. The popular term was moderates.

And I still am conservative. Far tooooo conservative to fit almost any other denomination.

But I flat out refuse to let a few fundamentalist leaders co-opt control of my soul, EVEN WHEN I AGREE WITH THEM ON THE THEOLOGICAL ISSUES.

Do some research on soul freedom on line.

Eye opening as to what used to make a Baptist a Baptist.

 

[govteach51]

Ah yes, the liberal label.

Were there liberals in the SBC before 1979?

Absolutely. But that doesn't mean everyone that disagreed with the CR was a liberal.

In order to understand what some of us considered SBC, get and read "Institutes of Religion" by E Y Mullins and "Doctrines Baptists Believe" by Herschel Hobbs. Make sure you get the Hobbs version, as the same title was later given to me in Discipleship Training by a different author and is very different.

Then compare those to the the BFM2000.

Is Jesus Lord of your life? Or are "timeless truths" Lord of your life? If the latter, who decides which timeless truths? I know you will answer the Bible. But to be honest, it requires an interpretation to make the judgement call.

There was a time when Baptists could allow each other a bit of wiggle room--as in "I disagree with you so let's continue to study the matter." Young earthers and old earthers could work together for the salvation of the lost.

As to labels, I daresay 99% of the old SBC were conservatives--neither liberals nor fundamentalists. The popular term was moderates.

And I still am conservative. Far tooooo conservative to fit almost any other denomination.

But I flat out refuse to let a few fundamentalist leaders co-opt control of my soul, EVEN WHEN I AGREE WITH THEM ON THE THEOLOGICAL ISSUES.

Do some research on soul freedom on line.

Eye opening as to what used to make a Baptist a Baptist.

What might be the post of the week.....good post!

 

[quantumfaith]

Ah yes, the liberal label.

Were there liberals in the SBC before 1979?

Absolutely. But that doesn't mean everyone that disagreed with the CR was a liberal.

In order to understand what some of us considered SBC, get and read "Institutes of Religion" by E Y Mullins and "Doctrines Baptists Believe" by Herschel Hobbs. Make sure you get the Hobbs version, as the same title was later given to me in Discipleship Training by a different author and is very different.

Then compare those to the the BFM2000.

Is Jesus Lord of your life? Or are "timeless truths" Lord of your life? If the latter, who decides which timeless truths? I know you will answer the Bible. But to be honest, it requires an interpretation to make the judgement call.

There was a time when Baptists could allow each other a bit of wiggle room--as in "I disagree with you so let's continue to study the matter." Young earthers and old earthers could work together for the salvation of the lost.

As to labels, I daresay 99% of the old SBC were conservatives--neither liberals nor fundamentalists. The popular term was moderates.

And I still am conservative. Far tooooo conservative to fit almost any other denomination.

But I flat out refuse to let a few fundamentalist leaders co-opt control of my soul, EVEN WHEN I AGREE WITH THEM ON THE THEOLOGICAL ISSUES.

Do some research on soul freedom on line.

Eye opening as to what used to make a Baptist a Baptist.

Excellent Post! Kudos to a very well expressed position.

 

[Tom Butler]

Despite attempts to label the Conservative Resurgence as nothing more than a right-wing power grab, there was more to it than that.

Two specific incidents come to memory, both from Southern Seminary. One was that a highly-respected professor was allowed to teach there, despite the fact that he denied the doctrine of eternal security, and taught against it.

Another was the well-known position of another professor who was pro-abortion, and advocated it in his classroom.

Both positions were known by the Seminary president and the trustees.

You want to call it a power struggle? Darn tootin' it was.

 

[nodak]

Tom, no denial here we needed to clean house.

I was teaching the youth SS at our church when they sent us those awful quarterlies based on Jonathan Livingston Seagull. I trashed mine and taught the Bible.

So no quarrel with you that we needed to clean house.

Just my opinion we swung toooo far.

In trying to tighten up and get rid of some loonies--and there were a few bad apples, I agree--we changed the root of our authority.

Times past Baptists would tell you "I know xyz is true because the Bible says so."

Now we tend to rely on the BFM2000, or on "pastoral authority", or on guru of the week selling good over on Amazon.

I'd like to see us remain extremely conservative not because someone else told us to be so, but because we EACH used our brain and because under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit, the Bible told us so.

And yes, there were power grabs.

And yes, they remain.

Sad to say, most people in SBC churches today cannot tell you much about what Baptists--of any stripe--taught before 1979. Don't understand priesthood of the believer, soul freedom, congregational governance, autonomy of the local church, or anything not being pushed as the current trend from Lifeway.

Most don't know why the SBC was on the side of no prayer in school. Not over liberalism, but over protecting our right to dissent from the state sponsored religion.

Not many know our history in Virginia, and how Baptists suffered for the right to preach and teach what we believe without first getting the okey dokey from the local approved minister.

Now we have people wanting to fill the role that Anglican priest held and deciding all the rest of us Baptists are refusing to be under scripturally authorized authority.

We have people who think being like the Bereans and checking to see if what the preacher says is scriptural is rebellion.

Not so, not so.

Just being good Baptists.

 

[gb93433]

Sad to say, most people in SBC churches today cannot tell you much about what Baptists--of any stripe--taught before 1979. Don't understand priesthood of the believer, soul freedom, congregational governance, autonomy of the local church, or anything not being pushed as the current trend from Lifeway.

That is not limited to the SBC.

I asked a middle aged pastor in the city where I live if he ever took a look at the fastest growing churches 20 and 30 years ago and what they are doing today. His answer was that they are no different now than so many other churches today. I asked him why he thought that to be the case. Our discussion led to ideas that the pastor was no longer in the mainstream of ages. He is 20 years older or more. Then I told him of a man I knew until he died that had been making disciples for many years and at the end of his life he was meeting with more than he had ever had. He was 76. His effectiveness and impact grew as he grew and aged. Far different than what church growth experts would have people believe about church growth.

James says to be doers of the word and not hearers only who delude themselves. If one is not a doer that says something about their doctrinal soundness and effectiveness.

Ask anyone what they believe the be the historical context of Matthew and 18:20. I doubt that you will get very many who can give an accurate answer.

 

[nodak]

Following church growth gurus may work for a while, at least in bringing in the numbers, but I haven't personally seen it produce the kind of disciples we used to get.

But I will admit I came from a poorer part of the nation, and very rural.

Those called to preach were those living the gospel out, and who had then shown aptitude when they filled in for the absent preacher.

Deacons were those who lived it out but maybe didn't do so good when they got a chance to preach.

The rest of us were also supposed to be actively living out the gospel, witnessing, and just generally being active members of the church.

Please don't misunderstand my next statement. I am NOT anti higher education--got some myself back in the day.

But I DO believe the proper order is this: saved, then lives it, then given a bit of a trial at preaching, then called to preach, then educated for the position, then hired.

Today we sometimes get this: took a test in high school that showed aptitude for clergy. Went to school to train for it. Graduated. Found a church to apply to, got hired, got ordained.

No proving ground of living it out first OR of the actual call to preach.

So we shortchange ourselves on the clergy end.

I also think we shortchange ourselves on the laity end. There was a time when we held membership very high--with high standards. Yes, we baptized immediately in my home church when there was profession of faith. But we yanked membership just as quickly if the gospel wasn't lived out. Saying used to be "no justification without regeneration."

So SBC churches were as close as we could keep them, humanly speaking, to believer's churches. When the priesthood of the believer meets with congregational policy in a congregation of sold out believers, it works.

Only when we get lax on membership do we start pining for getting the rights and wrongs all written down as a set of rules or doctrines.

I would be the first to agree that a body of unregenerate church members can make the pastor really want to be able to say "I'm the leader--you are under my authority and have to believe what I say and do what I say."

I would suggest that maybe the way back to being baptistic Baptists may start with church discipline regarding how folks live. No more free passes for the preacher to snap at his wife and kids. No more free passes for Deacon Bob to skip church every time there is a bass tourney. No more letting Mrs. Churchladies (I'm in this category!) slide on gossip.

Add in some study of Baptist history, some refusal to knuckle under to those wanting to be our priests, and we might get somewhere good.

 

[Havensdad]

Most don't know why the SBC was on the side of no prayer in school. Not over liberalism, but over protecting our right to dissent from the state sponsored religion.

This is misleading at BEST, and flat out disingenuous at worst. SOME in the SBC were against prayer in school for a total of about 50 years, shortly after liberalism raised its ugly head at the advent of the 20th century. It was not even an issue before that. EVERYONE, including Baptists, practiced prayer in schools

Actually, the idea of removing prayer from school was a very recent invention; in the 18th and 19th century, school was held at the churches, and was not the state-sponsored behemoth it is today, which violates the 10th amendment. Saying that the school is not going to pray, teach the Bible, etc., actually establishes atheism/agnosticism as the state religion.

Not many know our history in Virginia, and how Baptists suffered for the right to preach and teach what we believe without first getting the okey dokey from the local approved minister.

No approval required today. Of course, if you teach something that goes against the accepted statement of faith, discipline is (rightly) administered. It is a ridiculous position to say that people should be allowed to preach/teach whatever they wish, and Baptists as a whole have NEVER allowed such.

Now we have people wanting to fill the role that Anglican priest held and deciding all the rest of us Baptists are refusing to be under scripturally authorized authority.

Have no idea who is doing that. The early Baptist confessions included statements about pastoral and church leadership authority. Priesthood of the believer means that if you don't like what is being taught/preached, you were free to go start your own church, or find a different one. It NEVER meant that anyone was free to teach or preach whatever they wished. The early Baptists were creedal; the Helwys declaration is a prime example.

Further, it was a common and well documented practice in the early Baptist church, to submit and agree to a confession of faith, before any level of cooperation was had between churches.

We have people who think being like the Bereans and checking to see if what the preacher says is scriptural is rebellion.

We have others who think that any blasphemous garbage should be allowed to be taught to our children, seminarians, etc. Unfortunately the Bible says that we should not even eat with these people, much less allow them in our pulpits to rip our people to shreds.

Not so, not so.

Just being good Baptists.

Being a "good Baptist" includes not associating with, nor yoking yourself together with, nor allowing your sheep to be torn apart by, wolves in sheeps clothing who deny essential doctrines of the faith.

 

[quantumfaith]

Following church growth gurus may work for a while, at least in bringing in the numbers, but I haven't personally seen it produce the kind of disciples we used to get.

But I will admit I came from a poorer part of the nation, and very rural.

Those called to preach were those living the gospel out, and who had then shown aptitude when they filled in for the absent preacher.

Deacons were those who lived it out but maybe didn't do so good when they got a chance to preach.

The rest of us were also supposed to be actively living out the gospel, witnessing, and just generally being active members of the church.

Please don't misunderstand my next statement. I am NOT anti higher education--got some myself back in the day.

But I DO believe the proper order is this: saved, then lives it, then given a bit of a trial at preaching, then called to preach, then educated for the position, then hired.

Today we sometimes get this: took a test in high school that showed aptitude for clergy. Went to school to train for it. Graduated. Found a church to apply to, got hired, got ordained.

No proving ground of living it out first OR of the actual call to preach.

So we shortchange ourselves on the clergy end.

I also think we shortchange ourselves on the laity end. There was a time when we held membership very high--with high standards. Yes, we baptized immediately in my home church when there was profession of faith. But we yanked membership just as quickly if the gospel wasn't lived out. Saying used to be "no justification without regeneration."

So SBC churches were as close as we could keep them, humanly speaking, to believer's churches. When the priesthood of the believer meets with congregational policy in a congregation of sold out believers, it works.

Only when we get lax on membership do we start pining for getting the rights and wrongs all written down as a set of rules or doctrines.

I would be the first to agree that a body of unregenerate church members can make the pastor really want to be able to say "I'm the leader--you are under my authority and have to believe what I say and do what I say."

I would suggest that maybe the way back to being baptistic Baptists may start with church discipline regarding how folks live. No more free passes for the preacher to snap at his wife and kids. No more free passes for Deacon Bob to skip church every time there is a bass tourney. No more letting Mrs. Churchladies (I'm in this category!) slide on gossip.

Add in some study of Baptist history, some refusal to knuckle under to those wanting to be our priests, and we might get somewhere good.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[gb93433]

Following church growth gurus may work for a while, at least in bringing in the numbers, but I haven't personally seen it produce the kind of disciples we used to get.

Sometime listen to the message "Born To Reproduce" by Dawson Trotman. He mentions how he knew pastors who could name few who are living for Christ because of their life. He also mentions that out of 29 prospective missionaries that only one was satisfied with their devotional life. That message was delivered in the early 1950s.