Featured Is the SBC getting liberal?

The SBC is not becoming more liberal. If anything, it is moving steadily towards a patriarchal, 19th century legalism.

I graduated at NOBTS in 1985, and the next month attended the Dallas convention that saw the largest ever attendance at any convention meeting. The meeting went well through most of Monday and then Dr. Criswell sounded the battle cry with his closing sermon at the Pastor's conference. From there it was downhill - and in many ways it has continued downhill.

I was convictionally conservative before the political machinations of convention politics adopted that vocabulary. The shift towards "conservatism" has not brought about the rebirth of evangelism, disciple-making, or denominational glory that was promised. (That third promised result is naturally suspect, because we all know that no theologian would allow ego and aspirations to power to infect his spin on the topic or influence in leadership).

Anyway, within our present milieu, all one has to do to be branded "liberal" is to be willing to think for himself and then break ranks with the party line...

 

Please by all means give us an example of this.

 

I don't feel any compulsion to qualify my statement to yours or anyone else satisfaction, but since it must have resonated with you I'll try and set your heart at ease, or on edge, as the case may be.

On the way home from the 1985 SBC in Dallas, TX I happened on an automobile accident exactly one mile from our church facilities. In the car was a 23 year old young man who had gone to sleep at the wheel and ran straight through a T-type intersection, thereby t-boning the embankment at speed. I went with the state trooper to do the death notification, and it was a rude "snatch back to reality" moment coming off that convention. The fact is most of the people in our congregations are not concerned with the nuances of meaning in Hebrew or Greek; they are desperately wanting to know God's grace in the midst of a life that is tough - each and every day.

Anyway, to the example: post seminary I stayed at that open-country congregation in Louisiana for 3-1/2 more years and then moved to a small town setting in Mississippi. "The controversy" was at its peak as I watched my peers gradually divide off into various camps. I stayed with the historic pastor's conference instead of peeling off to join the so-called conservatives. Over time my mantra became "I don't have time to waste on arguments over manuscripts we don't possess, and over the teachings of dead theologians."

Three years later that I moved to a suburban setting in Alabama.

The first minister's conference I attended after moving to Alabama the guys present invited me to lunch with them. After a few minutes the conversation turned to an article that had recently run in the state Baptist paper. It just happened that I was at that time acquainted and occasionally working with one of the prominent leaders quoted in the article.

One of the guys at the table was working to position himself as a valuable soldier in what has come to be known as the "conservative resurgence."

He began rattling off as fact some of what he had read in the article, and declared "that guy needs to be removed from his post."

After listening a bit more I said "I know I'm new to this fellowship, but I need to ask, 'have you personally spoken with the man about those criticisms?'"

He first argued "it's in the paper" which I acknowledged, but then noted that journalists can be biased, and that scripturally we should not fall into the trap of believing rumor and innuendo.

At that point the dude wigged out - as in, "hair burst into flames" (figuratively speaking, naturally) as he began protesting loudly, then standing and waving his arms - and with 20 or 25 other people watching who were not pastors.

I offered to arrange a personal meeting with the gentleman in question, and my offer was declined. Since then I've met that same hidebound personality type in a lot of places but wearing other flesh and blood.

In the years that followed I fought the conservative vs moderate battle, the Calvinist vs Armenian battle, praise music vs hymnal battle, pews vs lumbar support chairs battle ... and a half dozen other such ideological or organizational battles with wild-dyed preacher boys who lacked the ability to critically think through an issue and reach their own conclusion. And not to forget - apply biblical principle to whatever dilemma was at hand.

In hindsight, for a period of time I was probably somewhat cut from a similar bolt of cloth. There was a time when I was of the attitude that if you want to know what God thinks, just ask.

Finally, I guess I was either too dumb, or too much of a pragmatist to get trapped in the division of the convention over theology. I decided early on that I would stay with whichever group got the annuity board!

 

Would you mind adding clarification to this statement in specifics?

 

Yes, I would mind. While I may occasionally come out and state my own viewpoints, I'm not going to take the bait for hair-splitting argument or waste time jumping hoops to gratify your voyeuristic demands.

 

I see, so what you are willing to do is make statements to other people in a community like this board that are vague and then are unwilling to give full clarification. Why make them in the first place?

So here is what your posts look like:

You want to be able to accuse others (I.e. the SBC) without setting yourself up in a position where you need to defend your accusation. Just note that such posts on this board are never really taken seriously. If you intent on being in this community in a meaningful way you are going to have to do better than that.

 

Very telling. Doctrine is not important but money is.

 

Think thta it just takes one being socially liberal, into gay marriages and women pastoring, and deny the full inspiration of the scriptures!

 

I believe one place we go wrong is in our insistence that homosexual desire is a choice. I have had people ready to tar and feather me for my belief that some people are born with those desires. The sin nature effects different people in different ways. Admitting a natural tendency in no wise gives an excuse for sinning. Paul tells us he daily fought sin and crucified his flesh. My sin I am naturally predisposed to is anger. My family calls it "Cherokee Indian temper." I struggle with and crucify it daily. It is real. I am sure fleshy same sex attraction is just as real for others. If someone told me my anger was a choice, I would at that point tune them out and be done with them. My anger is not a choice. Whether or not I act on that anger is the choice. Homosexuality for many is, I am sure, the same way.

 

we MUST though see this as a sin condition, in same way that we all have a sin problem, as the person with homosexual desires has the same problem as a straight person with sexually siining, either way, God commands purity! And many churches and pulpits have redefined marriage and gay relationships as being acceptable to god, a sa way to "reach out"

 

Okay men. I sense a self-righteous pile-on a' brewing so let's talk about it for a few words.

First, this one.

Hmm. What to say?

I’m not making accusations but offering observations. In theology we talk about the “ground being level at the foot of the cross.” To my thinking my observation – or opinion if you prefer that word, is as valid as yours.

As regards the dead theologians, I’m not accountable to God for Calvin’s or Arminius’ theology. To quote the old hymn, “On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand.”

Re, the Scriptures and the original manuscripts: if you can point us to a verifiable copy of an original autograph I'll be glad to receive directions to go see it. Otherwise, and with the Bible being the best documented literary work of antiquity, I've long since settled in my mind the veracity and authority of Scripture and don't sense a need to revisit all that. The Scriptures are God-breathed, period. I choose the terms "convictional inerrantist" to describe my personal viewpoint, and believe that those who understand the Bible the best are those who simply live it.

Next, sometimes the things we read or hear stand on the merits of their inherent wisdom, no matter the source (Balaam's donkey, Pilate's wife, etc.). And yes, I am new to this venue while you've obviously been here a while.

So I'll address this by noting that on a motorcyclist hobby board I sometimes frequent my post count is 1,540 over 14 years, which yields 110 posts a year or 0.30 per day over the total years (figures corrected via edit). Outside of that I'm an avid motorcyclist and ride with a solidly Christian group of men from several different Christian faith traditions. We are frequently around non-Christians or marginal churchmen that we view as part of the mission field within our daily lives. My point? At the end of the day I spend more time in the saddle than I do on the web.

With that said, your post count here is 39,720 over 11 years, or 3,610 a year - which yields just at 9 posts a day over the total years. Bro, whether you take this old guy's word seriously or not is up to you, but you need a life outside of this forum.

Now for this one:

First, you obviously missed the subtle humor in the comment. But since you took it as valuing money over honoring biblical principle I’ll offer a bit of feedback.

For my part, and while I'm not particularly driven by money, I'll also note that one cannot pay his bills with "praise God." Jesus had a lot to say about money, and I recall an ancient sage who said “the laborer is worth of his hire, and “consider those who serve well worthy of double honor.” The fact is that money is a valid biblical topic, and it is spiritual to talk about biblical topics.

Next, unless someone has inherited money to live off of, their best financial asset is their ability to work. I knew that before I heard it coined in those words.

I started working at age 12, throwing newspaper and working burger joints. Post high school I spent four years in infantry units (USMC). After I got out and went back to school I worked my way through college and seminary and graduated debt free from both. I married my high school sweet heart. We borrowed to purchase all of our homes except the last one, for which we paid cash. We were into "cash as you go and debt free" before Dave Ramsey was a household word.

My wife is an accountant and I am a journalist and school teacher by training. For the first 10 years of my ministry we lived on poverty wages and qualified for food stamps - which we never applied for. Those same churches that wanted me to serve "full time" on $8,000 and $12,000 a year “and a house” didn't want me to take outside work. Life is both weird, and sometimes unjust like that in the ministry. Out of six congregations I've served, I received a raise on two of the four moves. For one move I took a pay cut because the Lord said “go through that door.” Over four of the last six budget cycles the congregation I presently serve has honored my request to distribute to the other staff a raise offered to me.

This year, however, I will have to accept it if it is offered, because my wife and I are both considered self-employed under the tax laws, and last January our insurance premiums more than doubled, going to $1,500 a month ($18,000 a year) with a $7,100 each annual deductible. As I noted above, one cannot pay his bills with "praise God." That's not being irreverent, that's just being real.

About doctrine: the Pharisees of Jesus' day argued incessantly and they had doctrinal purity. Yet we find that Jesus called them the sons of hell. What would he say about our arguing and posturing? We may not want to know…

Doctrine is important, but pastoral debates about doctrine are sometimes subtly dishonest due to selective hermeneutics, and its first cousin called proof-texting. If we are going to be heralds of the Word, let us be honest heralds who preach the whole counsel of God.

Finally, the constant arguing about doctrine is addressed in Scripture, and I suspect that many of our hotly debated topics would find little standing among the apostolic fathers.

“But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.” (Titus 3:9-10, to save you the trouble of looking it up)​

Where exactly to define the line between discussion that gives rise to wisdom, and disputes that lead to division is not easily delineated, but I am certain that Jesus and the Apostles would take a dim view of our much speaking.

If our hearts are right, it’s all about the Kingdom and not our standing, status, or notoriety; and certainly not about our eloquence or argumentativeness on web forums.

 

No brother, I did not miss the point. Can you name a professor that was called into account and dismissed for teaching heresy? There were a half dozen who were castigated and demonized for teaching non-traditional viewpoints as part of the body of knowledge, but to my recollection none were dismissed.

And I guess our viewpoints are different on education; we don't work for the seminaries, they work for us. So I believe seminary education has everything to do with equipping pastors to proclaim the Word (behind the pulpits) and minister to their flocks (equip and lead them to reach their communities).

Those benefits of the education failing, we're wasting our money on the seminaries.

I can't speak to the ABC issue. The workings of their convention are outside of my experience.

 

Yes let's do. Your every post is dripping with condescension and accusation. You fancy yourself as being free from the ideological battles and a conservative yet you do whip accusations of " lacked the ability to critically think through an issue and reach their own conclusion", "apply biblical principle to whatever dilemma was at hand", and of course "allow ego and aspirations to power to infect his spin on the topic or influence in leadership".

Praise God for those who are willing to stand and fight those theological battles. They righted the ship which was creating pastors who no longer believed in scripture once the exited our seminaries. What little they did believe in did not hold much sway for them. I have some theological news for ya..............you cannot live out a Bible you don't believe in. You can emulate something that has little meaning because it is not properly understood.

I have no doubt you are thinking for yourself. However, just because a group of other people have a different view than yours does not mean they are not thinking for themselves. That accusation is just unfounded. In fact in our seminaries we are all taught to go research what others have said or written and use those sources to prove your point. No man is an island to himself. No matter how much he might like to think he is.

The Bible is the inerrant, word of God. It is a spiritual book by nature but when it speaks of science, nature, or anything else it is fully correct and without error. Before the conservative resurgence our men in our seminaries were being taught to disbelieve the bible and hold science as more reliable. Professors were not held accountable to a statement of faith and were allowed to teach anything and everything.

We cannot have true discipleship if the foundation of that discipleship is grounded in liberalism, lies, and falsehoods.

 

Then you need to go check your history. Ralph Elliot was one who was fired over his position on Genesis.

 

LOL.No,math and calculators and my fat fingers are rarely good partners...

Corrected via edit, thank you. This time I put the numbers into a spreadsheet to double check.