Alcohol, Acts 29 and the SBC

Did you even read the article? The CP did not "provide alcohol" to their congregation. The MBC provided money to help get the church started. The church hosts discussion groups about the gospel at places where alcohol is available.

Obviously it is your complete right to disagree, and I have no problem with anyone disagreeing. But let's be honest enough to get the fact straight!

 

It probably helps to get over your hated o Dr. Patterson as well. this has become childish.

 

You convienently left out the following quotes from the article. Again all I ask is that we get the facts straight. Disagree all you want, just do not make it look like the CP provided the church alcohol.

"....the Missouri Baptist Convention, which loaned the church $200,000 to help start a church planting center."

Patrick told Baptist Press he abstains from alcohol and that The Journey “doesn’t personally encourage nor corporately promote the use of alcohol.”

 

There are a couple of other facts that ought to be expressed as well.

1. When Dr. Patterson was at SEBTS and the addition to the President's home was undertaken, it was funded by a private donation that was given specifically for that purpose. It was not CP money.

I don't know if this is the case or not at SWBTS.

2. The addition to Magnolia Hill (at SEBTS) was not simply to house Dr. Patterson's trophies and books. It was done to provide the Pattersons a single floor living space because Mrs. Patterson's arthritis and other health problems limited her ability to go up and down the steps of the big old two story house (all the bedrooms were on the second floor).

I assume she still has the same health problems at SWBTS.

3. Dr. Patterson opened his personal library to students who needed to research books that he owned which the SEBTS library did not have.

I assume he still does this at SWBTS.

4. When the Pattersons were here at SEBTS Magnolia Hill (the President's home) was treated as any other campus building. It was open to be used for formal occasions. They hosted all (or just about all) guest chapel speakers and other visitors to lunch there following chapel three days per week. Every student (including spouses) was invited to attend a Christmas reception there each year. They hosted a reception there for every spring graduating class (including their families). The vast majority of the Women's Certificate classes were taught at Magnolia Hill.

I don't know but I assume the Pattersons do the same type of things at SWBTS.

 

I've got no problems with their actions. I've gotten into deeper spiritual conversations over some spirits with completely unchurched people than sitting them down in a room, handing them a Bible, and starting at Genesis 1. Just my experience though, not recommending it for everyone.

Acts 29 network is a fairly reformed bunch with some great methods for truly reaching the unchurched in our world today. I wouldn't get down on them. Remember, not every Baptist believes that teetoalism is a biblically taught principle.

gb, you're a good guy and I appreciate your posts. Hope you're not trying to major on a minor here. Again just saying it to say it I guess.

 

When I sat down to read the Baptist Board I saw a google ad. I clicked on it and supported Google. Somewhere, they had also advertised a bar and someone saw the ad and went and drank. Don't you love how my involvment with this forum caused someone to drink?

Bit of a long-shot huh?

My point is that we can connect the dots all day long, but its a far cry from CP dollars purchasing alcohol for congregants.

 

This will no-doubt be the source of much debate here in the MBC. Of course, one wonders how much the convention can say who can and cannot be a staff member of an autonomous church. Granted, they can have this say if they are supporting the church. But are they? Notice the CP dollars in question here are a loan.

By the way...I know of two pastors who kept going to bars throughout the last MBC...those crazy missouri baptists. :laugh: :tonofbricks:

 

That was, by the way, a joke.

 

No problem. I have no issue with you having a problem with it, just wanted the facts straight.

 

:laugh: thats funny stuff!

 

This is actually a very successful way of reaching people. I am friends with a leader in the church, and another good friend of mine helped out with the ministry as well. There is a high amount of accountability that has gone on with this idea, and it is not a bunch of drunkards. Even those nonbelievers that are there are not getting drunk. This is a debatable issue and we should not be condemning churches over this. It is not an "essential". For Baptists to believe in the priesthood of believers, and local church autonomy, why is it that we are often the first to cast judgement and condemnation over something that a fellow believer is not convicted over? There is no clear sin here. Again, this is debatable. Can't believers disagree without feeling as if we should take a seat on the throne as judge?

 

Ed Stetzer is a great example of what I'm talking about, as is explained in the article.

 

They loaned the money before this ministry started.

I don't really agree with Patterson's statement. This is the point...that it is debatable to say that it is "God's ideal" that believers ought to abstain from "strong drink". Others interpret Scripture differently, and they can do so on this issue and still remain Bible believing Christians. Nobody would carry this as far as to say drunkenness is okay. This is less debatable, and clearer in Scripture than to actually consume a drink with alcohol. As far as the best I can be for Christ? I'm pretty sure its the same as dung, if I read my Bible correctly. Patterson's best for Christ is the same, as is everyone's. Trying to follow the SBC's version of Mishna brings you no closer to Jesus. We should be pursuing higher things than making sure everyone we associate with abstains from things we choose to abstain from ourselves. Like making sure everyone knows Jesus' offer of salvation.

 

There are two seperate issues being lumped together here. With regards to the OP - the issue is not whether drinking is wrong or okay. The issue is how far will you go to share the Gospel.

Personally, I pretty much agree with Page Patterson's statement. I think (based on studying word meanings and history) that alcoholic beverages as they are sold today go way beyond anything that is close to permissable in the Bible. If I had the opportunity to go to a bar where people were gathered and willing to discuss what the Bible has to say, would my belief that drinking is wrong stop me from meeting with a group of listening ears? Not a chance.

 

Let me see if I've got this straight. You're a Patterson fan when he agrees with you about your stance on alcohol. Then, you're a huge Patterson critic when it comes to any additions to the president's home at SWBTS? As long as he agrees with you, he's a good man and when he doesn't agree, he's bad? I hope I've misunderstood.

 

I think part of the problem here is a confusion related to polity and relationships within the SBC and associated entities.

The Journey is an independent, autonomous congregation that voluntarily cooperates with the Missouri Baptist Convention, and through it, with the SBC. In this particular relationship, the SBC isn't involved. The MBC, which is also independent and autonomous, and voluntarily cooperates with the SBC, provided the loan to the Journey. It was not a gift of missions money.

It would be very difficult, and would put the MBC in an awkward position, if it attempted to dictate specific doctrinal and faith practice positions to an independent, autonomous, voluntarily cooperating church in order for them to receive a loan from the convention. It would make it look like the state convention was attempting to use money to force a church to accept a doctrinal position that they advocated. There are conditions outlined for churches to qualify for convention based loans, but I seriously doubt that there are restrictions on the evangelistic methods a church employs to reach people for Christ.

There is also the mistaken idea that a loan from a state convention to a church constitutes "support" of the church. Churches in voluntary cooperation with Baptist state conventions and with the SBC are independent and autonomous in all matters. As long as they meet the criteria set for qualifying for loans, they can get one. The state convention, which is also independent and autonomous, cannot "support", or not support, some churches over others based on a disagreement with doctrine or practices of the church as long as the criteria for voluntary cooperation is being met. Giving a church a loan cannot be considered an "endorsement" or "support" on behalf of the state convention.

I think, in the case of The Journey, it would be hard to prove they are sanctioning, or approving of, drinking alcohol. They are merely acknowledging that it is a common practice among a majority of people, particularly those who are unchurched, and are wading in to places where these people gather in order to reach them with the gospel. Personally, I think that's a more effective approach than holing up in a church with a fortress mentality whose approach to reaching people with the gospel is to outline a convoluted system of "correct doctrine" and then use it to sling weapons over the fortress walls in the form of "taking a stand" against a variety of identified philosophical enemies. From the evangelism statistics that the SBC has shown during the past couple of decades, that strategy appears to have been successful if the definition of success includes a 35% decline in baptisms, congregations of saints where the median age is over
60, membership of 16.5 million with a weekly worship attendance of fewer than 5.5 million and declining, and a non-resident membership exceeding 7 million.

I don't think Southern Baptists have a lot of room to criticize the effectiveness of the Acts 29 movement, or of The Journey.

As to how Paige Patterson got dragged into this discussion, ???????