FBC at OKC leaves SBC

[Phillip]

This may be old news to most of you, but FYI: The Daily Oklahoman (OKC) reported this week that the First Baptist Church of Oklahoma City has left the Southern Baptist Convention. Alledgedly, a vote was taken over women's roles in churches and to their husbands which also included disagreement with those issues in the 2000 version of the SBC belief statement.

It was also reported that the church disagreed with the Conservative Leadership now in majority at the SBC.

Do not quote me on this, but I believe the vote was something like around 600 or so for and about 83 against. It is noted that many of the older members of the church are quite upset and my guess is there may be a split. We need to be praying for this church and the convention that both follow the Lord's lead in response to this major decision. This is reportedly the ONLY church in Oklahoma which has left the Convention.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

This is Herschel Hobbs's former church, so this is obviously not a conservative vs. liberal disagreement, but a conservative vs. foaming fundamentalist disagreement.

 

[Phillip]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
This is Herschel Hobbs's former church, so this is obviously not a conservative vs. liberal disagreement, but a conservative vs. foaming fundamentalist disagreement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to be ******, but my specialty is more in old documents and Bibles and not politics in the SBC. I have a basic understanding of conservative vs. liberal disagreements, but I do not understand your comment and would like to learn more, that is if you have time to explain it to me. The paper made it out to be a liberal vs. conservative view, but I don't trust the media. I have heard of Herschel Hobbs, but know nothing about him as a person. If it is fundamentalism, why would they be pushing the issue of ordaining women? (I'm not trying to be smart-alec here, I really just don't understand the politics involved.) Could you explain this further or at least give me a source to find more material. We have a big church in our town that has a young pastor who makes statements such as "Oh, Baptism is just an old tradition and I personally don't believe it is needed for church membership." So, he has what he calls "watch-care" for people who want to be members who come from local charismatic churches and don't want to be re-baptised. Plus, many other things like this. I fully expect them to make a move like this, but there are too many older people who would fight him now. He is trying his best to remove all of the old members and replace them with new members while he has his team teach Baptist doctrine in a way that it is just another "Christian tradition" like ALL of the denominations. We left this church and joined a church where the pastor is well grounded in Baptist doctrine and faith and instead of "feel good" services every single Sunday--he preaches from the Bible extensively. He is a good, humble, pastor; whereas the other church was into show-business and television ministry (which is only cable access and watched by old folks that can't attend.)
Sorry, I got to rambling, but I would like to know more about your statement. Thank you. If you don't feel comfortable with the board write me direct at webdes@astrohost.com.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Phillip,

The SBC was taken over by fundamentalists in 1979, and since then the SBC is really Baptist in name only. They have turned the Baptist Faith and Message, the denomination's confession of faith, into a creed and called it an instrument of doctrinal accountabiltiy. They have removed the statement in the '63 version that said Jesus is the criterion by which scripture should be interpreted; that criterion now is the fundamentalist leadership and the new creedal BF&M 2000 version. They have amended the '63 version to state that women must graciuosly submit to their husbands, but they have ignored scripture which calls for mutual submission. And they have decided that God does not call women to be pastors; they want us to believe that they have a hotline to God on this one. Instead of leaving such matters to the local church, they seek to speak for the whole denomination.

Further, in the last 22 years, people have been forced from their jobs in the agencies and seminaries of the denomination because these people would not surrender their consciences to the new "Baptist" politburo. We now have a "Baptist" College of Cardinals in Nashville who will guide us in every point of doctrine; there's no need anymore for the traditional Baptist principles of soul competency and the priesthood of the believer--these have been replaced by the competency of Al Mohler, Paige Patterson, Wally Criswell, Paul Pressler, and Adrian Rogers, and by the priesthood of the Executive Committee.

Now this "new" SBC wants to paint all who disagree with them as liberals, but it just isn't so. And women's ordination is not a liberal position, either, as evidenced by the fact that many very conservative denominations have been ordaining women for many, many years.

The real issue is that those in control of the SBC cannot tolerate anyone who disagrees with their militant fundamentalist positions; these people have abandoned historic, traditional Baptist principles and have tried to besmudge the names of great conservative Baptists such as E.Y. Mullins and Herschel Hobbs. The leaders of the SBC should take the word "Baptist" out of the denominational name and call it just "The Southern Convention" because there is barely a trace of the Baptist heritage left therein.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Philip,

I would encourage you to do your own research on this. Michael's views are slanted toward his own position and do not, IMO, reflect the true state of affairs from a objective viewpoint. The recent direction of the SBC has been a return to the historical positions of the Baptists. It was the moderates and liberals who hijacked the convention and then pouted when it was returned closer to its roots. I would simply encourage you to do some research on your own rather than taking the word of a disgruntled former SBC opinion.

Many of the things that Michael here brings up concerning the BFM are issues of biblical truth. While he suggests leaving the issue to the local church, we must remember that biblical truth cannot be denied by the local church. The SBC is not telling churches what they should believe and do. They are telling them what is required for fellowship with the convention. That is an important distinction that is often overlooked. The SBC is not shutting down anyone who disagrees with them.

It reminds me of somethign John Wooden told one of his players at UCLA during his legendary run of national championships. He had a hair length code that the players had to abide by. One player challenged him and said "You can't make me wear my hair short." Wooden simply replied, "You are right; but I can tell you how much you will play." The guy got his hair cut.

The SBC is not telling people what they must believe. They are saying these are the essentials if you are going to have fellowship with us.

[ September 30, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[John Wells]

Michael Wrenn said, "And women's ordination is not a liberal position, either, as evidenced by the fact that many very conservative denominations have been ordaining women for many, many years."

It's certainly not a biblical position, so therefore I don't give a rip what any denomination or local church wants to do to pervert the Holy Word of God!

Just found out today that I will be going as a messenger to the North Carolina SBC State Convention on November 13th and 14th. Whether you are or not an SBC Baptist, please, pastors, brothers and sisters alike, pray for our denomination. Our pastor is concerned about the rise of liberalism in the SBC and I can guarantee you that I will do my part to stand firm on the Word of God no matter who's toes I step on!

 

[Phillip]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[QB]Philip,

I would encourage you to do your own research on this.[QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have done my own research and I must say that I agree with you and John. I was simply trying to find out exactly what Michael meant when he said "conservative vs. foaming fundamentalist disagreement" and see what his point of view on this was.

Our pastor preached a great sermon on this today using the theme of Paul reprimanding churches from "slipping" into false doctrines or "drifting" over a long period of time because of not spending time in God's Word (which is obviously VERY plain about women ordinations--That is a slap in the face to the Word of God.) and how it can occur to individuals first and then organizations later as they quit doing the requirements of God such as reading their Bible, praying daily and often and going to church whenever the doors are open, etc.

Believe me, I know what liberal churches are like, we just left one (the biggest church in our town) and it calls itself SBC and even was allowing dancing in the basement with the lights out for the kids (to secular music -- not even Christian rock) simply because they said: kids have changed and won't come to church otherwise. I asked the pastor where he was going to draw the line. Would we start serving beer to get people to come because they won't come otherwise. He always talked about "legalism", "legalism", "legalism" and I agree legalism can be bad, but he was pushing it so hard making a point that we shouldn't worry about how people live as long as the church is "winning souls" and growing. The particular pastor now wants to put the church about 13 million into debt by building a new building that over 1/4 of the church does not want after they just paid off a one million dollar loan to build an office for the music minister. He made a statement to some people in our church that he wasn't Baptist until he decided God was calling him to go to seminary and he decided to go SBC because it had the best job opportunities because of its size.

He went as far as allowing Christians from a local Pentecostal church that split to join without Baptism by putting them in what he called "watch-care" which -- in other words means you are a member, but not Baptised into a Baptist Church. He told a friend of mine that Baptism is just a tradition of early churches and not to worry about it.

I knew something was wrong when he started putting signs in all the halls saying "Only 16 more to go to make 100 Baptisms this year." He is working on his resume and that is all. He will get that church in debt and leave -- letting it fall apart and no pastor will want to come in and accept a 13 mil debt load. You need to read his resume, it tells about all the countries he has preached in. (He goes on all the mission trips the church takes and counts those as "preaching" when he stands up to announce somebody to a missionary.)--another story.

Anyway, Yes, I agree with you two, I have seen Both liberalism and conservatism and I go conservative any day of the week. Nobody is perfect--let's make that clear. I feel some of the hard-core conservatives go a bit overboard by demanding total control of a church as the pastor, but this is not always the case and is a minor issue compared to the way liberalism is permeating our association's churches.

Our pastor made a good point today. The church in OKC claims the convention has "slipped" and the convention claims the "church" has slipped. He pointed out the headline of the Daily Oklahoman said it all when it said: "FBC Church leaves Southern Baptist Convention". The convention did NOT kick them out.

I disagree 100% with women ordained as pastors or deacons--as I do with gays or other unqualified individuals. I have each of the statements of faith for the SBC on my website (three modifications) including the 2000 and I'm sorry Michael, but I do not see any problems with the document. It simply clarifies what Southern Baptists have believed all along for today's society. Believe me, I know, I have been Southern Baptist my entire 43 years of life (or at least since I was saved and Baptised into an SB New Testament Church when I was 9.)

I see a lot of pain coming for our convention and we are in constant prayer for it. I even pray for our old church, it has turned into nothing but an entertainment center complete with secular television commercials running daily on the local stations.

 

[American Citizen]

Michael Wrenn,

I know a little about the thing at FBC, OKC. The pastor there is a liberal. It is arrogant to say that everyone who believes different from you is a fundamentalist (by your definition of the term). Those who controlled the SBC prior to 1979 were people who would not allow any one who disagreed with them a place in leadership any where in the convention. I am speaking about our schools and boards.

Baptist principals are not being abandoned today as you say. Actually it is the other way around. For liberals to point out as Jeff Zurheide (pastor of OKC First) that a dogma is being forced on them is a flat out lie. OKC was not forced to accept or abide by the 2000 BF&M. They were not asked to leave the SBC, BGCO or their association. He also said the Priesthood of the believers was under attack another lie. He said the automony of the local church is under attack another lie. We had a pastor at our church who said the same kind of things and left and became a pastor of a methodist church. Now the last time I checked they don't appoint their own pastors and they don't see the priesthood of the believers as we do. You see it was nothing but a smoke screen. Just another CBF lie.
If you really want to see someone tell a lie look at Dale Moody. He signed the "Abstract of Principles" every year he taught at Southern Seminary. Yet he did not believe anything it said. Now that is a liar for sure.

 

[ellis]

How is it a "liberal" position for a church to recognize God's calling in the life of a woman by ordaining her to the ministry? I see no place in scripture that forbids a woman this calling. The few who rest their hats on the "husband of one wife" passage in I Timothy ignore the context of verse 11, which brings women being called to the ministry under the same requirements as men. This is an inclusive, not exclusive statement. And for those of you who follow the bias of the translation that says this means "their wives", go ahead--it is you who are twisting the scripture to your own view. There's no way in the world an unbiased translator would ever think that the greek term in this passage alluded to wives, since the word for that allusion is a completely different one. Here is an example of translators interpreting a passage of scripture.

As to the "women can't have authority over a man" statement. True. But neither does a pastor, or any officer of the church have authority over the congregation. It is Christ's church, and they are servants of Christ and servants of the church, and not authorities in the human sense of the word. Haven't any of you read 1 Peter 5? If a person is called to shepherd the flock of Jesus, they are not authorities over them but servants of them. So a woman can do this and not violate even the most literalist interpretation of these passages.

I'm not sure what the other issues are regarding the problems in the SBC. Although I attended an SBC college, the problems in the denomination never reached our doorstep. I'm somewhat familiar with the 1963 version of the Baptist Faith and Message, it was the basis for a Baptist Doctrine class I took as a sophomore and I believe the author of the textbook was the former pastor of FBC Oklahoma City, Dr. Hobbs. That would lead me to believe that FBC OKC is mainstream SBC and the new group is the one changing things. All I have to go on regarding what is happening in the denomination is the word of the Southern Baptists I know here, and most of them feel that the denomination has been drastically uprooted and changed in the past fifteen or so years by whatever has been happening.

Perhaps, when observing the struggles of the SBC, those of us who come from churches that are independent of such connectional, denominational ties can appreciate what we have.

[ September 30, 2001: Message edited by: ellis ]

 

[Phillip]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ellis:
How is it a "liberal" position for a church to recognize God's calling in the life of a woman by ordaining her to the ministry? I see no place in scripture that forbids a woman this calling<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quote from Baptist Faith and Message: "VI. The Church

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."

Quote from Bible: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
1 Timothy chapter 2.

You are right about the other verses regarding Overseers and Deacons. Reading 1 Timothy chapter 3 gives NO indication of a woman being selected for this position. There is one case where a Christian worker helped Paul in a church, but NO, Zero, Nada, cases of a woman being a Pastor or Deacon in the New Testament of the Bible.

Considering the verses above and more which I haven't quoted, God will obviously not call a woman as a pastor or deacon.

Liberalism, means being liberal with rules and regulations, in this case. In other words, rather than obeying them strictly, they take a liberal view and say, well its okay--just because the Bible mentions it doesn't necessarily mean we have to follow it.

For a complete list of the beliefs and the original, plus two revisions check out http://www.baptist-church.org/beliefs.html

God Bless.

The Southern Baptist convention Never tells ANYBODY what to do, it is the other way around. This has been a false understanding by many Independent churches. Southern Baptist Churches are just as Independent as your Independent Baptist Church as far as local church body is concerned. The Convention is primarily a mission field aid to pool the money (the way Paul did in the New Testament) to send out missionaries in a more effective way than sending one or two out from each church. They provide language training, training in evangelism and customs of the country and then support the missionaries. This is Biblical.

[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Phillip]

By the way, in answer to your definition of "liberal" in SB churches. You will find pastors who are taking liberal views on many, many other issues than just women being ordained. This is more of a smoke-screen. As I said in other posts, a liberal pastor I know even allows members not Baptised into a Baptist Church to be members under what he calls "watch-care" program. In this way, they can join and don't have to be Baptized again---THIS IS NOT BIBLICAL and Paul himself would jump all over this.

Some liberal pastors are bringing charismatic tendencies into the church today and their entire approach to church is "entertainment" to get numbers. Large churches now in Tulsa are built like a concert hall with high individual seating where they sell popcorn and cokes to enjoy while listening to the service. So much for the Holiness of Worship in the Lord's house. As I mentioned earlier (also) one pastor I know allowed the high school kids to turn out the lights at a party and dance to secular music right in the church.

THIS IS THE WAY SATAN DILUTES A CHURCH AND ALLOWS THEM TO SLIP as Paul describes it in the first century---eventually allowing heathen practices. The next step after women will be gay men or women. ....just watch.

 

[Phillip]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by American Citizen:
[QB]Michael Wrenn,

I know a little about the thing at FBC, OKC. The pastor there is a liberal. It is arrogant to say that everyone who believes different from you is a fundamentalist (by your definition of the term). Those who controlled the SBC prior to 1979 were people who would not allow any one who disagreed with them a place in leadership any where in the convention.[QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you 100%. In the case of Michael, I think it is probably a compliment to be called fundamental, because if I am not wrong it means back to the basics. I would be proud to be called that. LOL By the way, what town do you live in? Just curious if you do not want to say, that is okay. ...or you can private message me. I worked in Tulsa for about five years and OKC for one year.

 

[John Wells]

Qualifications for an "overseer" or "bishop" or "elder," depending on the translation:

1 Timothy 3:2 (ESV)
2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

It's kinda hard to be a woman and be the "husband of one wife," unless you're "one of those kind of churches!"

Philip, I agree with you brother. It's amazing how holding to the "plumbline" of God's Word gets labeled as "conservative," "far right," "radical right," etc. As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord "down the middle" of His Word, and people can call it what they will!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

John,

If Jesus was physically present in your church right now--He couldn't be the pastor of it, according to your interpretation.

Amazin', ain't it?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

American C.,

Where did I say that everyone who believes differently from me is a fundamentalist? They might be a liberal, or a conservative, or a modernist, etc.--but they're probably just wrong!

 

[John Wells]

Not when you consider that Jesus does not need to be the "pastor" of a local church! Why would God the Son need to qualify as a pastor?

 

[rhoneycutt]

Michael,
"The Baptist Politburo" I usually refer to them as the Junta but thats probably influenced from my days as an MK in South America.
Russell

 

[rhoneycutt]

Michael,
Speaking of taking Baptist out of their name, I am convinced the most honest thing they have done in the last 20 years is take Baptist and Book out of the name of their Bookstores. Need a What Would Jabez Do bracelet???

 

[John Wells]

rhoneycutt et al,

I guess you take pride in undercutting a denomination such as the SBC. Sure it has it's struggles because its members still live in the flesh (like everyone else), but taking pot shots at it rather than trying to be part of the solution is a cowardly act at best. Are we not to try to glorify Jesus
Christ in all that proceeds from our mouths?

 

[Phillip]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ellis:
How is it a "liberal" position for a church to recognize God's calling in the life of a woman by ordaining her to the ministry? I see no place in scripture that forbids a woman this calling. The few who rest their hats on the "husband of one wife" passage in I Timothy ignore the context of verse 11, which brings women being called to the ministry under the same requirements as men. This is an inclusive, not exclusive statement. And for those of you who follow the bias of the translation that says this means "their wives", go ahead--it is you who are twisting the scripture to your own view. There's no way in the world an unbiased translator would ever think that the greek term in this passage alluded to wives, since the word for that allusion is a completely different one. Here is an example of translators interpreting a passage of scripture.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, you are the one taking scripture out of context. By reading all of Paul's writings and in particular the entire chapters the intent is for men to be the Deacons and Pastors of the church. It only takes common sense. Read it in Greek too and it will help your understanding.

I do have a question for you--obviously--you are in disagreement with the SBC "message and faith" statement. If this is true, why don't YOU go to another church that believes the way you do rather than try to change the way the SBC has believed for years?


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
As to the "women can't have authority over a man" statement. True. But neither does a pastor, or any officer of the church have authority over the congregation. It is Christ's church, and they are servants of Christ and servants of the church, and not authorities in the human sense of the word. Haven't any of you read 1 Peter 5? If a person is called to shepherd the flock of Jesus, they are not authorities over them but servants of them. So a woman can do this and not violate even the most literalist interpretation of these passages.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1 Peter 5:2 "Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers--not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock."

Your interpretation the scripture looses the true meaning. The elders ARE shepherds of the flock and a shepherd is responsible for the CARE of the flock and it is entrusted (the flock) to the shepherd. The author is simply telling them not to ABUSE their power as shepherds, but to treat the flock in a correct manner. That is all. If the shepherd begins to abuse his power, that is when a church must take action to vote to see what the entire church feels and find a new shepherd who does not abuse his power, but HE IS IN AUTHORITY under Jesus Christ.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I'm not sure what the other issues are regarding the problems in the SBC. Although I attended an SBC college, the problems in the denomination never reached our doorstep. I'm somewhat familiar with the 1963 version of the Baptist Faith and Message, it was the basis for a Baptist Doctrine class I took as a sophomore and I believe the author of the textbook was the former pastor of FBC Oklahoma City, Dr. Hobbs. That would lead me to believe that FBC OKC is mainstream SBC and the new group is the one changing things. All I have to go on regarding what is happening in the denomination is the word of the Southern Baptists I know here, and most of them feel that the denomination has been drastically uprooted and changed in the past fifteen or so years by whatever has been happening.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the book was written by Herschel Hobbs of FBC OKC. This simply shows how even a church with principles can "slip" as Paul indicates to both individuals and churches in his letters. Obviously, from this statement, you are ill prepared to be discussing this issue with SBC members.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Perhaps, when observing the struggles of the SBC, those of us who come from churches that are independent of such connectional, denominational ties can appreciate what we have.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All of the Lord's groups are today being attacked unmercifully by Satan. This is the reason I ask the question-- is Jesus is coming soon due to the extra activity and corruption. You are obviously Independent (as we Baptist churches in the SBC are--whether you want to believe that or not) and happy where you are so I think this discussion is somewhat outside of your purvue. As mentioned earlier by another post, the church in OKC was NOT asked to leave the convention--they decided to leave the convention--which is their right--but it is sad to us who see what was once a Biblical church join the liberal groups wanting to change our convention.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
[ September 30, 2001: Message edited by: ellis ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>