Is the SBC getting liberal?

[wordsmyth]

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

Point taken. For clarification, when I made the statement I was thinking post 1990 ish when the controversy finally began to wane.

On the topic of Elliott, there was a copy of his book in the NOBTS library when I matriculated there. It had to be read in a particular reading room and could not be taken from the building. Nonetheless I checked it out one day to see what all the brouhaha was about. Having read Genesis in Hebrew I could see how he arrived at his conclusions. Have you read it?

Regarding seminary professors being allowed to teach science over the Bible, I can say that was certainly not the case at NOBTS. They had all signed the seminary articles and the Baptist Faith & Message, and taught within those parameters.

My thought is that NOBTS was sparred the conflict because (1) it was already a conservative stronghold, and (2) none of the political operatives in the SBC at the time wanted to pick a fight with Dr. Leavell. Seriously, he ruled the seminary with an iron fist, and woe unto those who attacked him or it.

Finally, I was present the day Paige Patterson debated Fisher Humphreys on the topics with which Dr. Patterson said he took issue. Dr. Patterson was hard after Dr. Humphreys to sign a statement prepared by some group of denominational operatives.

Dr. Humphreys patiently debated with him over the list of every charge and they agreed, with 400 + witnesses listening, that they were in fact in agreement on all points of doctrine.

Dr. Humphreys then produced a document and asked Dr. Patterson to sign it, acknowledging the agreement that had just been witnessed by the assembled faculty and students.

Dr. Patterson refused. That's odd, considering that he and others had been hounding Dr. Humphrey's for months to sign their document, with no room for debate or recourse for disagreement.

Also, I caught your other post. I'll have to read back over all this and rethink it to see if my attitude is condescending. Perhaps so, hopefully not, but unintended if that is the case.

 

[TCassidy]

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

And Russell Dilday was fired as president of Southwestern in 1994. And Bruce Corley wasn't fired but he was forced out of SWBTS.

 

[TCassidy]

There is one issue I still have trouble with. The conservatives re-wrote the Baptist Faith & Message of 1963 replacing it with the 2000 BF&M.

The 1963 was pretty good but could use some revision to reflect trends of the times.

The problem is, in some areas, in my opinion, the 2000 BF&M went too far.

The 2000 greatly restricted the historic Baptist distinctive of Soul Liberty, or Priesthood of the Believer, and seemed, at least on the surface, to give why too much spiritual authority to pastors over the personal understanding of theological matters among the congregants.

The 1963 went a little too far with academic freedom and the 2000 went a little too far with pastoral authority (almost reflecting the pastoral dictatorship of the break-away BWF/BBF of J. Frank Norris).

So, when somebody asks me where I stand I usually tell them I stand by the BF&M of 1982. The more knowledgeable usually remind me there is no 1982 BF&M. I tell them, "sure there is. It is half way between 1963 and 2000!"

 

[Use of Time]

I agree. Since the completion of the project to map the human genome it is pretty clear that male same gender attraction is largely governed by gene q28X.

That knowledge is denied by many pastors who have been preaching it was a choice for the entire duration of their ministry. It is just beyond their ability to say, "I was wrong."

However, had they bothered to read their bibles more they would have noted the words of Jesus.

Matthew 19:12 "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb,"

Men who lacked the normal opposite gender attraction, for whatever reason.

"and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men;"

Those who, through unfortunate circumstances, find themselves to have been neutered.

"and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake."

And those men who, by their own choice, have chosen, for whatever reason, to remain celibate.

"He who is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

Agreed. When confronted with the issue it is up to us to give wise council.

A young man came to me who was a member of our church along with his parents and two siblings. He admitted to me he was feeling same gender attraction and asked me what to do.

I explained to him that his attraction was not a choice, but was something thrust upon him by his DNA.

I gave him three options.

1. Give into his besetting sin and live the gay lifestyle.
2. Chose to live a celibate life.
3. Find an understanding woman who is aware of your temptations and agrees to make a home with you, help you resist your temptations, bear your children and be your loving companion.

That is a very difficult decision for an 18 year old boy to make. And he will need all the support the church can offer, probably for the rest of his life.

But, unfortunately, all too many Christians have failed to differentiate between same gender attraction and the practice of homosex. And those people tend to subscribe to the "throw the sodomites out" wolf pack.

As a wise old friend once told me, "What difference does it make what kind of sex they are not having?"

Think about it.

This. This right here is how good of a poster you can be.

 

[wordsmyth]

And Russell Dilday was fired as president of Southwestern in 1994. And Bruce Corley wasn't fired but he was forced out of SWBTS.

Yes, I remember that now that you mention it. At the time I saw Dr. Dilday as a collateral damage casualty in the restructuring of the organizations. I did not think of it as a firing over matters of theology, but I'm a NOBTS grad so what do I know?

There is one issue I still have trouble with. The conservatives re-wrote the Baptist Faith & Message of 1963 replacing it with the 2000 BF&M.

The 1963 was pretty good but could use some revision to reflect trends of the times.

The problem is, in some areas, in my opinion, the 2000 BF&M went too far.

The 2000 greatly restricted the historic Baptist distinctive of Soul Liberty, or Priesthood of the Believer, and seemed, at least on the surface, to give why too much spiritual authority to pastors over the personal understanding of theological matters among the congregants.

The 1963 went a little too far with academic freedom and the 2000 went a little too far with pastoral authority (almost reflecting the pastoral dictatorship of the break-away BWF/BBF of J. Frank Norris).

So, when somebody asks me where I stand I usually tell them I stand by the BF&M of 1982. The more knowledgeable usually remind me there is no 1982 BF&M. I tell them, "sure there is. It is half way between 1963 and 2000!"

LOL. I like that. Can I adopt it for use with permission?

Historically there is a "pendulum" that swings on such things. I too am more comfortable with the 1963 statement, and the 1998 addendum on the family cleared up the man/woman marriage issue. I figure after my lifetime it will swing some other direction.

Oddly, our congregation has never affirmed a doctrinal statement before but will embrace the 1963 document later this year. The pastoral authority issue will be addressed in a new set of bylaws that will establish a pastoral team model of leadership, working with a church executive team of other elected leaders for routine operations decisions.

We have modeled the new organization after the way most associations work (which, when viewed objectively, are elder led entities). Organizationally the great blessing of the move will be uno, as in, one church-wide business meeting a year. That will be an annual member meeting to approve the budget and any property sales or purchases. There will be a provision for called meetings to call ministry staff. Other regularly occurring decisions will be handled through policy.

Back to the matter of pastoral authority, I'm always conscious of the fact that positional power is the right to prop one's feet on the desk, but personal power is the credibility to lead as a result of having earned a due level of respect.

The late Cecil Randall taught me in seminary. One day he whipped out a pocket full of change and put it on the table. "Boys" he exclaimed," I want you to hear me on the matter of authority."

His illustration regarding leadership credibility was to first separate a quarter from the stack and label it "the position."

The change in the other pile he called credibility capital, which is earned by doing as Jesus would do.

After that he talked through a series of scenarios and asked each time "how much change would you grant for that action?"

A couple of the illustrations were negative, and after those he asked "how much change would you take away?"

And, finally he asked at what point (for what type of action) would one lose their position?

The point of his object lesson was well taken. We have a little bit of leadership capital by virtue of position, but we earn the influence to make real change based on our actions and relationships.

So every time I hear a guy go off on pastoral authority I mentally note "Yep - and given the wrong mix of personalities or circumstances, we are all 30 days away from seeking a new place of service in God's Kingdom." I know of no circumstance in which a pastor has fired a church, but I long since lost count of the friends who have been shown to the door.

Years later Ken Hemphill, I think it was, wrote a leadership book entitled "Change." The idea has been around a while and there's nothing new under the sun, but I first heard from Dr. Randall. He was a statesman among pastors in his generation.

Moving beyond the pastoral authority theme, we are also getting from some of our denominational agencies a sense of "we'll tell you (the pastors and churches) what we want from you and you best do it." And, "we'll tell you what we want you to know and you don't question it."

That arrogance rubs me in ways that makes me uncooperative. It's an undercurrent that, I think, has arisen due to changes in the BF&M language, the philosophy of ministry that is vogue in many denominational circles, and what the seminarians are hearing today in the classrooms.

And it's not just at the national level. About two years ago in an associational committee meeting an associational employee made the statement "we would only come into and take over a church if ... thus and so happened." He named a couple of circumstances that I suppose, to his thinking, were appropriate for a DOM to come in and take charge.

Loving old curmudgeon that I am, I spoke up and "Brother, you need to recall that you work for us - we don't work for you. And your scope of authority in this association extends only to those areas in your job description. Beyond that you have no right to project yourself or your influence into any congregation unless invited by the pastor, or by the key leadership if the church is without a pastor."

It was an uncomfortable moment, and a revealing moment. But we've not heard any more of that from the associational staff.

Twice in the last 15 years I've nearly died due to illness. I've made peace with my mortality, and live every day knowing that only God is truly in control. He will take care of the next generation.

 

[rlvaughn]

On this general topic, some of you might find the following blog post interesting:
Another Reminder of the Necessity of the Conservative Resurgence

 

[Baptist Believer]

And Russell Dilday was fired as president of Southwestern in 1994.

Dilday was not fired for heresy.

And Bruce Corley wasn't fired but he was forced out of SWBTS.

Corley retired and left with three other seminary professors to found B.H. Carroll Theological Institute.

 

[TCassidy]

Dilday was not fired for heresy.

I didn't say he was.

Corley retired and left with three other seminary professors to found B.H. Carroll Theological Institute.

Yes, we know.

 

[agedman]

I am not going to state the names or places. But to let the forum readers know that twice in the 1960's the SBC came and took over churches.

In both cases, the issue was over money, and congregations that were opposing the direction of the SBC.

In both cases the church doors were re-keyed or literally chained by the convention.

The courts upheld the right of the SBC because of long payed back building loans made by the SBC to the local churches was viewed as the SBC extended ownership over the building(s) and grounds.

Unknown to some churches is the deed language that also grants final ownership and property rights to the SBC or its designated representative.

The question of the op title might be answered, "When wasn't it?"

 

[Reynolds]

I am not going to state the names or places. But to let the forum readers know that twice in the 1960's the SBC came and took over churches.

In both cases, the issue was over money, and congregations that were opposing the direction of the SBC.

In both cases the church doors were re-keyed or literally chained by the convention.

The courts upheld the right of the SBC because of long payed back building loans made by the SBC to the local churches was viewed as the SBC extended ownership over the building(s) and grounds.

Unknown to some churches is the deed language that also grants final ownership and property rights to the SBC or its designated representative.

The question of the op title might be answered, "When wasn't it?"

There are churches here that reverted back to the association because the churches failed and the association was a signer of the mortgage note. I have no idea how that is relevant to anything.

 

[agedman]

There are churches here that reverted back to the association because the churches failed and the association was a signer of the mortgage note. I have no idea how that is relevant to anything.

My response was directed more toward the posts that assume the SBC doesn't hold some manner of sway over the local congregations.

Ultimately it all comes down to money. Money buys influence and political power in much of the offices of the SBC in the past. Always has.

 

[Reynolds]

My response was directed more toward the posts that assume the SBC doesn't hold some manner of sway over the local congregations.

Ultimately it all comes down to money. Money buys influence and political power in much of the offices of the SBC in the past. Always has.

The SBC does not hold any control, unless the churches have financially obligated themselves to the SBC in some wsy.

 

[TCassidy]

My response was directed more toward the posts that assume the SBC doesn't hold some manner of sway over the local congregations.

That is true if the church used SBC resources to finance buildings, etc. In which case the Convention can step in if the church defaults on the terms of the loan.

Ultimately it all comes down to money. Money buys influence and political power in much of the offices of the SBC in the past. Always has.

Yes. That is human nature. The larger congregations that can give many multiplied thousands of dollars to the Convention's programs will have a greater likelihood of being heard at the national level.

But, in all honesty, the same is true at the local level. Those with the ability to give large sums to the local church are more likely to have a greater say in the leadership of the church, especially regarding how those funds are distributed.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I am not going to state the names or places. But to let the forum readers know that twice in the 1960's the SBC came and took over churches

I do not find this believable. Sounds like a story passed around in so-called "independent" churches.

In both cases, the issue was over money, and congregations that were opposing the direction of the SBC.

In both cases the church doors were re-keyed or literally chained by the convention

Only if the SBC owned the property. The SBC does not usually have ANY financial interest in the property unless possibly it is somehow a mission of one of the agencies.

If the story you are telling is true, you may be describing the actions of a local association that had a financial stake in the church plant - such as having their name on a note to guarantee a loan.

The courts upheld the right of the SBC because of long payed back building loans made by the SBC to the local churches was viewed as the SBC extended ownership over the building(s) and grounds.

Few churches received loans from the SBC.

Unknown to some churches is the deed language that also grants final ownership and property rights to the SBC or its designated representative.

I know that my own congregation has language in the deed that does not allow the property to be sold for another use without the express consent of the local association. That was put in place by our congregation (not from any outside pressure) back in the late 1920s so that our church's already prime location would not be lost to ministry. Our congregation is free to leave the denomination (we nearly have left the SBC for all practical purposes) and join another (we are aligned to several national and local groups) without fear of anyone coming down on us. The only way the association would have a claim on the property is if we were to completely disband as a congregation.

 

[agedman]

I do not find this believable. Sounds like a story passed around in so-called "independent" churches.


Only if the SBC owned the property. The SBC does not usually have ANY financial interest in the property unless possibly it is somehow a mission of one of the agencies.

If the story you are telling is true, you may be describing the actions of a local association that had a financial stake in the church plant - such as having their name on a note to guarantee a loan.


Few churches received loans from the SBC.


I know that my own congregation has language in the deed that does not allow the property to be sold for another use without the express consent of the local association. That was put in place by our congregation (not from any outside pressure) back in the late 1920s so that our church's already prime location would not be lost to ministry. Our congregation is free to leave the denomination (we nearly have left the SBC for all practical purposes) and join another (we are aligned to several national and local groups) without fear of anyone coming down on us. The only way the association would have a claim on the property is if we were to completely disband as a congregation.

Well,

Like I said it happened and it was a first hand account.

I trust you have had someone of authority review ALL the original deeds.

Like Cassidy acknowledged, such language was not so uncommon.

Less someone get the wrong thought the SBC includes the local association with all the hidden tenticals to the state and national levels.

 

[Revmitchell]

There are no hidden tentacles.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Like I said it happened and it was a first hand account.

Okay, I believe that it happened, but I suggest that you may have misinterpreted what happened.

I trust you have had someone of authority review ALL the original deeds.

The SBC did not plant our church, nor did the state convention or the local association - three different and separate entities, by the way.

Like Cassidy acknowledged, such language was not so uncommon.

I did not see him acknowledge anything of the sort. Perhaps I missed it somewhere.

Less someone get the wrong thought the SBC includes the local association with all the hidden tenticals to the state and national levels.

That is an error. The SBC is completely distinct from most state conventions (although there have been some that have explicitly tied themselves to the SBC like the Southern Baptists of Texas) and local associations. You can be a member of any of the three without being a member of the other two - or any combination thereof.

Calling a local association or a state convention "the SBC" is completely wrong and factually incorrect.

Moreover, if the SBC came in and shut down churches that did not go with the flow, our building would have been taken over more than 30 years ago. That simply has not happened.

There have been plenty of other churches that have opposed the direction of the SBC and have disassociated themselves or have been disfellowshipped by the SBC and they have not had their building or assets taken over either.

Now, that being said, my congregation has signed notes for mission churches throughout our community - paying for their property until the congregation gains enough momentum to pay their own note and then pay off the property. If any of them suddenly decided to go Mormon or United Pentecostal, we would have to look at ways to separate ourselves from the congregation that left the faith. Fortunately, that has never happened to us.

 

[Revmitchell]

What often happens is when any one of the autonomous organizations of the SBC (i.e. the national convention, the state convention, or the local association) have spent money and planted a new church it is often put into the deed a reversion clause which states that if the church ever ceases to be an SBC church then the property goes back to the local association or to another local church which is still SBC. This is done to stop a hostile takeover of smaller churches by other denoms or groups.

What would happen then is that the local church, association, and or the state convention would then bring in another church planter to restart that work should the doors close by an attempt of a hostile take over.

 

[agedman]

Ok, believe what you desire.

The SBC is completely without self serving people, who are totally honest, and who would never consider influence, bribery, or any other manner seek to influence the local assembly.

All involved in every aspect of the SBC are without sin and can be totally trusted.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Ok, believe what you desire.

The SBC is completely without self serving people, who are totally honest, and who would never consider influence, bribery, or any other manner seek to influence the local assembly.

All involved in every aspect of the SBC are without sin and can be totally trusted.

Hah!

I am not an advocate for the SBC by any means, but I also don't want to speak falsely of them. I was with them from childhood until finally breaking off any connection to them in 1998. I'm nearly 20 years out from having anything to do with the SBC for a number of reasons. At the same time, your portrayal of the tentacles of the SBC shutting down churches that don't tow the line is ridiculous. As I said previously, the church of which I am a member would have had its assets seized long before now if that actually happened. We have been regularly vilified by SBC leaders for years.