Seminary trustees to confront president over audit, management issues

Uh yeah, whatever.

Not a liberal by any sane definition.

Not even an advocate of the CBF.

You haven't back up your assertions with credible sources, and now you have resorts to labeling me with the dreaded L-word because you can't make a case but you want to affirm certain positions anyway.

As I see it, the big problem between us is that you are assuming I'm just a shill for the so-called "moderate" or "liberal" side, when I am nothing of the sort. I would probably agree with you about lots of the problems with churches associated with the CBF, but the real issue is not actually the CBF.

You talk about "liberal" congregations causing pastor friends all kinds of trouble. I can certainly sympathize. There are all kinds of congregations out there that are very religious, but dead to the things of God. It's not just more liberal congregations, but also very "conservative" congregations. However, the more liberal ones, including ones tied to the CBF tend to have more issues this way since there truly does tend to be a tendency toward more rationalistic/social gospel (without the balance of the real gospel) influence on the churches. However, they are not all that way.

Yep. The SBC has a similar problem. The leadership seems to keep searching for enemies to rally the churches and messengers around, whether it be "liberals", the CBF, political figures, social problems, etc. However, there is almost no true disciple-making going on in SBC or CBF churches and the churches are often very ineffective except when they have a charismatic leader who can pull the people in and get them plugged into some sort of affinity group.

That's why I actually care very little about the SBC and CBF. They can be fine organizations, but the churches are in serious trouble and no focus on national conventions or assemblies will fix the problem. We need to be faithful to what has placed in our hands locally and then see what God might raise up nationally and internationally. For the time being, the SBC and CBF both put missionaries in the field, and I can support that, but there's very few other things I support in either group.

However, an essential part of being a Christian is telling the truth, and that's what I have attempted to do here.

 

It is interesting in that the SBC is not really a "leader-led" entity, but the CBF certainly is. The people in the pews would never have even considered a switch from their SBC home to a new CBF platform if not led there by a handful of leaders who had something against the SBC.

 

Making false accusations like this only serves to show you are carrying the water for the CBF.

Clueless

No not really

 

So there were no leaders of the "Conservative Resurgence?"

Pressler and Patterson didn't lead, "sound the alarm", or do anything?

There wasn't a steady stream of large church pastors who were successively elected to the SBC presidency for years in order to nominate like-minded people to the committees and boards of trustees?

Okay, whatever.

Every movement has leaders.

 

Well I'm doing a terrible job of it then because I have been very critical of the CBF for years. However, I think it is important that we criticize truthfully instead of making false accusations.

Nothing is going to change if we tell falsehoods... In fact, all you do is make people defensive and harden people into their positions.

I hope you're right, but I haven't seen any strong evidence of it. Please note, I am not comparing things to the usual situation in Western European or American churches, but more of the vital expansive growth of churches in Asia and South America.

Where is the New Testament power and witness in American churches today? Why is our society not being transformed (through transformed individuals) in the power of the gospel? What can't most denominations (including the SBC and CBF) even seem to grow faster than their birthrate? Why are so many young people leaving churches after high school and only returning (if they return) in their 30s?

You act as if the SBC is an exception to that trend. I would rejoice if it were true.

Glad to hear that all SBC churches are in fantastic shape.

So what is this program of intentional disciple-making that is so effective in SBC churches?

How does your church intentionally create disciples of Jesus? Seriously, I'd like to know so that I might be able to enhance our program.

 

Then stop it.

Which is not a biblical standard for evidence that the church is headed in a right direction.

Where in scripture does it explain that as the only clear evidence of anything?

No I am responding to your false criticism and unbiblical standard

Informal fallacy

You do not need to follow a church just follow scripture but then your question was not sincere was it.

 

I can back up my assertions.

It is interesting that those who claim I am telling falsehoods don't engage very much with evidence/documentation I post but stoop to accusations and name-calling.

I suppose we could try to make a case that we have a ministry like Jeremiah or one of the other OT prophets, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Certainly, we are called to be faithful, but that assumes that we are going to be faithful to Christ and bear the fruit of the Spirit.

So let's examine fruit: Are the personal lives of church members in the Baptist world substantially different than the lives of unchurched people in terms of character and morality (what people actually do, not what they profess)?

Credible surveys indicate that there's very little difference.

The fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5 and the evidence that we have come to know the LORD given in 1 John indicates that we (as a whole) are not even managing our personal lives well in the power of the Spirit, much less our churches. Since churches exist to make disciples, and the lack of success at making disciples as measured by the fruit of the Spirit and 1 John, indicates that our churches are failing according to a biblical standard.

"Just follow scripture" is not a training program, just as telling someone to "figure out the Bible for yourself" is not teaching.

And your assumption that my question is not sincere is very sad since my question is absolutely sincere.

In our church, I have first started with myself and worked on discipleship intensely, based on the example of Jesus and the writings of Paul on spiritual formation. While doing that, I have been steadily teaching through the scriptures, pointing out spiritual formation practices in the scripture as an intentional emphasis in my exposition. After several years of doing this, we have developed a small group of people who are interested in personal transformation and we are beginning a more formal program of training with youth and young adults to show how to make room for grace and the power of the Spirit through the character formation exercises demonstrated in scripture. As people grow in grace and discipleship, they will leave our groups in teams of two or three and begin disciple-making another group while we begin with a new one. We will mingle people back and forth between the groups in the coming years in order to maintain doctrinal accountability and cross-pollinate the more effective methods between the groups.

That's a brief overview of our method.

What's yours?

 

That's not what I said.

I said the SBC is basically not a leader-driven convention while the CBF is. That's why so many congregation members who are in fact CBF/SBC dually aligned would say that they are in fact yet SBC congregations if asked. They don't realize that they have traversed off the reservation, so to speak, because it was their leadership that took them there, not the will of the people, though of course, they voted for it after being convinced.

 

Your not talking to me I haven't called any names. I simply responded to your claim without an evidence or documentation.

You are painting with such a broad brush that you cannot maintain any credibility on your sweeping accusation. Anyway the fruit of the Spirit and the growth of the church in numbers ( which is what you appeared to be addressing) are two different things.

I don't find them credible. They encompass anyone claiming to be a Christian. A poor standard.

See previous response.

Yea well I am not trying to teach you anything. And I don't do "programs" churches need to be great commission churches.

uh huh

"Spiritual Formation" is a buzz word I reject. It has been used by the theological left to create all kinds of "programs" that only indoctrinate. I don't want to hear about "methods" and "programs" which has produced very little over the years. Straight from scripture Jesus said to 1. Win them 2. Baptize them 3. Disciple them 4. Have them do the same. My church is a small church but we have nearly doubled in the last two years. In that time frame we have baptized 25 people and seen two drunks turn their lives and families around. We did away with Sunday School and now have Discipleship Training in its place. We have young and new Christians go through a basic doctrines discipleship class before we place them into a permanent class. The Great Commission and Fellowship in the Lord are a primary focus here. We talk about bearing one anothers burdens and sacrificial service. Nothing here is perfect but we are moving forward as a church should.

 

Okay, my bad.

I misunderstood the point you were making. Sorry about that.

I'd still disagree with this assessment. I think both are leader-driven. The SBC still has the power players (usually large church pastors) who get together to figure out who they want to nominate for president, then use their bully pulpits and influence to promote their candidates. I do need to stress that this process has become much more diverse over the last decade, so that it is starting to become less centrally-controlled. In regard to the Convention structure though, the reorganization of the Convention a few years ago, led by Ronnie Floyd's committee, actually consolidates control of the Convention's resources to a relatively small number of people, even though those persons are not are widely known by the people in the pews.

Regarding the CBF, yes, they are leader-driven. It's one of the huge weaknesses of their structure. Furthermore, the Assembly has had a difficult time motivating non-agenda-driven-people to be active.

I think there are three to four basic reasons:

(1) Almost all CBF people began as SBC people and they still "feel" SBC at heart because they were raised in it. They tend to believe that the SBC was the one who changed, not them.
(2) The CBF is not well-known outside of Baptist circles, so people identify themselves as SBC to give people a frame of reference.
(3) There are a number of SBC/CBF people who see their time in CBF as temporary exile while they wait for the SBC to collapse and then they can go back to the SBC and "rescue" it from the "fundamentalists." It is complete foolishness and prevents them from actually committing themselves to a new work that God might be doing. Their religion was actually the SBC and not Jesus, and they have made an idol of "the good ole days" which were, in reality, not so good.
(4) They actually are fully SBC, just as they actually are fully CBF. Churches can be aligned with as many organizations as they desire without being less of anything else.

That happens both directions.

In Texas, we had the "Southern Baptists of Texas" break off from the BGCT and many pastors took their congregations out of the BGCT and then justified it to their congregations with both facts and falsehoods.

The simple truth is that congregations generally trust their leadership to lead, and all too often the leadership should not be trusted.


Again, apologies for my misunderstanding. I was reading too fast on my mobile device and I didn't understand the point you were trying to make.

 

So what are you here for? To argue, condemn and fight? Do you see me only as an opponent, not a Christian brother?

So your church has no structure? No teaching ministry? No Sunday School? No preaching plan?

That's what we're talking about here.

Do you just show up at any old time on Sunday and see what happens? Obviously not.

Your response says volumes about you.

Call it whatever you like. I use the term based on Galatians 4:19 and other references. Essentially, it is a program of practical teaching, showing others how to live in Christ.

It's actually quite the opposite of indoctrination. Furthermore, I don't even know what "theological left" programs you've referring to.

I don't either.

What I'm referring to is steps 3 and 4 in your list. We've done okay with 1 and 2, but have been woefully inadequate with 3 and 4.

That's terrific!

Great!

In the basic doctrines class, do you go through stuff that is well beyond what is covered in the Baptist Faith and Message and cover practical, daily living in Christ and time-tested spiritual disciplines such as prayer, worship, fasting, scripture memorization, etc?

The reason I ask is that most doctrine classes I've seen rely on the Baptist Faith and Message or the great creeds of Christendom, which actually revolve around the historic controversies of the Christian faith instead of practical living out of the Christian faith. Certainly, it is important to look at critical elements of doctrine, including doctrinal distinctives, but we need to also spend time in practical basic doctrine for crucifying the flesh and its passions and taking up the cross in our daily life.

 

None of our adult classes rely on periodicals or creeds to include the BF&M. Also when they come out of that class they are prepared knowing what their spiritual gifts are and what areas in the church, that can use their gifts are available.

 

LOL. You might want to check out the SBC seminaries' websites; you'll find the concept/term employed extensively.

 

Wow. That's the opposite of most churches I have known. How do you teach our connection to other Christian expressions and the broader Baptist family?

Regarding the non-use of periodicals (I assume that means purchased curriculum too, but please correct me if I assume too much), is that an intential rejection of that kind of material or is it that your church fits it doesn't need it?

In our church, I have found the commercially-available material so weak that I have taken to writing all of the curriculum I use, as well as one strand of curriculum for the youth program.

That's good. Most Baptist churches I have known avoid even discussing spiritual gifts, much less encouraging people to use their gifts in ministry.

How do your measure the effectiveness of your church's structure? How have you had to address the changes brought about by the rapid growth of your congregation in the last two years as it affects your active discipling in your church's various ministries? Did you find that the older members are prepared to train the newer converts without much assistance from you?

What ministries does you church provide that are focused inwardly? And which ones outwardly?

Do you have an organized evangelistic training program?

Does your church have a special/niche social ministry to the broader community such as a homeless ministry, crisis pregnancy ministry, etc.?

Do you partner with other like-minded churches in our to reach/minister to your community?

Sorry about all the questions, I am interested in your approach.

 

No problem. We can be gentlemen and brothers in this debate.

I might actually be inclined to buy in to your theory save for one big point...

No one in the SBC is trying to woo a congregation to unite with a competing entity, which requires a LOCAL CONGREGATIONAL LEADER to make happen.

The power players in the SBC certainly do recruit persons via the nominating committee (and through a lot of back-door deals, for sure) to become the candidates that stand for election during the 3 day convention. But, one can (and has!) be nominated from the floor by the messengers sent from the churches, and the messengers actually DO the electing.

I think I said something along those lines above...

I think that you have pegged it VERY nicely with your points above.

I would, of course, disagree that the SBC is a bunch of fundamentalists. Though there are some (with 44,000 congregations in the USA there are bound to be SOME of everything!) but fundamentalism is not the main frame for most SBC congregations. They are more pointedly evangelical in nature. Most are just about doing what Jesus said to do until He returns. They really don't have much of an ax to grind for the most part and many see fighting over doctrine (the way we do here on the board) as anathema!

Falsehoods to whom? When the BGCT decided that they would "take their ball and go home" halting support of major SBC entities like seminaries (because they were turning conservative evangelical instead of the more moderate direction that was halted by the conservative resurgence) missions efforts, etc. I'm not sure that most pew-members of BGCT churches realize just what they did out there, for they are a huge contingent of Baptists overall, but I'm one of the ones that has seen the fallout from their efforts both at SBTS and in my home state of Wisconsin, where Texas Baptists have partnered with us in pioneer mission efforts. I'd say that more good people lost jobs from the fall out of BGCT than from the resurgence in the SBC, but I don't have any way of documenting that. What I do know is that a whole lot of ministries simply stopped in their tracks because of a POLITICAL decision, and that largely pouting from moderates who got called out on their liberal-slanting doctrines -- something they have yet to disavow themselves of.

That is true all over the place, but again, in the SBC no one is trying to hijack complete congregations to another entity. That is akin to stealing another man's sheep -- especially when the sheep are not part of the process until convinced that this new pasture will actually feed them -- sheep are prone to green looking grass, even if it is growing over the septic system.[/QUOTE]