Sodomites and Baptists

[Rubato 1]

It seems that every denomination out there has at least some activists toward acceptance of homosexuality. How long until we start seeing some of that in Baptist movements as well? Anybody have an opinion on that?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by Rubato 1:
It seems that every denomination out there has at least some activists toward acceptance of homosexuality. How long until we start seeing some of that in Baptist movements as well? Anybody have an opinion on that?

==Look at the direction of the current Southern Baptist Convention. The current "bread" of "presidents" of the convention. Forget a theologian like Albert Mohler being elected. Nooo, we are going to elect a "popular" preacher (Hunt) who is as far as one can get away from the term "theologian". We are so very far from where we were years ago. It has become a popularist movement and not a theological Biblical movement. We have so-called "preachers" who are more interested in being "cool" and preaching "relavent" messages than they are in preaching the Bible. Many pastors in the convention are more interesting in counting "members", "baptisms", and "decisions" rather than preaching the Biblical Gospel. The result is a church may have 25,000 members but in reality only about half (being positive here) are regulars. In other words our perspective is off. Instead of Bible based messages with a Biblical Gospel we seem to be focused on "numbers", "politics", and "other issues".

So how long until Baptists start accepting homosexuals? I don't think the SBC will ever "approve" of homosexuality. However I do believe, unless something changes fast and soon, we will see a softening of the SBC's position on the issue. Why? Because it will be the "popular" thing to do in a few years. After all we are all sinners, right? And homosexuality is just another sin, right? Those types of "justifications" will be the new normal I am afraid.

What did Paul say?

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions" 2Tim 4:3

In Christ,
Martin.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Martin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rubato 1:
It seems that every denomination out there has at least some activists toward acceptance of homosexuality. How long until we start seeing some of that in Baptist movements as well? Anybody have an opinion on that?

==Look at the direction of the current Southern Baptist Convention. The current "bread" of "presidents" of the convention. Forget a theologian like Albert Mohler being elected. Nooo, we are going to elect a "popular" preacher (Hunt) who is as far as one can get away from the term "theologian".</font>[/QUOTE]We are electing Hunt as president? When did this happen? Is this the same Hunt who is an Arminian?

As to the OP, there are already Baptist Gay activists out there. Most of them, if not all, have left the SBC (thank God for that) and gone to the CBF, Alliance of Baptists, and other places.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Joseph, Johnny Hunt Pastor of FBC Woodstock Georgia is going to be nominated as president at this SBC in Greensboro.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I just looked him up. That was Dave Hunt who I was thinking about.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Martin,

I don't really know who Johnny Hunt is. What do you have against him? Is there something wrong with his doctrine? I agree that Mohler would make a great president, though.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[rsr]

Martin said:

However I do believe, unless something changes fast and soon, we will see a softening of the SBC's position on the issue.

Well, that's an interesting take. So the whole "conservative resurgence" thing was a sham after all? My impression is that the SBC is, if anything, less gay friendly.

 

[Martin]

Joseph_Botwinick:

I don't really know who Johnny Hunt is. What do you have against him? Is there something wrong with his doctrine? I agree that Mohler would make a great president, though.

==In my view he is too much of a popular preacher and not a theologian. I am, in general, not a fan of the "popularist" preachers and I certainly don't think we should be picking them as presidents of our convention. I have theologial differences with Hunt but that is not my main issue with him. I had the same differences with Patterson but he is a theologian unlike people like Hunt and Welch who are mostly popularist preachers. So my main "beef" with Hunt, Welch, and Graham are that they are popularist preachers and not mainly theologians. Look back at Adrian Rodgers or Charles Stanley. While I have theologial differences with both at least you could listen to their sermons and come away with large amounts of solid, healthy theology (also they were presidents at a different time). These popularist preachers today are far below even that scale.

Martin.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by rsr:
Martin said:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />However I do believe, unless something changes fast and soon, we will see a softening of the SBC's position on the issue.

Well, that's an interesting take. So the whole "conservative resurgence" thing was a sham after all? My impression is that the SBC is, if anything, less gay friendly. </font>[/QUOTE]==No, that is not what I am saying. My point is that the convention is moving away from the "conservative resurgence" and towards are more popularist position. The conservative resurgence was based on Scripture and solid theology (in large part). The modern movement is based on felt needs, filling seats, and counting heads.

Martin.

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I just looked him up. That was Dave Hunt who I was thinking about.

Joseph Botwinick

Dave Hunt hates Calvinism, but I believe he believes in the eternal security of the saints. That would make him a mainline Baptist where I come from. So he is not Arminian.

I doubt that you will see Dave Hunt as president of the SBC anytime soon though.

 

[Satartia]

It was my thought that the question originally asked was addressed to all Baptists about homosexuality and in a matter of a few posts we have turned it into the qualifications for President of the Southern Baptist Convention. There are a lot more Baptists on this Board than SBC. Since the focus is on FBC, there is not one shred of evidence that the convention will soften its position on homosexuality, for heaven's sake it just took a rigid one on women as pastors. And as to the President of the convention being a theologian, that is not the focus of that job in the first place. I sure would like to see some specific criticisms of Bobby Welch before there ought to be a blanket rejection of "populist preachers" Or could there be the old "C" word lurking behind the dissatisfaction

 

[bapmom]

My opinion on this is that since we are not a denomination in the traditional sense of the word there is less of a danger of all Baptists as a whole beginnning to accept this sin as normal.

One church may start allowing and accepting it, but since for the most part we are independent of each other there will be no great need for a split or division. The exceptions would of course be in the Fellowships and Associations, but even then, there would be no need for the churches to have to create a new denominational name.

Does that make sense?

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

It does to me but didn't to those who formed the Cornerstone Church Network from the churches who split off ABC churches USA because of a few churches in the ABC that had accepting attitudes towards homosexuality. I would guess the same thing could happen to the SBC although it has already had a recent split for different reasons.

 

[J.R.Maddox]

==No, that is not what I am saying. My point is that the convention is moving away from the "conservative resurgence" and towards are more popularist position. The conservative resurgence was based on Scripture and solid theology (in large part). The modern movement is based on felt needs, filling seats, and counting heads.

Johnny Hunt is anything other than what you are describing. Don't know if you have heard the guy preach, but he is a ear back, old fashioned, Hell is hot and Heaven is sweet, turn or burn preacher. He is also an expository preacher. I would agree that he is not an academian, and his theology leans more towards a pastoral theological aproacg...but he is far from what you are decrying. In fact, he preaches strongly against it.

Have you heard him preach?

J

 

[Martin]

Satartia:

Since the focus is on FBC, there is not one shred of evidence that the convention will soften its position on homosexuality, for heaven's sake it just took a rigid one on women as pastors.

==That was in 2000, right? Six years ago. That is not 2006.

_________________________________

And as to the President of the convention being a theologian, that is not the focus of that job in the first place.

==It should be. I can't believe I am part of a denomination that does not desire to have a Bible scholar/theologian as its president. If I am then I am closer to leaving the SBC then ever before. I want to be part of a church that has as its leaders those men who are scholars of the Word....not just popular preachers.

__________________________________

I sure would like to see some specific criticisms of Bobby Welch before there ought to be a blanket rejection of "populist preachers" Or could there be the old "C" word lurking behind the dissatisfaction

==We could start with his "bus tour" for one. The focus, as I said, seems to be on numbers and not actual conversions. How many can we "baptize", how many can we get to "make a decision", how many can we get to become "members", etc.

Martin.

 

[EdSutton]

==It should be. I can't believe I am part of a denomination that does not desire to have a Bible scholar/theologian as its president. If I am then I am closer to leaving the SBC then ever before. I want to be part of a church that has as its leaders those men who are scholars of the Word....not just popular preachers.

Who decides who is or is not a "Bible scholar/theologian"? And how sure are you that all these 'of the "popularist" preachers' types are not "scholars of the Word."? For that certainly seems to be what you are implying. I realize we are talking about So. Baptists, but would you dismiss C. H. Spurgeon in the same way? Certainly he would fit under the category of '"popularist" preachers', I would think. How about W. A. Criswell? After all, he pastored the largest So. Baptist church in existence, when he was elected. Don't be too sure that Al Mohler could not be elected SBC President, in the first place. Perhaps he is not interested; not everyone is, necessarily. And the election of Paige Patterson shows that a "theologian" can certainly be elected President.

'bapmom' is correct that the SBC is not a "denomination" per se. My own church, affiliated with the SBC, usually does send messengers to the convention, but not always. The Pastor (whoever it may have been) and the deacons have, a time or two, deemed it more costly than we needed to afford, with no overwhelming issues seemingly at the forefront, and the body has voted not to send the messengers a great distance at great cost, although we did send two messengers to Salt Lake City, back when the convention met there. We do qualify for the maximum of ten, as a usual rule,m although I'm not sure what the exact guldelines are these days. (As a church, we are partial to Atlanta, Indianapolis, St.Louis, and other places of that distance, and a little less fond of LA, Miami, Houston, Dallas, etc.. And we'd love Louisville, Lexington, Nashville, Knoxville or Cincinnati. Heh! Heh!)

On a serious note, it seems to me that there is some 'hidden' something or another type of issue, here. And I would offer that none of the individuals of the SBC who have served as President in the last twenty-five years might be confused with Boyce, Mullins, Sampey or Scarborough, as a "Bible scholar/theologian", to be sure. But neither would they be confused with the one(s) teaching in "Children's church" to those from three to six lears, either.

In His grace,
Ed

 

[shannonL]

If the "seeker friendly", cream puff preachers like Andy Stanley, RW, Ed young jr. if guys like that continue to gain massive followings but never take a stand they might not cave into disregarding what the Bible says about homosexuality but they sure are tilling the soil that will one day sprout forth the seeds of such thinking to sprout forth. If it hasn't already happened. The fact of the matter is if you never ever preach against anything and everything is always positive, positive, positive well then one's feelings and emotions become the basis for one's doctrine other than the Bible .
Some poke fun at the "good ole boys' or the "old guard" of the SBC. If the seeker friendly crowd of SBC people get to be the mainstream then conservatives who were willing to tolerate such lite preaching now will wish a thousand times over they had took a harder stand against such frothy, puny preaching and methods etc...
BTW, Johnny Hunt may not be a calvinist but he preaches with conviction. He is a strong believer in the inerrancy, infallibility of Scripture.
I'm glad guys like him are around.
I'm thankful for the Al Mohler's too. Along with some other reformed SBC brethern.
Right now more than ever it seems hollywood, mainstream culture etc... seems to be more than ever trying to shove homosexuality down our throats as an acceptable lifestyle.
The time will come when it will be time to put up or shut up as bible believers whether some believers will want to or not.
It will be at that time when we shall see who loves the praise of men,media big crowds etc..OR the praise of God the Father.

 

[J.R.Maddox]

I can't believe I am part of a denomination that does not desire to have a Bible scholar/theologian as its president. If I am then I am closer to leaving the SBC then ever before. I want to be part of a church that has as its leaders those men who are scholars of the Word....not just popular preachers

Sounds like you want a "Theologue" for a President. That is not the role of the President. He does not speak for every Baptist church or every Baptist for that matter. What is this "Baptist Cardinal" to do if I may ask? Is he to pontificate theological positions from Nashville? Is he to 'impress' us with his vast knowledge of early church history, Greek and Hebrew grammatical structure, his understanding of dispensational truth vs. replacement theology...I bet the Methodist will really take notice then. The fact is that the men that you have cited as "Proper" candidates for President are also hot-hearted soul winners. I understand the doctrines of grace...I even understand them to the point that I approach soteriological issues from that vantage point...but man...the arrogance of the modern Calvinist or Baptist reformer or whatever the "proper theological name" of the moment is, makes me want to have nothing to do with you guys...

The President of the convention is to preside over the meetings of the convention and to work in the election of trustees...we dont need a pope!

Gee...we would not want somebody going around stressing evangelism and soul winning...why, we might end up wittnesing to the non elect...THE HORROR!!!!!!!

J

 

[go2church]

This is really what you folks worry about, homosexuals taking over the Southern Baptist Convention? You folks need to get out more, read a newspaper, and tune the radio to something other then AFA!

 

[J.R.Maddox]

Excellent Post ShannonL!

J