The Joshua Convergence

[EdSutton]

great. another SBC fight. Well, we're due. It's been weeks.

And they wonder why folks like me never, ever attend SBC conventions...

I :laugh: :laugh: at the idea that "It's been weeks." In reality, we all should :tear:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Having read the texts of both "The Joshua Convergence", and "The Memphis declaration", for some strange reason three phrases come to mind, for me, anyway.
1. "Sandbox fight"!
2. "Proud to be humble"!
3. " false humility"!

Anyone else get anything close to this idea, or is it just my own wry sense of humor? BTW, I really do hope the latter is the case.

Ed

 

[Baptist Believer]

Brother, I am glad that you are busy about the work of evangelism. The heart of our group is evangelism. It is funny that you mention evangelism. Evangelism is the issue that was being neglected in the SBC prior to the conservative resurgence. The SBC exists to evangelize the world.

Um, yeah...

I guess you don't know about or don't remember Bold Mission Thrust. That was the program to present the gospel to every person in the world between the years of 1976 and 2001. Of course the so-called "conservative resurgence" diverted an enormous amount of energy and commitment from that emphasis on witnessing and mission activity within a couple of years of the start of that program. But the claim that the SBC was neglecting evangelism before Pressler and Patterson began their campaign to take over the convention is revisionist history.

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/6_25/pages/sbc_bold.html

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Um, yeah...

I guess you don't know about or don't remember Bold Mission Thrust. That was the program to present the gospel to every person in the world between the years of 1976 and 2001. Of course the so-called "conservative resurgence" diverted an enormous amount of energy and commitment from that emphasis on witnessing and mission activity within a couple of years of the start of that program. But the claim that the SBC was neglecting evangelism before Pressler and Patterson began their campaign to take over the convention is revisionist history.

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/6_25/pages/sbc_bold.html

I think there is a difference between the social gospel/missions and church planting/evangelism. The moderates in control prior to 1989 greatly over estimate their effectiveness in missions. Just because we had missionaries on the field and engaged in activity does not mean that evangelism was taking place. Today we have placed a higher priority on evangelism/conversion growth within the SBC. That emphasis has translated to a church planted effort both within the NAMB and IMB. There is no comparison to the former and current level of effectiveness in the area of missions and evangelism. Evangelism is the one issue that was at the heart of the conservative resurgence. If you want a picture of the methodology of the SBC prior to 1989 then take a look at the CBF.

BTW, to all who are question the last round of grappling within the convention, let me just say a few things.

First, there is an attempt to block some needed changes within the IMB. So the efforts to block these changes are a threat to missions. Therefore it is a matter of importance.

Secondly, the Memphis group is claiming to support the conservative resurgence and want to be thought of as conservatives. However, they are conservatives, in the same way that Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor, in Waco TX is conservative. Truett claims to be a conservative evangelical seminary; however, what they mean by that is they are conservative in the sense that they are when compared to Harvard, Yale, Duke, and Princeton. Within the SBC they are moderate and hold positions that are similar to the former regime. Also, the point of the Joshua group is to say that you cannot claim to appreciate what has been done by the reformers of the convention and then completely trash them personally.

Third, there are many here who are in apparent agreement, but there is a group within the SBC who believe the battle over the Bible is over. They believe that the BF&M 2000 settles the issue. The Joshua group is arguing that the is a constant need to address theological and doctrinal integrity. And just because there have been advancements, in no way gives us cause to let our guard down. Case in point, there was a 30 minute debate on the floor of the SBC this year over the validity of consuming alcoholic beverages. Some want to argue for a more liturgical view and most are holding the line of abstinence.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I think there is a difference between the social gospel/missions and church planting/evangelism. The moderates in control prior to 1989 greatly over estimate their effectiveness in missions.

How do you measure that?

Furthermore, why do you believe that efforts prior to 1989 amounted to social gospel work versus “church planting/evangelism” after 1989? If you ignore so-called “social gospel” concerns in mission work, you ignore part of the gospel mandate.

Just because we had missionaries on the field and engaged in activity does not mean that evangelism was taking place.

True, but it doesn’t mean that they were not involved in disciple-making (which includes evangelism).

Today we have placed a higher priority on evangelism/conversion growth within the SBC. That emphasis has translated to a church planted effort both within the NAMB and IMB.

Let’s see, Bold Mission Thrust strived to take the gospel to everyone living in the world by 2001. Who does that leave out?

Furthermore, Bold Mission Thrust was derailed by the political battles and instability launched by Patterson & Co, so the effectiveness of the program can’t be accurately compared to anything happening in the SBC today.

There is no comparison to the former and current level of effectiveness in the area of missions and evangelism.

Source?

Evangelism is the one issue that was at the heart of the conservative resurgence.

That’s strange. For years Patterson & Co talked about “inerrancy.” If evangelism was the “one issue” at the heart of the takeover, it didn’t seem to be mentioned much by the takeover leadership. In my experience, I heard much more about evangelism from Baptist General Convention of Texas leaders (who did not go along with the takeover movement) than anything from the SBC... and I attended several conventions and was connected to a few members of the takeover leadership.

If you want a picture of the methodology of the SBC prior to 1989 then take a look at the CBF.

For better or worse, the CBF methodology is completely different than the older SBC implementation. Keith Parks explicitly set up a different system based on his years of experience leading the SBC program. So your comparison is faulty.

[T]he point of the Joshua group is to say that you cannot claim to appreciate what has been done by the reformers of the convention and then completely trash them personally.

I see, that's the old “touch not the Lord’s anointed” philosophy.

I guess the Joshua group rejects the idea that God might use a prophet or two (think Nathan before David) to confront the kings of the convention.

The Joshua group is arguing that the is a constant need to address theological and doctrinal integrity.

What about personal and organizational integrity? That’s been the real issue confronted by Wade Burleson and others. The trustees were not following their own bylaws and guidelines in the fulfillment of the trust given to them by the SBC. Furthermore, they used political tricks and dishonest tactics to damage those who had an issue with what they were doing. Of course that stuff has been going on for yours, but it was usually directed at those who had been branded "liberals" or "moderates" by the leadership.

What you truly believe is not what you say, but what you do. If you treat people with contempt and attack their character with lies and innuendo, you demonstrate that you do not love your neighbor and the love of Christ is not in you. (Take some time to read 1 John.) Patterson and Co have been showing us what they really believe for decades.

And just because there have been advancements, in no way gives us cause to let our guard down. Case in point, there was a 30 minute debate on the floor of the SBC this year over the validity of consuming alcoholic beverages.

Yep. Jesus would not be welcome as a leader or trustee in the SBC.

 

[rbell]

BTW, to all who are question the last round of grappling within the convention, let me just say a few things.

First, there is an attempt to block some needed changes within the IMB. So the efforts to block these changes are a threat to missions. Therefore it is a matter of importance.

Secondly, the Memphis group is claiming to support the conservative resurgence and want to be thought of as conservatives. However, they are conservatives, in the same way that Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor, in Waco TX is conservative. Truett claims to be a conservative evangelical seminary; however, what they mean by that is they are conservative in the sense that they are when compared to Harvard, Yale, Duke, and Princeton. Within the SBC they are moderate and hold positions that are similar to the former regime. Also, the point of the Joshua group is to say that you cannot claim to appreciate what has been done by the reformers of the convention and then completely trash them personally.

Third, there are many here who are in apparent agreement, but there is a group within the SBC who believe the battle over the Bible is over. They believe that the BF&M 2000 settles the issue. The Joshua group is arguing that the is a constant need to address theological and doctrinal integrity. And just because there have been advancements, in no way gives us cause to let our guard down. Case in point, there was a 30 minute debate on the floor of the SBC this year over the validity of consuming alcoholic beverages. Some want to argue for a more liturgical view and most are holding the line of abstinence.

I hope the above view is in the minority. Should the SBC engage itself in a knock-down, drag-out war over non-essentials and power plays, ("sandbox fight" was accurate, Ed!) folks will bail out in droves. I couldn't disagree with you more, BPT. And the more I've listened to this convergence, (and much of the Memphis stuff too), the more convinced I am that this has very little to do with inerrancy.

For many embroiled in this, this is a fight for power and control. We've got brothers in Christ bad-mouthing each other and insinuating that the other "side" isn't right with the Lord and is unfit to serve. We've got folks that have said we're rebelling against God if we criticized our "God-appointed leaders" in "authority" over us. Umm....last time I checked, we still believed in Local Church Autonomy. SBC leadership is not in authority over me...certainly not in the way my pastor is.

Mark my words: if these guys continue their histrionics, you will see an unprecedented exodus from the SBC from folks like me. They might not leave the convention (I sure do like our cooperative program, and there's tons of things I love about being SBC), but they'll abandon any semblance of convention involvement. I don't have the time or inclination to referee a fight that ought not be happening in the first place. And although I would never be missed by the SBC (I'm not in the biggest church, I haven't written too many books, and I don't make it on TV or radio...besides, I just do youth ministry!), at some point these folks might look up and realize--their antics have run off the future. Then who will lead?

BTW...in this video of this event, one of the speakers says we are wrong if we aren't involved in committees, boards, and leadership of the SBC if we have time. Urgent message to said pastor:

1. Mind your own business.
2. Priesthood of the believer, baby.
3. I'm busy mentoring some young guys who, with God's power, just might change the world. I ain't got time or inclination to serve on one of your committees. Prove to me that your job is more important than mine, and I'll jump on your bandwagon.
4. Chapter and verse, please?
5. Some of your pastor buddies, though they didn't use names, publicly castigated other men of God from a pulpit. (And men from the "other side" have done the same thing!) Did you follow Matthew 18? You want me to serve in that arena? I have no desire to be attacked if you don't agree with my methodology. If I'm gonna get beaten up, I'd rather get beaten up by a local yocal than a Joshua converger, or a Memphis declarator.

If I could manufacture a "humility pill," I'd make everyone in SBC leadership swallow it. Some don't need it, but many others do.

The big beneficiary in this fracas is the devil. Since he can't have us for eternity, he'll just make us ineffective while we're here.

Evangelism and missions will be the big loser in all this. We're too busy attacking each other over non-essentials to fulfill the Great Commission.

Guys, I really do love and appreciate the SBC. I really do want to remain in it. But good grief...I think we settled the majors. Do we have to fight about every minor thing?

I encourage, as BPT did, to listen to the Joshua thingy. And if someone has a link to the Memphis thingy, post it too. But as you listen, ask yourself these questions:

1. "Should we be fighting each other about this?"
2. Is God honored by these actions?
3. Exactly how many folks will come to Christ from the Joshua Convergence, Memphis Declaration, the Hadad Hoedown, the Soloman symposium, or the Malachi meetings?
4. The Baptist distinctives that identify us as SBC--is what's being said a threat to any of them?

 

[Karen]

I don't know, rbell.
You make some good points about how people are called to different things and you are busy doing the things you are called to do.
That's great!

I have read the blogs of all the "big players" for months now and kept track of stuff. I am just an ordinary, old, member of a conservative SBC church.
But I am reading it differently than you are.
Sure there are some real characters and personalities involved. And they have to struggle sometimes with how they express things.

BUT there are real issues that Wade Burleson has tried to address on how trustees and SBC boards conduct business. He, in my opinion, has seemed to do a pretty good job about sticking to the issues.

You SEEM to be equating any disagreement with pettiness over insignificant things. I don't think so.
Yet there has been some pettiness, in my opinion. The whole alcohol and abstinence thing has not been represented accurately, especially in some statements at the Joshua Convergence. If you disagree, you should disagree with the real view of the other viewpoint, not a distortion of it.
It was such a distortion that I tend to think it went beyond a misunderstanding to intent.

 

[rbell]

Karen,

Good words. Burleson seems to be about a call to accountability, and in that vein I totally agree. I've not read all of his stuff, so I can't make blanket comments.

I do know that some in his "camp" have been a bit too confrontational and standoffish in their opinions and such. And yes, I am skittish of quarrells over non-essentials...I've watched churches, associations, and conventions erupt in flames when unneccessary quarrels were started.

I do think in my very limited perusal of the matter, that a few folks in the Joshua bunch seems a bit more angry and are making more confrontational statements (there are some notable exceptions to this...some peaceful Joshua's, and some rabble-rousing memphis folk). But here's my very broad issues that come to mind:

• There are some folks (and a couple of them speak on the "Joshua video" for which there is NO such thing as a "non-essential" issue. Every point--of theology, interpretation, SBC politics, and church polity are non-negotiable hills to die on. Nuclear war is always an option. I don't think there are many of these people at all, but boy are they loud. If you are a mover and shaker in the "joshua camp" or the "memphis camp" and one of these yahoos gets going, do us all a favor and tell 'em to shut up, in Jesus' name. It'll save needless division and strife.
• I'm hearing some "dirty laundry" being aired out from both sides that should be handled privately. Admittedly, I haven't read nearly all of what Burleson wrote. But I think from the limited amount I've read that he dealt with facts. Not all of his compadres, and not all of the Joshua crowd, have done so well. When we begin to air "dirty laundry"--innuendo, rumor, or even statements that we should get clarification on--we're not far from causing problems.
• Every time I hear the phrase "reaching out to the next generation of SBC leaders"--I think of Democrats and Republicans who claim to want to help "working families." It smells like political speak, and I'm a member of the target group. It just makes me nervous.
• I'm always bothered when a person makes a claim that demeans real instances of wrongdoing. Example: Bogus and trivial claims of "racism" demean the real occurences of racial injustice. When you label a group as "liberal" and accuse them of not believing the Bible...number one, if you're wrong that's a bad, bad thing...but number two...you trivialize the terms "liberal" and "non-Bible believer" so that they no longer mean anything. I don't think there's a whole lot of non-Biblicists in either bunch. But then again...I'm not too bright. That's why I'm not in charge of anything in SBC life:tongue3: .

I love the SBC, my church does too, and will remain one if I can. But if the antics begin to seriously hurt our local ministry here, I have no doubt that our church would walk away from the SBC before we would allow God's work to be hampered because of the fighting over non-essentials. And our church (forgive me for playing this card) is a large one, by SBC average standards. And we very highly participate in the Cooperative program.

I pray God will turn our hearts, and bring peace to our convention and its leaders.

 

[rsr]

The moderates in control prior to 1989 greatly over estimate their effectiveness in missions. ... There is no comparison to the former and current level of effectiveness in the area of missions and evangelism. Evangelism is the one issue that was at the heart of the conservative resurgence.

Really?I don't remember it that was at all. But I could be wrong. In any event, the SBC's baptisms have plauteaued; no Resurgence year has reached the record set in the early 1970s. The ratio of members to baptisms continues to grow unabated.

[quoted]First, there is an attempt to block some needed changes within the IMB. So the efforts to block these changes are a threat to missions. [/quote]

Funny; Wade and supporters thought the changes introduced where themselves a threat to missions. He may be wrong in his analysis, but I don't think it's wrong for changes to be made with full disclosure, in the light of day, without threatening IBM members who disagree.

Secondly, the Memphis group is claiming to support the conservative resurgence and want to be thought of as conservatives. ... Within the SBC they are moderate and hold positions that are similar to the former regime.

This sounds like deja vu all over again. They're not really conservatives, no matter how many times they show they are. Only the Resurgents can properly define what a conservative is, and if you ain't with them, you ain't conservative.

Also, the point of the Joshua group is to say that you cannot claim to appreciate what has been done by the reformers of the convention and then completely trash them personally.

That's an odd position, it seems to me. The resurgents perfected that little pirhouette. See their comments on E.Y. Mullins and Herschel Hobbs for details.

The Joshua group is arguing that the is a constant need to address theological and doctrinal integrity. And just because there have been advancements, in no way gives us cause to let our guard down.

True enough. Integrity is important; it also should include not repeating gossip about other ministers.

Case in point, there was a 30 minute debate on the floor of the SBC this year over the validity of consuming alcoholic beverages. Some want to argue for a more liturgical view and most are holding the line of abstinence.

Liturgical is an odd word to use. Perhaps you meant a view that is in line with specific teachings in scripture. The resolution that was approved, of course, does not attempt to say that the scriptures forbid the use of alcohol. (It also says that "some religious leaders who are now advocating the consumption of alcoholic beverages," which I think is a bit of an exaggeration, unless it was targeting nonBaptist religious leaders.)

Funny that Tom Ascol, who spoke against the resolution on alcohol, got no hearing on a resolution asking churches to be honest with their membership roles. Apparently he stopped preachin' and started meddlin'.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

great. another SBC fight. Well, we're due. It's been weeks.

And they wonder why folks like me never, ever attend SBC conventions...

We are all very grateful for this.:laugh:

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Folks,

I can see that some of you in here are very passionate about your service to the Lord, so are the men who presented at the Joshua Convergence. Are they warranted in there attempt to speak out? What I find ironic is that we often appeal to the priesthood of the believer in our attempts to speak out against the SBC, but when a group of young leaders speak out in favor of the leadership we spurn their attempts and discourage future such engagements.

Some of you here really need to watch the conference and pray to the Lord before you do so, ask him to take away any biases that you may bring. Stephen Rummage and Jim Shaddix who are two of the presenters are two of the most level headed and respectful guys you will ever find anywhere. Dr. Rummage is at Hickory Grove Baptist Church in Charlotte and was formerly a prof. at SEBTS. I can tell you that Rummage is one of the least combative leaders I have ever seen at his level of responsibility. Dr. Shaddix is out in CO at Riverside Baptist Church and was formerly a prof. at NOBTS. Shaddix is not a fundamentalist but he has backbone. Basically, these guys and others were not content to stand idly by and watch their mentors get ripped to shreds by the new voice of the bloggers. Their point in all this is theological and not political. As such I think they call into question the methods and the tone of the dissenters.

Some of you in here are probably old farts who went through the first conflict in the convention. I am younger than most of those who presented at the Joshua Convergence. I can tell you that while some in here seem to want to rehash the old wars, I do not. I am convinced that the adjustments in the SBC were necessary back in the day. I am also convinced that we are not well served by the dissenters that are blogging. If there are problems in the SBC at what ever level then there is a way to go about addressing those needed changes that does not involve widespread open personal attacks against those in responsibility.

The evidence of the fruits of the Spirit are evident as are the works of the flesh. I can tell you that I know Dr. Patterson very well. He is not perfect but his case is made more effective by his genuine display of a love for the Lord and his passion about personal evangelism. If you want evidence of a change since the conservatives have gained control, look no further than SEBTS. It was the most liberal seminary in evangelical Christianity much less Baptist identity. It was financially on the brink of collapse. Patterson brought about such a sweeping turn around that it can be described as nothing short of miraculous. To this day SEBTS has sent out thousands of church planters worldwide. There have been crusades on campus that never took place in the past. There is a group of profs. and students who go out every Friday night and witness to the surrounding community. Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son, sent his son to SEBTS, Will Graham. While I was at SEBTS Will and I became friends. I hope you guys put stock in what the Graham family thinks. They support Paige and the whole conservative resurgence.

If you do not believe that it is important that we tote the line doctrinally and if your view becomes popular within the convention, then were doomed to repeat our past mistakes. Every other mainline denomination within the SBC started off as an evangelical and biblically conservative community. All but the SBC went the way of liberalism. The SBC was all but gone, and those who stood up for Jesus back in the day should be honored not trashed, because we owe our current position to biblical integrity to them.

The Joshua Convergence is offering a vote of confidence to the leadership of the SBC. They have the right to do so, and they should not be ridiculed for doing what they feel is the Lord's calling. I can tell you that I think they are going about it the right way. The are trying to honor the Lord and be respectful of those with whom they disagree. I wish the Memphis group could follow their lead if in nothing else in the manner in which they go about their protest.

 

[saturneptune]

Everyone remembers the story of the boy who cried wolf. Always crying out that something is wrong when nothing is. It is the same pattern time after time.
1. Create a problem that is not there.
2. Type out long meaningless posts that say nothing.
3. Question people's salvation that do not agree, even to the extent of contacting their local church.

The Lord is doing great things through the Baptist faith. Don't let this [person] make you think otherwise. [demeaning word deleted]

 

[rbell]

I listened to almost all of the video.

I'm sorry, BPT, but you're incorrect on one thing: there were some incindiery statements made.

Watch THIS clip, and tell me this isn't a fight with each other. Of course it is.

There is a brewing hatred between several folks in these two groups. They better get things right with God or each other. And quit feeding us the line that "God's not gonna bless us until these other guys get right with God." Shut up. Seriously.

BPT, I'm gonna repeat myself: This fight is NOT about "Liberalism." It's a power struggle.

There are some idiots on both sides (though right now, I must admit I'm seeing more disturbing stuff from the "Joshua bunch," but there's some disturbing "memphis stuff" too), and many sincere, but misguided, folks IMO.

I guess they're gonna fight, no matter what unimportant folks like me say. I just hope someone puts out a signup sheet so we can volunteer to clean up the mess and tend to the casualties that they're going to send us.

 

[StefanM]

I know this post is absolutely non-substantive, but...

Couldn't they pick a better name?

"Joshua Convergence" just sounds odd!

 

[EdSutton]

After reading these closely, I say more than ever, this still sounds like a 'sandbox' fight!

Ed

 

[gb93433]

I am not sure who you are directing these statements toward, but for the record let me say the Joshua Convergence seeks to affirm the SBC leadership and the direction of the SBC.

The problem is the current leadership. SWBTS has hired some graduates and former professors from DTS. Some years ago I understand that Mohler hired several non-Baptists to work at Southern Seminary.

Doesn't sound to me that some of the current leadership is in line with the historical theology of Southern Baptists. They are dispensationalists. Doesn't sound like some of the current leadership elects to hire Southern Baptists but to go outside of the SBC and side step the theology of the SBC since 1845. How could any Southern Baptist who knew the truth ever support some of the current leadership in what they are doing?

Southern Baptist leadership have brought people on their boards who are not SBC. Doesn't like historical SBC practice.

 

[EdSutton]

I know this post is absolutely non-substantive, but...

Couldn't they pick a better name? ...

Okay, how about "food fight"? would that be better? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[StefanM]

Okay, how about "food fight"? would that be better? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

Less refined, but more accurate! :thumbsup:

 

[rbell]

I know this post is absolutely non-substantive, but...

Couldn't they pick a better name?

"Joshua Convergence" just sounds odd!

Some other, fully Biblical (so that we can be "inerrant") replacements for the Joshua Convergence and the Memphis Declaration:

Memphis Declaration:
the Dan Document
the Corinthian Convocation
the Chaldean Constitution
the Jebusite Jam
the Shechem Shin-dig

The Joshua Convergence:
the Hadad Hoedown
the Solomon Summit
the Methusalah Meeting
the Gideon Get-together

 

[StefanM]

Those are good.

Joshua Convergence makes me think of preachers at a potluck.