Virginia Baptist

Hello Clint:

Feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt, because I have been a working stiff most of my life; not an implementer or shaker and mover.

I have to AMEN what the Squire said and also, I want to let you know that I looked over the article that you posted. At a glance, it appears that this group may be straying from the traditional Baptist concept of Divine Guidance in church leadership roles.

Have you ever heard of "TQM" (Total Quality Management)? The subject of your article looks as if it may be structured according to TQM concepts. I have mixed feelings about TQM. It could possibly be OK in the work place(the Japanese swear by it), but I don't think it should be in the church, because it focuses on group concensus. In a TQM session, there won't be an instructor to to teach and allow individuals to absorb information and to use that info in ways that they see fit. Instead there is a facillitator, who already has a goal which he wishes the group to arrive at. The group is guided in the direction that the facillitator wants them to go, and once they reach the goal they are all made to feel that they are all in agreement and have reached a common goal on their own.

Among the negative things that I have heard about TQM are that it is New Age and Socialistic. Individual concerns are tossed out in favor of a group consensus. Empowerment, and Vision are two terms with both a Biblical and New Age perspective. TQM, being a secular concept, is not likely promoting these terms in a Biblical way.

I have put a link here with a TQM model for you to look at. There are likely better illustrations to be found. Just type in TQM in your favorite search engine and see what you find.

http://www.skyenet.net/~leg/tqm.htm

Anyway Brother Clint, that's my two bits.

Roy

 

The problem is that many Southern Baptists feel that the SBC no longer represents them. It's not that they've suddenly become more liberal, but that the organization has been taking huge strides to the right. In those states where the majority of the churches are no longer represented by the new SBC, many of the churches want a broader umbrella of cooperation than the SBC model. (In other words, they don't want their state conventions to be subject to be as narrow a fellowship as the SBC. Since the state conventions are not subordinate to the SBC, this is their right.)

Why should the SBC's increasing fundamentalism be allowed to splinter state conventions that are not fundamentalist?

Joshua

 

Clint,

I'm not sure that state conventions can be considered to have ever been fully "on the ship." Coming up with multiple giving/mission plans for constituent churches strikes me as more of a compromise to meet the needs of as many churches as possible.

As for the Alliance, very very few Alliance churches (if any) are still affiliated with the SBC. Almost all of them are CBF or ABC churches, or simply solely Alliance churches. There is also a new move toward dual-alignment with the UCC.

(I wonder how many other Three-Letter-Acronyms I can use here?)

Joshua

 

Clint,
I only have a few moments as I'm in my "blender" month (Explained on the moderator forum) but I find it difficult to support any so-called Baptist or Southern Baptist endeavor that refuses to be confessional. Moderates and Liberals have reacted bitterly against the 2000 BFM because it is a conservative confession, not that people must sign it or teach in accordance with it. It appears that the predictions are coming true about Mods/Libs in Texas and VA attempting to find ways to funnel monies to people who will spread their message as opposed to the missionaries of the IMB or NAMB. (A similar move is afoot in Kentucky that reaks of political power plays among the moderates who are still have the state convention under clenched in its iron fist). As in all things, my question goes to motivation and purpose. Why this new group? Why can they not support the IMB missionaries who share Jesus Christ? Why do they oppose the solidly Biblical 2000 BFM?
I'll check back in a day or two. Take care.

[ May 06, 2002, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Clint,

We obviously have a very different perspective on ecumenism, so I won't even try to debate the results of that meeting with you.

Regarding BTSR, it should probably be noted that it was founded by the Alliance of Baptists, the only explicitly theologically liberal denominational body in the U.S.

Joshua

 

I was one of the 2452 registered messengers at the specially-called "off-month" meeting of the BGAV. I correctly surmised that the purpose of this meeting was to rubber-stamp a "new vision" of the Baptist General Assoc. of Virginia's (BGAV) new Executive Director, John V. Upton, Jr. (JVU).

Now that I have said that, I must say that I was favorable impressed with JVU. Having been on the job less than 5 months, I would have expected him to be in what I call "reaction mode", i.e. waiting for fires to pop up and then putting out the fires. This is a man who is an ACTor, not a REACTor. He is developing a plan.

"Everyone's got a place at the table!" I stopped counting after I heard JVU say that 8 times. It was obvious to me that he was trying to make it clear to those aligned with Southern Baptist Conservatives of Va. (SBCV) that their input was welcomed, and that it would be considered. He mentioned that at least three of the day's speakers would be from WM-1 churches. [Without going into a full explanation, suffice to say that these are the Va. churches that wish for their Missions monies to be sent thru SBC.]

I felt an atmosphere of "peace" in that meeting that I had not felt at the previous two BGAV meetings I had attended. One layman noted,
"Not a word has been spoken about who we're against....". That peace would not last for the entire 5 hours however.

One messenger asked JVU a question about dealing with "those who fall into doctrinal error...", and asked him to be specific about some "criteria." JVU replied that the "criterion is the 1963 BF&M." He made no reference to the 2000 BF&M, but he later would be wrongly accused of attacking the 2000 BF&M.

When discussing the "planting" of new churches in new residential developments, you [Clint Kritzer] asked a question about determining the desire of the community to fill these churches. It was a valid question. I'd like to compliment you on the non-confrontational way you made your point, and even went out of your way to compliment the Chair.

The guy who soon followed you, Pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, Charlottesville, on the other hand, was not in a conciliatory mode. He had a prepared (obviously written before the meeting started) statement he was determined to read. Even though it took him more than the "three-minute limit" to read it, the Chair was kind enough to let him do so. Up to this point, we had prettty well stayed out of "denominational politics". It's a shame this gentleman had to ruin it. However, if he felt led by the Holy Spirit to make this prepared statement, I wouldn't have denied him that platform. I only wish he he stuck to the agreed-upon limit, and done it with a nicer demeanor.

I felt inspired by the "Glocal Missions and Evangelism" section of the program. I will retire in about 4 years, and I felt led to volunteer my services in one of JVU's proposed volunteer opportunities.

This was my first encounter with JVU, and I am very impressed. Let's (Virginia Baptists) try to keep an open mind as we move ahead under his leadership.

One other thing that will stay with me a long time was the statement made by Reginald Warren. "God has more money to give us than we can spend, on the things He wants us to do."

 

Clint,
Don't go IBF. Become part of the SBCV, the conservatives Southern Baptists in Virginia. Leave the Death Star behind!

 

Clint, you have put your finger squarely on why so many have left the SBC and founded IFB churches. In an IFB church you have total control of where your mission money goes. You have control of all aspects of your church's doctrine, practice, and testimony.

Try it, you, and about 100,000 other disillusioned Southern Baptists, can't all be wrong!

 

Brother Clint, Way back in the 50's Col. Cosby at Hargrave Military Academy told us that liberals would take over public education by getting the christian facts of history out of the text books,how? By just not putting it in them, no putting down just leave it out. See you look better when you avoid negative statements and you look as if you are open to all. Look in public shools and see what is said of family, father, mother, indivdualism and christianity. They didn't take god out only Jesus, God the Father.
Col. Cosby said at the rate baptist were going,weak on doctrine and not wanting to stand firm they would compromise themselves right out of business. He said they would do it a little pice at a time. Take over the education and in time you will take over, it is working. No or few negative statements, but look at their doctrine.
I came out of a liberal back ground, went to their schools and know how you are to show a mouth full of teeth and never be or say anything negative, but exclude ones who are in disagreement with you by saying they are just a few and they are wrong. When you have the schools you have the young minds and all they will know is what they have been taught.
I left the SBC years ago because of their schools(Wake Forest, U of Richmond and Baylor) but some good leaders didn't such as R.G.Lee, W.A.Criswell and Adrain Rogers. I wish you well. Sorry for this being so long!
The best I can do for you is pray that the Holy Spirit will lead you.
Bob

 

Clint
Obviously I am from the other end of the Baptist spectrum than Cassidy and Alkire but it seems to me from what I have read and heard this is simply a funding mechanism for those who can't stomach the SBC anymore but want to support missions. The article in ABP presented overwhelming support and that there were only a few dissenters. I would encourage you to look at it a little closer. Being a Baptist formerly of the Southern persuasion I would welcome these choices in Georgia!

Peace
Russell