The Mobile Baptist Association voted to withdraw fellowship from Hillcrest Baptist Church because the congregation hired a female associate pastor. The association has the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message as its doctrinal standard, and the BFM indicates that the office of pastor is limited to men. Messengers of their annual meeting interpreted this document to mean that any woman serving in an ordained compacity would bring her church expulsion.
It's true that the association had the authority to make this decision. I've mentioned before that automony not only applies to churches but other circles of fellowship in the denominational hierarchy. We have seen the Missouri Baptist Convention take on a similar position with 24 churches in their state who are affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. These churches have been warned that their membership with the convention is in jeapordy. Their status will be determined at the annual meeting next month.
In the Mobile situation, however, the association not only used the BFM as their doctrinal standard but went beyond its intended usage. It's one thing to expel a church for calling a woman as pastor, but this is not the case here. Hillcrest called a woman to serve as an Associate Pastor. No doubt her ordination played a factor in this decision, but I think the association's usage of the BFM in this manner is pretty lame. Other associations around the nation have churches with women who are serving on ministerial staff and seem to have an amiable relationship with them. Again, I know that autonomy carries with it the privilege to determine your own members but kicking out Hillcrest for this reason doesn't make sense. She wasn't the senior pastor, and I don't think the BFM was intended for this kind of situation. Apparently, there were messengers in the Mobile associational meeting who recognized this discrepency but were outvoted 204-44.
Hillcrest's pastor, Dudley Wilson, has right perspective on the issue. "Frankly, we don't have a quarrel with them," he said. Wilson went on to say that his church didn't recognize the association's right to tell them what to do. He also acknowledged that the association had the same kind of autonomy in determining its own member churches (10/24/06 Associated Baptist Press). Hillcrest's calling Ellen Guice Sims to the ministerial staff had more to do with her gifts and abilities than trying to upset the area churches by calling a female staff member. Evidently, the association did not see it that way and the vote reflected that sentiment. On the plus side, their annual meeting was carried out in a Christlike spirit with all sides given the right to speak. Hillcrest did not contest the decision, and will be better off without sending their money to an association who doesn't want them.
We're going to see more and more of this sort of exclusion occur as churches determine their mission and ministry is more important that allegiance to a local fellowship of churches. I'm also convinced that the days of churches affiliating with others simply because they are geographically close is numbered. More local congregations are choosing to partner with churches and parachurch organizations who are theologically and philosophically in concert with them. Time and distance are not the barriers that they once were, and it is more important for churches to work with organizations whose values are similar to their own. So, I doubt if Hillcrest will lose any sleep over this recent decision. Actually, the association did them a favor by kicking them out. The church can devote their time and talents to other ministry partners knowing they weren't the ones who broke off fellowship.
It does make me wonder, though, about the importance of associations who are choosing to define doctrinal parameters more narrowly than the Bible does. In this case, it is interpreted more narrowly than the BFM! I didn't think this was possible. I can't see how having a woman on staff endangers the ministry of the association. Besides, fewer than 250 people actually showed up at the annual meeting to vote on the matter anyway. With all the churches in the Mobile area, you would think that there would be more folks interested enough to show up. What you have here is just over 200 individuals determining the will for an entire association of churches. Yes, decisions are made by the people who show up. Still, associations ought to focus on maintaining fellowship, promoting missions, and educating local churches to reach people for Jesus Christ. I can't see how doctrinal uniformity around the 2000 BFM has any practical application for churches. Most of the area church members didn't bother showing up at Dauphin Way for the annual meeting anyway.
Local churches are doing their own things in the 21st century, and a new paradigm for ministry is emerging. Booting this church out isn't the insult that it might have been a few years ago. It's really a pat on the back for a congregation whose loyalty to the Word of God is greater than an association's interpretation of it.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
How Private is a "Private Prayer Language"?
The trustees of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS) voted convincingly to go on record as opposing all kinds of charismatic practices, including the much publicized "private prayer language." They will not knowingly hire someone who practices such behavior. The lone dissenting vote on the board came from Dwight McKissic, who preached a sermon in the SWBTS chapel recently acknowledging biblical support for speaking in tongues. He himself admitted to practicing such a prayer language, but acknowledged not everyone has the gift, need, or desire to do the same. Apparently, SBC churches who allow or affirm this spiritual gift were finding that their members were being overlooked or rejected as missionary candidates. His sermon created a firestorm within the SBC, and no doubt this vote is a response to it.
In a related matter, the International Mission Board (IMB) came down with a similar ruling some time ago, which is somewhat ironic in that their president, Dr. Jerry Rankin, admitted to some kind of private prayer language years ago while interviewing for the presidency. The trustees' decision appeared to be an attempt to embarrass Rankin, as the board is now on record as opposing a discipline that their president practices.
All this debate wouldn't ordinarily be that interesting except that there are those in the SBC who side with McKissic rather than Dr. Paige Patterson and SWBTS trustees. The heart of the matter seems to be to what extent does the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message establish doctrinal parameters for those serving on boards, agencies, committees, faculty of seminaries, and missionaries on the field. The 2000 BFM makes no mention of speaking in tongues and offers no specific prohibition concerning the matter. Thus lies the problem. Those who oppose the charismatic practice have wielded the BFM as a club in the past to exile those who weren't in agreement with it. Now, however, these folks can't use the document to prohibit private prayer language sympathizers. There is no 2000 BFM basis to exclude persons from serving as missionaries and as other leaders in the convention for this reason. Here is where private prayer language sympathizers hang their doctrinal hat. Since the BFM is THE standard of "doctrinal accountability" for the SBC, it cannot be used to prohibit those areas in which it is silent. As such, the prayer language issue should not be a test of fellowship or participation.
What is amazing to me is that the SWBTS trustees have gone on record in opposition not only to a prayer language but a PRIVATE prayer language. The last time I could recall, something done in private was not intended for anyone else to see or know about. The only way you could know about such a matter would be to ask someone directly in an interview or overhear this person admit it in casual conversation. It's not enough that these folks guard against public behavior that they deem unacceptable, they are setting themself up to keep the private lives of SBC folks in check.
At the last convention, messengers passed a resolution against drinking alcoholic beverages even though the Bible doesn't specifically state "thou shalt not drink." Several passages say otherwise, as Paul mentioned "taking a little wine for the stomach" and even Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding for his first miracle. This tendecy to "go beyond" what the Bible says about faith and practice is precisely what the Pharisees did Jesus day. Apparently, SBC folks are afraid of turning their constituency loose to their own good judgment and have to create rules to keep them in check (no resolutions on obesity, however).
I don't speak in tongues, and probably would be uncomfortable in a church where this practice was accepted. What is now viewed as "speaking in tongues" appears more like chaos to me. The Apostle Paul laid out some specific guidelines in Corinthians that are violated pretty routinely in many charismatic churches. As a Baptist, I can understand wanting some kind of clarification on this public demonstation. But, "private" prayer language? Is this really anybody's business except the individual's and the Lord's? It isn't like the person is going out in public and bringing shame on a local congregation. There would seem to be many other more sinister things done in private that could be problematic. I mean, what's wrong with prayer?
There are several observations I'd like to make about this discussion on private prayer language. First, the focus of SBC will shift (once again) to clarifying its doctrinal position. The BFM will either be revised to speak to the charismatic practice issue or rigidly enforced as it is without excluding private prayer language sympathizers. I believe a serious attempt will be made to do the former and then rigidly enforced.
Second, it's ironic that what was once used to establish doctrinal peace and harmony has become a focal point for division. Either the 2000 BFM is the standard, or it isn't. If it is, then those with charismatic leanings cannot be excluded from being missionaries or participating in other leadership areas. Otherwise, the convention will have to violate its own doctrinal stance to prohibit prayer language sympathizers. The BFM is inadequate to handle this new theological development. Proponents of the 2000 BFM are finding it used against them in a way they couldn't have imagined. The "letter of the law" cuts both ways.
Third, there will be another "controversy" within the SBC. This "tongues" issue is going to be the next battleground within the SBC. A number of African-American congregations with SBC ties will be interested in this one. There are also a number of younger SBC ministers whose opinions are getting out there via blogs who don't care for this persistant redefining of what it means to be Southern Baptist. Their influence got Dr. Frank Page elected. Even so, the old guard will not relinquish power easily and things are going to get messy. These guys know how to play the game and will do what it takes to win. It's too early to tell the outcome, but we'll be able to keep score a lot more easily with the internet.
Fourth, it's wonderful not to be personally or emotionally connected to this dispute. I am fascinated, however, at the contours of thinking that are emerging in the SBC. It didn't occur to me that a younger generation of leaders could come in and potentially upset the status quo, but it is happening. The influx of younger leaders isn't going to change the doctrinal landscape, but there might be a "kinder, gentler" attitude towards those with differing opinions.
Finally, the Bible is the ultimate (and only) standard for faith and practice. Yes, confessions have their place but when they become "statements of doctrinal accountability" their usefulness wanes. There have been Pharisees in every century who have spoken where the Bible is silent or placed theological burdens on people that weren't substantiated by the Word of God. There are those who aren't comfortable with paradox and must have every theological mooring tied down. The private prayer language issue in the SBC demonstrates that this is not always possible. Let's stick with the Bible, celebrate our freedom as Baptists, and the privilege of living in a dynamic relationship with Jesus Christ.
In a related matter, the International Mission Board (IMB) came down with a similar ruling some time ago, which is somewhat ironic in that their president, Dr. Jerry Rankin, admitted to some kind of private prayer language years ago while interviewing for the presidency. The trustees' decision appeared to be an attempt to embarrass Rankin, as the board is now on record as opposing a discipline that their president practices.
All this debate wouldn't ordinarily be that interesting except that there are those in the SBC who side with McKissic rather than Dr. Paige Patterson and SWBTS trustees. The heart of the matter seems to be to what extent does the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message establish doctrinal parameters for those serving on boards, agencies, committees, faculty of seminaries, and missionaries on the field. The 2000 BFM makes no mention of speaking in tongues and offers no specific prohibition concerning the matter. Thus lies the problem. Those who oppose the charismatic practice have wielded the BFM as a club in the past to exile those who weren't in agreement with it. Now, however, these folks can't use the document to prohibit private prayer language sympathizers. There is no 2000 BFM basis to exclude persons from serving as missionaries and as other leaders in the convention for this reason. Here is where private prayer language sympathizers hang their doctrinal hat. Since the BFM is THE standard of "doctrinal accountability" for the SBC, it cannot be used to prohibit those areas in which it is silent. As such, the prayer language issue should not be a test of fellowship or participation.
What is amazing to me is that the SWBTS trustees have gone on record in opposition not only to a prayer language but a PRIVATE prayer language. The last time I could recall, something done in private was not intended for anyone else to see or know about. The only way you could know about such a matter would be to ask someone directly in an interview or overhear this person admit it in casual conversation. It's not enough that these folks guard against public behavior that they deem unacceptable, they are setting themself up to keep the private lives of SBC folks in check.
At the last convention, messengers passed a resolution against drinking alcoholic beverages even though the Bible doesn't specifically state "thou shalt not drink." Several passages say otherwise, as Paul mentioned "taking a little wine for the stomach" and even Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding for his first miracle. This tendecy to "go beyond" what the Bible says about faith and practice is precisely what the Pharisees did Jesus day. Apparently, SBC folks are afraid of turning their constituency loose to their own good judgment and have to create rules to keep them in check (no resolutions on obesity, however).
I don't speak in tongues, and probably would be uncomfortable in a church where this practice was accepted. What is now viewed as "speaking in tongues" appears more like chaos to me. The Apostle Paul laid out some specific guidelines in Corinthians that are violated pretty routinely in many charismatic churches. As a Baptist, I can understand wanting some kind of clarification on this public demonstation. But, "private" prayer language? Is this really anybody's business except the individual's and the Lord's? It isn't like the person is going out in public and bringing shame on a local congregation. There would seem to be many other more sinister things done in private that could be problematic. I mean, what's wrong with prayer?
There are several observations I'd like to make about this discussion on private prayer language. First, the focus of SBC will shift (once again) to clarifying its doctrinal position. The BFM will either be revised to speak to the charismatic practice issue or rigidly enforced as it is without excluding private prayer language sympathizers. I believe a serious attempt will be made to do the former and then rigidly enforced.
Second, it's ironic that what was once used to establish doctrinal peace and harmony has become a focal point for division. Either the 2000 BFM is the standard, or it isn't. If it is, then those with charismatic leanings cannot be excluded from being missionaries or participating in other leadership areas. Otherwise, the convention will have to violate its own doctrinal stance to prohibit prayer language sympathizers. The BFM is inadequate to handle this new theological development. Proponents of the 2000 BFM are finding it used against them in a way they couldn't have imagined. The "letter of the law" cuts both ways.
Third, there will be another "controversy" within the SBC. This "tongues" issue is going to be the next battleground within the SBC. A number of African-American congregations with SBC ties will be interested in this one. There are also a number of younger SBC ministers whose opinions are getting out there via blogs who don't care for this persistant redefining of what it means to be Southern Baptist. Their influence got Dr. Frank Page elected. Even so, the old guard will not relinquish power easily and things are going to get messy. These guys know how to play the game and will do what it takes to win. It's too early to tell the outcome, but we'll be able to keep score a lot more easily with the internet.
Fourth, it's wonderful not to be personally or emotionally connected to this dispute. I am fascinated, however, at the contours of thinking that are emerging in the SBC. It didn't occur to me that a younger generation of leaders could come in and potentially upset the status quo, but it is happening. The influx of younger leaders isn't going to change the doctrinal landscape, but there might be a "kinder, gentler" attitude towards those with differing opinions.
Finally, the Bible is the ultimate (and only) standard for faith and practice. Yes, confessions have their place but when they become "statements of doctrinal accountability" their usefulness wanes. There have been Pharisees in every century who have spoken where the Bible is silent or placed theological burdens on people that weren't substantiated by the Word of God. There are those who aren't comfortable with paradox and must have every theological mooring tied down. The private prayer language issue in the SBC demonstrates that this is not always possible. Let's stick with the Bible, celebrate our freedom as Baptists, and the privilege of living in a dynamic relationship with Jesus Christ.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Defining Moments in a Baptist Life
Dr. Russell Dilday got the nod as an interim pastor at FBC Richmond and will serve in 2007. The congregation has wisely selected someone who will give great preaching and caring leadership during the search process. He will evidently be one of several who will have this privilege. I wish him all the best, and the same goes for the church. These large moderate churches deserve our support and prayers, as the selection of a pastor is a critical matter. There are too many "closet fundamentalists" who would deceive the pastor search committee of a moderate church in order to "change them." I don't think this will happen here, as this church no doubt has the discernment to make good choices.
Upon hearing of Dr. Dilday's selection, I began to think about seminary days and some of the events that took place in the SBC years ago. I'm fortunate not to be caught up in convention politics, although it is entertaining to find out what Southern Baptists are fighting each other about now. I recall hearing about Dilday's difficulties with trustees at Southwestern as he attempted to fight off a growing fundamentalist tidal wave. One particular memory stands out for me at seminary. My major professor, Dr. Paul Robertson, gave a chapel sermon in which he mentioned the lock on Dilday's office door had been changed to keep him from returning to work. This was done at the same time Dilday was in a trustee meeting fighting for his professional life. I couldn't believe that people would treat someone like that. I couldn't believe it could happen among Baptists, especially to a seminary president with a good reputation. It was a sad day, and a defining moment.
Growing up in a typical Southern Baptist church I didn't know a thing about Baptist politics--even if such an animal existed. After finishing college and being involved in the Baptist Student Union, the Lord led me to NOBTS. Even then I didn't know what I was doing, only that it was where I needed to be. I got a great education, and came through at a good time. Things are different now, of course, and this saddens me a little. I do have some fond memories of the school, and laugh about some of the students I got to know. Times were hard, and money was hard to come by. Stress seemed much more abundant. It really was "the best of times, and the worst of times." As I progressed into the Ph.D. program, I did get to do some contract teaching in the theology field. These opportunities continued after I graduated. The extra income helped, and working with students was enjoyable (for the most part).
Another significant event happened in the summer of 2000 when I received a letter requesting my signature on the revised Baptist Faith & Message (BFM). This surprised me, even though I knew the convention was considering the matter. I naively thought that a year's study on the matter would be in order, but no. I had been preparing to teach a Church History course at an extension center, but upon receiving the news realized my teaching days were over at NOBTS. I couldn't sign the document to teach "in accordance with and not contrary to" the 2000 BFM. This was somewhat disappointing, even though I only taught every now and then. The professors on campus were the ones I thought about. Many are gone now, but I remember them.
In hindsight, I now realize that the decision not to sign proved to be a defining moment for me. No sirens went off, and I doubt very seriously that anyone missed me. The irony, however, was that the school replaced me with a fellow seminary friend who happened to be of the female persuasion. Anyway, from that moment on, I knew I was "on the outside looking in." Circumstances had changed, doctrinal parameters had tightened, and the SBC missionaries who were supposed to have been exempt from the convention mess were required to sign the new belief statement. Some of these had been serving faithfully for decades, now their theology was in question. These were strange times, and I won't elaborate on them. Water under the bridge.
The 2000 BFM issue moved me "off the fence" and toward the CBF. I have found a home with thousands of other Baptists and it feels like family. The Lord has since placed me in a church that values Baptist distinctives, holistic missions, and doesn't exclude persons from service based on their gender (by the way, Jesus Christ really is the criterion for interpreting Scripture). I'm very fortunate, but six years ago could not have imagined how an event in the SBC could have such a personal and lasting impact. What at the time seemed difficult and painful turned out to be a blessing. I have become more confident in who I am, where I am, and what I believe. There are many others who could say the same thing.
It's been a while since I've articulated this growth process. I guess hearing the name of a former SBC soldier brought back some memories for me. My only regret is that so many younger ministers don't have a clue about the battles that have been fought and the many casualties that came out of a denominational war. I remember, and express my heartfelt appreciation to traditional Baptists like Dr. Dilday who stood for their convictions.
Upon hearing of Dr. Dilday's selection, I began to think about seminary days and some of the events that took place in the SBC years ago. I'm fortunate not to be caught up in convention politics, although it is entertaining to find out what Southern Baptists are fighting each other about now. I recall hearing about Dilday's difficulties with trustees at Southwestern as he attempted to fight off a growing fundamentalist tidal wave. One particular memory stands out for me at seminary. My major professor, Dr. Paul Robertson, gave a chapel sermon in which he mentioned the lock on Dilday's office door had been changed to keep him from returning to work. This was done at the same time Dilday was in a trustee meeting fighting for his professional life. I couldn't believe that people would treat someone like that. I couldn't believe it could happen among Baptists, especially to a seminary president with a good reputation. It was a sad day, and a defining moment.
Growing up in a typical Southern Baptist church I didn't know a thing about Baptist politics--even if such an animal existed. After finishing college and being involved in the Baptist Student Union, the Lord led me to NOBTS. Even then I didn't know what I was doing, only that it was where I needed to be. I got a great education, and came through at a good time. Things are different now, of course, and this saddens me a little. I do have some fond memories of the school, and laugh about some of the students I got to know. Times were hard, and money was hard to come by. Stress seemed much more abundant. It really was "the best of times, and the worst of times." As I progressed into the Ph.D. program, I did get to do some contract teaching in the theology field. These opportunities continued after I graduated. The extra income helped, and working with students was enjoyable (for the most part).
Another significant event happened in the summer of 2000 when I received a letter requesting my signature on the revised Baptist Faith & Message (BFM). This surprised me, even though I knew the convention was considering the matter. I naively thought that a year's study on the matter would be in order, but no. I had been preparing to teach a Church History course at an extension center, but upon receiving the news realized my teaching days were over at NOBTS. I couldn't sign the document to teach "in accordance with and not contrary to" the 2000 BFM. This was somewhat disappointing, even though I only taught every now and then. The professors on campus were the ones I thought about. Many are gone now, but I remember them.
In hindsight, I now realize that the decision not to sign proved to be a defining moment for me. No sirens went off, and I doubt very seriously that anyone missed me. The irony, however, was that the school replaced me with a fellow seminary friend who happened to be of the female persuasion. Anyway, from that moment on, I knew I was "on the outside looking in." Circumstances had changed, doctrinal parameters had tightened, and the SBC missionaries who were supposed to have been exempt from the convention mess were required to sign the new belief statement. Some of these had been serving faithfully for decades, now their theology was in question. These were strange times, and I won't elaborate on them. Water under the bridge.
The 2000 BFM issue moved me "off the fence" and toward the CBF. I have found a home with thousands of other Baptists and it feels like family. The Lord has since placed me in a church that values Baptist distinctives, holistic missions, and doesn't exclude persons from service based on their gender (by the way, Jesus Christ really is the criterion for interpreting Scripture). I'm very fortunate, but six years ago could not have imagined how an event in the SBC could have such a personal and lasting impact. What at the time seemed difficult and painful turned out to be a blessing. I have become more confident in who I am, where I am, and what I believe. There are many others who could say the same thing.
It's been a while since I've articulated this growth process. I guess hearing the name of a former SBC soldier brought back some memories for me. My only regret is that so many younger ministers don't have a clue about the battles that have been fought and the many casualties that came out of a denominational war. I remember, and express my heartfelt appreciation to traditional Baptists like Dr. Dilday who stood for their convictions.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
What Auburn's loss taught me
Well, it's looks like Arkansas put the hurt on Auburn's chances for a national championship--maybe even an SEC championship. It's been exciting to watch the Tigers play the last several weeks, but no such sentiment last Saturday. At least some folks were happy around here, as Tennessee chalked up a big win against the Georgia Bulldogs. One person came up to me Sunday, hugged my neck and said, "Sorry about the Tigers, but what about those Vols!" They weren't sorry at all, and I could sense the glee in their voice. They didn't say a word about the sermon, the singing, or Bible Study earlier that morning. It was all about the game.
Talking about football on Sundays isn't a new phenomenon, as we all have our favorite teams to watch. It's amusing in a way, as an example of this was hearing one of our church members suggest we sing "rocky top" as our choral benediction. This was a joke (I think). I've laughed more than once as the talk on Sunday covers what takes place on Saturday. When Auburn loses, in particular, I can expect more than one person to seek me out and let me know about it.
It's really amazing to see how much Saturday football influencs how people feel the rest of the weekend. Actually, I have surprised myself at times at how much I care about the outcome of a football game. We've said "War Eagle" more times than I can recall and are teaching our children the value of beating Alabama every year. But, all this emotion for football and other sports too have gotten me thinking about our church enthusiasm. There is no way I can measure this statistic, yet I am observing the behavior of the people in the pew (and some pastors). I have come to a few conclusions about it.
First, football is important to some people. Here in Tennessee, the focus is not so much about what's up with the CBF or SBC but with the SEC (southeastern conference). That might be the way to go and the course of least resistance. Who doesn't enjoy spending a Saturday at home watching your favorite teams play while sucking down a large pizza and a diet coke? Maybe this has something to do with Baptists being the most obese denomination-- but that's another subject. Even now, I'm writing this blog while watching the Saints and Bucs go at it. Reggie Bush just scored a touchdown!
Second, football isn't the most important thing. I've heard some folks tell me that they have missed church because their team lost and they didn't want to face verbal abuse at church. This is really going too far, as the outcome of a game has influenced the attitude of folks throughout the rest of the week. We're not talking about eternal issues here, but rather a compilation of points scored during a three hour period of time. Yet, many folks treat football as a religion and could call a particular stadium a "house of worship" on Saturday. Some of us are very loyal with our attendance, regardless of what the weather is like. And I'm not talking about church attendance. I'm not dismissing the sport, and believe me I enjoy it like everyone else. But, when our attitude on Sunday is dependent on what happens with our favorite team the day before, we've gotten things out of whack.
Third, we need to keep the main thing the main thing. I haven't heard anybody say otherwise, but there are times I wonder what is more important to us: a football score or reaching a missions giving goal. To ask the question is to answer it. We need to consider carefully how our conversation on Sunday reflects what we care about. I won't stop responding to folks who ask about a game, and it at least gives folks another reason to approach me. And I will joke about football with the people in the pew because it hits home to them. I will keep cheering for my favorite team and enjoying the distractions Saturday football brings. But, I will do my best to raise the level of dialogue to eternal matters. The church has a lot of work to do, and my job is keeping our people connected to our mission and ministry.
Of course, it would have been nice to have had the win. I don't plan on doing another one of these after the Florida game.
Talking about football on Sundays isn't a new phenomenon, as we all have our favorite teams to watch. It's amusing in a way, as an example of this was hearing one of our church members suggest we sing "rocky top" as our choral benediction. This was a joke (I think). I've laughed more than once as the talk on Sunday covers what takes place on Saturday. When Auburn loses, in particular, I can expect more than one person to seek me out and let me know about it.
It's really amazing to see how much Saturday football influencs how people feel the rest of the weekend. Actually, I have surprised myself at times at how much I care about the outcome of a football game. We've said "War Eagle" more times than I can recall and are teaching our children the value of beating Alabama every year. But, all this emotion for football and other sports too have gotten me thinking about our church enthusiasm. There is no way I can measure this statistic, yet I am observing the behavior of the people in the pew (and some pastors). I have come to a few conclusions about it.
First, football is important to some people. Here in Tennessee, the focus is not so much about what's up with the CBF or SBC but with the SEC (southeastern conference). That might be the way to go and the course of least resistance. Who doesn't enjoy spending a Saturday at home watching your favorite teams play while sucking down a large pizza and a diet coke? Maybe this has something to do with Baptists being the most obese denomination-- but that's another subject. Even now, I'm writing this blog while watching the Saints and Bucs go at it. Reggie Bush just scored a touchdown!
Second, football isn't the most important thing. I've heard some folks tell me that they have missed church because their team lost and they didn't want to face verbal abuse at church. This is really going too far, as the outcome of a game has influenced the attitude of folks throughout the rest of the week. We're not talking about eternal issues here, but rather a compilation of points scored during a three hour period of time. Yet, many folks treat football as a religion and could call a particular stadium a "house of worship" on Saturday. Some of us are very loyal with our attendance, regardless of what the weather is like. And I'm not talking about church attendance. I'm not dismissing the sport, and believe me I enjoy it like everyone else. But, when our attitude on Sunday is dependent on what happens with our favorite team the day before, we've gotten things out of whack.
Third, we need to keep the main thing the main thing. I haven't heard anybody say otherwise, but there are times I wonder what is more important to us: a football score or reaching a missions giving goal. To ask the question is to answer it. We need to consider carefully how our conversation on Sunday reflects what we care about. I won't stop responding to folks who ask about a game, and it at least gives folks another reason to approach me. And I will joke about football with the people in the pew because it hits home to them. I will keep cheering for my favorite team and enjoying the distractions Saturday football brings. But, I will do my best to raise the level of dialogue to eternal matters. The church has a lot of work to do, and my job is keeping our people connected to our mission and ministry.
Of course, it would have been nice to have had the win. I don't plan on doing another one of these after the Florida game.
Monday, October 02, 2006
What Missouri Baptists Can Teach Us
The Missouri Baptist Convention (MBC) sent letters out to 24 churches informing them that they may be excluded from membership because of their affiliation with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF). The MBC recently made changes to their membership requirements which in effect dictates to local churches whom they may choose as ministry partners. The MBC has determined that its members "cannot include another convention or denomination in their budget, financially support another such body's work, or vote to send messengers to another denomination or convention's meetings" (Missouri Baptist paper, Word & Way). In short, churches must support exclusively the work of the Missouri Baptist Convention and Southern Baptist Convention.
Apparently, the MBC went to the CBF-MO website and took down a list of these heretical churches to warn them that they were in trouble. Many of these churches are "dually aligned" meaning they offer financial support to both the SBC and CBF. This arrangement is an effort to maintain civility among members who want the freedom to choose where their money goes. Oftentimes the SBC/CBF issue can be a test of fellowship and create difficulties, yet some churches sort out the differences and move on in a spirit of togetherness. This kind of understanding doesn't work for the state convention folks, however, who will be voting on the status of these 24 churches in their annual meeting later this month.
I've been thinking about this development for a while, and have come to a few conclusions. First, and surprisingly, the state convention has a right to determine its own membership requirements. You hear a lot about "local church autonomy" and how associations and conventions violate that autonomy by kicking out churches. A benchmark distinctive among Baptists is local church autonomy, meaning "nobody can tell us what to do" when it comes to deciding the affairs of a local congregation. Even SBC resolutions are non-binding on local congregations. They can't be enforced on the local church level (yet).
On the other hand, the association and convention have autonomous existences as well. They are free to determine who and who can't be in the group. So, the MBC is within its Baptist framework by firing warning shots across the bow of these wandering CBF congregations. If these churches don't change their ways and rescind their CBF ties, they will be kicked out of the state convention. Only those churches who are directly and exclusively tied to the state convention and SBC are included in the fellowship. Those who go their own way will be showed the door.
Second, the MBC did these churches a favor. What some of these pastors were unable to do for various reasons, the state convention did in a single blow. Keep in mind that it wasn't these local churches withdrawing fellowship from the state convention. The convention told these 24 congregations that they needed to change their ways and be faithful to the convention. Nevermind that these churches had been faithful in their financial support (at some level) of the ministries of the MBC. These churches had been members of the MBC longer than the CBF, and contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars toward its ministries. Now, their presence is no longer desired. So, these churches are pretty much required to decide whether membership in the MBC is more important than their autonomy as a local church. The MBC will lose money over this decision, and churches will be liberated from their emotional ties to support other mission causes that more closely reflect their personality and distinctives.
Third, state conventions are losing their relevance and importance. I'm beginning to wonder whether they are going the way of the dinosaur. Conventions don't have a grip on churches as in years past, and can't intimidate them. The MBC is pushing these churches into the arms of other ministry partners. The CBF is the target here, nothing is said about Habitat for Humanity, Greenpeace, Willow Creek Association, or any other parachurch organization that could sipher money away from the convention. There is no way a church ought to allow a convention to tell it who it can and cannot support. It is beyond my comprehension why folks on the state level would try to tell a church how they can spend their money and what conventions their members can attend. This is absurd, and another example of paranoid fundamentalists trying to condemn what they cannot control. Baptists have resisted hierarchical approaches to leadership, remembering that the local church tells the associations and conventions what to do and not vice versa. I will be curious to see how these 24 churches respond. I hope they all move on with work, without the MBC. The churches didn't do anything wrong and will be better off without a convention that doesn't want to fellowship with them anyway.
Incidentally, all this focus on the CBF threat makes wonder if the SBC really fears the movement. After all, the Fellowship doesn't have the financial resources, possess the buildings, or own the seminaries the SBC does. This action by the MBC would be like hitting a gnat with a sledgehammer. I'm interpreting this action on a larger scale, and admit there may be some state issues I don't know about. Even so, it is affirming of the Fellowship's future.
Finally, it's time to move on to building the Kingdom (of God, that is). It's not the CBF churches who are picking a fight. Even if other state conventions follow Missouri's example, dually aligned churches need not panic. They aren't the ones losing anything, it's the convention. It's about time churches stopped supporting financially what they don't support philosophically and theologically. The local church is the outpost for the Lord's work. God's people have the freedom to decide who to work with to get it done. There is enough of the Lord's work to go around for all of us. God is still at work in the world, and time is running out for Christians to make a difference. Remaining aligned with the state convention may be important for some churches, but it's not nearly as important as being aligned with Jesus Christ.
Apparently, the MBC went to the CBF-MO website and took down a list of these heretical churches to warn them that they were in trouble. Many of these churches are "dually aligned" meaning they offer financial support to both the SBC and CBF. This arrangement is an effort to maintain civility among members who want the freedom to choose where their money goes. Oftentimes the SBC/CBF issue can be a test of fellowship and create difficulties, yet some churches sort out the differences and move on in a spirit of togetherness. This kind of understanding doesn't work for the state convention folks, however, who will be voting on the status of these 24 churches in their annual meeting later this month.
I've been thinking about this development for a while, and have come to a few conclusions. First, and surprisingly, the state convention has a right to determine its own membership requirements. You hear a lot about "local church autonomy" and how associations and conventions violate that autonomy by kicking out churches. A benchmark distinctive among Baptists is local church autonomy, meaning "nobody can tell us what to do" when it comes to deciding the affairs of a local congregation. Even SBC resolutions are non-binding on local congregations. They can't be enforced on the local church level (yet).
On the other hand, the association and convention have autonomous existences as well. They are free to determine who and who can't be in the group. So, the MBC is within its Baptist framework by firing warning shots across the bow of these wandering CBF congregations. If these churches don't change their ways and rescind their CBF ties, they will be kicked out of the state convention. Only those churches who are directly and exclusively tied to the state convention and SBC are included in the fellowship. Those who go their own way will be showed the door.
Second, the MBC did these churches a favor. What some of these pastors were unable to do for various reasons, the state convention did in a single blow. Keep in mind that it wasn't these local churches withdrawing fellowship from the state convention. The convention told these 24 congregations that they needed to change their ways and be faithful to the convention. Nevermind that these churches had been faithful in their financial support (at some level) of the ministries of the MBC. These churches had been members of the MBC longer than the CBF, and contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars toward its ministries. Now, their presence is no longer desired. So, these churches are pretty much required to decide whether membership in the MBC is more important than their autonomy as a local church. The MBC will lose money over this decision, and churches will be liberated from their emotional ties to support other mission causes that more closely reflect their personality and distinctives.
Third, state conventions are losing their relevance and importance. I'm beginning to wonder whether they are going the way of the dinosaur. Conventions don't have a grip on churches as in years past, and can't intimidate them. The MBC is pushing these churches into the arms of other ministry partners. The CBF is the target here, nothing is said about Habitat for Humanity, Greenpeace, Willow Creek Association, or any other parachurch organization that could sipher money away from the convention. There is no way a church ought to allow a convention to tell it who it can and cannot support. It is beyond my comprehension why folks on the state level would try to tell a church how they can spend their money and what conventions their members can attend. This is absurd, and another example of paranoid fundamentalists trying to condemn what they cannot control. Baptists have resisted hierarchical approaches to leadership, remembering that the local church tells the associations and conventions what to do and not vice versa. I will be curious to see how these 24 churches respond. I hope they all move on with work, without the MBC. The churches didn't do anything wrong and will be better off without a convention that doesn't want to fellowship with them anyway.
Incidentally, all this focus on the CBF threat makes wonder if the SBC really fears the movement. After all, the Fellowship doesn't have the financial resources, possess the buildings, or own the seminaries the SBC does. This action by the MBC would be like hitting a gnat with a sledgehammer. I'm interpreting this action on a larger scale, and admit there may be some state issues I don't know about. Even so, it is affirming of the Fellowship's future.
Finally, it's time to move on to building the Kingdom (of God, that is). It's not the CBF churches who are picking a fight. Even if other state conventions follow Missouri's example, dually aligned churches need not panic. They aren't the ones losing anything, it's the convention. It's about time churches stopped supporting financially what they don't support philosophically and theologically. The local church is the outpost for the Lord's work. God's people have the freedom to decide who to work with to get it done. There is enough of the Lord's work to go around for all of us. God is still at work in the world, and time is running out for Christians to make a difference. Remaining aligned with the state convention may be important for some churches, but it's not nearly as important as being aligned with Jesus Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
