Keeping the FUN in Fundamentalism

The Save Our Convention (SOC) folks are organizing a slate of candidates to run at the next Missouri Baptist Convention (MBC). These are persons who believe the MBC has been taken over by ultra-conservative types who are excluding persons from service. I received a letter to that effect today from a church in town whose pastor is running for one of the positions. Never mind the fact our church isn't in the state convention anymore. Good to be remembered I guess. Apparently, the current powers that be are eligible to be elected to a second term but the SOC group feels it is too important not to offer an alternative.

The letter indicated that the SOC candidates believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and that the issue is not alcohol. It's not about the lawsuits against the five Missouri agencies. It has to do with Cooperative Program giving and not prescribing a certain level of giving for a church to allow them to have involvement in the convention. It concerns Roger Moran and that he and others of the Project 1000 crowd have too much control. It's ironic that many SOC sympathizers were part of that 1000 earlier on. There are other issues as well, but for the most part there seems to be disagreement over the "spirit" of the convention at the moment. The letter indicated there might be some who felt like "walking away" from things due to discouragement.

I came across an article in the Word & Way recently that mentioned the same things. It appears that those in control now sought to "save the convention" from the moderates and liberals. For some reason that didn't suffice. Now there is another group who once belonged to the group in power now who feel compelled to save the convention once again (confusing, isn't it?). This isn't about liberalism or being moderate, they can't blame us for those things this time. It is about another classic example of fundamentalism.

There is great humor in this for this outsider, whose church was asked to leave the convention a few years ago along with 17 other congregations. Didn't that fix everything? Now there is dissension in the ranks once again. Big surprise. Fundamentalists have to have an enemy, even it has to be within themselves. I honestly don't see the big difference between the SOC and those who are in control now. They are theologically, politically, and philosophically identical. Perhaps some are angrier about things than others.

Baptists have always been a schismatic people, and disagreements are bound to come up in the local church as well as parachurch groups. Watching this dispute unfold has to be somewhat satisfying to those who once called the MBC their denominational home. The irony and hypocrisy concerning who is qualified to lead a convention makes me laugh. I suppose this latest argument will fuel another period of struggle for the soul of the state convention. Maybe it will increase attendance at the annual meetings.

I don't see anything new in this latest crisis. It does exemplify why many Baptists in the pew get impatient with pastors and lay leaders. There is always something to fight about or "save" and this is the latest episode. Anytime you send out letters to churches with a slate of candidates you've heated up the political climate. Electing the SOC candidates will supposedly turn things around. Around to where I don't know. It's not going to matter much in the grand scheme of things. Evidently a fundamentalist can be too fundamentalist. That has to be an oxymoron.

The SOC might have in mind putting a kinder, gentler face on the state convention. It won't matter. Fundamentalism is still fundamentalism. The narrowness of scope and spirit of exclusion will continue. The struggle for control will never end no matter who is in charge. These fundamentalist types will turn on one another and devour themselves. Pretty soon there won't be any convention worth saving, once everyone gets kicked out. At least I won't have to be involved and can watch this Baptist battle from a comfortable distance.

Trouble in Tulsa

Richard Roberts, President of Oral Roberts University, has requested and been given a leave of absence amidst allegations of misspending university funds. Three professors are suing ORU for wrongful termination of their jobs, alleging that they were fired because they wanted to reveal the misuse of funds. Roberts' wife, Lindsay, is also under scrutiny for lavish spending of school funds plus spending time with a male student after stated hours for curfew. There are , apparently, photographs of her smoking with this same student in the president's home. She is also accused of spending more than $50,000 in university funds and having $800 a month cell phone bills along with her daughters. This too supposedly with university funds.

It's quite a story. I was reminded of Oral Roberts' locking himself in a tower and declaring that God would kill him if he didn't raise one million dollars. I recall that he eventually got the money from a man who owned a dog racing track. Oh yes, "Something GOOD is going to happen to you!" Oh well, I digress.

I am continually amazed at ministers who get in trouble with excess spending, either them or their spouses seem to take special liberties with money that doesn't belong to them. The ORU story sounds like what politicians do with tax dollars when they fly to the Bahamas for a leadership conference. Here we are waiting to find out what will happen with another minister who has problems with money. I'm not overly interested in the outcome but won't be surprised if there are real problems. The behavior and allegations are suspicious enough to make me wonder if there isn't some truth to them. If nothing else, an investigation should definitely uncover some very poor judgment.

What should prove very interesting is how the university responds to the Roberts family during and after this investigation. If there is validity to the charges, ORU will be faced with what to do with a president who bears the name of the institution. Regardless of whether they are true or not, these allegations create a bad perception of the school and those who support it financially may whether their money is going toward a shopping spree for the president' s wife. There will be an accounting and explanation forthcoming for sure.

This whole incident is a shame. It's a shame for the university, the family, and the community of faith. I also wonder how the students are responding to all this bad press. What bothers me more on a personal level is that there are many ministers who labor in obscurity, minding their own business and keeping their reputations intact the best way they know how. These servants don't get credit for living the right way and setting good examples. It can be a dangerous world for ministers, and there are any number of temptations and land mines out there to avoid. Any time a prominent religious leader comes under scrutiny, it adds to the perception that Christians are a both of hypocrites and that the church is always asking for money. It remains to be seen if the Roberts are cleared of wrongdoing.

I won't hold my breath though. I would be surprised if Roberts keeps his presidency. And the situation with Lindsey is such that this too might not have a happy ending. What I gain from the mess at ORU is that Christians and ministers in particular should do whatever they can to avoid the appearance of evil. It doesn't look like Roberts was particularly concerned about doing this. I would imagine there is a lot of pressure on university officials to handle this quickly and vindicate their president. Those professors who lost their jobs during this time frame will have interesting stories to tell also.

Religious leaders should observe this situation not so much with a judgmental eye but with an appreciation of their position before a watching public. Jesus instructed his followers to pray "deliver us from evil." The position of power and prestige should lend itself to this kind of simple request. No one is exempt from temptation, but staying away from questionable conditions will go a long way toward keeping us out the kind of trouble Roberts is in.

Rob Nash Visits UHBC

Our church hosted Rob Nash at a reception this evening. He is the Coordinator of CBF Global Missions and is making his way through the state getting acquainted with Fellowship folks. We had good conversation and response from our church. I appreciated being in the loop for such an important tour.

Things have changed among Baptists during the last 25 years (a supreme understatement). Consequently, a paradigm shift is taking place in regard to how we fund and support the missionary enterprise. Part of this necessity relates to how well CBFers support global missions on a financial basis, the other relates to local churches getting involved personally rather than merely commissioning individuals to do the work for them. Vocational missionaries remain the "backbone" on the missions effort but other approaches are being incorporated as well. For example, self-supporting "affiliates" are being commissioned by CBF and being sent to the mission field. This is a new model for me; I have been raised to think that missionaries should be fully supported by the denomination. There is still merit to this approach, in that missionaries don't have to fret about their financial stability. The other aspect is that church members can be lulled into a sense of false security because they are "paying" someone else to witness for them.

Another development in missiology is that there are so many nationalities represented at our doorstep that the world has literally come to us. I was glad to hear some of our members talk about how we can connect to international students across the street. We are making progress in this area already, but have work to do. It is so important to respect persons of different religous backgrounds. One truth that I am trying to communicate (and absorb) is that every member is a missionary. This is an exciting and sobering thought. More members are getting involved in missions personally, and for this I am grateful.

I was glad to hear that no vocational missionaries have been recalled due to financial reasons. It appears that there is enough support to maintain our current missionary force, unlike what I've heard among from other Baptist groups. I do see more CBF and ABC partnerships, recognizing that we can do more together if cooperate rather than compete with one another. Nash hinted as the possibility of partnerships across denominational lines. This would certainly be a new approach for us Baptists, and I look forward to see whether or not this notion takes root.

"Missions is God's idea," I recall a Director of Missions saying years ago. The world is changing and getting smaller, making is both easier and more of a challenge to share the Good News. I hope more congregations catch the vision of what God is doing in the world, beginning with the community around the church building. It's easier to send folks away to do missions than get involved with people who might actually visit the church on Sunday morning. It's also easier to give money and excuse yourself from getting involved on a more personal level. Both actions are needed, and hopefully our church will continue rising to the challenge and calling of missions.

Carter, CNN, and the NBC

Well, there's no misunderstanding former President Carter's position on the Bush administration. He appeared on Wolf Blitzer's "The Situation Room" today and pretty much blasted Bush, Chaney, and those in leadership for torturing prisoners and setting their own human rights standards. While the criticisms aren't necessarily surprising, especially in a political season, they do make me wonder more about the upcoming gathering of Baptists early in 2008.

The Celebration of the New Baptist Covenant is scheduled for late January and there has already been a lot of publicity about it. The sessions are falling into place and keynote speakers have been secured. Good people are involved and it should be an exciting event. The Celebration has been hailed as a historic occasion for Baptists to come together across racial, political, theological, and social backgrounds. Organizers are estimating 20,000 in attendence. This should be the largest gathering of North American Baptists in quite some time. You'd have to recall some of the Southern Baptist Conventions during the height of the "controversy" to get that kind of number for a meeting (I really don't expect the SBC to be involved, but they are invited to attend).

What concerns me is that the event is being touted as non-political ,yet the most visible proponent of the Baptist get together has been quite visible and vocal in his criticisms of the President. Carter has a right to do this, but it makes me wonder how he will be able to get all these people to Atlanta without turning the event into a promotional tool for getting a Democrat elected as President. I'd have the same concerns if Carter were Republican, or if former President Bush (41) was organizing a gathering of Episcopalians or another denominational group. It truly is remarkable to hear a former president so openly critical of a sitting president. I don't recall hearing this sort of open criticism before.

It is not clear what the outcome of the Celebration of the NBC will be, but the expectations have been raised so high that I wonder if it's impossible to meet them. The focus of the Celebration is Unity, so it makes me question how Carter's rhetoric will impact the participants and news coming out of Atlanta that weekend. As November 2008 approaches, more pressure and publicity toward the presidential election is expected. It will be a challenge not to import some of the political positions of the season into this meeting. Presidents Carter and Clinton will be in attendance, and I will be interested to see what Republican presence turns out to be.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't differing and emotional disagreements out there about the direction of our country. There is a place for dialogue, debate, and the exchange of ideas. One example of this has been provided in a DVD by the Baptist Center for Ethics. It's entitled "Golden Rule Politics" and includes interviews of Baptists who happen to be Democrats. It might be a good discussion tool. Pastors and church leaders should learn how to be prophetic without partison, and this is easier said than done.

My hope is that issues can be discussed without making the Atlanta gathering a partisan affair. This is an obvious concern for those suspicious already of that many Baptists getting together under one roof only months before a presidential election. Time will tell if my concerns are unfounded. I hope that they are. The Celebration should be about our unity as Baptists rather than a platform to push a political agenda. It might be more helpful to this cause if Carter promoted the New Baptist Covenant first and focused on the politics of the season afterwards.

Tennesee Church Supports Pastor

Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville decided to keep its embattled pastor. Jerry Sutton, former candidate for SBC President, survived an attempt by some members to oust him for alleged misuse of church funds. A law suit against the church added to the bad publicity. Sutton received about 80% affirmative vote from members who participated in the decision (1101-286).

There are a number of conclusions to draw from this situation, and I make no pretenses to have any knowledge of the inner workings or motivation of those disgruntled members who levied these charges against the pastor. What I can say is that this is a classic example of a Baptist church exercising its autonomy in taking care of its own business. I'm sure there are other less prominent examples of churches making decisions about a staff person's future, but the size and location of Two Rivers make it an obvious case study. No judge would intervene in the church's decision to have such a vote, even though the idea itself reminds me of other churches who exercise an "annual call" to their pastor. Pastors in these kinds of churches live year to year having to endure another vote on their call. It's a tough way to live.

Still, 286 people wanted to remove their pastor. That's worth considering. This is a good sized church in most places, and it will interesting to see what happens next with these individuals who came out on the losing end of the vote. I dare say that other Baptist churches have folks who'd like to vote to vacate the pastor's spot too. Sutton's having 80% support after being at the church several years should encourage him. The people who opposed him might have had other incentives besides the money mismanagement issue. Regardless, the church called the vote in order to put this situation to rest. Whether this occurs remains to be seen.

One interesting truth which may not relate directly to the Two Rivers story is that the majority is not always right. There are times that the minority position is the better one but there aren't enough voices and votes to carry the day. This is an unfortunate reality in Baptist churches, and there is always the risk of making a wrong decision. It isn't a perfect approach, but it does involve the people and everyone has input who chooses to participate in the process. No one said being a Baptist was easy or the most efficient way to do business. But if I wanted efficiency I'd be in the Catholic Church and let the bishops and priests run the church. I prefer to take responsibility and participate in the decision making process, even when it gets difficult or depressing.

I commend the church for moving forward with this vote. The notoriety, media coverage, and desire of the pastor to clear his reputation might have contributed to the decision. It might have appeared that this issue wasn't going away by itself, and the church had to take a stand. I suspect also that the leadership determined that they were not going to allow a faction in the church to have their way. If more churches took similar stands for their pastors and staff, our congregations would be much better off. We might lose some people, but the overall result would be healthier and happier congregations.

Calminian Baptists

Last Wednesday after our Bible Study I had an interesting conversation with a student who has been visiting with us over the last several weeks. He is learning about us and asked a question I hadn't heard from someone attending our church. It was in regard to where our church came down on the Calvinism/Arminian divide. This was a good conversation starter and got me to thinking about the larger issues related to this discussion.

I've been wary of Calvinism, at least the five point variety. The biggest attraction that I see in TULIP is that it is a logical system that utilizes a lot of Bible. Calvinists also find security in the fact that everything can be explained in relation to the sovereignty of God, which unfortunately can be taken to the extreme by removing the freedom of choice when it comes to our salvation experience. There is a lot more to this presentation, but my reaction to my friend was that our church was neither Calvinist nor Arminian. There may be a few individuals that have differing viewpoints on this spectrum, but I think I'm on target here. We believe in missions too much to take away the freedom of persons to respond to the gospel. I told my friend that we might be better described as "Calminian" a term I heard in seminary that seems to pull in some elements of both views.

God is sovereign, and is Lord over all creation. Human beings also have free will and can decide to accept or reject the gospel. Yes, we are all sinners in need of a Saviour but are not predestined to salvation in the sense that we have no choice in the matter. The "logical" conclusion is that God predestines some to heaven while others to hell. This "double-edged" predestination is what I find particularly dangerous. I cannot imagine a loving God allowing persons to come into the world only to condemn them to hell. This is a difficult axiom to accept and is inconsistant with a loving God. God's sovereignty must be affirmed along with the freedom of humans to determine their own response to the gospel. This paradox is not logical, but it is biblical.

Nothing is more fundamental than an understanding of what it means to come to faith in Jesus Christ. There is a mystery that cannot be explained away, how God LOVED the WORLD so much that he gave his son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Calvinists do not accept the truth that Christ died for ALL persons, but rather he died only for the elect. Dying for the reprobate would be unfair to Christ and he would take on more penalty than he needed to provide salvation for the elect. Here again is another case of being logical but not biblical. Calvinism is very much based on a legal viewpoint of redemption.

There is lot more to the debate, but suffice it to say that Calvinism should be considered a threat to our local Baptist congregations. It is possible to diminish the importance of evangelism with this approach. I suspect this is a growing concern especially for Southern Baptists who will be looking for something to fight about pretty soon. At least in this regard I can agree that church members need to be educated about the perils of this theological system, and regrettably some congregations have found out too late. Some churches have found out the hard way what happens when a closet Calvinist is brought to the pulpit.

Despite our challenges and shortcomings, we ought not allow Calvinism to be one of them. John 3:16 is enough of a response to keep Baptist churches focused on missions and telling people about Jesus.