A Fast Forward Christmas

Stanley Grenz, professor of theology and ethics at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, wrote an article a few years ago about Christmas that I've kept in my files. It's entitled, "Drive-Through Christmas" and deals with the dangers of rushing through the holiday season. Grenz dealt with the demise of waiting as an important feature of Christmas: "As members of the fast-food generation, we have become so eager to get to Christmas that we bypass Advent. Whereas our forebears enjoined fasting and reflection, we try to enjoy days filled with more Christmas festivities than we can endure. Christmas has replaced Advent on our calendars" (Christianity Today, 12/6/99, p.74). His remarks are even more relevant in the 21st century.

I've come from a Baptist church tradition where there wasn't much build up to Christmas, except decorating the church and planning a pretty good cantata or musical. I recall choir members getting a little more tired than usual this time of year, a strain than is not all that uncommon among folks who use their vocal chords more than the rest of us. We'd have a month long missions emphasis and sometimes bring in a missionary speaker. More times than not, there would be a meal of some kind because it's common knowledge that Baptists need to eat first before digesting a missions appeal. And yes, there were more parties than I can remember. Fortunately, the practice of getting together continues. But, I don't recall hearing the word "advent" all that much as a child or teenager.

I think there is a reluctance among some Baptists to recognize Advent because they feel it is an Episcopal or Catholic thing, and that wouldn't do in a Baptist church. This is unfortunate, because there is so much spiritual value to emphasizing Advent that is missed otherwise. I agree with Grenz that Christmas for the most part is THE day and almost everything else has little or no use (except for shopping days, of course). I've discovered a broader faith tradition that appreciates the Christian calendar and embraces the time of waiting and preparation prior to Christ's birth. I'm glad to discover that more Baptist churches are becoming more open to Advent events.

One thing that I find particularly meaningful is the "Hanging of the Greens" service. I don't really know if it's supposed to be 'greens' or 'green' but something will be decorated on that first Sunday night of Advent. At our church, we're using the children and youth pretty much exclusively to lead us in worship. They will be singing, playing instruments, reading, and praying and lighting the first candle. The final decorating touches will be made in the service as Chrismons and ornaments will be placed on the trees. We'll enjoy these decorations for the entire month and each time we worship we will draw closer to the blessed day of Christ's coming. Until then, we learn about waiting and focus on preparing spiritually for this annual pilgrimmage.

Another feature about Advent I enjoy is the wonderful singing. Those Christmas carols we sing every year still hold special meaning for me. Those hymns stay with us long after the last breath of the preacher's sermon. I acknowledge this truth, even though I hope to say something of value to my people. This year, in particular, I look forward to hearing our choir sing with our sister congregation at FBC Chattanooga. Christmas brings folks together, and I'm grateful we'll be able to celebrate in the manner.

We also have an Advent booklet with stories and devotionals written by church members. This way all of can be on the same page (literally) in our preparation and reading.

I suppose my favorite Advent event is the Christmas eve service. We will dim the lights and sing a few carols, hear a brief devotional from yours truly, and have Communion. This helps us remember why Jesus came to us in the first place. Each one of us will hold a candle, with that first one lighted by the Christ candle. We'll sing "Silent Night" and leave in peace. When first introduced to this service several years ago, I didn't think folks would show up the night before Christmas. Boy, was I wrong! It is one of the best attended and most meaningful times of the year.

The reason for this preview of our church events is not so much to promote activities but to emphasis the value of slowing down and enjoying the season, which extends beyond the 25th. Grenz said, "The irony of our situation is that in our rush toward Christmas, we end up truncating the celebration. . .We cannot even stretch Christmas to December 26, for Boxing Day entices us take our unwanted, reboxed gifts back to the stores or to buy boxes of the sale goods that draw us out in droves for one of the biggest shopping days of the year." It's true, many of us rush toward Christmas and can't put on the brakes fast enough to stop and enjoy before looking ahead to the next thing.

With three children, I can expect some excitement and difficulty sleeping on the night before Christmas. Santa Claus is coming to town, and they expect me to know him personally. I'll want to enjoy the wonder of the season now and for years to come through pictures of Cally, Lucy, and Matt as they change and grow each year. The best way to do that is to avoid fast-forwarding through the preliminary events and experiences leading up to December 25. I'll do my share of shopping and going to parties, but my real desire is to "treasure up" the richness of the season. Advent helps me do that.

A Different Kind of Blasphemy

You aren't supposed to put coffee cups on Bibles (or any other drink for that matter). This I heard early on as a child from Sunday School teachers and concerned adults. Christians were supposed to treat their Bibles with respect, even though I came to realize that many didn't actually spend the time to find out about its content. Some folks keep a copy of the Good Book on the dashboard of their car or carry a pocket size New Testament around in their coat pocket. I've even heard a story or two about soldiers who say that that little Gideon testament actually saved their lives, not so much about the eternal kind of salvation but rather stopping a bullet before it penetrated their bodies. Having a Bible around is still a popular notion, as it continues to be a best selling book year after year.

It's never occurred to me to do something damaging to the actual, physical paper that the words are recorded on. Come to think of it, I did do something similar to that in a sermon years ago. I started naming things in the Bible about "loving God with all our heart" and "loving our neighbor" and "not robbing God" as so on (had to get that tithing emphasis in there). Whenever I finished reading one of those verses, I'd say, "Now, we really don't believe that" and then I'd slowly tear the page down the middle so folks could get the idea. I did this several times and you can guess the reactions. The truth is, I didn't really tear the Bible but did this to other copies of paper. The folks in the pew looked relieved after I told them but turned sour afterwards. They didn't think kindly of that little stunt, and I'm glad to say I have found other ways to get my point across. Even so, I wasn't fearful of bodily injury, which would have proven my point after all that talk about loving each other.

Apparently, folks in Pakistan are pretty intense about the Koran. Two Christians have been sentenced to 15 years hard labor for tearing a few pages in the Muslim holy book. They were guilty of burning some pages and convicted of blasphemy by a Pakistani court. These individuals could have faced a death penalty. Christians account for only 3% of the population, and those in the minority complain that the law is used to harrass them www.baptiststoday.org. It's ironic that the Pope can get criticized for his views on Islam being a violent religion when this sort of thing takes place in the Middle East. These Christians were in danger of losing their lives, so in effect the judge was doing them in a favor by putting them behind bars. So much for freedom of religion.

Some folks might appreciate this sort of high regard for the Koran and wonder why more Christians don't have a similar kind of respect for the Bible. It's a good question. There is a lot of talk about the inerrancy of the Scripture in Baptist circles. This is a tired argument as far as I'm concerned, as the whole deal really boils down to interpretation. You'd be hard pressed not to find a Baptist who doesn't have a high view of the Bible, although this inerrancy thing is a source of debate that I won't get into here. I hear a lot about affirming the Bible as a whole but not so much attention placed on some of the teachings contained between the leather covers. We all have our canon within the canon.

My thinking is that this sort of militant mindset is foreign to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The kind of respect we ought to have for the Bible doesn't necessarily relate to how often we are seen in it's company. It doesn't have anything to do with how much we claim to be "people of the book" all the while holding grudges toward our brothers and sisters in Christ. Of course, these are people who don't believe the Bible as much as we do. It doesn't even depend on your putting a Ten Commandments sign in your front yard (you can't even read those things from the road). These are superficial displays of religion when they don't measure up to the "mind of Christ" that the Apostle Paul talked about.

There are so many ways we "tear our Bibles" that it wouldn't do to start listing them. There are enough people talking about how much they believe the Bible. It's time that we start seeing folks living out that book that is held so highly. I recall the saying "I'd rather see a sermon, than hear one any day." It's tough "turning the other cheek" and "speaking the truth in love." Let's make sure we keep the 'love' part in there. Christians, and Baptists in particular, can be downright meanspirited toward one another. We ought to live not so much by the letter of the law but by the spirit of the law. "And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love" (I Cor 13:13). It is a lofty ambition to live by this triad of virtues, but the Advent season may well be the best time to try.

Syndicated Sermons

I read a front page article in a recent issue of The Wall Street Journal about pastors who were using the sermons of other ministers. Ed Young, Jr.'s photo was sketched out to the side, with information that this pastor sells his sermons for $10 a piece from a website. You can go his website, buy a sermon, and pretty much use any and all of it without fear of plagarizing the content. Apparently, this trend is gaining in popularity, as busy pastors buy sermons so that they don't have to spend their own time in preparation. "He's a better preacher than I am," one pastor commented. The argument is that more time can be spent in administration and vision casting instead of sermon preparation. I recall a cartoon that demonstrated the tension. The first frame showed the pastor visiting with an elderly person but thinking "I really should be studying" and the next frame he is in the study but thinking "I really should be visiting."

Welcome to the pastorate.

A few of my church members read the WSJ article also. One jokingly told me that I didn't have to spend time studying for sermons when I could buy them. Another told me that my own sermons were good enough to sell and that I ought to be in on this new business venture. I much preferred the latter comment to the former, and it got me to thinking about the whole process of preaching.

The Apostle Paul said to "preach the Word" and that pretty much is what I have tried to do for the last ten years or so. I've tried not to preach someone's else's word. Looking back at some sermons from my first pastorate, I wonder what I was thinking at the time. It is a wonder that people sat through those early attempts, and I suspect the same is true of many other pastors as well. The process of preaching, beginning with prayer, preparation, and planning, is a daunting task and one that I take very seriously. And it really isn't any of my business whether other pastors take shortcuts and get their sermons off the internet. I'm not accountable to the Lord for their congregation or how they "feed the sheep."

On the other hand, I am concerned about the state of preaching in Baptist life if this indeed is a growing trend. Somewhere along the way pastors have started thinking that preaching is a secondary concern and their time is better spent doing other things. I don't go along with some of his theological views, but I have to agree with Dr. John McArthur that pastors are "preachers first and foremost, not vision-casters. . ." (LeaderLife, 11/06) Now, there's a place for "casting the vision" and "equipping the saints." But, there is no greater responsibility and privilege than preaching. Those first disciples knew that the church was growing which meant more people and more ministry to do. However, they maintained focus and called upon others to wait upon tables while they focused upon "prayer and the ministry of the Word" (Acts 6:4). I recognize the challenge of communicating this importance to the people, and thanks be to God if you have a church that understands and appreciates this mentality.

Stories and illustrations from other sources are fine, and some of them have been passed around so much that it's hard to remember where they originated. It's like they are public domain. I can see paying a certain amount to have access to websites where illustrations are shared. However, there's something missing when pastors use entire sermons from other preachers to present to their own churches. Why not just play a video of that preacher giving his own message? Besides, why does the church need you if they can plug into a satellite feed of someone else? It sure would be less expensive.

There's a special dynamic when the pastor stands before the people to share God's Word. This event starts way before Sunday morning. For me, it starts in planning my preaching several months ahead so that I might "preach the whole word" and not my pet peeves. I go into my study with my books and with the faces of the congregation, knowing that many of them are going through difficulties and that they give me 30 minutes every Sunday to speak God's word into their lives. This is an awesome task, one of which I am not worthy. Frad Craddock's classic preaching text "As One Without Authority" comes to mind.

It isn't only the preaching part that's important, but the time spent digging into the text and allowing the Holy Spirit to bring it to life. Preaching is more than a prepared message, it has to come from a prepared messenger. This happens through the course of a week of ministry all the while brooding over that sermon and allowing time for it to "gel" in your heart and mind. Oftentimes preaching comes out of the overflow of material and learning that I've received in a given week. It's true that there are times when I feel rushed to handle the urgent things rather than the important ones. I'm called upon to do a number of ministry tasks in a given week, but recommit myself daily to let those go if I'm not ready to preach. There's that internal clock that tells me how long to study and when I can put the sermon down.

I've said all this, not because I think I'm a great preacher but because I seek to become one. There are many other preachers out there who are better at it than I am and folks usually know where to find them on TV (some of our folks listen to Charles Stanley or David Jeremiah before hearing me on Sunday morning). Preaching is about sharing life with people, and that can't be done using someone else's sermon given to someone else's congregation. Sermons aren't sit-coms that can be used in syndication. They are birthed out of hard work and holy sweat. Preaching should be done in context, and importing someone's else's sermon isn't authentic, at least not for me.

Pastors who buy their sermons run the risk of being turned into program directors on cruise ships that happen to be called churches. It's lazy and a disservice to God's calling as a pastor to rely upon another preacher's material. There's a mystery about that preaching moment, and when it's really right there is a sense that the church is on holy ground. It wouldn't feel right getting there with a syndicated sermon.

Bible not good enough for Tennessee Baptist Convention

The Tennessee Baptist Convention (TBC) decided it was time to clamp down on the doctrinal disposition of their committee and board members. Trusting them to live godly lives and be active in their local churches suddenly isn't good enough. At the annual meeting held at Bellevue Baptist Church in Cordova this week, messengers voted convincingly to add a question about the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message to the questionaire sent out to all prospective committee and board members. The rationale behind this effort was to weed out some Tennessee Baptists who may not be entirely supportive of the SBC. Apparently, this is a concern for folks who believe there should be unequivocal agreement with the direction and position of the SBC.

Jerry Sutton, pastor of Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville, favored a motion asking nominees for leadership positions to let it be known how they feel about the faith statement. He doesn't want persons on the Executive Committee making decisions about the Cooperative program if they aren't totally support of those funds being used by the SBC (Ironically, Sutton's church designates funds to the SBC, thus bypassing the state convention). Another pastor questioned the constitutionality of the motion because the TBC hadn't officially taken a position on the 2000 BFM. Parliamentarians ruled that the motion was in order because it meant that only a question about the BFM was being added rather than being required for service. Bill Sherman, messenger from FBC Fairview expressed the minority viewpoint but significant nonetheless: "You're placing the BFM above the Word of God, and I don't think any word of man is better than the Word of God." He offered a substitute motion to put affirmation of the Bible as the sole authority of faith and practice rather than the BFM. It was soundly defeated.

I was wondering when this sort of thing was coming to Tennessee, and am not surprised by it at all. This action will cause some consternation among those currently serving on these boards and committees, especially if they are Baptist enough to share Sherman's sentiment. It will bring about a question of conscience among good Baptists who support the work of the state convention but are at odds with the SBC. Although not officially requiring support of the 2000 BFM, the motion passed at Bellevue will pretty much eliminate those who have problems with this document that has caused a lot of division in only six short years. Many of these denominational servants have given their time, money, and talents to the state convention for a much longer period than that. I hope this is a wake up call.

The time has come that persons who want to included as leaders in the state convention have to endorse the 2000 BFM. Now I know that's not how the motion is written, but this is its intent nonetheless. This is certainly within the rights of the TBC as an automous body on its own. The state convention can set its own guidelines and parameters for participation. I'm expecting that in the not so distant future that the TBC will take a cue from their Missouri Baptist brethren and kick out the churches who aren't exclusively connected to the TBC and SBC. In the meantime, the TBC will keep on taking money from Tennessee Baptist churches but that doesn't mean members from those churches will be considered for committees and boards. Anyway, this is further evidence that the BFM is a creed. Nothing wrong with a creed necessarily, unless you happen to be Baptist. It is a statement of doctrinal accountability (see its preamble), and those who want to keep on serving on boards and committees in the TBC will have to bow down to it.

I'm being a little sarcastic about all this because this sort of thing has been going on for a long time. This time it is happening closer to home. Personally, this action isn't going to affect me because I've never been a candidate for anything going on with the state convention and don't want to be. However, there are people in our church who still support the TBC and its ministries but may have problems with this recent action. I think the vote taken this week will cause some dedicated TBC leaders to take a serious look at where the state convention is going and whether or not their participation is still welcomed. I suspect there are many in the minority who have been holding on to the convention because there is still good work going on and they want to focus on ministry rather than the mess. We'll see how long that lasts.

The Kingdom of God is a lot bigger than any state or national convention. Tennessee Baptists who hold on the Bible but not the current denominational direction need not be afraid. It will be an emotional epiphany for some who thought the narrowing doctrinal parameters would never come to this state. I believe that this action will have a positive impact. It will awaken some slumbering traditional Baptists who felt like they were always welcome at the TBC. They'll have to decide what to do and how much to compromise in order to stay on board. I hope they'll count their losses and move on to see where else God is at work. Other traditional Baptists, such as myself, will be reminded that Baptist principles and distinctives are as important now as they were as George W. Truett's day. It is still good to be Baptist.

The real news out of Bellevue this week is that the Bible isn't good enough, at least for the TBC. The 2000 BFM got more votes than the Bible. After this week, it's not enough to affirm the Word of God as the sole authority for faith and practice. Sherman tried in vain with that idea. It used to be that being known as a "people of the book" was good enough to work and fellowship together. You can't be trusted to serve on a committee or board now unless your doctrinal card has been stamped "2000 BFM approved."

I'm heading into Thanksgiving with another reason to be grateful. I serve a great church where the folks know what being a Baptist is about and we do our best to keep the main thing the main thing. No one can tell us what to do. We take the Bible seriously and choose ways to best carry out the Great Commission in our community and beyond. That little song I learned in Vacation Bible School stills rings true: "The B-I-B-L-E, now that's the book for me. I stand alone on the Word of God, the B-I-B-L-E."

Staying in the Church

I've been reading Barbara Brown Taylor's book Leaving Church, a memoir of her experiences as a priest in the Episcopal church. She talks about her work in a large Atlanta congregation, travelling to a small north Georgia town and getting her own church, and eventually taking a teaching position at Piedmont college. Along the way she talks about her struggles to experience God while at the same time represent the Divine Presence to her congregation. She is a victim of her own success, as her church grows so does the stress of maintaining her peace of mind. The challenge of balancing church, home, and time with God bring about a change.

This isn't intended to be a book review as such, but rather a way of identifying with her candid appraisal of church life. I really sympathize with her, as her experiences could happen to someone in a Baptist church as well. I can't relate to "putting on the collar" every day but there is a difference in how people treat you once they know you work for the church. Brown speaks for many pastors across denominational lines. In plain talk, she got burned out with her work, dealt with depression, and found herself wondering what God's purpose for it all happened to be. After five plus years as a female pastor in small town church, Piedmont College threw her a life preserver and rescued her from a sea of turbulent ministry waters. Ironically, many of the stresses Brown dealt with came about because of her great success as a preacher and teacher.

I've been thinking about this book a lot, and wondering what pastors do who are dealing with burn out but don't have the options that Brown did. She had a wider audience with her teaching and writing ministry, and landed in pretty good shape. For Brown, it was necessary for her to "lose" the church in order to "find" her faith again. Still, many pastors who don't have her pedigree end up as insurance salesmen or in some other profession outside of professional ministry wondering why they spent so much earning a seminary degree. It has to be a painful adjustment. I guess it depends on whether you choose to get out or whether you are another victim of "forced termination."

It appears to me that Brown suffered from an emotional kind of "battle fatigue" not unlike what many other ministers experience from dealing with local congregations. I can identify with this sentiment and can appreciate why many capable men and women walk away from the ministry. It can be a demanding, frustrating, draining, and disappointing experience when you work with people. Church people, in particular, can be very needy and take a lot out of you. There are many"takers" in the church and these folks find their way to the pastoral staff at some point. Fortunately, there are some "givers" out there as well. At one point in her book, Brown indicated talking with some church members at a party whom she hadn't talked with before. This happened after her resignation from the church. She realized how wonderful these people were but because they weren't the demanding type, she hadn't had any reason to deal with them. I agree with her that pastors should seek out these kinds of folks, because the demanding ones will seek the pastors out on their own.

Yes, vocational ministry can be grueling and some of the meanest people I know claim to be "people of the book." Christians can do evil things all in the name of religion (our record here is well known). Still, there is an appeal to helping hurting people, bearing one another's burdens, and proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. It isn't necessary to be ordained to carry out these tasks, but having the position does have its privileges. Whenever going through particularly difficult times, I try to remember why I got into this profession to begin with and focus on my Call. It's the anchor that keeps my ministry ship afloat.

There are many landmines out there for ministers to avoid. Reading the latest news about the Ted Haggard situation gives evidence of that. For the pastors serving anonymously in their small corner of the mission field, the temption to wrestle with is discouragement. These pastors serve faithfully week after week, visiting the sick, agonizing over the church budget, contacting the inactive members, and preaching every Sunday. Some do not see any results from their labor. Many falsely believe that they were better pastors they'd be at bigger churches. It's no wonder that pastors burn out. I remember an older pastor say "I'd rather burn out than rust out." Well, either way "you're out."

I don't have any particular conclusions to draw from Brown's book except to say that I identify with the feelings of frustration and discouragement that come with the pastorate. I also recognize that there are many positives that come with the pastorate. It's an awesome privilege gaining the trust of your people. I'm trying to change my thinking from "Am I there yet?" to "Am I making progress?" Jesus didn't tell us to be successful, only faithful. I'm still learning what that means. For those who leave the ministry, I understand and sympathize. It's better to leave the ministry than lose your sanity. But, I have an even greater appreciation for those who stay in the church and stay with it.

Today I came across a poster with a man in a rowboat on a large body of water. The words read, "Dear God, please be good to me. The sea is so wide, and my boat is so small." Amen to that. I can't help thinking that there are other ministers out there who are caught between their feelings and their faith. Vocational ministry is pilgimmage. One day at a time, with the Lord's help, I hope to one day finish. In the meantime, I don't plan on leaving church. I'll hang in there and give my best to the Lord and his people. I hope my children will know what church is supposed to be about and have good experiences growing up. As their father (and pastor), I hope that's my legacy for them.

Haggard, Homosexuality, and Hypocrisy

Pastor Ted Haggard of New Life Church in Colorado Springs was dismissed after 21 years of service for sexual misconduct. Apparently, his ouster came as a result of a homosexual who claims that Haggard had maintained a sexual relationship with him for several years. Mike Jones said he "owed it to the gay community" to expose the pastor for hypocrisy. Haggard had been a leading opponent of same-sex marriage in Colorado, and Jones went public about the relationship when he found out Haggard's position.

When the story broke, Haggard maintained that he had never spoken with Jones or had any dealings with him. Jones produced phone messages that indicated otherwise. Then, Haggard admitted to buying drugs from Jones and to contacting him for a "massage" but nothing else. Although the details are sketchy, they were enough for the overseers of New Life Church to fire Haggard. The church heard letters from Haggard and his wife this morning in what must have been a very emotional service. The feelings must have been those of anger, sadness, and betrayal. I commend those in authority for making a courageous decision, and in reality, the only responsible one.

It's interesting to note that Haggard probably wouldn't have been exposed except for his public opposition to same-sex marriage and his credentials as a well-known conservative. There is discussion about what impact his fall will have upon this Tuesday's election. I really couldn't care less about that part of it, but here again is another prominent pastor preaching one thing and living another. This idea of turning morality into a political football is a confusing one, as if one party had a corner on piety. I don't blame Jones one bit for turning Haggard in for hypocrisy.

This whole affair is tragic, but offers several important lessons about life and ministry. First, we are all sinners. Even preachers. The Bible makes this clear in a number of passages. Some sins are more public than others, but we are all in the same boat as far as our condition before a holy God. We need forgiveness and salvation from Jesus Christ. Pastors are no exception, and we tread on dangerous ground if ministers are held up as if they were somehow immune to the temptations of life. No doubt Haggard found himself in a hole so deep that there was no way out. He didn't want to disappoint his family, church, or the Christian community. He is another prominent Christian leader who now finds himself in rather notable company. I still remember Jimmy Swaggert's "I have sinned" speech and images of Jerry Falwell taking over the PTL club after Jim Bakker's moral lapse are brought into focus once again.

Second, this incident gives more ammunition to those who call Christians "hypocrites." Pastors should be held to a higher standard, and for Haggard to stand up week after week proclaiming the gospel while living this way turns my stomach. It's hard for me to preach after an argument with my wife, and here is this guy preaching to thousands and taking a stand against same-sex marriage while maintaining an alleged homosexual relationship with Jones. At least that's his story, but Haggard has had trouble telling the truth about other things and this might be another one. Haggard described himself as a "deceiver and a liar" in a letter he wrote to the church. The church overseers fired him for "sexual misconduct" so you can figure out what that means.

Third, pastors and ministers in general need to be careful. We ought to pray every morning for the Lord to "deliver us from evil." There are so many landmines out there, and not only from the sexual realm. We should never say "that would never happen to me" because pride can lead to a lapse in judgment and moral failure. So, while I have a great deal of disgust about this situation I cannot allow myself to think that I am somehow superior to Haggard. I am a sinner saved by grace, and must pray for strength and wisdom to deal with temptation. Haggard's fall only reinforces this need.

Fourth, I will be thankful for what God has given me. Haggard started New Life Church is his home 21 years ago and it has grown to more than 14,000 members. He was president of the National Association of Evangelicals, a position of prominence among conservatives. Haggard participated in conference calls with the White House and chimed in on public policy. He had an influential pulpit on top of that. Haggard's success and prominence were the envy of the evangelical community, yet no one knew the filth hidden just underneath the ministry surface. You can have the popularity and fame, just give me a loving congregation and a clear conscience. There isn't a price tag for that.

Fifth, some of the greatest leaders in history have had moral flaws. David did great things as King of Israel yet committed adultery and had a man murdered to cover up for it. Moses murdered a man, yet let the Israelites out of slavery. Jacob deceived his father into giving him his blessing rather than Esau. There are many examples of this kind of behavior in Scripture. My point is that Haggard's downfall doesn't take away from what the Lord did through him in building a great church and ministry in Colorado Springs. God uses flawed individuals time and time again. This doesn't excuse Haggard's behavior, but should bring into a larger perspective.

Haggard's behavior impacts all of us in the Christian community. His actions give folks reason to suspect the worst among ministers whenever there is a question of morality. Pastors are not perfect by any means and face challenges every day that could threaten their ministries. Haggard's hypocrisy doesn't endear us to the general public, especially those who are skeptical of the church already.

Although Haggard's story may be newsworthy in an unfortunate way, other pastors are deserving of recogntion for more worthwhile things. Many serve faithfully in anonymity with never a hope for the kind of recognition Haggard received. These are the servants who deserve gratitude from their congregations. Their quiet, unassuming behavior and godly examples are to be appreciated. Oftentimes these men and women serve in out of the way places out of the limelight with little fanfare or appreciation. The lives and influences of these kinds of ministers need to be promoted as the real success stories in the ministry.

Being "Moderate" isn't Enough

I got the latest issue of Baptists Today and enjoyed it as usual, but took particular interest in the interview with Dr. Bill Self. He is pastor of St. Johns Baptist Church in Alpharetta, GA. It is one of the few large churches associated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF). It's not often I hear of a church that size affiliated with the CBF or known as "moderate" in Baptist life. It's nice to know there are some out there.

Self made several observations about Baptist life in general and the status of moderate churches in particular. One thing he mentioned had to do with the importance of preaching and that pastors ought to devote a great deal of their time to this task. His critique of proclamation is right on with my thinking, in that of all the things preachers do, preaching is the most important. Pastors are called upon for a variety of matters, but that time before the people is sacred as far as I'm concerned. I can minister to more people at one time on Sunday morning than I can any other time. So, I spend as much time as possible getting ready (Acts 6:4 is an important verse for me). It is cardinal sin in my book for preachers to be boring and/or unprepared when they stand up to preach the Word of God. It was encouraging to hear a pastor of a prominent CBF church feel the same way.

Another thing Self said had to do with moderate churches and the need for emphasizing evangelism. He recalled going to a meeting in Florida and more or less cited this weakness. The reception was less than enthusiasic, which surprised him because he thought he was "coming home" to be with Baptists of his stripe. I commend Self for his views and believe his voice needs to be heard.

Being part of a CBF church is very liberating, especially for one who has served in the continually narrowing confines of Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). I've moved beyond the 2000 BF&M discussions and am grateful not to be supporting institutions that have changed to the point of non-recognition. It is refreshing to be among church members who cherish our Baptist distinctives and affirm the call of God upon both men and women. I appreciate our missional mindset and "being the presence of Christ" both locally and globally. I've embraced new terminology and new paradigms of ministry, namely that we don't have to own institutions in order to partner with them. We must continually inform and educate our people about missions in a "world without borders." This is new wine and must be placed in new wineskins. I'm grateful to be part of it.

However, at some point moderate congregations must refocus on their responsibility of telling people about Jesus Christ and about a personal relationship with him. Jesus came to "seek and save those who are lost" and that mandate still applies today. I am not saying CBF churches don't do this but rather that it seems we've made the Baptist distinctives emphasis an end rather than a means. We've gotten pretty good at saying "what we're not" but we must also ring out the message that people need Jesus and eternal life is theirs for the receiving through faith in Christ. I am tired of hearing that moderate churches aren't evangelistic and have weak pulpits. This seems to be the criticism from Southern Baptists who are good at counting buildings, budgets, and baptisms. If 80% of Southern Baptist churches are declining or plateaued, why don't they get critized for it? It's hypocrisy to call CBF churches unevangelistic with this sort of track record. I'm as concerned about the declining number of baptisms as I am about re-baptizing folks who get excited during revival every year. I mean, how many times can you get saved?

I accept the fact that the term "moderate" applies to me and our church for our views and theological positions. It's unfortunate we still deal with these terms, but so be it. This is part of our Baptist landscape. But, I don't want to be "moderate" when it comes to evangelism and finding ways to reach folks for Jesus Christ. Each church exists in its own mission field, and some areas are growing more than others. Yet, we can all do our part in sharing our faith through words and actions. Let us always "be ready to give a reason for the hope we have."

One key development for me personally has been this missional concept. We no longer merely commission missionaries to go to the mission field. In this post-Christian culture, churches are now ON the mission field which means that all Christians are missionaries right where they live and breathe. This is a truth that I'm trying to reinforce with our church and I think is sinking in. We are openly identifiable as CBF and all that it means. But, our folks are not talking about that as much as how we can reach our community for Christ and help people with real needs. This is an exciting conversation and one that I hope other churches are having. I've learned that it's not enough to be "moderate" or "not a fundamentalist." It's also necessary to have some real substance to offer folks who couldn't care less about SBC, CBF, or any other denominational labels.

Associational Angst in Mobile

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is it Blogging or Gossip?

I started blogging as a means of expressing some thoughts about denominational life and church related issues. It's like playing with a new toy. It never really occurred to me that others might take an interest in my comments. Blogging is quite a phenomenon, and has taken on a unique importance even in journalistic circles. I'm not sure if there is a code of ethics for this sort of thing, but there ought to be.

I first heard about the term "blog" (which is short for "web-long") when Wade Burleson was going through all that mess with the International Mission Board. News articles from Associated Baptist Press mentioned his blogging about meetings and this of course made some folks pretty irate. He and many others like him are blogging about the comings and goings of the SBC, and apparently are having a significant impact. Dr. Frank Page, current SBC President, has been touted as the first "blogger's president." I remain impressed at the influence of some bloggers. Folks who wouldn't ordinarily have a voice or seat at the denominational table are making their feelings known and developing a growing readership. The rise of bloggers, particularly among younger leaders, will lead to another denominational holy war with the older guard (you will be able to read about on the internet).

Not only is the SBC feeling the impact of bloggers, but local churches are being influenced as well. A large church in Germantown, TN went through a significant disagreement about the rise of elders in their church. Blogs were started to voice opposition, and eventually the pastor resigned in frustration. These folks were trying to "save the church." This situation is being played out again with Bellevue Baptist Church. I found two blogs about this church related to "saving Bellevue" and "the truth about Bellevue." An ABP article described blogging as another way of having church fights. Several members who are in obvious disagreement with the pastor are making their frustration known to anyone and everyone who wants to read their blogs.

I'm conflicted about this use of blogging, and wondering if airing the church's dirty laundry on the internet is the way to go. There are two sides to every story, and certainly individuals are entitled to express their opinions. Unfortunately, using the internet expands the audience of concern beyond what it should be. Folks love scandals, and church people are no exception. I'm not convinced that folks will be responsible for what they find out about other churches through bloggers. In other words, one might form an opinion about a church based solely on the opinion of one of its members. This is done on a personal basis, but having the internet handy has the potential to do more harm than good.


I don't have an answer for this situation. I enjoy reading blogs from time to time, and am sometimes startled at the information out there. There needs to be a free exchange of ideas, and people are talking more now than ever before. Conversations are a good thing. However, we should not confuse fact with fiction. There are some interesting opinions floating around out there, but the potential for harm is real. The Bible warns against idleness, and to stay away from people who are "not busy, but busybodies" (2 Thess 3:11-12). Let's make sure blogging doesn't turn out to be an excuse for spreading gossip.

Pope Benedict and a Baptist Preacher

Pope Benedict XIV made some remarks about Islam recently, apparently quoting an ancient text that depicts its founder as "evil and inhuman." This assessment stems from the founder's enthusiastic spread of their faith "by the sword." Benedict has been under fire from Muslims around the world, figuratively speaking. Others have been under fire literally. Two churches in the West Bank have been torched. A nun and her bodyguard were gunned down outside a hospital in Somalia where she has served faithfully for years. This occurred after a local cleric condemned the pope's comments.

Benedict has offered his most sincere apologies for any grief his address caused, and this in itself is quite remarkable. While occasionally apologizing for the church's misgivings in the past, the pope doesn't usually apologize for what he says personally. This is an interesting development, as the Catholic Church is concerned for the safety and well-being of nuns and priests around the world. Ironically, actions taken by extremist Muslims validate the point of Benedict's message. Violence is not an acceptable means of propogating a faith. Yet, there are some Muslims who think it's okay to do anything in the name of Allah.

I'm aware that the church hasn't had a perfect track record and is open to its own criticism regarding past failures. And that really is the point I am trying to make. Christians are expected to receive criticism and accept it without retaliating. Yet, Muslims are offended whenever their belief system is challenged and respond in violent and threatening ways. Islam appears to be immune to any sort of critique. It's okay to ridicule Christians in newspaper cartoons, TV, and other media. Just make sure you don't do that to Muslims.

Rosie O'Donnell drew some criticism when she said that extremist Christians were as dangerous as the terrorists who blow up buildings and people. This is going too far. No Christians are going around as suicide bombers "in the name of Jesus." A better way of dealing with this topic is to say that extremist behavior in the name of religion can have devastating consequences. I think that was what Benedict was trying to say, but the only part that was heard dealt with Islam's less than favorable review.

Christians have done terrible things in the name of religion. We have fought our own "holy wars" about what we believe about the Bible, what translation of the Bible is acceptable, who is qualified to serve as ministers, and we even have believers who want to impose Christianity (their brand) on the general public. For example, there was a judge in Alabama who ran for governor on the premise that God has been taken out of the courts. While chief justice of the state supreme court, he rolled in a two ton display of the ten commandments into the rotunda that became a tourist attraction. Folks rallied around that thing and made a tremendous fuss over it. I wonder how many of them actually knew the 10 commandments.

It can be difficult to keep "turning the other cheek" when it comes to criticism, especially when it concerns our faith. We should do all we can to debate, discuss, and persuade others but not attempt to get our way by bullying tactics. We are living in challenging times, and Muslims are making gains on Christians in the convert department. This could make us angry, or it could motivate us to live as authentic disciples of Jesus Christ. No, I'm not thrilled that Islam gets a free pass from the media. I get irked when Jesus is ridiculed. It also bothers me when the church's own behavior puts a stain on its witness. Remember, Jesus was more critical of the religious right than the "sinners" who were left to wrestle with their weaknesses and sins.

There needs to be honest dialogue about our differences without fear of reprisal. This is not reality, however. Sometimes "speaking the truth in love" carries risks. Let's just make sure we leave the "love" part in our speaking.

Are We a "Bible" Church?

Our church went through an "intentional interim" period prior to my arrival. I heard about some of the steps they went through in understanding their identity, denominational relationships, the role of women in the church, and the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message, among other things. I commend the church for doing this, as too many congregations opt for a preacher and/or someone to visit the hospitals and do funerals. While these are important matters, churches should also determine their personality so that the next pastor will know what to expect. I was fortunate in this regard.

One of the first things I dealt with related to folks who weren't quite satisfied with the church's view of the Bible. Apparently, this discontent surfaced in a letter circulated among the congregation a year or two before my arrival. A frustrated church member said that "there was a Bible church on the mountain, and a non-Bible church on the mountain." Evidently he thought his church was the latter. I was amazed that someone would speak so harshly about their congregation, but that's what some folks do when their viewpoints don't carry the day. Anyway, I found out that there was indeed a "Bible" church on the mountain and this was the point of comparison.

Usually, churches who have the word "Bible" in their title are non-denominational in nature. Ironically, one of our members who left us for this particular congregation is very supportive of the Southern Baptist Convention, yet the Bible church does not affiliate with the SBC. I found this decision very peculiar, in that he was very vocal in his support of the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering and SBC missions. There are many good churches on the mountain that aren't Baptist, and I'm sure this is one of them, but it doesn't make sense to leave a church that would allow you to give to the SBC in favor of one that doesn't. But, I've learned that there are many things with church work that don't add up.

I get a little chapped when folks say we aren't a "Bible" church and fortunately that little rumor weed has been rooted out. Churches take their cue from their pastors, and the same seems to be true here. I have a very high view of Scripture, and spend more of my time preaching it and trying to live by it than defending it. The reason some folks may accuse a church like ours of not being a "Bible church" is that we have taken the job of biblical interpretation seriously rather than literally. We affirm and encourage our members to come to the Bible with an open mind and open heart under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We take into consideration the historical, cultural, political, and social conditions of the biblical text. For example, preachers who hammer down on women being subservient in the home and church don't say much about slaves being obedient to their masters, yet both notions are in the Bible. The problem is that there is too much inconsistency with regard to what is viewed as prescriptive and what is descriptive.

It's one thing to say we disagree on interpretation, it's another thing to say that because you don't agree with my position "you just don't believe the Bible." There are many church goers who simply want to be told what to believe rather than do the hard work of learning on their own. We have a variety of views represented in our congregation, and each of these positions comes from people who believe the Bible. To be honest, I'd rather spend my time living out what the Bible says than debating differences of opinion. The church has spent too much time majoring on minors rather than finding ways to cooperate with one another for the sake of the gospel. The most biblical thing you can do is live out your faith and share the love of Christ. Some of the most mean-spirited and judgmental folks I have known would claim to believe the Bible more than I do. These kinds of church-goers give Christianity a bad name and I really wouldn't want to be associated with them.

So, the answer is "YES!" We are a Bible church and part of that identity means being Baptist. Baptists are definitely Bible people. We read it, study it, and try to understand it. Oftentimes we've fought over it. The Pharisees did that sort of thing, and look at how Jesus rebuked them for their legalistic ways. I have found a good measuring rod in the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message under the Scripture section that says that Jesus Christ is the criterion for interpretation. That may not say everything about hermeneutics, but it does say enough. I would rather be known as a church that lifts up Jesus than a church that doesn't practice what it preaches.

Censorship in the SBC?

It's been amusing to read about events in the Southern Baptist Convention here lately. Amusing since I don't have to be involved personally, politically, and more importantly, monetarily. This week, censorship is the issue (Well, I admit to censoring the SBC myself for several years). When Fundamentalists "won" the SBC in 1991, they became accountable for fixing everything they thought was wrong. Now that all the moderates have been exiled, there's no one left to fight with but themselves. This is the nature of fundamentalism--A narrow, militant, angry spirit that naturally leads to divisions among the people. Now there's talk of censorship of a sermon given at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS) because the speaker challenged the International Mission Board's policy on "private prayer language."

Dwight McKissic, a graduate and newly appointed trustee of SWBTS, delivered a chapel message on August 29. McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church near Arlington, criticized a policy guideline that prevents missionaries who practice a "private prayer language" from being appointed. He himself admitted to having such a prayer practice and recalled several passages from the Bible that referred to speaking in tongues. In an unusual move, SWBTS President Dr. Paige Patterson ordered that McKissic's sermon not be placed on their website after the chapel service. The seminary defended its position, saying seminary leaders "reserve the right not to disseminate openly views which we fear may be harmful to the churches."

When Dr. Patterson was president at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, he had no trouble endorsing a paper written by professor Keith Eitel that was critical of IMB President Jerry Rankin's leadership. The paper, written on seminary letterhead with a cover letter by Dr. Patterson, was circulated to all IMB trustees.

The new guard of SBC bloggers are having a field day, calling the action hypocritical." It's really amazing to me that there is anyone left who would challenge the leadership of the SBC on its behavior. But, there are those younger ministers who "knew not Joseph" (Pressler/Patterson) who feel free to voice their dissent on the blogs. Every now and then I'll check one of those out to see what if anything new is going on. While not much has changed (or will) in the doctrinal climate, the SBC appears to have those emerging from the ranks who aren't going to take this criticisms outside the scope of the 2000 BFM lying down. McKissic's remarks do not go outside the boundaries of the 2000 BFM yet touch a nerve among many believers in the denomination. At least among those in authority at SWBTS.

What's disturbing is not so much the policy of the IMB regarding private prayer language, even though one wonders how the Convention could monitor what is done in "private." The noteworthy part is the actual censoring of a sermon by a SWBTS trustee who didn't agree with IMB policy. Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that younger Southern Baptists don't realize that this sort of thing has been going on for decades. Now, they are finding out about it and speaking up. Censorship hasn't worked, but only heightened the importance of the sermon.

It's really fun to watch. Like a player who once played on a team but was traded, I still have a sentimental interest in the SBC. They didn't want my skills, but I like to see how the team is doing. It doesn't consume my time, fortunately, and I'm able to utilize my gifts through my new team. From the outside looking in, I can see how fundamentalism is continuing to eat away at what remains of the SBC. There has to be an enemy, and now the enemy appears to be those who are open to "speaking in tongues." You can't throw out the old inerrancy of the Bible argument, because many who hold this viewpoint are sympathetic to McKissic's approach. The 2000 BFM doesn't deal with the issue (yet). Trying to amend the BFM is this way might be the next showdown.

So, the enduring lesson from this ongoing comedy known as the SBC can be summarized by one phrase: it's good to be free. Free as Christians. Free as Baptists. Open debate and disagreement of the issues should be a hallmark among Baptists rather than hindered. Censorship doesn't help anything. Years ago, one of my dear Missions Professors offered his philosophy on church matters. He said, "Trust the Lord and tell the people." I've always remembered that, and tried to live by it.

ABP 9/1/06 source

When Sounding Good is better than Being Good

The newly appointed pastor of First Baptist Church, West Palm Beach, Florida resigned in disgrace last week. He came to the church with a great deal of promise and high praise from key leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention. Only 40 years old, Steven Flockhart appeared to be riding the wave of popularity and status that comes with being pastor of a megachurch.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not happy about his demise or the pain that this church will be living through for some time. It's going to be a while before the church is able to get back on track with its mission and ministry. Plus, living through the embarrassment this incident has caused not only locally but nationally will be difficult. What's aggravating is how this situation chould have been avoided in the first place. A pastor search committee with the means of First Baptist Church should have been able to check the background of their prospective pastor. Even Kevin Mahoney, their Executive Pastor during the three year interim, showed dismay at the apparent lapse of the committee responsible for bringing Flockhart before the people.

Maybe the search committee got the "he sounds good so he must be good" syndrome. Flockhart had a good track record of increasing the membership rolls of churches. Folks liked his preaching. It wasn't until the Palm Beach Post did a story on a $162,799 debt he racked up at a church in Georgia that folks began to get suspicious. The church had to sue him to get their money back. This incident led to a deeper investigation into Flockhart's personal and professional background. Now it has been revealed that he fabricated his resume with misleading statements about his educational accomplishments.

The only problem is that he doesn't have any educational accomplishments, unless you count a correspondence degree from an unaccredited seminary in Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia. Apparently, some church folks don't have a problem with that. Walter Woitowicz, member of FBC West Palm Beach, said "Who cares if he graduated from college? He had presence. Show me a perfect church. You won't find one on this Earth."

No one would have cared if Flockhart had been honest from the beginning.

The reason I'm chapped about this is that here we have another example of a church not doing its homework and getting burned. Pastor search committees, now more than ever, need to be wary of hiring pastors (and other staff) based solely on the recommendation of a prominent pastor. The whole situation, shameful as it is, provides some painful lessons about life and ministry.

First, all degrees are not equal. In other words, there are times when a "doctor isn't a real doctor." Using the medical field as a comparison, I'd want to make sure my physicians had an earned degree diploma hanging on their walls. There's nothing wrong with honorary degrees, but ministers ought to be honest about their educational creditials. There are too many ministers with a "Dr." in front of their name. Too many haven't done the hard work necessary to earn the privilege. In many Baptist churches, ministers aren't even required to have a certain educational background in order to be on staff. So, how hard is it to write down where you went to school, when you went there, and when you graduated?

Second, pastor search committees need to do their work. Unfortunately, many churches select the more popular members rather than the more competent ones. Plus, one hopes that you won't have to activate a search committee that often. It's hard to imagine FBC West Palm Beach searching for a pastor for three years and finding one with no real credentials other than he was friends with prominent pastors in the SBC. Call the schools on the resume. Find out graduate dates. Do the background checks. Assume nothing. There is too much at stake.

Third, local church autonomy has its privileges and responsibilities. No one tells a Baptist church what to do, and if they do, the church still has the right to make its own decisions. So, each church can call and ordain its own staff and conduct its own business freely. On the other hand, this means there is no one to blame other than the church for bringing a pastor in who has serious baggage. Our church folks need to educated that some ministers aren't all they are hyped up to be.

Finally, integrity still counts. The FBC West Palm Beach scenario has been played out numerous times before. Still, this is a church with educated and professional people. If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere. Churches get caught up in the courtship of a new pastor and can overlook critical character flaws all because "he preaches good." There are many ministers who work hard to get an honest education and serve in remote places without the attention a megachurch offers. We ought to recognize these men and women for their honesty and work ethic. Numbers 32:23 reminds us that "you may be sure that your sin will find you out." Sounding good isn't the same as being good. May God help us to be both.

When Billy Graham talks. . .

The most recent copy of Newsweek (8/14/06) features a photo of an aging Billy Graham and an article about the greatest evangelist of the 20th century, if not of all time. He has spoken to more people and been in more countries than any other preacher of the gospel. He has spoken and counseled presidents, heads of state, and brought together clergy of all stripes through the process of planning his crusades. He allowed ministers from all denominations to sit on the platform during his meetings. Graham also has been an example of racial reconciliation by refusing to segregate his crusades during the turbulent 1950s-60s. Now he spends most of his time with his wife Ruth in their Montreat, NC home, reflecting on a great life and looking forward to an even greater one.

There are several things I could say about Graham that we all know, but one quality about him that I particularly admire is his belief that Christians can have fellowship with each other without agreeing on everything. This isn't a revolutionary statement, but like the old E. F. Hutton commercial stated, "When EF Hutton talks, people listen." Even more so with Graham. He states, "There are many things I don't understand. Sincere Christians can disagree about the details of Scripture and theology--absolutely." He has remained focused on communicating the gospel while keeping relationships with folks of all theological backgrounds. "I spend more time on the love of God than I used to." Graham says. "But I have tried to maintain friendships with all of these people" (a reference to more politically active conservative ministers). Politics is secondary to the gospel.

It can be argued that as an evangelist, Graham hasn't had to deal with the inner workings of a local congregation and the varied opinions of individual members. It is also true that his primary purpose has been to present the gospel in simple and clear terms in order that people might come to faith in Jesus Christ (Who hasn't seen one of his invitations?). He could have gotten involved in the denominational malaise of the Southern Baptist Convention but instead kept his distance. There are times I wish he would have offered more guidance in this area, but perhaps he thought this was beneath his purpose. But, better late than never does Graham state that differences among believers ought not create division among us.

I appreciate theological views, and have spent a great deal of time formulating my own. It bothers me when Christian fellowship is compromised due to issues that should be open for interpretation. This is something I could write a great deal about, and a topic that has already been discussed ad nauseum by many others. I still lament the loss of people in our pews who could be helping us build the Kingdom of God. However, we can't expect more from our people than their pastors, many of whom more readily label and libel those with whom they differ. Our differences have become divisions, and these in turn have become barriers. Good fences make good neighbors for the time being, I suppose. I admit I'd rather not waste time arguing with someone about an issue when I know it's not going to get me anything but a headache. It's best to move on.

Graham isn't questioning how to get to heaven, the Incarnation, or the Work of Christ. But, "he is arguing that the Bible is open to interpretation, and fair-minded Christians may disagree or come to different conclusions about specific points" (p41). This is all I've been trying to say. We're not going to get complete agreement on every issue, and we'll lose valuable people resources if we insist on it. The SBC's withdrawal from the Baptist World Alliance poses a glaring example among folks of our ilk. Apparently, the theological tent was not big enough for the SBC and CBF to co-exist, so it was time for the SBC to part company. In contrast, former President Jimmy Carter held a ministers' conference and the result was a covenant agreement among Baptists from North America.

Even here in our small community, I feel a greater kinship and acceptance among the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians than with other Baptist churches. I'm grateful that our church is more ecumenical, and in turn, closer to Jesus' prayer that "all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you" (Jn 17:21). In this process of growing in the faith, I am becoming "more Christian than Baptist" in my theological perspective on some things. Graham's article helped confirm that. I'm glad I listened.

The End as We Know It

There's nothing like a war to get folks stirred up about the second coming of Christ. This is especially true when things are getting heated up in the Middle East. It's hard to say how things are going to end up between Israel and Lebanon, but right now tensions are running pretty high. Once again the United States is getting pulled into the middle of the mess in the hopes of getting both sides to stop killing each other. Anytime Israel is involved in a conflict many Christians in America hold their breath and their Bibles.

A popular view regarding the end times relates to a Battle of Armageddon taking place in the region now in question. This isn't the first time serious fighting has broken out in this area of the world, as there was talk about the Persian Gulf War ushering end the new millennium. The book of Revelation refers to this battle and scholars have been trying to figure out what it means for a long time.

I've started a book entitled "Left Behind?" which is a response to the book series of the same title. The series is based upon a dispensational approach to interpreting the Bible and in particular the book of Revelation. It's an entertaining read, and there have been at least two movies made based on these works of fiction. The Scofield Reference Bible has played a key role in popularizing a brand of eschatology that calls for a rapture of the church, a 1000 year period of tribulation, the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, the rise of the Anti-Christ, and a great final battle in which the Devil is defeated. A key component of dispensational theology is that it is based on a "literal" rendering of Scripture. There's also no shortage of charts and diagrams that are on display by preachers who affirm this method of interpretation.

Predictions about the end of time have been going on for a long time. First century Christians were expecting Christ to return at any moment, and when he didn't they had to figure out what they were supposed to be doing. There's also William Miller of the 1840s who stirred up the people with his charts based on calculations from the book of Daniel. Miller even predicted a specific date, only to have the date pass by with no sign of Jesus' return. Confused, Miller recalulated his figures and determined he had been off by a year. So, he once again made a prediction and I'm quite sure he was wrong again. Another favorite relates to the book "88 reasons the rapture will occur in 1988." This too proved false, but on the plus side the book can be purchased at a minimal cost (I couldn't figure out why the authors were "selling" the book if they believed Christ was returning). Most recently, Y2k scared some folks into thinking about the end of time. Similar expectations surfaced at the end of the first millennium as well. Now, I can turn on the TV as see preachers doing hermeneutical gymnastics with the Bible in order to make events in 2006 tie directly to what was written thousands of years ago. I'm constantly amazed at how preachers revise their predictions of Scripture to fit the situation. It's even more baffling when the people in the pews buy into it. Jesus said there would be "wars and rumors of wars." This has been true for centuries.

As a theologian, I am definitely interested in what the Bible has to say about the end times. I know about the pre-, post-, and a-millennial views concerning what the 1000 years are supposed to mean. I've read about the pre-, mid-, post- tribulation return of Christ as it relates to dispensationalism. Folks are now asking me about a rapture of the Church and whether I think Hurricane Katrina was God's judgment on the casino industry. They ask about this war and whether I think Christ's coming is near. These are interesting questions relating to God's sovereignty and unfolding of his divine purpose for humankind.

Although aware of passages cited about the End, I always refer to Jesus' words when he said "no one knows the day or the hour" that things come to an end. Jesus didn't know when that would be, only "the Father who is in heaven." Maybe this makes me less interested than folks want me to be about doing biblical arithmetic. My view of Revelation isn't as sensational as others, because I figure those words from John needed to make sense to a persecuted church in the 90s first and foremost. You can't divorce a biblical book from its context. Yes, I definitely believe Christ's second coming is near, but in reality we've been in "the last days" since the birth of Christ. That's been over 2000 years, but to God time takes on a different importance.

There's always a crowd waiting to hear a sensational message. For me, though, I've adopted a "pan-millennial" mindset in that I can't explain all the details of the End but believe that everything will "pan out" in the final analysis. The most important thing is to be ready for the Lord's return rather than try to figure out when things will occur. So far, these predictions have been way off. In the meantime, there's still work for the church to do. Trusting God with the details seems to be best way to go.