Baptists and Lent

Baptist churches aren't known for following the Christian calendar. Perhaps this is due to a fear of being considered too ecumenical or Catholic. At least this is what I'm hearing from our Wednesday night Bible study group. On Ash Wednesday, we started a series on the Lenton season using material provided through The Baptist World Alliance. It's called "Eyeing Easter" and provides several weeks on themes leading up to Resurrection Sunday. This is a first for me and I got the feeling it was for our group as well. In fact, when I asked them about Lent, most had heard of it but none had ever experienced it in a Baptist church.

It seems like it's becoming more acceptable for Baptist churches to observe the Advent Season--the Sundays after Thanksgiving leading up to Christmas. Changing Christmas from a "day" to a "season" heightens the expection of celebrating the birth of Jesus. Having an observance of Lent should do the same thing, and my hope is that Wednesdays will offer a time for dialogue and spiritual renewal. We've added a cross (a large wooden one) that will be positioned on the platform in the sanctuary that will have a purple cloth draped across the horizontal beam. On Maundy Thursday the cloth will be changed to black, in conjuntion to a worship service we're having for the first time on that day. Of course, the cloth will go to white on Easter Sunday. The colors have their symbolism and should add to the meaning of the worship experience.

The Lenton season is a 40 day period leading up to Easter that emerged during the Early Church (4th century). New believers used this time for renewal and preparation prior to their baptism on Easter Sunday. The significance of these weeks expanded to include other members of the church as they were encouraged to reflect upon their humanity, sinfulness, and need for repentance and cleansing. Sometimes Christians "give something up for Lent" to help them focus on the truly important things in life. One criticism I've often heard relates to Mardi Gras (Fat Tuesday). After doing just about anything and everything behavior wise leading up to this day, revellers file into churches to have ashes placed on their foreheads as a reminder "from ashes you came, and from ashes you shall return." The implication is that many people aren't sincere about repentance and want to get in as much sin as possible before Ash Wednesday. I heard this a lot when I lived in New Orleans, and questioned the sincerity of those folks filing into St. Louis Cathedral after they'd be out the night before on Bourbon Street (I couldn't prove that, but the timing of it seemed suspicious to me).

Regardless, there is great value in expanding the celebration of Easter from only one day to a season. Just because some folks don't seem to "get it" doesn't mean everyone feels that way. Besides, we ought not be judging others anyway. We all have sinned and need forgiveness. Maybe that's what the Lenton season is about. It makes sense to start focusing on the cross now so that by Easter we have gleaned as much spiritual meaning as possible. Baptists would benefit from thoughtful and meaningful reflection on our sinful condition. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking doesn't seem to be a strength for us. We would do well to embrace the ecumenical spirit inherit in the Lenton season. We all are sinners. We all need to be reconciled to God. We all need renewal. By observing Lent, Christians could be more in tune to the power of the Resurrection and more grateful for the forgiveness and mercy Christ provides.

I'm excited about taking the Lenton journey with those in our Bible Study, and look forward to incorporating different aspects of it into our worship services on Sundays. I wonder how many other Baptist churches are acknowledging this season and ideas for its observance. I'd appreciate any feedback visitors to this blog might have (unless, of course, you've given up blogging for Lent).

The Church's Search for Relevance

I've always been associated with the church. For as long as I can remember, the church has had an important part of my life and now as a father it remains a central component for our spiritual health. Having attended seminary for eight years, I was exposed to Greek and Hebrew, theology, ethics, and Christian education techniques and trends. I graduated (for the last time) in December 1996, so it's only been ten years since my formal training. I say all to this to make the point that at times I feel the disconnection between how I was educated and the world in which I serve as a minister. I've become more and more convinced that the methods that worked well 20 years ago don't communicate effectively, or as effectively as they once did. And I struggle to find an answer for it. Apparently, I'm not alone in this thinking.

Leonard Sweet echoed this sentiment in a lecture given to about 150 students at the George W. Truett Seminary in Waco, TX. He talked about postmodernism--the worldview that questions modern assumptions about certainty and progress. Sweet believes the church in the West "can no longer expect to have that home-court advantage." He added that Christians have to face this reality, and can either "deal with it, get over it, or get help." What this means to me is that simply depending on persons to be attracted by and to our church buildings no longer works in the 21st Century. The church has too long been associated with a building and not so much by the people as the body of Christ. Sometimes our language contributes to this dynamic. I'll talk about "going to church" like most other folks, but need to communicate more often that we ARE the church for more than an hour or two on Sundays.

Some of the changes in our society are troubling, and the truth is that many Christians have adopted the hymn "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" as their theme song. They interpret the lyrics to mean they should hunker down under their pews while the rest of the world goes through dramatic cultural and theological shifts. Most Americans believe in God, yet many do not attend church or believe that Jesus is the Son of God. As troubling as this might seem, it is also a wonderful opportunity for churches to become engaged in their community and world. There are more methods and means available for spreading the gospel than any other time in history. We have to determine our attitude. As Sweet said, we can either deal with it or get over it. It doesn't do any good to complain about why so many people aren't attending church these days. There are far too many options available on Sunday mornings, as folks are choosing the country club or IHOPs for their spiritual nourishment. Church isn't even on the radar for many people as they wake up on Sundays.

This is remarkably similar to 1st Century Christianity. Sweet commented, "I think God is defragging and rebooting the church. I think what he is doing is getting us back to the original operating system of Christianity." He maintains that the old model of church is "killing the West" and the out-dated model is "attractional, propositional, and colonial." What this says to me is that the old mindset that thinks people know where the church building is and can come is no longer effective. A cold orthodoxy doesn't appeal to the masses, and I'm not talking about watering down the gospel or tenets of biblical Christianity. The "if you build it, they will come" approach doesn't connect and most of the general public aren't impressed with our beautiful buildings. It also means that the church isn't the center of the community anymore, with rare exceptions being in the rural areas when there hasn't been any change nor will their be in the quality of life.

Sweet's call for a "missional, relational, and incarnational" church resonates with me. As a pastor, I am constantly thinking of our people and those in the community who aren't part of a fellowship of believers. Our mindset should be one of missionaries rather than merely members who are part of a club, as Reggie McNeal would say. We shouldn't think of the mission field as something overseas, out of sight, and only considered when missions offerings are received. Each church is a headquarters for the Lord's mission and work in expanding the Kingdom of God. It's not always about buildings, budgets, and baptisms. It's about how the church is connecting with those in the community and in our families. These are things that can't be measured quantitatively all the time, a difficult reality for pastors and members who base their success on how many people fill the pews.

It's difficult dealing with this postmodern idea when you've been raised in the church your whole life. Sometimes it takes someone on the outside looking in to inform us how we can more effectively communicate the gospel. Many people are interested in spirituality these days, but don't consider the local church as a resource for fostering their growth in that area. This is a shame and an indictment on the local church. It should cause us to reconsider our methods and "churchspeak" in telling people about Jesus. I am attempting to "reboot" my own theological system and assumptions in reaching a younger generation who doesn't have the built-in allegiance to the church. While some discussions focus around kinds of worship, more recent conversations deal with an "ancient-future" dynamic that tries to merge the worship style of early church with the 21st century realities. The Emergent Church might be going in this direction, and I'll be interested to see how that dialogue goes.

An important option in addressing these changes relates to new church starts. Congregations that were birthed during WWI or even WWII have been built by members who understand commitment, sacrifice, and loyalty to the institutional church. Many of these precious folks are still around and end up doing much of the serving, teaching, and giving. You can look back at the records of churches during the 1950s or 60s and see that this was the golden age of attendance and influence. Our senior adults today were the young to middle age group who were faithful to be at the church "every time the door was opened." Churches built on this mentality may have difficulty relating to baby busters and millennials who don't have that same kind of devotion to church. The younger generation has a different worldview and experience, so new churches find it easier to relate without the expectations of an older church. New churches don't have to do something "because we've always done it that way."

I don't have the answers to the postmodern situation, but am considering the possibility that the best approach might be to enter into patient talks about spirituality, faith, and purpose. A new generation of people are eager for dialogue and aren't necessarily looking for specific answers but rather for the process of working through their own spirituality. This is a critical moment for the church to meet them where they are rather than insist that they walk through the building doors before having a conversation with them. Pontius Pilate's question "What is truth?" uttered 2000 years ago is still being repeated in a variety of ways and settings. We know that Jesus is "the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Heb 13:8) and the Good News still rings true. Let us continue making the effort, dealing with the struggles, and celebrating the joys that come with being a Christian in 2007.

Finally, Baptists Who Get It

Baptist leaders from all over North America met at the Carter Center and announced plans for a "Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant" at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta. The event will be held January 30-February 1, 2008. Former presidents Carter and Clinton were among 80 plus attendees who are promoting this significant meeting. Baptists of all pedigrees participated in the groundbreaking meeting yesterday. "This has been been what may turn out to be one of the most historic events, at least in the history of Baptists in this country, and perhaps Christianity," Carter said.

There is hope that the World Congress Center will house 20,000 Baptists for the meeting. The tentative themes for the four plenary sessions are "Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant," "Unity in Bringing Good News to the Poor," "Unity in Respecting Religious Diversity," and "Unity in Welcoming the Stranger and Healing the Broken-Hearted." There will also be breakout sessions dealing with issues of racism, religious liberty, poverty, AIDS, faith in public policy, evangelism, and prophetic preaching. Mercer University President William Underwood anticipates a great meeting, "I believe the convocation in January 2008 will be an important step in mobilizing 20 million Baptists to find a unified voice in addressing these critical issues. There is power in unity."

Upon receiving the news release about the Convocation, I became very excited about the possibilities of bringing traditional Baptists together to focus on issues that are of mutual concern. It encourages me that these voices will be heard loud and clear early in '08. It seems like whenever there is a need for a Baptist to comment on CNN, a Southern Baptist representative is chosen. This suggests to many viewers that the SBC speaks for all Baptists and this simply is not the case. This has been the voice heard most loudly when relating to public policy, social issues, and politics. It's time to offer an alternative and focus on the common ground Baptists have in relating to our world.

Oftentimes the general public thinks of Baptists in terms of "what we're against." Carter says the 2008 Convocation is an attempt to create a new Baptist voice to counter what he says is a negative and judgmental image of Baptists in North America. "The most common opinion about Baptists is we cannot get along. . . I have been grieved by the divisions of my own convention." Of course, he was referring to the SBC. There has been enough documentation and focus on Baptist wars to validate this perception. It is one that needs to be changed. The leaders of 40 Baptist organizations must feel the same way and are doing something about it.

There's an old saying that "where there are three Baptists, there are four opinions." It's no secret that Baptists can be an argumentative bunch and have strong opinions. Our historic belief in dissent and soul competency fuel the our differences when it comes to politics, faith, and government. I don't have any particular expectations of the 2008 meeting except that it will be refreshing to see so many different kinds of Baptists coming together under one roof for the common appeal of unity. It doesn't mean that everyone will believe exactly the same way or be asked to sign a statement of doctrinal accountability. I do hope that the areas of agreement will be highlighted and areas of disagreement noted and respected. It sounds like this is the goal Carter has set for the gathering.

The Carter Center gathering yesterday and resultant Celebration scheduled for 2008 may well be the beginning of a new Baptist voice. This is a time when one is desparately needed. A voice that calls for inclusiveness around the creed "Jesus Christ is Lord" and Baptist distinctives is a welcome one. It is possible to have a high view of Scripture yet disagree on interpretation. Agreement on every theological issue shouldn't be a test of fellowship. Unity doesn't necessarily require uniformity. So, bringing Baptist groups together should yield a healthy dialogue on the issues that matter.

It's noteworthy that no SBC representatives were invited to attend the Atlanta meeting. Keep in mind that this is the largest Baptist body in the world. Apparently, Carter and company didn't think they'd participate (maybe their withdrawal from the Baptist World Alliance had something to do with that). Plus, the agenda of next year's meeting appears to deal with a more holistic view of humanity's problems and how Baptists can make a positive difference in the world. Southern Baptists have narrowed their list of social evils to abortion and homosexuality. They are also making sure that the members of their boards, agencies, and committees abstain from alcoholic beverages (I'm waiting to hear something about tobacco or obesity). While the first two issues are worthy of discussion, there are other areas that the Bible speaks more about that deserve attention. To that end, it sounds like this '08 Celebration will deal with broader themes that relate more to Jesus' life and ministry.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the value of bringing different Baptist groups together. Just from the press release, it sounds like a Matthew 25:31-46 kind of emphasis. I don't know what will come of it, but I do hope to be in the building to find out.

The Koran Controversy

Keith Ellison wants to put his hand on the Koran and be sworn in as a newly elected Congressman from Minnesota. Ellison was born in Detroit and converted to Islam in college and wants to exercise his freedom of religion in beginning his work as a public official. To my knowledge, this kind of request has never been made and really is source of discussion for folks who are fearful of this precedent. Persons elected to public office have used the Bible in taking their oath of office for many years.

A Republican congressman from Virginia has been quite vocal in his concerns. Republican congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia sent a letter to his constituents indicating that Ellison's use of the Koran poses a danger to social and religious fabric of America. He wrote, "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policiess that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped." Apparently, Goode believes that Ellison's swearing in with the Koran and the problem of illegal immigration are related. I don't understand all his arguments for this position, especially since Ellison meets the criteria for qualifying to serve in the position to which he has been elected. I don't think that is illegal. Goode must be reacting to a deeper seeded issue and that is the belief that America is a Christian nation and using the Koran violates that premise.

Interestingly, elected officials don't have to use the Bible at all when they are being sworn in. Article VI of the Constitution indicates that elected officials are bound by oath or affirmation to uphold the constitution, "but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust in the United States." We have seen the Bible used in these solemn occasions so often that many assume that it is a necessary part of public office. It is not. Only allegiance to the Constitution is warrented.

To be honest, seeing someone being sworn in with the Koran is quite a reality check. It is somewhat unnerving, especially with all the problems and emotions tied up with Muslim extremists and terrorism. Many people have a direct correlation with Islam and planes flying into those twin towers on 9/11. The extremist faction of Islam deserves this kind of scrutiny, and unfortunately those who are carrying out their religion peaceably get stereotyped by the violence seen on TV. So, whenever we hear about someone being a Muslim there is a heightened sense of awareness. Now there is someone who will be in a position of power and leadership who openly embraces a key symbol of Islam during a swearing in ceremony. It will be interesting to see whether Ellison's religious views take more notice that his political ones. Time will tell.

Dr. Walter Shurden, Executive Director of the Center for Baptist Studies at Mercer University expresses an important truth in regard to Ellison's choice. "I believe that we Christians have a hard time understanding that the United States of America is NOT a Christian nation but a constitutional republic that allows religious freedom for all its citizens" (The Baptist Studies Bulletin, December 2006). His view is that Baptists have been on the forefront of the fight for religious liberty in this country and should defend Ellison's right to express his religion any way he chooses.

There is a sense that because Baptists have become bigger and more influential that we have forgotten what it is like to be in the minority. We must continue the fight for religious expression in our country, especially as the issue comes into focus with this swearing in ceremony. The vast majority of politicians have placed their hand on the Bible before taking office, yet this did not prevent some of them from becoming politically, financially, and even morally corrupt while they represented the ones who put them in office. Apparently, it was easier for them to put a hand on the Bible than live out what it says about treating others and offering justice to those in need.

Let Ellison use the Koran. He was duly elected by his constituents. Let this also be a wakeup call to take our beliefs and values as seriously as he is doing now. We are a diverse nation and need to celebrate our differences of opinion, especially as it relates to religious. Remember, it's not about religious toleration. It's about religious liberty.

Six Months Too Late

There's another clergy sexual abuse scandal developing. No, it doesn't have to do with the Roman Catholic Church this time. We've heard about their trials and tribulations in this matter. They have had to endure a lot of scrutiny from angry church members and the public in general. Stories of priests molesting altar boys have become all to common. But, this isn't the case this time. Baptists have taken some consolation that the Catholics appeared to the ones with this kind of moral failure. Perceptions are deceiving, as the Catholics don't have a corner on this darkside of church life. Clergy sexual abuse is terrible reallity and often a dark secret in the church. Victims do not go public with their experiences until years after it happens. Sadly, the victims are the ones who are overlooked while prayers are being offered for the ministers who commit these terrible acts.

If Bellevue Baptist Church didn't have enough to deal with already, now they have learned that long-time staff member Paul Williams molested a member of his family 17 years ago. The church is learning about this six months later than their pastor, Dr. Steve Gaines. Williams confessed to Gaines back in June and Gaines chose to keep the matter quiet. Williams' assurances that he had received counseling and hadn't had a recurring problem seemed to convince the pastor"I made the decision to honor the confidentiality I had with Paul" says Gaines. Gaines is receiving criticism for not taking additional precautions during the six months he knew about it. His inaction has gained a perception that he protected a pedophile on his staff. This rebuke comes from Christa Adams, advocate of victims of clergy sexual abuse: "Whatever the reasons for why Gaines chose to protect Williams instead of protecting kids, they aren't good enough." "She angrily concluded, "Clergy child molesters persist precisely because ministers like Steve Gaines turn a blind eye" (see Bellevue Investigates at ethicsdaily.com).

It's true this incident happened almost two decades ago. I can appreciate Gaines' desire to not want to escalate a situation when there has been that much time elapsed. There are many variables that come into play, not the least of which concerns how the church would be impacted by revealing a moral failure of a church staff member. The rumors could go rampant, and other staffers could fall suspect. There might be questions about what other kinds of actions have been covered up by the staff. No doubt it is an awful situation for a pastor to be in. This is why the church has deacons and other leaders. They are to help give counsel to the pastor in making difficult decisions.

I'm curious why Williams confessed to Gaines rather than Adrian Rogers. After all, Gaines has only been there a year. Williams had all that time to get this guilt off his chest but chose this time to do so. It may have been that Williams feared Rogers or didn't feel comfortable making this revelation to the larger than life pastor. It really doesn't matter. What matters is that the church placed Williams on administrative leave until an investigation can be completed. This act comes six months too late, and it isn't anyone's fault except the pastor's. For the personnel committee to move in this direction suggests a lack of discretion on Gaines' part. He should have gone to the committee right away for guidance. They had a right to know about a moral failure, no matter when it happened at the church.

There are times that the pastor needs to keep certain information confidential. There's no need to alarm the church on some matters, and church members need to feel secure about talking to the pastor. There are exceptions to confidentiality in counseling, and one of them has to do with the safety and security of children. This situation at BBC isn't about a church member, but a staff person. Yes, this is a local church matter but BBC is no ordinary local church. It has a national influence and is almost like "The White House" in the Southern Baptist Convention. Gaines and BBC have a responsibility to lead the way in showing their seriousness when it comes to protecting the children. Other churches look to them and even look up to them. It's important to keep the ethical bar high for ministerial staff, especially as it concerns protecting children and young people.

There is a lesson to be learned, and that is that pastors should have a small group of spiritual advisors in the church to go to for guidance with matters like this. Gaines doesn't have the tenure to make a unilateral decision concerning a weighty issue like this one without being criticized for it. His predecessor might have earned the trust of the people enough to pull it off. However, I doubt if Rogers would have kept Williams around once he got wind of this kind of moral failure. Yes, this is a local church matter for Bellevue but it has ramifications on the SBC and the church in general. Let's hope they get it right.

One Gift the SBC Doesn't Want

It has all the makings of another denomational battle. This time it isn't about the inerrancy of Scripture, women in ministry, homosexuality, or any other tried and true Baptist battlegrounds. It's not even about Calvinism, although I see this one coming too. This go around it will be about the issue of speaking in tongues, or at least the matter of "private prayer language."

About 150 pastors from around the country gathered at Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, TX to discuss the subject. Host pastor, Dwight McKissic, heightened debate after a chapel sermon delivered at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. McKissic, a prominent African-American pastor who serves as a trustee for SWBTS, garnered much attention after stating that the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message is silent on the issue of tongues and missionary candidates should not be rejected because they may have a private prayer language.

McKissic insisted that the meeting was not the beginning of another denomination or denomination-like organization. He and Oklahoma pastor Wade Burleson are taking this debate to the SBC and are preparing resolutions to be presented at the next national meeting. They are also asking for a study group to be given the assignment of determining how Southern Baptists feel about the issue of speaking in tongues. Regardless of what the SBC does, McKissic and company are planning for a "Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit" in April 2007. Still, there is a sense that some pastors may be growing impatient with the Convention's attitude toward this issue. Rev. Allan Cross, pastor of Gateway Baptist Church in Montgomery, AL said that if the convention continues to ignore concerns, then his church "won't continue to participate."

This is becoming a big deal. Thank the IMB for mishandling the entire issue by trying to control what current president Jerry Rankin already admitted to practicing. This put the IMB trustee board in the interesting position of condemning a practice that their president believes in. I don't think McKissic's supporters would be making such a fuss over this matter if the IMB had not attempted to prohibit a private prayer language. These 150 pastors and participants can't be accused of "not believing the Bible" or not complying with the BFM. Again, the BFM is silent on the matter. This, of course, does not keep the SBC from pontificating on the subject (even if the Bible is silent on an issue too, for that matter).

What this means is that there will be an increased attendance at the SBC is San Antonio in 2007. Burleson and the bloggers will be in full force with laptops humming leading up to the event. While only an observer from a distance, I can see a few scenarios unfolding deep in the heart of Texas.

First, there could be an amendment to the BFM that prohibits speaking in tongues or any kind of private prayer language remotely connected to the practice. There is already some discussion of this possibility, and would be an immediate and final resolution on McKissic's opinions. The irony of this option is that those who favor tongue-speaking or at least are open to the idea have biblical grounds for their position, whereas other Southern Baptists would go more with traditional grounds in that they don't want to be "charismatic" or be seen as Pentecostal. A consequence of this decision would be putting "bapti-costal" SBC churches on the outside of the BFM. There would be no representation from the churches on the boards, agencies, or committees of the convention and their members would not be considered as missionaries.

Second, the resolution on tongues will be rejected outright with some discussion from the floor of the convention but the vote will be closer than expected. It is difficult to say what those pastors and churches who affirm a strict interpretation of the BFM would do, especially if their influence in the SBC is limited It really is amazing that this scenario would, from a practical standpoint, allow McKissic to argue against the Convention using its own statement of faith.

Third, the convention will table the matter and form a study committee to look at the situation. They could take a year to sort it out. A compromise could be reached which would allow "private" prayer language while rejecting public tongue-speaking. This could be a denominational version of "don't ask, don't tell." A dialogue would be a sensible option and but would require talking to one another and admitting that there is room for interpretation. For this reason it would be rejected by the denominational leadership.

Fourth, there may very well be the beginnings of another Baptist organization in reaction to the SBC's liberal interpretation of the BFM (silent on tongues, remember?). Even though many in Arlington dispute this possibility, they might look at it more seriously depending on how the convention treats them. You've also got those folks at the Joshua Convergence to consider. History has a way of sorting things out. I doubt if moderate Southern Baptists in 1991 knew what they were doing when 3,000 of them met in Atlanta after another defeat at the SBC. It turned out to be the formation of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

I can relate to the nervousness denomational leaders are feeling about this tongue-speaking issue. I'm sure they wish the whole thing would go away before the convention next year. This isn't going to happen, because there are new kids on the denominational block who will be heard. And they are quoting their copies of the 2000 BFM. Add to this SBC 2nd Vice President Wiley Drake's sympathy with the cause and things are going to get interesting. The Convention would like this California small-church pastor to be nice and quiet but he's going to use his 15 minutes of fame for all its worth.

It's the Advent season, and Christmas is only a few weeks away. There will be a lot of gifts to be opened, but one that is only now starting to get wrapped. It's the "gift of tongues, Baptist style" with compliments from McKissic, Burleson, and SBC bloggers. We'll see whether it stays under their theological tree or gets delivered to San Antonio this summer.

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.