I’m currently involved in a very profitable discussion (I think anyway) over at sbcwitness.com with Jedediah Coppenger. I’ve posted the length of our conversation, as it is currently, below. Keep checking for more updates on sbcwitness.com

If you’re reading this, then you probably read blogs regurlarly. And if you have been reading the blogs out there, you know that Southern Baptist life is experiencing some growing pains. If you aren’t familiar with what’s happening in SBC life, here is a short summary.

The first area of controversy is over spiritual gifts. What’s this mean? Well some believe that all of the gifts that the Holy Spirit gave to the 1st century believers are still being given to believers in the 21st century. The main gift being discussed is referred to as a private prayer language. They base their belief on Romans 8:26. Others believe that this gift is no longer being given to believers. And many in this second group believe that the idea of a “private prayer language” was not even present in the 1st century church. They would say that the former group is misinterpreting Romans 8:26 and other passages.

The controversy has intensified through events involving the trustees of the International Mission Board and a trustee of Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary. About a year ago, the trustees of the IMB moved to make it impossible for a believer who practices a “private prayer language” to go onto the mission field through the IMB. The problem came about when one of the IMB trustees, Wade Burleson, voiced his disagreement to this line of action on his blog, thereby betraying a confidentiality agreement he had made. Since then, he has apologized and continued to voice his disagreement through his blog. The other event took place when pastor Dwight McKissic, a trustee of SWBTS, spoke about his support for ”private prayer languages” in SWBTS’s chapel. His message was censored by SWBTS because they did not want to provide a message that was advocating something that they believe to be errant. They did not want people to think that they supported McKissic’s position.

Recently, the Criswell Theological Review, a publication of Criswell College, devoted a whole issue of their journal to this topic. Along with this, across the blogosphere, there has been much discussion over the issue and the actions taken surrounding the issue.

The second main area of controversy has to do with a view of salvation called Calvinism. Calvinism is a set of beliefs that looks at Scripture and concludes that God chose certain people to trust Jesus before the foundation of the world without looking at anyone’s actions, that man is unable to believe in Christ without God’s help because of his sin, that the death of Christ was intended only for those whom God chose to save by faith through Christ, that man cannot ultimately resist the work of the Spirit when the Spirit wants to regenerate him, and that those who truly believe have a salvation that is secured by God so that they are unable to turn from him ultimately. Those who hold these beliefs are called Calvinists. Their beliefs are not at odds with evangelism and missions. In fact, some of the most missions minded Southern Baptists have been Calvinists. Then there are those who reject some of these beliefs. Usually, Southern Baptists who reject these be!
liefs only reject to one, two, or three of them. Next, there are the Hyper-Calvinists. This is a group that rejects evangelistic and missionary efforts because they believe that they conflict with God’s work in the world. Finally, there is a group called Arminians. They reject all five of the points put forth by Calvinists. For them, the believer’s salvation is never secure and man does not need any help believing in Christ.

Most of the people caught in this controversy find themselves in one of the first two groups mentioned. And even though this is true, many times people from both groups will accuse the other group of holding to the non-biblical views of Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism. This, of course, makes neither party very happy.

Finally, there is the controversy surrounding the blogosphere. While it is not inherently wrong to keep a weblog, many ”bloggers” use their blogs for wrong. And so you’ll find many bloggers slandering their brothers in Christ on their blogs. Along with this, you’ll find ranting, bitterness, and anger on these blogs. One such example comes from Memphis, TN. At one of the most prominent churches in the SBC, Bellevue Baptist Church, which has 30,000 members, a deacon has used his blog and many other venues to voice his problems with the pastor of the church, Steve Gaines. So, like many other bloggers, he ignores Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 6:7, 8, and shames the church in the world’s eyes. Why? In disagreement with Paul, he’d rather make the church of Christ look like a bunch of lost people than suffer wrong.

And because of all of this, many are throwing their hands up and leaving the SBC. This has left many scared about the future of the SBC. Many are worried about what the future looks like like for the SBC. Are you? Are you thinking about leaving?

Let me just say that I am not. I’m not scared and I’m not leaving. And, no, I’m not saying this because I come from a family that is Southern Baptist. I’m not saying this because I think the SBC is perfect. I’m saying this because I believe that the Southern Baptist Convention is the best thing going. It is the most biblical thing going. The missions effort is not the best possible effort there could be, but it is the best thing around. The seminary effort is not the best possible soluation for theological education, but it is the best around. And while many will continue to scream and complain, I know that they will continue to go and study at Southern Baptist seminaries. I know that they will continue to send their children to Southern Baptist seminaries.

And I also think it is important to point out that most Southern Baptists, young and old, aren’t going anywhere. You don’t hear about these guys and girls. They just wake up each morning and go out and do their best to point people towards Christ. You won’t hear about their faithfulness on most blogs. You won’t read their every decision on the news. But one day, as we stand with our Christ on a new creation, it will be clear that no disagreement, no controversy, could stop God from bringing about his promises in Christ. And we’ll know who these brothers and sisters are. 

Am I saying we shouldn’t engage thoughtfully in these controversies? No, of course not. But I am saying that as do engage, we should do so remembering that our ruling king Jesus has his eye on every word we write on our blogs. He has his eye on every step we take. And at the end of the day, because of Christ everything will be alright. Put your alarm away. Put your bitterness away. And let’s seek to lift up the name of Jesus in our neighborhoods and our villages. The Southern Baptist Convention has seen something like this before. Unfortunately, I’m sure it’ll see it again. But somehow, out of God’s grace, the SBC continues to be a means by which God is saving the world. and that’s worth blogging about.       

By jcoppenger at 2006-10-23 23:00 | Southern Baptist Convention | jcoppenger’s blog | login or register to post comments | 203 reads

You pose an interesting

You pose an interesting question. I’m a lot like you in that I grew up SBC and have been educated through SBC channels, both on the undergraduate level and through the graduate (seminary) level. I have been employed by two SBC churches as both a staff member and a senior pastor and have also worked for the IMB. Beyond that my father is an SBC associational DoM and is now in process with our own NAMB. I’m thoroughly SBC. Yet, even I have given thought to the possibility of leaving SBC life.

I’ve chosen not to leave, however. I haven’t done so because of doctrinal purity - although I view the vast majority of SBC beliefs as synonomous with my own. I’ve chosen to stay because of our cooperative missions effort. Our historic roots, as a conglomoration of independent, autonomous congregations who partner together for the purpose of advancing missions causes is what I believe the SBC does best.

Now, I will have to admit that I have strongly considered changing the streams through which our church finances SBC causes. We seem to be overlapping many of our causes, and to be honest, I see little to no benefit of a state convention at this point.

All of that is to say that while I’m not 100% in love with every corner of SBC life, I’m not going anywhere for now. As long as the cause of Christ and the Kingdom of God is aided by our SBC partnerships I see value in them. If those growth aids are ever hampered, or even dissapear, than I will reconsider. Until then, however, I’m ready to link arms with others and make progress together.

By micahfries at Tue, 2006-10-24 10:28 | login or register to post comments

I think many folks have

I think many folks have considered leaving the SBC, some for an emergent type of church and others think more along the lines of the Independent Baptist churches. But in the end, the cooperative program is the best thing going. What a gracious gift it is for us to have something like this at our disposal already in place. I can’t imaging putting the whole system together!

And I agree that the SBC isn’t perfect (along with every other denomination or “non-denomination”). But what a joy it is and will continue to be to help push the church and the SBC towards greater faithfulness! Is the tension ever going to completely disappear? Yes. Will it be before Christ returns? I doubt it. But I do think that this tension is helpful in many ways.    

And you’re right, if the SBC falls apart, there’s other ways to advance the kingdom of Christ. I think I heard Adrian Rogers once say, “The Southern Baptist Convention doesn’t have to exist. Bellevue Baptist Church doesn’t have to exist. But one thing we cannot do is compromise the word of God.” If we continue to pursue this in every area of our lives, I think we’ll be alright.

Thanks for your feedback and your ministry. 

By jcoppenger at Tue, 2006-10-24 22:22 | login or register to post comments

There was a time when

There was a time when Southern Baptist egotism caused us to believe that we were inherently superior to other groups.  It has been a healthy thing for us to meet others on their own ground and to embrace the fact that God’s work is larger than our work.  The problem is that something has been lost along the way.  The loss is in the understanding that in our cooperation God has created something that has and does bring Him glory.

As I read the thinking of many “younger” Southern Baptist leaders there seems to be an apologetic tone.  There is the implication that somebody out there “gets it” better than we do.  It is probable that some of these folks will drift away into more Calvinistic groups, emergent groups and more charasmatic groups, depending on their area of disagreement with where we are as a Convention. 

We will see some fracture over the next decade.  I look for the cooperative Calvinists (Mohler, Nettles, etc.) to be continually challenged by their inflexible fringe and for splintering to occur.  Unless the Calvinistic leadership is careful, Southern Seminary will be the epicenter of the fracture and it will be painful to us as a Convention. 

The question of the gifts of the Spirit will have to be dealt with on a national level.  IMHO, the trustees of the IMB represent a good cross-section of leadership out in the trenches of the SBC.  Only a small percentage of Southern Baptists are comfortable with sign gifts, expressed publically or privately.  The issue will be pushed, however, and we will be forced to deal with it by way of the BF&M.

The next decade will be signficant.  The generation that brought about the resurgence is fading off the scene.  It should see the retirement of Paige Patterson, Jerry Rankin and Morris Chapman.  The SBC is not doomed during this decade and it probably will not diminish substantially in size.  One of the problems is a change in attitude that seems to be generational in character.  The genius of the Cooperative Program was that we truly believed that together we could accomplish more for the glory of Christ than we could as individual parts.  We believed that we could accomplish these things, even if we did not agree in every particular.  I’m not sure that the new generations of Southern Baptist leadership buy into that philosophy. 

Here’s an example.  I don’t see the private prayer language as a clear biblical gift.  I favor the new policy put into place by the Trustees of the IMB.  That said, the IMB is led by someone who claims this gift.  Though I don’t agree, it did not keep me from serving under Jerry for 11 of my 14 years as an IMB missionary nor has it kept me from strong support of CP and Lottie since my return from the field.  My point?  I didn’t agree but it didn’t impact my support.  I find it confusing that many of those who advocate the old policy do so with the implied threat that if they don’t get their way they will hit the highway. 

By Donaldo at Wed, 2006-10-25 12:50 | login or register to post comments

I think you’ve just about

I think you’ve just about hit the nail on the head. I do think that we will have to take a new look at the BF&M. I do think that the place that many will either stay or go will be about cooperation. I think that the relationship between the “older” Calvinists and “older” non-Calvinists is hard to find amongst younger Southern Baptists. So, for instance, Dr. Mohler is a Calvinist and Jerry Vines is an ardent non-Calvinist. But you would still find Dr. Mohler speaking at Jerry Vines preaching conference every year. Also, Dr. Coppenger is a Calvinist and Adrian Rogers spoke consistently against Calvinism. But, Dr. Rogers still spoke at Dr. Coppenger’s inauguration at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. There was disagreement, but the disagreement amongst these men did not trump their ability and willingness to support one another and cooperate with one another in the missions effort. Ufortunately, I don’t see this type of willingness to cooperate in ma!
ny places. I have to say that I do see it in more places than people think. But you won’t hear about this effort as much.

And that is the question that faces us. Are the disagreements that we have amongst ourselves greater than our willingness to cooperate for the cause of missions and theological education? I think not. Unfortunately, I see some who do. This is how it’s always been and how it will always be, until Christ comes. But with you, Donlado, I think that God still has great plans for using Southern Baptists to reach the nations with the name of Christ.

Since I’m about to see a family member go overseas for good, I want you to know how thankful I am for your willingness to do it for so many years. Thanks for your comments. 

By jcoppenger at Wed, 2006-10-25 14:05 | login or register to post comments

I agree with what has been

I agree with what has been said by both of you. I might add, however, that although many will disagree with much of what some of the “younger leaders” have said, I don’t find that they are generally ready to leave the SBC. Rather, I see in them more of a desire to work with those who may disagree with them - on non-essentials. What I think may be happening, at other levels, is a tightening over certain aspects of theology within the convention. I’m a little concerned that in our attempt to institute greater levels of “doctrinal purity,” we are treating non-essential issues as if they are essential ones. In essence, we are making mountains out of theological mole-hills. I think we need to be cautious not to divide over issues that aren’t clear, scripturally.

For instance, I consider myself to be reformed. I also am a continualist, although I don’t personally practice any of the sign gifts. Beyond that I am an amillenialist as well. All of those are important to me as they constitute my theological dna. However, I am more than happy, nay even excited,to partner with other believers who disagree with me on those points. I think we need to be careful that we don’t define ourselves so closely that we lose our greatest distinctive as Southern Baptists, and that is (in my opinion) our local , independent, autonomous congregations who are partnered together for the sake of missions causes.

Now, please hear me out, under no circumstances am I advocating a return to theological liberalism. I am convinced that there must be a commitment to the absolute belief in the innerancy of scripture within our convention, however I think their should be a good amount of leeway allowed for innerantists to adhere to orthodox theological positions. One can claim, for instance, to be a Calvinist - which is fine. It would be ridiculous, however, to claim theological exclusivity for that soteriological position. I think we see some of that type of theological exclusivity within our convention today.

By micahfries at Wed, 2006-10-25 18:09 | login or register to post comments

Like you, I don’t see those

Like you, I don’t see those (I’m referring to younger folks) who disagree with the direction of the convention leaving. But I do see many (not all) of these people threatening to leave the convention and complaining about the convention. And the reason that they are threatening to leave the convention and complaining is precisely because of their desire, as you said, to focus on the “essentials”. This of course, begs the questions, what is essential and what is non-essential? The answer to this question seems to be the what divides many folks. We all know that there isn’t anybody out there trumpeting the causes for non-essentials. Everybody thinks that they are fighting for essential beliefs and practices. They just disagree over what this looks like.  

Likewise, I don’t think we’ll hear of anybody out there arguing to remove the Baptist distinctive that you mentioned. Everybody thinks that they are upholding this. Nor do I think that drawing doctrinal lines in the sand for our SBC institutions and all the rest will in any way threaten this Baptist distinctive. The BF&M isn’t at odds with the autonomy of the local church. Nor would any addition be, in my opinion. Whether or not we should add anything, that’s well worth the discussion. But I don’t think that either side is threatening the autonomy of the local church.  

And I also think it is important to point out that there is a difference between essentials and non-essentials for being a church affilitated with the SBC and a missionary or denominational exec. supported by the SBC. Again, where lines should be drawn is up for discussion. But the fact that lines need to be drawn is not.

Thanks for your comments Micah.    

By jcoppenger at Wed, 2006-10-25 19:30 | login or register to post comments