NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

Orlando Magic name Billy Donovan as their new head coach. Pray for me as I deal with this loss in my life. It is truly a sad day.

I will be arriving in San Antonio on Sunday evening at around 5:30pm via Midwest Airlines and staying at the Rivercenter Marriott, which is one of the convention hotels. I’ll be rooming with our Youth Pastor, Nick Drake. I’ve been contacted by a few of you who want to try to get together while we are there. I’m looking forward to that very much and so I’m mentioning this so that you can know where I’m at. If you are interested in getting together for a drink (non-alcoholic, of course) or a meal catch me while I’m there (at 6′6″ I’m hard to miss), or contact me using my contact form.

Incidentally, this post marks a significant milestone in the life of this blog. After writing for almost 3 years now this post is my 800th post!

David Kreuger is a Missouri pastor at First Baptist Church of Linn. David previously authored an article speaking about the same subject of reconsidering the state convention that I was dealing with last week. David forwarded his article to me and granted permission to reproduce the article for your consideration. I have copied it below verbatim. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts.

Is a new paradigm shift needed in Baptist life?

Establishing new models or patterns of ministry are never easy. In Baptist life, things do not change quickly. Whether it be the local church, an association or the state or national conventions, Southern Baptists are not known for their swiftness in expediting change. Change does of course take place, but our basic credo seems to be, If it aint broke, dont fix it. The problem is that if it is broke, it takes several committees and a business meeting or two to rectify the problem. Im not being critical. Im merely pointing out what most of us are aware of already. The reason that change takes time in Baptist life is not because we are slothful and unconcerned, but because of our polity. It is congregational which means involving as many members as possible in the decision-making process. It can be time-consuming and sometimes frustrating for A-type personalities but its the Baptist way, and I am glad for it.

So, when I say its time for a paradigm shift in Baptist life, I am under no illusions that the shift I am advocating will not take place in my lifetime. It is simply to huge a shift.

I contend that it is time that Southern Baptists to do away with an entire level of denominational bureaucracy. I submit that the level we ought to jettison is the state convention. At least as a ministering, functioning, operating entity.

I know this will not endear me to my friends I have working at the Baptist Building in my state. They are hard-working men and women who feel called of God to do what they do. They serve faithfully and loyally and I commend them.
In the age of the Internet, electronic messaging, and other high-speed communications, however, its a level of denominational life we may well be able to do without.

The paradigm shift I contend for is the super or mega association. The idea is not new. In fact its a return to the way our Baptist forefathers in America initially organized. For example, in 1791, North Carolina Baptists were organized primarily into three large associations the Kehukee, Sandy Creek, and Yadkin. Our state convention is currently divided into eight areas from which trustee representation is drawn for the Executive Board, agencies and institutions. These eight areas could each serve as a mega-association.

In his book A Baptist Association: Churches on Mission Together, J.C. Bradley provides a basic definition of an association. It is, To enable churches to be in fellowship and to be on mission individually and together. Everything being done on a state level could be done on the associational level, and in many cases could probably be done more effectively. Let me share some of my reasons for such a paradigm shift.

The state convention cannot be all things to all churches. State conventions, like churches, must prioritize ministries. There is simply not enough personnel, nor is there the financial resources to adequately meet the variety of needs represented by thousands of local churches. No one is better equipped to minister to the needs of its member congregations than the local association. The needs of congregations in or near metropolitan areas are often far different than those of congregations in predominately rural counties.
Mega-associations would be able to specifically target the needs of member churches better than the state convention can.

Eliminating an entire level of denominational bureaucracy would free vast sums of money to be used by the mega-association for evangelism, missions, and ministry.

Mega-associations would be able to call multiple, full-time staffers to administer programs that could be specifically tailored for each association.
Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach that a state convention must frequently take, mega-association staff could target specific ministries such as migrant workers or ethnic ministries — that might exist in their association, but might not have a similar priority in another association.

Associational camps could become regional conference centers. Camps, often run on a shoestring budget could be greatly improved and enhanced by the pooled resources of the mega-association.

Baptist Colleges and Baptist Student Ministries could potentially see increased support. Mega-associations where such institutions exist may well decide to make such institutions a major ministry emphasis. Other mega-associations would undoubtedly still contribute.

As long as the mega-association missions center was centrally located, pastors and churches would have access to personnel and resources comparable to what is currently found only at the state offices or in metro-associations.

In his book A Baptist Association: Churches on Mission Together, J.C. Bradley lists ten tasks that the association should accomplish. They are:

1. Nurture harmony in faith and practice.

2. Nurture fellowship among church, church leaders, and members.

3. Call the churches to be on mission.

4. Provide resources and services to churches and leaders.

5. Train, develop, and encourage church and associational workers.

6. Provide opportunities for working together in missions, ministry, growth,
and evangelism.

7. Establish and maintain appropriate communication and relationships with the
community and the denomination.

8. Govern the association under the lordship of Christ.

9. Plan the associations program and manage its resources

10. Provide information about the churches to the denomination.

I see every one of these tasks being accomplished ten-fold, with such a paradigm shift.

From page 158 of Judge Paul Pressler’s book, A Hill on which to Die.

“The liberals had said that after the conservatives finished with those who held different views of the nature of the Bible, they would begin attacking the charismatics (neo-Pentecostals). They also alleged conservatives would later attack various other groups until they ‘purify’ every aspect of convention life.

“They said conservatives wanted to make everybody think just as they do. Such a charge is ludicrous, but it did worry some people such as my friend Wally Henley [pastor of Encourager Church in Houston and former president of the Alabama Baptist Convention], who had charismatic leanings.

“I assured him the issue was not the charismatic movement. Although I am not a charismatic, I have referred people with charismatic convictions to his church, which leans charismatic.

“I assured him that Paige, our friends, and I would not turn on charismatics after the battle over biblical authority was won. He trusted us, and he and others have now seen that this issue will not be a test of fellowship.

“Charismatic worship and understanding of spiritual gifts is an interpretation of Scripture that was not our concern. Our concern was the nature of Scripture… All we wanted was for people to base what they believe on an intelligent study of what the Bible says.”

It seems to me that Pastor Henley was a bit prophetic. In light of Judge Pressler’s words, and in light of the recent attempts of some to exclude from service those who are inappropriately baptized or who practice a prayer life that is simply a bit more intimate than they are comfortable with, maybe it’s time to revisit Dr. Morris Chapman’s words from his 2004 address to the SBC in Indianapolis. It might do us some good. The following excerpts from his sermon were taken from a Baptist Press article.

“I pledged to Southern Baptists that I would ‘enlarge the tent, lengthen the cords and strengthen the stakes,’ those same words our Lord stated in Isaiah 54:2.

“My promise was to all Southern Baptists who believe in the absolute authority of God’s Word.”

Chapman offered that there are those who reject biblical fidelity and exclude themselves from that pledge. But, he shared his concern that he and subsequent presidents have not “executed to the fullest extent” the opportunity to be more inclusive. He also cautioned that in rejecting the liberalism that once threatened the convention, Southern Baptists must be on guard as well to avoid the equally wrong practices of political exclusion.

“We must never cease to be vigilant against heresy,” Chapman said in his address, The Fundamentals of Cooperating Conservatives. “However, crusades cannot last forever. Again and again we have debated vigorously that the conservative resurgence was theological, not political; that our objective was doctrinal purity, not political control.”

Chapman said if this is true, then the stated goals of the conservative resurgence have been achieved, and it’s time for Southern Baptists to show they not only believe the Bible, but also are compelled to live by it.

“If our struggle for the authority of God’s Word does not lead us to a spirit of humility and holiness, we’re already going in the wrong direction, destined to lose our way in the wilderness.”

Expressing a concern that Southern Baptists, having affirmed their faith in the Bible, “will develop a censorious, exclusivistic, intolerant spirit,” Chapman warned there is a real threat that the convention might “end up on the road of separatism,” a direction equally as disabling as liberalism.

This road of separatism is “an ecclesiastical methodology that devalues cooperation in favor of hyper-independence,” Chapman stated. “We can be both conservative and cooperative; it is our distinctive heritage. It is the genius of our success; it is our spiritual destiny.

“Cooperating conservatives believe our convention is at its best only when rank-and-file Southern Baptists are pulling together and on the move,” Chapman said, adding that the convention needs to enlist “every possible person who loves our Lord Jesus Christ and believes He died for the church to hear and heed the call of God to go to the ends of the earth, empowered by His Holy Spirit.”

Chapman declared it is time for the SBC to return to a sense of normalcy in operation, allowing anyone with a “devotion to the Lord, His church and our convention” to serve Southern Baptists. Chapman acknowledged trustees should be inerrantists, but he emphasized they also should “have a heart for lost souls and be affiliated with churches that evangelize at home and support missions around the globe,” including consistent contributions to the Cooperative Program.

“But most importantly, our trustees should be people who have a close daily walk with our Lord Jesus Christ,” Chapman said. “This convention deserves to be led by trustees who listen to God’s Spirit on the way to making decisions, not trustees who are susceptible to political agendas. Politics for the sake of control by a few is not how our forefathers envisioned the operations of our Convention.

“But I must warn you,” Chapman continued, “… politics do not die easily … because the death of politics in a spiritual environment only comes after we die to self.”

He also stressed that those who value sound doctrine also should practice what they preach.

“For cooperating conservatives, believing must be accompanied by ethical living; orthodoxy, right doctrine, must lead to orthopraxy, right practice.”

Chapman noted the irony in the lives of Jewish leaders in Jesus’ time — they were staunch defenders of supernaturalism, the miracles, angels, the resurrection of the dead, all the right beliefs; yet out of touch with the Kingdom of God.

“The Pharisees had the right doctrines but the wrong measures, the wrong motives and the wrong means,” he observed. “They measured their righteousness by their rule-keeping and their affiliations … They congratulated themselves and despised everyone else. They intimidated all who dared to oppose them, threatening them with a first-century form of ex-communication.

“But in the end, they missed God … and all who followed them missed God.

“They had the vocabulary of the people of God, but they did not have the character of the people of God.”

Chapman emphasized that it’s a biblical lesson Southern Baptists should heed: right doctrine does not equate to righteous living; they’re not one and the same, and believing they are opens the door to a dogmatism that stifles and demoralizes other Christians.

“It is the sin of Pharisaism when good people, whose theology and ministry are above reproach, are slandered, discredited, or ostracized simply because they refuse to blindly follow particular political posturing.

“Innuendos, unfounded rumors, sly winks and nods are as deadly as an assassin’s bullet and usually as ungodly.”

For Memorial Day we decided to take our oldest daughter camping and so we joined our friends, the Griffins, for an evening at Lewis & Clark State Park. Enjoy the pictures! Click here for more pictures!

[slideshow=3]

Robin Foster is a good man who has a passionate heart for Jesus Christ. He and I have met on a couple of occasions and each time it has been a privilege as well as my pleasure to get to know him better. He is truly a gentleman and a scholar. As is true with most of those who live in this blogging world, he and I agree on significantly more than we disagree on. Having said that, I want to now critique the new resolution that he has offered for consideration in San Antonio. I’ll post the resolution and then try to draw some conclusions as to why I think it is a faulty resolution.

Resolution On Glossolalia and Private Prayer Languages

WHEREAS, The Bible remains the standard by which we should judge all doctrines, and only the books of Mark, Acts, and 1 Corinthians directly address the doctrine of glossolalia, or “speaking with tongues”; and

WHEREAS, In Mark 16:17-18, Jesus prophesied that, among other signs intended to verify the gospel, the disciples would also “speak with new tongues”; and

WHEREAS, In Acts, our Lord’s prophecy was fulfilled primarily at Pentecost, when the disciples “began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (2:4), indicating that they spoke publicly to people who understood those languages (2:6); that they spoke publicly in human languages they had not learned (2:7); that they communicated “the mighty deeds of God” (2:11); and, that the intent of this sign was to focus attention upon Peter’s invitation to believe in the crucified and resurrected Jesus as both Christ and Lord (2:22, 33); and

WHEREAS, In 1 Corinthians, Paul confronted the Corinthians who had been once led by meaningless idols to curse Christ, but were now led by the Holy Spirit to confess Jesus Christ as Lord (12:2-3); and

WHEREAS, Also in 1 Corinthians, the various spiritual gifts were public in nature, being intended for the common good (12:7), to be practiced in love towards others (13:8), and to edify the church (14:4, “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.” and 14:12,”Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.”); and

WHEREAS, Also in 1 Corinthians, among the spiritual gifts, tongues were not given to every Christian(12:30); tongues were the least desirable of the gifts (12:31); and, tongues must be interpreted in order to be allowed in public worship (14:27-28); and

WHEREAS, Also in 1 Corinthians, the public and intelligible proclamation of the gospel so that lost people might be saved is the church’s primary concern (14:1-3, 24-25; cf. Matthew 28:19-20, the Great Commission); and

WHEREAS, Proponents of the modern practice of private prayer languages appeal to passages wherein glossolalia is not explicitly considered by the biblical writers (Romans 12:6; Ephesians 5:18-20, 6:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:19; Jude 20); and

WHEREAS, The trustees for the International Mission Board and North American Mission Board has set policies and guidelines that disqualify candidates from missionary service who practice glossolalia or a private prayer language, and

WHEREAS, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary of Ft. Worth Texas has taken the lead concerning this issue by stating, “Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including “private prayer language. Neither will Southwestern knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices,” and

WHEREAS, Some conservative Southern Baptists affirm that certain spiritual gifts have ceased to be necessary, because the apostolic witness is now canonized in the New Testament (Hebrews 2:3-4); and

WHEREAS, Other conservative Southern Baptists are cautiously open to the continuation of spiritual gifts, but are extremely wary of sanctioning modern practices as biblical; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptists Convention meeting in San Antonio, Texas, June, 12-13, 2007, declare that Southern Baptists typically believe that the modern practice of private prayer languages lacks a tangible foundation in Scripture; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we are opposed to unscriptural teaching relating to speaking in tongues, whether such speech be done in private or public; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we support the policies and guidelines of the International Mission Board and the North American Mission Board concerning glossolalia and private prayer languages in the appointment process of missionary candidates, and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage our six Southern Baptist seminaries not knowingly to hire professors or administrators who endorse or engage in the modern practice of glossolalia or private prayer language, and be it further

RESOLVED, That we also encourage our Southern Baptist agencies not knowingly hire anyone who endorses or engages in the modern practice of glossolalia or private prayer language, and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage all Southern Baptists to be patient, kind, and loving toward one another (1 Corinthians 13:4-8) regarding this ancillary theological issue, which ought not to constitute a test of fellowship; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we encourage all Southern Baptists to refocus their attention upon the public and intelligible proclamation of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the divine Trinity, Who became a man, died on the cross, and arose from the dead, so that those who believe in Him may have eternal and abundant life.

In fundamentals unity, in non-fundamentals liberty, in all things charity. This short phrase sums up my problem with this resolution. Southern Baptist’s are a diverse people. As such it will be the norm that we will rarely, if ever, run across another Southern Baptist who is our parallel in every theological area. As such we must come to a place where we determine whether items are fundamentals or not. If they are, than we divide fellowship over them, if they are not, than we respectfully disagree and yet serve together as equals in this pursuit of faith. Resolutions such as Bro. Foster’s are unfortunately going to divide over issues not worthy dividing over. Let me just take each “Resolved” and deal with them individually.

1. A definition of “typical”, as found on dictionary.com, is characteristic or distinctive. I can say with 100% certainty that the belief that “modern practice of private prayer languages lacks a tangible foundation in Scripture” is absolutely not held as the majority view across the Southern Baptist Convention. That doesn’t mean that I think that the average Southern Baptist believes in the existence of PPL, rather I think that the average Southern Baptist has no idea as to its biblical validity. In fact, I’ve spent significant time studying it - as have many of you - and I am still fairly unconvinced either way. To make such a broad, definitive statement, apart from support to under gird it; particularly at this current place of convention-wide ambiguity, is unfortunate, in my opinion.

2. I agree completely.

3. I could not disagree more. If you have been reading this blog for any period of time at all you know that I am strongly, strongly opposed to these policies.

4. This is ridiculous, in my opinion. This is a tertiary issue. It has no place becoming a test of fellowship. To determine employment status based on this issue is not just dabbling, but rather diving wholeheartedly into the realm of legalism (as we are corporately unclear as to its validity, as Bro. Foster himself allows towards the end of this document) and is allowing non-essentials to carry a place of too much significance. It also stands in contrast to the words of the resolution further on down the document.

5. See #4.

6. I simply don’t understand this point. Almost the entirety of this resolution touts the encouragement of glossolalia becoming a test of fellowship and then the document is concluded by contradicting its earlier stated point. Is it a test of fellowship or isn’t it?

Lest the argument be attempted that I am defining fellowship differently than Bro. Foster, let me once again refer to dictionary.com where we find the following definition of fellowship:

fel·low·ship /?f?lo????p/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fel-oh-ship] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -shipped or -shiped, -ship·ping or -ship·ing.
–noun
1. the condition or relation of being a fellow: the fellowship of humankind.
2. friendly relationship; companionship: the fellowship of father and son.
3. community of interest, feeling, etc.
4. communion, as between members of the same church.
5. friendliness.
6. an association of persons having similar tastes, interests, etc.
7. a company, guild, or corporation.
8. Education.
a. the body of fellows in a college or university.
b. the position or emoluments of a fellow of a college or university, or the sum of money he or she receives.
c. a foundation for the maintenance of a fellow in a college or university.
–verb (used with object)
9. to admit to fellowship, esp. religious fellowship.
–verb (used without object)
10. to join in fellowship, esp. religious fellowship.

7. I agree with this completely which explains another reason why I am opposed to this resolution. The chatter over this non-issue needs to go away. This is an unimportant issue, one which we have had almost zero problems with, either on the International or North American mission fields. It is also a non-essential and one which there is considerable disagreement within SBC life. This is not important enough to divide fellowship over. This resolution is going to do just that, cause division.

In conclusion I will state clearly that I will vigorously oppose this resolution if given the opportunity. It is divisive, contains flawed logic and is unnecessary as well. I hope that it doesn’t make it out of committee, but if it does I will make an attempt to publicly decry it from the floor of the convention. I hope you will do so as well.

What makes my position all the more intriguing, I believe, is that I don’t practice charismatic gifts, nor am I even confident that many of these gifts even exist. It is that lack of confidence, however, that drives me to oppose this resolution. An issue that is as non-important and certainly unclear scripturally as this one has no place being recognized as an official resolution from the floor of the convention, I believe. I hope you will join me opposing it.

Everybody else does it, why can’t I? These are my daughter Grace from earlier today. Tracy took these after Grace got a haircut.

For part 1 of the series, click here.

We have already dealt with some of the reasons that I believe that we need drastic overhauls of our state convention paradigm. In fact, as you will see, I am going to also include what I believe are needed changes to other aspects of SBC life that directly influence the state convention process as well. So, without any further ado, here we go.

The re-organization of SBC missions

I think we have to begin with a consolidation and refocusing of our missions efforts. The first change I would make would be to fold NAMB into the IMB and make NAMB another region of the IMB equivalent to Western Europe, East Asia, North African & Middle East, etc. There was a time when North American missions and Global missions were entirely different in scope, methodology needed, etc. That is simply not true today. As a general rule, in areas where North America is unreached, IMB philosophy can and will be just as effective as it is overseas. There is no need for two large organizations to accomplish what one streamlined organization could accomplish. Additionally I am of the opinion that NAMB should cease all operations in “reached” areas. In other words, in areas where there is significant SBC presence NAMB does not need to be present. That would mean that NAMB resources will no longer be distributed to areas like Florida, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, etc. The SBC churches in those areas are sufficient to reach them. I am convinced that part of the reason that our churches don’t do a better job of reaching these areas is that we don’t have to. We’ll gladly put it off on someone else if it means we don’t have to spend our money, time and energy to do so. Again, let me emphasize that this does not negate lostness in these “reached” areas, but it simply recognizes the need for the churches in that given area to take personal responsibility for their home regions. This would then allow our missions resources to be reallocated to areas where there is significant need and where there are no local SBC churches to meet that need. By reorganizing NAMB and then reducing their presence in “reached” states, that would eliminate the need for state conventions to have a staff for funneling NAMB money and resources through the state convention other than in pioneer states where we would now have IMB missionaries who would report back to the IMB who would be on site and responsible for distribution and deployment of the missions resources.

The second step, then, would be the significant reduction of the state conventions. I am not advocating for the state convention to disappear. I am advocating, however, that the state convention begins to look more like a small framework that enables local churches rather than a large organization that does ministry and invites local churches to join them. I would advocate for the state convention staff to be divided into two components.

Component #1 – Church Planting

The first would be a church planting department. Essentially their responsibility would be to do statistical research to understand where the areas of need in the state are, and then provide encouragement/mentoring for church planters. The screening process for the church planters, as well as the funding for the church planters, could be funneled through the local associations who both know the area and who would assume the responsibility for negotiating with local churches for the support needed. They, being a local component, would also be responsible for accountability and oversight. In that they are local it would be difficult for the church planter to hide and to be ineffective without drawing the attention of the local pastors and or association. The local church planter could work with a team of mentors from local churches who have experience in the local area and who understand the demands of ministry specific to their locale. This would also eliminate the need for the national organizations to become theological clearinghouses to oversee and even restrict candidates that would be approved and/or acceptable by the local churches. This would move us back to a loosely organized group of local churches partnering together for missions rather than a behemoth denomination who is not maximizing their resources and run by the local level.

Component #2 – Church Partnership

The second component of the reorganized state convention would be the establishment of a church partnership team. This team would be responsible for understanding the state and helping facilitate partnerships for tasks that are bigger than what one or two churches can accomplish. This group would work to canvas the state and make available opportunities to churches. In many ways, however, they would be different from where are currently at. Rather than provide the opportunities they would simply accumulate and relay information.

A natural result of these two components of the state convention would be the deployment of state convention employees across the state. They would live in various locales and simply meet via video/web conferences, email and phone. Florida has been doing something like this for some time and it has worked well. This would also eliminate the need for a large organization in one large city (Jefferson City in Missouri’s case) and make the state convention locally available to everyone in the state.

In conclusion

I realize that this proposal is fairly short and needs a bit more flesh on it. I’m sure that in the comments some will point out areas that I’ve missed…and that’s good. What I hope to see is these areas dealt with to the place where we can present a viable option that we could advocate for. I’m looking forward to hearing from you!