While citing the Southern Baptist Convention website on resolutions for yesterday’s applied ethics post¹ I noticed a interesting statement about resolutions.

Note the following from the SBC website [emphasis added].

21. How do I find out the official SBC stance on various issues?

The Southern Baptist Convention makes official statements regarding specific issues by means of resolutions passed at our annual gatherings each June.  Southern Baptist polity views these resolutions as expressions of opinions or concern which are representative of the messengers attending the meeting, but are not binding upon any individual church or successive Convention.  Generally speaking, resolutions are snapshots of views widely held among Southern Baptists at the time and in the social contest in which they are passed, but they are not deemed to be doctrinal or creedal (tests of fellowship).²

It is understood that resolutions are expressions of opinion and are not officially binding. Of course, those opinions are of the messengers present as they are the ones listening, interacting and voting. However, the above states that not only are resolutions not binding, but they are not binding upon the “successive Convention,” that is, the following Convention that meets. It makes sense that such resolutions represent views at the time and context in which they are presented and passed since cultural issues faced by Southern Baptists can change from year to year.

Do the above statements on SBC resolutions mean that they are only applicable to the particular Convention in which they are passed and not successive Conventions?

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Anti-Calvinism Resolution at the Southern Baptist Convention
2. SBC Membership Resolution Passes
3. Southern Baptists & the Alcohol Resolution: How?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 8 comments | Add to
Post tags: resolution, SBC, Southern Baptist, southern baptist convention

What would you do Wednesday!

The annual Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) meeting is two months away¹ so a situation that could take place during this meeting may provide an interesting discussion.

In order to help those who are not Southern Baptists better participate in this topic, a few citations expressing Southern Baptist positions are provided below.

Southern Baptists have prepared a statement of generally held convictions called The Baptist Faith and Message. It serves as a guide to understanding who they are.²

There is nothing in the Baptist Faith and Message that excludes Calvinists nor is the aim to do so. The SBC actually answers the question of Calvinism on the website.

7. What is the SBC’s official view of the doctrine commonly known as “Calvinism?”

The Southern Baptist Convention has not taken an official stance on either Calvinism or Arminianism. If you surveyed Southern Baptists across the nation you would likely find adherents at both ends of the spectrum with plenty at each point in between.³

SBC resolutions may be presented at the annual meeting for the messengers present to vote on. Resolutions pass and fail each year.

Two position statements regard SBC resolutions follow.

A resolution has traditionally been defined as an expression of opinion or concern, as compared to a motion, which calls for action. A resolution is not used to direct an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention to specific action other than to communicate the opinion or concern expressed.⁴

And.

21. How do I find out the official SBC stance on various issues?

The Southern Baptist Convention makes official statements regarding specific issues by means of resolutions passed at our annual gatherings each June.  Southern Baptist polity views these resolutions as expressions of opinions or concern which are representative of the messengers attending the meeting, but are not binding upon any individual church or successive Convention.  Generally speaking, resolutions are snapshots of views widely held among Southern Baptists at the time and in the social contest in which they are passed, but they are not deemed to be doctrinal or creedal (tests of fellowship).⁵

Now the situation!

A vote for an anti-Calvinist resolution comes to the SBC messengers. The last two lines of the resolution states (bear with me as this is easier than writing a whole resolution):

RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of Calvinism and Reformed theology; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we urge that no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that is a Calvinist or supports/promotes Calvinism.

How would you vote and why?

Be nice!

Related posts:

1. Southern Baptist Convention: on tips and alcohol
2. Southern Baptists & the Alcohol Resolution: How?
3. Georgia Baptist Blogging Resolution

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 34 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

What would you do Wednesday!

The characters: You are one of twenty board members of a local Christian school. You have a friend who writes an online column for a local newspaper.

The situation: Your friend has recently written critically in his online column about some of the recent decisions of the Christian school. You have mostly agreed with your friend about his concerns and have worked within your capacity as a board member to correct these recent decisions.

A recent board meeting discussed some of the details about one of the school’s recent decisions. You shared those confidential details with your friend. You did not explicitly state that those details were to remain private so your friend decided to publish an article containing those details in the online newspaper column. Your friend cited an unnamed board member as his source.

The Christian school is well-known and relatively powerful in the community so this confidential information has caused quite a stir in the community. The Chairman of the board has put pressure on the newspaper to get your friend to reveal his source. The Chairman has also asked for the board member that leaked the information to admit to it.

The two potential outcomes: If your friend does not reveal his source the newspaper will take disciplinary action against him. If your identity is revealed, the board will take disciplinary action against you.

What do you do?

• Try to subtly convince the board to drop the issue.
• Let your friend take a fall for you to fight for your cause.
• Admit you are the leak and save your friend from any recourse.
• Start blogging anonymously about the school and all of their internal problems.
• Or…

Related posts:

1. Ethics: High School Football Practice Changed for Ramadan
2. Ethics: Leaving a Gospel Tract for a Tip
3. Ethics: Church Discipline Contract Issued

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 9 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

What would you do Wednesday!

The tragic shooting death of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman that happened in Sanford, FL has taken over the internet recently.¹ Passionate replies have been poured out from both Martin and Zimmerman supporters.

Many in the court of public opinion have already tried Zimmerman and found him guilty of murder. Others believe that Martin may have brought the confrontation and shooting upon himself by causing Zimmerman to act in self-defense. Yet, what seems to be a minority of responders have decided to wait until all of the evidence is presented before a judge and jury to make a personal judgement. Due to all of the publicity, Zimmerman is currently in hiding.

In spite of all of the opinions on the Martin-Zimmerman case, I’d like to ask how Christians might respond if George Zimmerman came out of hiding to visit your church Sunday morning. I have seen a range of comments from my fellow Christians on Facebook which echo my observations above about holding personal judgements on the case.

The scenario. You notice a visitor at church on Sunday morning just prior to Sunday School. After Sunday School, right before worship service begins, you get to meet the visitor. He simply introduces himself as George and says he is in the area visiting relatives. He looks somewhat familiar, but you can’t quite figure out why.

Just as the call to worship is given, it hits you – George Zimmerman!

After quickly and quietly asking if he is the George Zimmerman, he affirms and asks that you keep his identity quiet. He explains that he really needed some Christian fellowship and spiritual nourishment so he decided to visit a local church where he most likely would not be recognized.

The worship time begins and the sermon today is providentially about forgiveness.

After worship time, a couple of your fellow church members think they recognize Zimmerman, but aren’t exactly sure. The members saw you talking to Zimmerman, so they come up to you and ask about the visitor. You affirm that it is the George Zimmerman. A few of your friends aren’t sure what to say or do though at least one of them is visibly angry.

How would you treat George Zimmerman?

• Sneak out during the sermon can call the local media.
• Ask him when he is going to turn himself in and admit to murder.
• Greet him as a professing Christian and talk to him about forgiveness.
• Ask him how you can pray for him.
• Or…

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Immodest Dress In Church
2. The Church Tomb of George Whitefield in Pictures
3. Ethics: Excluding A Single Parent from Church Membership

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 13 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

What would you do Wednesday!

Today’s topic comes at the suggestion of  a Georgia pastor friend. He tweeted an article to me titled Want a Job? Fork Over Your Facebook Password, Employer Says.¹ The suggestion was to substitute ‘search committee’ for ‘employer’.

Great idea!

Sitting before a pastoral search committee during what will most likely be the final interview the committee members believe they have a bit more due diligence to conduct.

On behalf of the whole committee, one member inquires.

Mr. Potential Pastor, you have told us that you have both a Facebook and a twitter account. In this age of social media it is possible that you are active on other social mediums such as blogs and groups like the ones found on Yahoo and Google.

In order to get a fuller picture of who you are, we request that you give us all of your social media user names and passwords.

What would do or how would you advise this pastoral candidate?

• Turn over the user names and passwords as there is nothing to hide.
• Decline this unreasonable request.
• Ask the committee members for the same so you can begin to get to know the new congregation.
• Tell them you need a day to think (so you can create some fake user names).
• Or…

Related posts:

1. Ethics: A Homosexual Asks About Christianity
2. Ethics: Pastoral Candidate Answers Questions on the Trinity
3. Popping Off Is Not Pastoral

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 16 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

I was recently listening to a pastor preach on the importance of prayer in pastoral ministry. Prayer is certainly important in the life of a pastor (or any Christian). The context was that this pastor was teaching future pastors. Giving his time to such teaching is a great service. However, the text he used to make his point was Acts 1:13-14 and a few things just did not sit right with me.

And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. (Acts 1:13-14 ESV)

After reading the Scripture he explained that this text shows the importance of prayer in the life of pastors. Maybe he wanted to substitute pastors for the Apostles and use a general principle of coming together for prayer. Yet what do we do with Mary, the other women, and Jesus’ brothers?

Further, the pastor inserted his view of how scared these uneducated men probably were when faced with going out and sharing the gospel. The comment was made that these men were so afraid that they were driven to prayer because they had nothing else to rely on but God.

Finally, the pastor attempted to stress the importance of prayer and such by repeatedly stating “I believe” about several items. While he may have had reasons to believe what he was stating his beliefs came across as fideistic.

My intent is not to tear down, but to make a few observations about how subjectivity can creep into preaching and teaching. The other issue is that this was a Southern Baptist teaching future Southern Baptists pastors.

I can’t help but wonder…Does this type of preaching add to the lack of critical thinking in local churches today? Does it facilitate a lack of apologetic desire and engagement? Does it promote fideism and encourage Christians not to think about what they believe and why? Does this type of preaching teach Christians to fall back on their feelings putting their hearts and minds at odds with each another?

Or maybe it’s just me.

Just thinking…

Related posts:

1. Preaching: Young, Restless and Four?
2. Preaching On Sin and Responsibility
3. Ethics: Pastor Opposes Tim Tebow Preaching

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to
Post tags: critical thinking, exegesis, preaching

What would you do Wednesday!

It’s March and NCAA March Madness is here! March Madness inspired me to a little blog madness for today’s ethical scenario. Of course, we all know that Christians should not only not play the NCAA brackets, but we should especially not play those brackets with money…

…or should we?

March Madness inspires a little office madness as the bracket sheets circulate just begging for everyone in the office to join in the fun. Bracket Bob, the person organizing the bracket sheets, asks you to participate. You really enjoy March Madness and following your own brackets just for fun.

You ask Bob for the office madness run down. Bob knows you are a Christian and admits that he wasn’t sure if he should ask you or not because he knew there was money involved, but he heard you were following the games so he explains the office games to you.

Look, I know you are a Christian and probably don’t bet, but it’s only 10 bucks per bracket. (Laughing nervously) You probably spend more than that for a lot less entertainment. Seriously, each bracket you fill-out and turn in is $10. The money goes into the pool. If you win the whole thing you get 70% of the entry fees while second place gets 20% and third gets 10%. Right now we’re up to $200 and it may go to $300. What do you say?

What would you do?

• Play, it’s only 10 bucks.
• Ask if you can play without paying and winning money.
• Politely decline while following the brackets on your own.
• Ask him why he thinks a Christian can’t play then share the gospel.
• Decline and tell him he’s going to burn for betting.
• Or…

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Leaving a Gospel Tract for a Tip
2. March Devotion MP3
3. Ethics: A Church Member Wins the Lottery

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 6 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

I came across an interesting observation in a book I am reading for one of my classes. In the book Shepherd Leader, author Timothy Witmer points out what he calls the “Wal-mart effect” among megachurches.

The truth of the matter is that much of the growth of megachurches is drawn from smaller churches in the region. This is what I call the Wal-Mart effect. What happens when a Wal-Mart moves to town? Many small “mom and pop” businesses are forced to close because they can’t compete with the prices, variety, and “one-stop shopping” of Wal-Mart. Likewise, small churches are depleted by large churches because the large churches provide “one-stop shopping” with ministries of every variety for everyone in the family. Sometimes the “prices” are cheaper, too. Not in the sense that a “tithe” is any less but that the anonymity of a larger church may not require the same level of commitment that smaller churches must have in order to function effectively. How many new members in your church are joining by profession of faith? How many are coming from other churches? These are important questions to consider.

The sheep shuffle from church to church, otherwise known as “church hopping.” There is no doubt that there is a consumer mentality among many Christians whose primary question about a church is not, “Is this a good place for me to serve and where I can grow as a believer?” but rather, “Will this church meet my needs?” If you are on the receiving end of these new members you rejoice and consider it to be church growth and God’s blessing. If you are on the losing end, you can easily become cynical and accuse other churches of “sheep stealing.”¹

While Witmer’s observations may seem obvious to some extent from outside of the megachurch, the perspective from within may be much more positive. I have friends that have had great experiences attending and serving in megachurches. I may even join one myself some day…who knows. One point about the church hoping phenomenon is that it is not limited to megachurches.

Witmer adds a positive note on the next page.

To be honest, one of the reasons that Wal-Mart continues to grow is that they not only provide good prices but customer service as well. There is someone there to greet you, guide you, and answer your questions.²

What do you think about the Wal-mart effect?

Related posts:

1. Are Megachurches Healthier?
2. Keeping Christ in Christmas so we can sleep in?
3. A Healthy View of Church?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 7 comments | Add to
Post tags: ecclesiology, megachurch, Shephed Leader, Wal-mart, Witmer

What would you do Wednesday!

Today’s scenario involves a Southern Baptist seminary professor who is seen by a student drinking beer at a local restaurant. As always, anyone is free to comment.

You, dear reader, are a seminary student out to dinner with some friends who are visiting for the weekend. While being seated at the restaurant you notice one of your professors. You also notice what looks to be a glass of beer in front of the professor. However, you remember the ethical conduct statement you signed as a student which is similar to the statement signed by seminary staff.

Below are two examples of such ethical conduct statements. One of them states that…

…through its administrative committees, may take disciplinary action, including dismissal, should the standard of personal and ethical conduct becoming to a Southern Baptist minister be violated. Violations of this standard shall include, but is not limited to:

C. Use or possession of beverage alcohol or illegal drugs;¹

Another states…

Alcohol & Drugs
In accordance with the irreproachable standards of moral conduct as well as denominational expectations for all members of the seminary community, the use of alcoholic beverages and illicit/illegal drugs are prohibited. Compliance with abstention from alcoholic beverages and drug abuse does not apply to worship communion, appropriate medications, etc.²

So you doubt that the professor is drinking beer until, that is, the waiter pours the rest of the beer from the bottle into his glass. Catching the professors eyes as you walk to your table, you give a passing wave to each other.

While on campus on the following Monday, you get a chance for some brief small talk with the professor. He tells you about the interesting dinner he had with his atheist neighbor. His neighbor has always thought Baptists were too uptight so he would never give the professor any time for a spiritual conversation.

Finally, the atheist neighbor made him a deal. The neighbor said that he would buy the professor dinner and listen to him explain Christianity if the professor would have just one beer with him.

What would you do?

• Pray for the conversation that took place and say nothing more.
• Pray and ask the professor about the ethics code.
• Mention the ethics code and explain that he will have to be reported.
• Ask if you can go next time to enjoy a beer while sharing the gospel.
• Or…

______________________

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Seminary Student Preaches Someone Else’s Sermons
2. The Gospel in the Liquor Store
3. Ethics: Baptism by Pouring-Joining a Baptist Church

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 37 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

One of the books assigned to read for one of my classes is Pastor’s Handbook by John R. Bisagno which offers a lot of practical advice. The advice is mostly pragmatic seemingly from a consequentialist perspective. That is, Bisagno writes from experience with little Scriptural support for his advice. Bisagno’s advice is not intrinsically good or bad, right or wrong, but at times questions arise when experience seems to be his authority.

Bisagno offered an interesting perspective on extending the gospel invitation during corporate worship. I am not convinced the reasoning in the advice given about extending the invitation is logically consistent. What follows are some observations about Bisagno’s reasoning on the invitation.

While many forms of invitation may be extended, every sermon should be marked by an appeal to persuade the hearer to make a response to what he has just heard.¹

While I agree with sharing the gospel in the sermon, Bisagno assumes every sermon is preached to the unbeliever rather than the body of Christ gathered to worship. In 1 Corinthians 14:23, Paul indicates the church gathering and explains the proper use of speaking in tongues in case unbelievers come into the service indicating the worship service is primarily a time for believers.

The physical expression of that response is important. It might be filling out a card, raising a hand, moving to an inquiry room, coming forward, or some other means, but it is important that the hearers be afforded the opportunity to make a tangible expression of their response. Everyone our Lord called to follow Him, He called publicly. He called Zacchaeus to come down out of the tree; He called Matthew to get up from his revenue table; He called Peter and Andrew to leave their fishing boats. A physical expression of the intent of the heart was always called for.²

A reason is not given for why a physical response is important. For Baptists, the ultimate physical response will be seen in public baptism. It is true that Jesus called people publicly to follow Him, however, Jesus call was more in the form of the Great Commission, while He was going, rather than during a worship service. Also, Scripture does not give any indication that the physical responses to Jesus’ calling was necessary other than the responses being a consequence of their physical location at the time.

It’s not that He needs our public stand as much as we need it. And the world needs the testimony and encouragement of our public profession of faith. For that reason I am most comfortable with extending a public invitation that calls for respondents to come to the front of the church and stand before the pulpit, although there are other acceptable ways.³

A public testimony is certainly encouraging to the body. Is such a testimony equally encouraging to the world? I’m not so sure for the world often criticizes Christians for their testimony being the beginning and end of one’s expression of faith. The world often hears a testimony rather than the gospel. The world often hears a testimony rather than seeing a life changed from the gospel.

The reasoning gets more interesting as Bisagno continues.

The invitation of our Lord must never be extended in the flesh without the powerful touch of the Holy Spirit. It must never be manipulative, high pressure, overly extended, embarrassing, or confusing.⁴

Agreed! However, Bisagno gives some interesting instructions on how to carry out the invitation.

One of the most important ingredients in the public invitation is the manner in which it is begun. A smooth transition from sermon to invitation is best accomplished with the help of background music and prayer. I finished every sermon by asking the people to pray. Immediately the praise band, organ, choir, or ensemble began to play or sing. A soloist should never sing during the invitation. It draws attention from the pulpit, the focal point of the invitation.⁵

A smooth transition makes sense as that is simply part of good public communication even though the Holy Spirit can use any gospel presentation regardless of the smoothness of transitions. I’m not sure why the best transition involves background music as some might see that at manipulative. Since Bisagno used Jesus’ examples of using a public invitation should we assume that Jesus also used background music or something to set the mood? Obviously, I’m being rhetorical, but to warn against manipulation and point to the power of the Holy Spirit while purporting background music with careful instruction to not use a soloist certain seems inconsistent. Can the Holy Spirit not work in the gospel with a soloist or without background music? I believe both of those items are missing from the gospel presentations in Scripture.

We should be cautious at the extremes of both an invitation too long and one too short. Don’t be afraid to sing more than two or three verses. If God is moving, let it go on.⁶

What constitutes an invitation being too long or too short? How does one discern if God is moving or not? How long were Jesus’ calls to those that Bisagno mentioned earlier?

Conversely, don’t extend the invitation beyond the movement of the Spirit of God. Don’t preach during the invitation, and do little, if any, ongoing exhortation. Let the Holy Spirit do His job; you’ve already done yours. When you sense He is finished, close the invitation. Don’t underestimate the power of a militant invitation. Songs like “Stand Up for Jesus” or “Onward Christian Soldiers” can stir the heart to respond.⁷

Again, how does one know when the invitation time has been extended beyond the Holy Spirit’s movement? How does one sense God is finished? While Bisagno warns against exhortation, he does advise readers to use stirring music. Using stirring music may not be direct verbal exhortation, but it is a device to try to persuade people. It seems that using such music would be trying to help the “Holy Spirit do His job.”

The traditional “come forward” invitation is powerful. Who could ever forget seeing hundreds and thousands stream down the aisle in a Billy Graham crusade? I want to be clear that I think it is still the best way. There’s a certain power and inspiration, a sense that “I am doing the right thing,” as others come to Christ, that makes it more conducive to come forward. ⁸

It seems that the gospel should be lifted up as the main point of what is powerful in any invitation (Rom. 1:16). Bisagno previously mentioned letting the Holy Spirit do his job, but also speaks to the power of walking the aisle. The self-congratulation that “I am doing the right thing” is to focus on the wrong person. Regardless of whether or not anyone comes forward, faithfulness to the gospel message of the Jesus Christ should be the measure of whether or not the right thing was done.

As Baptists continue the plight to get back to the Bible, it is clear that in some Baptist circles tradition still rules. Of course, we all have traditions, yet the desire should be to hold those traditions and the reasons for them based on the word of God as best we can.

For what it’s worth…

Mark
__________________

Related posts:

1. On Altar Calls And Gospel Proclamation
2. John 3:16 Conference, Together for the Gospel and Poor Arguments
3. Poll: Does Christian Hip-Hop Harm the Gospel?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 7 comments | Add to
Post tags: altar call, Bisagno, pragmatism

What would you do Wednesday!

Today’s situation is inspired by the recent Christian-Muslim relationship controversy surrounding Rick Warren. Warren has attempted to set the record straight concerning the recent reporting of his position on Christian-Muslim interaction.¹ This post is not about Rick Warren although the information used below is from sources affiliated with the Christian-Muslim relationships in which Saddleback Church is involved.

So we begin…

During the Sunday morning announcements your pastors presents a plan to get the congregation to reach and work with their Muslim neighbors. He explains that he is inspired by what Saddleback Church is doing in the Muslim community.

Your pastor shares that this plan is called Kings Way and shares the following vision for the plan.

Kings Way describes a path to end the 1400 years of misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians by consulting the texts we each call sacred in order to form a basis that allows us the privilege to serve the needs in our communities together.²

Further, he explains that a document will be used to help everyone appreciate the similarities of Christianity and Islam. He quotes the following.

The document encouraged that our communities work together towards the common good and to combat bigotry in a 1-2-3 plan. The first step in the plan identifies the belief in one God. The second step acknowledges God’s commandment to love God and your neighbor. Finally, step three is for our communities to commit to three things: making friends, building peace, and serving the world at large together.³

The congregation is then lead to sing Kumbaya! (OK, not really.)

What would you do?

• Go along with this great idea.
• Hesitantly ask questions before accepting the idea.
• Immediately oppose the idea and meet with the pastor.
• Move your home and join Saddleback.
• Or…

_____________________

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Christian Converts to Islam to Marry Muslim
2. Ethics: Pastor Opposes Tim Tebow Preaching
3. Ethics: Prominent Pastor Plagiarizes?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 6 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

Breaking News: Southern Baptist College President Offers Calvinist Vision!

Imagine if that were a real headline. Surely, that college president would be universally welcomed by Baptists with open arms and a warm embrace. Call me a skeptic, but I doubt it.

The very presence of Calvinists seemed to set off alarms for Christian Index editor Gerald Harris who penned “The Calvinists are here.”¹ Harris’ article brought much attention and several replies, including my own.²,³ Two weeks after Harris’ article was published a Georgia pastor sent in the following comment which was published by the Christian Index.

‘Heartbroken’ over Calvinism taught in SBC seminaries
Thank you for the article on Calvinism. I am concerned that by focusing the minds of our seminary students on Reformed Theology instead of focusing on the Great Commission, we are doing a great disservice to the Kingdom of God, and to the hearts and passions of our young people.⁴

Notice how Calvinism and Reformed Theology mentioned as if it is in opposition to the Great Commission. I am ‘heartbroken’ over such poor and false reasoning from a Southern Baptist pastor. I am also ‘heartbroken’ that the Index published the comment.

In reply, I sent my own comment into the Index which was not published and, so far, I have not received feedback that it will be published. My comment follows and is the basis for the title of this post.

In 2009, the GA Baptist Convention gave Truett-McConnell College $2.7 million. Dr. Emir Caner, Truett’s president, has put forth “The Anabaptist Vision: My Vision for Truett-McConnell College.”⁵ Would Southern Baptists support a Calvinist Vision for a school? Bottom line: We Southern Baptists are not Anabaptists!

Had Caner, or any Southern Baptist College president, put forth a “Calvinist Vision” it would probably not have gone for too long without much notice. Yet, Caner’s “Anabaptist Vision” seems to have not gotten as much as a head turn. One can appreciate whatever historic influences Anabaptists may have had on Southern Baptist life while not attempting to move Southern Baptists, whose founders were Calvinistic Baptists, toward Anabaptism. In fairness to Truett-McConnell, they did official adopt the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message as their statement of faith.⁶

For a view from the other side, one young SBC pastor wrote the following comment in passing about not being “young, restless and reformed.”

Moreover, I have never wanted to be anything but a Southern Baptist. Being a Presbyterian has never appealed to me like it seems to some leaders in our convention and their protégés.⁷

In the comment section, this brother wrote to me that he would put C.J. Mahaney, a charismatic Baptist, “squarely in the Presbyterian camp.” Ironically, Mahaney is not Presbyterian though he is a Calvinist just as the Southern Baptist Founders were Calvinists. In the same way this pastor does not desire to be Presbyterian, neither do I desire to be Anabaptist. We should be able to be Southern Baptist together without being Anabaptist or Presbyterian.

As I’ve noted before, Southern Baptists should be cooperating in evangelism and respecting each other theologically based on the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.⁸

_____________________

Related posts:

1. Letter to the editor of ‘The Christian Index’ by Marty King
2. Roman Catholic Baptist?
3. The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris Part I

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 11 comments | Add to
Post tags: Christian Index, Emir Caner, Georgia Baptist Convention, Truett-McConnell

Editorial not worthy of editor or Index

Dear Gerald,

As a former Georgia Baptist, I appreciate you and your service as Index editor. But, your Feb. 10 editorial was not your best. The level of research, organization, and writing are simply not up to what Georgia Baptists have come to expect. Let me share with you three concerns.

1. The editorial seems intent on fear-mongering, and is poorly sourced and organized.

Although you admit in the article that “many great preachers and theologians have embraced Calvinism through the years,” you imply readers should be afraid of Calvinists, as evidenced by the ominous, bold print used for every reference to Calvinism and Reformed theology. Even the title sounds ominous.

There are only vague references to supporting evidence of many of the claims, and others are just wrong. For instance, you say Trevin Wax, the managing editor of our new Bible study The Gospel Project “admits he has been influenced by Reformed pastors and authors” and then you list seven names. Trevin has never said that, however, Trevin did interview someone on his blog once who said that list of people had influenced HIM – not Trevin.

Furthermore, what do Calvinism, a marriage book, and the possible SBC name change have to do with each other? It appears you are simply throwing everything controversial into one article to enflame.

2. LifeWay’s new curriculum called The Gospel Project has no agenda other than responding to a need churches have expressed for a long time – more in-depth Bible studies. Period. Your column repeats as fact baseless charges made by a few anti-Calvinist bloggers. You over-emphasized the role of the initial advisory group which only met one time, a year ago, to talk about general principles of an in-depth curriculum. You didn’t even ask to read the sample lessons for yourself or interview the editor or any of the writers.

Please read the sample lessons at GospelProject.com. You will see there is no agenda other than to help users encounter Christ in the text. LifeWay will not bring any doctrinal system to the text other than the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

3. I believe the most irresponsible part of the column was your charge that LifeWay president Dr. Thom Rainer “seems to have led the SBC literature-producing agency to become more Reformed.” That is not true, Gerald. You did not cite any LifeWay materials that are teaching Reformed theology, and fail to offer any reason Dr. Rainer would have for doing that since it is well known he is not a Calvinist. Dr. Rainer writes on evangelism and outreach, not Calvinism.

Dr. Rainer has written, “I put my integrity on the line and promise there is no Calvinistic agenda implied or explicit in our curriculum.”

My prayer is that, upon reflection, you will retract these untrue accusations and help instill well-deserved confidence in LifeWay’s resources.

Marty King

Director, LifeWay Communications

———-

P.s. The above letter was provided with permission to republish. I have also responded more fully to Gerald Harris in the following two parts.
1) The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris Part I
2) The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris Part II
A pdf. version is also available in one file: The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris

Related posts:

1. The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris Part I
2. The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris Part II
3. Baptist College President Offers Calvinist Vision?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 18 comments | Add to
Post tags: Christian Index, Georgia Baptist Convention, Gerald Harris, Gospel Project, John Calvin, Lifeway, Mark Driscoll, Marty King, Trevin Wax, TULIP

The following is part II of a reply to Gerald Harris recently published the article “The Calvinists are here.” The article was published in The Christian Index, the Georgia Southern Baptist newspaper, of which Harris is the editor. If you have not read part I, follow this link to do so: The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris Part I.

Part II begins below by interacting with Harris’ article where part I ended.

The average Baptist who sits in a Sunday School class or a small Bible study group has depended on LifeWay to provide Bible study materials that are true to the Word of God and representative of historic Baptist theology. However, for bane or blessing LifeWay President Thom Rainer seems to have led the SBC literature-producing agency to become more and more Reformed in its theological content.

See the note in part I about LifeWay’s best-selling material from James MacDonald and Max Lucado. Also, under on LifeWay’s website under “LifeWay Select” one can find material by Ed Young, Jr. (more on Young later).

Harris then writes about NAMB’s recent On Mission magazine that “highlights several church planters, two of whom could be seen as Reformed in their theology.” I am not sure to what number “several” alludes for the church planters featured, but Harris picks out only two that may be Calvinists. Is featuring two Calvinist church planters out of several too many?

One planter, Won Kwak, is affiliated with Doctrines of Grace Church Planters who seek to plant sovereign grace churches. The other planter is Bland Mason, the pastor of City on a Hill. Harris doesn’t make an explicit point, but pointing out that these two church plants are Calvinistic insinuates that something is inherently problematic. Why?

I had the privilege of meeting Bland [Mason] in December and really like him. He is also the chaplain of the Boston Red Sox, which makes him particularly special to me.

Harris got to meet Mason whose position as chaplain of the Red Sox makes him special to Harris. Yet, he continues about Mason.

“We plant Southern Baptist churches that adhere to the Baptist Faith and Message and support the Cooperative Program.” Kevin Ezell, president North American Mission Board. Some have been critical of City on a Hill being featured in On Mission because it is also included on the Acts 29 Network website as one of its churches.

NAMB President Kevin Ezell recently explained that Mason’s church was recommended for inclusion in the magazine by the leadership of the Baptist Convention of New England, that Mason is a soul winner, and that the church is an ardent supporter of the Cooperative Program.

What Ezell mentioned about the Baptist Faith and Message and the Cooperative Program line-up with exactly with what City on a Hill church is doing. The state convention of New England recommended Mason and calls him a soul winner. Aren’t these the types of church planters that Southern Baptists desire? I’m sure the New England state convention knows Mason better than those on the outside. Why is the Acts 29 affiliation a problem? Harris does not say. Is there a specific charge against Mason or is this an insinuation that is supposed to lead the reader to think poorly of Mason?

Some contend that churches associated with the Acts 29 Network are anathema because of their identification with the Network’s founder and lead visionary, controversial Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll. The Network is also admittedly evangelical, missional and Reformed in its approach to church planting.

Ah, maybe the real problem is Mark Driscoll or is it the claim of Acts 29 of being “evangelical, missional and Reformed?” Are individual SBC churches not allowed to be evangelical, missional or Reformed? Harris points out that Ezell is not concerned and neither “endorses nor criticizes” SBC churches involved with Acts 29. Ezell is concerned with the Cooperative Program and the Baptist Faith and Message. Might one deduce, based on Harris’ article, that Ezell is not doing his due diligence with churches affiliated with Acts 29? Is Ezell in stealth mode secretly promoting Acts 29 churches? What is Harris’ specific problem with Acts 29 affiliates?

More importantly, is it Calvinism’s fault that Driscoll is controversial?

Although Acts 29 only has 288 churches in its network in the U.S., Driscoll seems to have a significant influence in the lives of some Southern Baptists.

What constitutes significant influence by Driscoll in some Southern Baptist lives? Who are these Southern Baptists and how does Harris know? Is Driscoll’s influence positive or negative and what does this have to do with Calvinism?

It should be noted that Mark and Grace Driscoll have written a book entitled “Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship and Life Together.” The book has shocked conservatives with its graphic sexual descriptions and alarmed liberals because of its degradation of women.

Now Harris has jumps from Acts 29 to Mark Driscoll to Mark and Grace Driscolls’ latest book Real Marriage. He even quotes liberal blogger Rachel Held Evans’ opposition to Real Marriage with whom I would guess Harris has little in common theologically. Harris also cites Calvinistic Southern Baptist professor Denny Burk who wrote a highly critical review of Real Marriage. However, what does any of this have to do with Calvinism in the SBC?

The book [Real Marriage] would hardly be worth mentioning except for the fact that Southeastern Seminary President Danny Akin and his wife Charlotte endorsed it. In recent years Driscoll has been a chapel speaker at SEBTS and his influence at the seminary cannot be ignored.

Again, what does this book have to do with Calvinism in the SBC? Driscoll is at best a four-point Calvinist, yet he and his wife are not promoting Calvinism in their marriage book. Also, Danny Akin answered Harris in the above noted Baptist Press article as well as providing a more thorough response as to why he endorsed the book on the Between the Times blog.¹ Whether or not one agrees with Akin’s endorsement of Real Marriage, I do not, the endorsement is simply not a Calvinist issue.

This is another case of connect-the-dots insinuations.

Let’s (dis)connect some dots.

Mark Driscoll claims to be a Calvinist, but the problems with Driscoll, from his language to overt sex talk and now his book Real Marriage, are not problems of Calvinism. While some Calvinists support Driscoll, others have not been silent in their criticisms. John MacArthur, for example, has arguably been one of Driscoll’s biggest critics.² The ever popular Calvinist TeamPyro bloggers have also been highly critical of Driscoll.³

Harris’ has written that there is some concern about Driscoll’s influence among Southern Baptists. Speaking of concern, maybe Southern Baptists have some in-house issues to think about.

At about the same time Driscolls’ Real Marriage came out, the book Sexperiment, by SBC pastor Ed Young, Jr., and wife, Lisa debuted on the NY Times best sellers list.⁴ Young pastors an SBC mega-church with five campuses. He received a lot of flack for the stunts he used to promote his sex book. Young has also written books with his father, a past SBC president, that are featured on LifeWay’s site. Despite Young’s sex book, his SBC influence and connections, no one seems to be connecting the dots to his non-Calvinist theology as being a problem.

There are influential non-Calvinist SBC pastors connected with MacDonald and Driscoll. Jack Graham, who pastors the fourth largest SBC mega-church, Prestonwood Baptist Church with attendance of 14,323 and Perry Noble, who pastors NewSpring Church with attendance of 10,807.⁵ The attendance between these two churches alone speaks to an influence of over 25,000 Southern Baptists. Should Southern Baptists be concerned?

In 2011, Noble participated with Driscoll and MacDonald, among others, in the first Elephant Room. He defended his use of the song “Highway to Hell” in their Easter church service. Some Calvinists actually addressed Noble’s song choice for a worship service.⁶ Should Southern Baptists be concerned over Noble’s influence and non-Calvinism?

This year, 2012, Jack Graham participated in The Elephant Room II with Driscoll, MacDonald and T.D. Jakes.⁷ Graham and Jakes, whose theology and affiliations are questionable⁸, began partnering in ministry ministry 10 years ago.

In 2011, several Southern Baptists wrote letters of doctrinal concern about one of Jakes’ music ministers, Jamal Jones, who was to participate in the Pastors Conference.⁹ The end result was Jones withdrawal from the event. However, Graham is still a ministry affiliate of Jakes and Graham has even spoken at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Chapel all ready in 2012. Should Southern Baptists be concerned about the influence Graham may have over SWBTS students as well as Graham’s non-Calvinism?

Coming up in April 2012, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary is again hosting the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum where Roman Catholic philosopher/apologist Peter Kreeft is a featured panelist representing the Christian position.¹⁰ Should Southern Baptists be concerned about the potential Roman Catholic influence of its seminary students? The following quote is an example of Kreeft’s theology from an Amazon review.

There is one portion of this book that is truly bizarre. Mr. Kreeft claims to have had an out of body experience while surfing in Hawaii. During this experience, he “soul-surfed” and landed on a “Heavenly beach.” [p. 86] There, he met and spoke with Confucius, Buddha, Mohammed, and Moses. In the afterlife, all have become pious Roman Catholics. Nonetheless, Mohamed still teaches (and Kreeft appears to agree) that the Koran is “divine revelation.” [pp. 103-4] This stuff goes on for twenty-five pages. Mr. Kreeft purports that his recounting of this ecumenical beach party is in some sense “true.” [p. 86] No, I’m not making this up.¹¹

If Harris is worried about negative influences in Southern Baptist life, then the dots I just connected should give him some things other than Calvinism to worry about. That is, unless, he sees Calvinism as the true root of all potential and real problems in the SBC. If so, Harris has yet to prove his case against Calvinism. Also, is he going to blame non-Calvinism for the potential problems in the above connections just made?

There is a growing perception that Southern Seminary has become a seedbed for a brand of Calvinism that is quite different from the Reformed theology of its founder, James Petigru Boyce, and also a training ground for Reformed church planters. Therefore, it appears that some of our institutions and agencies are giving, at the least, tacit approval to Reformed theology or are, at the most, actively on a path to honor, if not implement Reformed theology and methodology in their institutions.

It would be helpful if Harris would explain how this brand of Calvinism is different from Boyce’s brand. Should judgements be passed on perception alone when voicing concerns over whether or not a seminary is a “seedbed” for a certain brand of Calvinism? Can Harris prove his allegations about Southern and Calvinism? Maybe it is articles like Harris’ that give Southern Baptists the wrong perceptions about Southern. Even the NAMB/LifeWay studies cited by Harris show that it is not just Southern Seminary that is graduating Calvinists.

Harris’ assertions do not seem the best way to foster cooperative relationships in the SBC.

While most of the Reformed pastors and churchmen I know are gracious and godly people with a profound devotion to the Word of God, Southern Baptists must decide if they are satisfied with what I would call the presumable encroachment of Calvinism in SBC life.

If most Reformed Christians that Harris knows are such godly people then what is he worried about? Is he worried that Calvinism may get the credit for such godly Christians?

Let’s rephrase Harris’ words for consistency.

While most of the Reformed pastors and churchmen I know are gracious and godly people with a profound devotion to the Word of God, Southern Baptists must decide if they are satisfied with gracious and godly people with a profound devotion to the Word of God in SBC life.

By using Harris’ own description of Reformed pastors and churchmen to define what the encroachment of Calvinism in SBC life may look like, what is there to worry about?

Harris ends his article with the mention of a possible name change to the SBC. How the name change has anything to do with Calvinism is unclear like many of the connections Harris makes. Again, what is being insinuated by tacking on ruminations about a name change?

If that is the suggested name and if we dare vote for it to be our new appellation we dare not defame it with half-hearted evangelism and church plants that wither away in five years.

Has the SBC name been defamed with inflated church membership roles? How about the membership and giving declines in recent years? Southern Baptists may have half-hearted evangelism and failing church plants regardless of the name. Again, what does this have to do with Calvinism?

“To cooperate or not cooperate within the SBC?” is one question, but a better question may be, “Who is truly making a concerted effort to cooperate within the SBC?”

For what it’s worth…

Mark

P.s. The following questions were asked by a Georgia Southern Baptist pastor.

1. Did Dr. White give approval to this editorial before it was published?
2. If so, why risk the good will that was accomplished through the younger leaders meeting in October, especially in light of the fact that he knew that over half that room consisted of Calvinist pastors?
3. If not, what does Dr. White think of this editorial and why not come out and immediately try to rebuild the bridges that may have been burned because of this editorial?
4. Does Dr. White, after seeing this – whether or not he knew about it beforehand – worry about a further cutting of CP giving by Calvinist Pastors who may see this and lead their churches away from giving or away from giving more?  What of those like myself who may choose to forgo the CP to give directly to the Convention and its entities?

________________________

Related posts:

1. The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris Part I
2. Letter to the editor of ‘The Christian Index’ by Marty King
3. Baptist College President Offers Calvinist Vision?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 6 comments | Add to
Post tags: Christian Index, Danny Akin, Georgia Baptist Convention, Gerald Harris, Gospel Project, James MacDonald, Jerry Vines, John Calvin, Lifeway, Mark Driscoll, Trevin Wax, TULIP

Gerald Harris, editor of the The Christian Index, the Georgia Southern Baptist newspaper, recently published the article “The Calvinists are here.”¹ There have been two immediate responses to Harris’ piece including one by former Calvinist William Birch² and an article in the Baptist Press in which some of the people mentioned by Harris answered his concerns.³ Harris’ article seems to be pieced together without a thesis. The article seems strung together by insinuations built upon a connect-the-dots type of guilt by association. In short, there is a lot to untangle in Harris’ article.

In the following response, which has been broken into two parts, I will attempt to untangle some of Harris’ insinuations and point out that his his dots do not actually connect to support insinuations that Calvinism is a problem. Sections of Harris’ article will be quoted and interacted with so this article will be long, but necessary.

Why is this response necessary?

This response is necessary for the sake of encouraging Southern Baptists from differing theological perspectives to move beyond casting judgements based upon personal bias. The response is necessary to encourage continuing working together for the sake of the gospel while embracing one another in Christ without questioning each others motives every step of the way. Remember, love bears, believes, hopes, and endures all things (1 Cor. 13:7) and love covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8). I hold Mr. Harris as a brother in Christ who has served the body of Christ through the SBC for many years. Being the editor of a state Baptist paper, Mr. Harris has a large reach. I pray that his reach be better used to serve Southern Baptists in building bridges rather than widening gaps. Instead, what Harris has offered at this point does not help build up the body of Christ. It would be more beneficial if we Southern Baptists would start talking to each other instead at and past each other.

This article will  attempt to give another perspective of what Harris insinuates as problematic for the SBC by examining the rest of the story.

The title of Harris’ article, “The Calvinists are here” may be the closest the reader comes to getting a thesis statement. Is Harris merely observing based on the title that Calvinists are present in the Southern Baptist Convention or Christendom? Were Calvinists absent for some time? Is Harris personally pro-Calvinist, anti-Calvinist or Calvinist neutral? Since his article is an opinion piece, what, exactly, is his opinion?

Mr. Harris begins his article by mentioning influential theologian John Calvin and the popularity of Calvin’s doctrine of predestination which Harris claims to be the foundation of Calvin’s theology. Whatever one believes about the foundation of Calvin’s theology is should noted that he wrote extensively on the topics of prayer and on the Holy Spirit.

Harris then summarizes the five points of Calvinism which arose after Calvin had gone to be the the Lord. As a Southern Baptist writing in a Southern Baptist paper, it may have served his fellow Baptists better had Harris pointed readers to the theology of the Southern Baptist Founders, some of whose work may be found online.⁴ This is not to say that Calvin did not influence both early and modern Southern Baptists, but the whole Protestant movement has influenced Southern Baptists.

In other words, why not start with the theology of those who actually started the Southern Baptist Convention? Is there a fear that informing Southern Baptists about SBC beginnings may possibly lead to people considering the theology of many of the Founders? Maybe Calvin is an easier example from which to encourage Baptists to distance themselves since he was a paedobaptist.

There are also those who hold to Reformed theology who believe limited atonement means that the death and resurrection of Christ is the substitutionary payment for the sins of only those who are God’s elect children, but not the entire world.

This statement is somewhat nuanced. Regardless of one’s theology, only the elect, i.e. those who believe the gospel, are ultimately the only ones to whom Christ’s substitutionary atonement will be applied. Granted, there are different understandings of how one is elected. Whether one believes, as James P. Boyce, that election is based on God’s will and not on foreseen faith; or that election is based on foreseen faith, the atonement will ultimately only be applied to the elect, universalism not withstanding.

Many who embrace Reformed theology are motivated to allow it to influence their church polity by substituting congregational church government with an elder system of church government.

This statement on church polity is also nuanced. This statement may lead readers to believe that any church with elders is operating like a Presbyterian church which is not the case. I have pointed out that current SBC President Bryant Wright, who is not a Calvinist, has an elder system of church government.⁵ Since it is not Reformed theology, what then is Wright’s influence for having elders in the local church? Why were no alarms sounded when he was first elected president? Even mega-church pastor Andy Stanley, son of famous Southern Baptist Charles Stanley, who could hardly be labeled as Reformed, serves North Point Community Church which has elders. Also, note that even early Anabaptists, with whom some Southern Baptists feel a spiritual kinship, had elders within their church polity.

While that works well for some churches, James MacDonald, a self-proclaimed Calvinist and member of the advisory board for LifeWay’s new Sunday School curriculum, writes, “Congregational government is an invention and tool of the enemy of our souls to destroy the church of Jesus Christ.”

First, James MacDonald recently shared that he was “never entirely comfortable with the title ‘reformed’” and would score no higher than 3.8 out of 5 points on the Calvinist test.⁶ MacDonald certainly did say that congregationalism is of Satan.⁷ Myself and several others reacted publicly to this charge on social media networks such as twitter. The most immediate and thorough response came from Calvinist writer Jonathan Leeman at the 9Marks blog.⁸ Many of MacDonald’s most vocal critics of have been Calvinists. Connecting the dots from MacDonald to Calvinism in an effort to seemingly discredit Calvinism does not hold. Therefore, Harris should not have a problem with Calvinism, but with MacDonald and LifeWay.

Let’s further consider the connection between MacDonald and LifeWay. I do not know why MacDonald was involved with LifeWay’s new curriculum. Hiring him is not something I would have done, but Harris seems to have missed something on his radar. See, 3.8 point Calvinist, MacDonald, along with Church of Christ pastor Max Lucado, are individually among the top-selling authors at LifeWay.⁹ Assuming Harris is worried about the theological content LifeWay makes available, it would seem that he would have been concerned prior to the new curriculum. Of course, the new curriculum is material printed with LifeWay’s name on it, but nonetheless LifeWay is a conduit for getting particular Bible studies in the hands of many Southern Baptists regardless of who publishes them. The average Southern Baptist who shops at LifeWay may be influenced by any and all products sold. Could there be any theological issues with certain authors due to their non-Calvinistic positions?

Harris next mentions Mark Dever’s article “Where’d All These Calvinists Come From?” which gives ten reasons Calvinism is re-emerging. Harris writes nothing else about Dever’s article other than to point it out. This may be one of the reasons why Harris’ article has been criticized as being pieced together. He then moves to Frank Page who said the following.

“I think the challenges confronting the SBC today are different than they have been in decades past. I think one of the issues, which is a tremendous challenge for us, is the theological divide of Calvinism and non-Calvinism.”

“Everyone is aware of this but few want to talk about this in public. The reason is obvious. It is deeply divisive in many situations and is disconcerting in others. At some point we are going to see the challenges ensuing from this divide become even more problematic for us. I regularly receive communications from churches who are struggling over this issue.”

The divide will continue if articles like Harris’ continue. Who is making Calvinism the divisive issue, Calvinists or non-Calvinists? Harris’ article should give the readers a hint.

Jerry Vines is quoted next with what seems to be contradictory positions on Calvinists. Since Harris is quoting Vines, does he hold the same opinion that Vines shares in the following quotes? The following replies are to Vines’ with Harris in mind as one who tacitly agrees.

“Theologically, will the issue of Calvinism create further division in the SBC? I have been an SBC preacher over 50 years. I have worked quite well with my Calvinist friends, many of whom I invited to preach for me. I have no desire to run all Calvinists out of the SBC; I think it would be divisive and wrong.”

Jerry Vines’ statements have drawn recent responses.¹⁰ Note that Vines has worked “quite well” with his Calvinist friends so why not model for the rest of us how to do so? While he states that has no desire to run all Calvinists out of the SBC, does he desire to run some of them out? Which ones and why? Would running only some Calvinists out of the SBC also be divisive and wrong?

Harris continues quoting Vines.

“But, current attempts to move the SBC to a Calvinistic soteriology (doctrine of salvation) are divisive and wrong. As long as groups and individuals seek to force Calvinism upon others in the Convention, there will be problems. There is a form of Calvinism that is militant, hostile and aggressive that I strongly oppose. I have stated before, so it’s not new news, that should the SBC move towards five-point Calvinism it will be a move away from, not toward, the Gospel.”

Who is attempting to move the entire SBC to a Calvinistic soteriology? I’m sure there is a form of militant, hostile and aggressive Calvinism, but who in the SBC is promoting such an animal? Is it also divisive and wrong, or possibly hostile and aggressive, to claim that a move toward Calvinism, a theology in which the SBC was rooted, is a move away from the gospel? What if someone started as a “one-point Calvinist” and gradually moved to two, and then three points? Does the acceptance of each point move this person further away from the gospel? Is it amazing to Vines/Harris that anyone is even saved in a church with a Calvinist preacher?

I digress. Harris continues.

According to LifeWay Research, the SBC’s, statistical arm, 10 percent of all SBC pastors now identify themselves as Calvinists and a third of recent graduates from SBC seminaries espouse Reformed doctrines, with Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY, a particular source.

The best I can tell is that the research to which Harris alludes is from a 2006 LifeWay study and a 2007 NAMB study.¹¹ According to the studies, there are no percentages given to compare the differences by which each seminary is graduating Calvinists. Actually, on page 14 of the surveys, the SBC seminaries are listed in descending order in proportion to their graduates who are Calvinists. While Southern tops the list in the 2007 NAMB study followed by Midwestern, Golden Gate, Southwestern, New Orleans and Southeastern; the 2006 LifeWay study has Golden Gate leading the way followed by Southeastern, New Orleans, Southwestern, Midwestern, and, finally, Southern.

It would be surprising if The Gospel Project, a Sunday School curriculum for all ages that LifeWay will soon be rolling out, were not marked by an unmistakable Reformed theology…The advisory council and writers for The Gospel Project (including D.A. Carson, Matt Chandler, James MacDonald, Eric Mason, Joe Thorn, Juan Sanchez, Collin Hansen, former North American Mission Board missionary to the Internet Afshin Ziafat and Geoff Ashley – for the most part looks like a Who’s Who of Reformed theologians.

Why would it be surprising if The Gospel Project were not marked by an unmistakable Reformed theology? Trevin Wax, managing editor of “The Gospel Project” answered questions that speak to Harris’ allegations.¹² One may either distrust Wax’s answers and believe he is lying or one may graciously accept that Wax is being truthful and is not trying to promote Reformed theology.

Speaking of divisiveness.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

P.s. Part II will be posted on Monday with some concluding questions from a Southern Baptist Georgia pastor.

____________________________________

Related posts:

1. The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris Part II
2. Letter to the editor of ‘The Christian Index’ by Marty King
3. Baptist College President Offers Calvinist Vision?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 37 comments | Add to
Post tags: Christian Index, Danny Akin, Georgia Baptist Convention, Gerald Harris, Gospel Project, James MacDonald, Jerry Vines, John Calvin, Lifeway, Mark Driscoll, Trevin Wax, TULIP

What would you do Wednesday!

I’m sure many Christians have handed out gospel tracts. There are a variety of tracts and some are even made to look like money. There is a million dollar bill tract which, of course, does not look real, but there are a few in lower denominations such at $10 and $20 bills that look like real money at first glance.

Usually, these $10 and $20 gospel tracts look like a bill folded in half with a gospel message on the inside. Today’s scenario will involve a $10 gospel tract being left at a restaurant as a tip. Sometimes people leave real money for a tip (as they should) along with a gospel tract, but when the tract looks like actual money the “tipping” may become questionable.

So what had happened was…

You are out eating with a fellow church member after Sunday morning worship service. This friend has just discovered the $10 gospel tract and thinks it’s the coolest thing in the world. However, you do not yet know about your friends new found excitement for this tract until after you’ve eaten and paid.

The bill comes and the total cost for both of you is about $30 after the meal, drinks and dessert. As you both start to pay your friend says that he will take care of the tip.

“Great!” you say as you thank him.

While walking to your cars your friend excitedly reveals to you the “coolest gospel tract” he’s ever seen. He shows you the fake, folded $10 bill and explains how attention grabbing it would be for sharing the gospel.

You ask if he has ever used one yet. He says, “Yep! I just used one to leave the tip.”

“Did you leave any real money along with the tract?” you ask.

Your friend replies, “Nah, because the Waitress is going to be so surprised when she finds and reads the gospel which is infinitely more valuable than mere a $10 bill.”

What would you do at that moment?

• Tell your friend what a great idea he had.
• Ask why he didn’t leave two tracts so the waitress could share one.
• Go back inside and personally hand the waitress a real tip and apologize.
• Go back inside and give her a $20 gospel tract instead.
• Or…

Related posts:

1. Ethics: A Church Member Wins the Lottery
2. Ethics: Betting On NCAA March Madness Brackets
3. Ethics: Church to Lose Funding Over Homosexual Adoption

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 19 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

What would you do Wednesday!

Today I’m going to pick-on set the situation within the realm of Southern Baptists since I are one. It is also more culturally acceptable to use your own as an example, right? (Don’t worry, non-Southern Baptists may also comment.)

The created situation involves a seminary student who preaches someone else’s sermons. The question will be two-fold by considering the person as a student and then as a pastor. Your pastor.

For this scenario, the seminary student (SS) will be using, let’s see, sermons by – eeny, meeny, miny, moe, choose a preacher and let’s go – Adrian Rogers. There are many popular Southern Baptist preachers from which to choose, but we will go with the excellent orator, Dr. Rogers, who is now home with the Lord.

Once upon a time…

While in seminary one of your fellow students, SS, confides in you that he does not feel as though he has enough time to do the school work and successfully carry out his preaching duties. To save time on sermon preparation, SS listens to an Adrian Rogers’ sermon and transcribes it for his own use.

Stunned, you’re not sure what to say at the moment. A few days later you learn that a few other students found out that SS uses Rogers’ sermons. Although they were sort of making light of his actions and writing SS off as somewhat of a joke, they thought that SS ought to be confronted and rebuked.

What would you do?

• Confront and rebuke him?
• High-five him for preaching good sermons?

What if you found out this was your pastor in seminary? Would you say anything at all about this issue?

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Whether or Not To Leave a Church Over the Pastor’s Sermons
2. Ethics: Baptist Professor Drinking Beer in Public
3. Ethics: Army Chaplain Preaches for Memorial Day

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 16 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

What would you do Wednesday!

Freemasonry is not as active as it was in the past. It was already on the decline when I left the lodge 13 years ago. Although I imagine the Shriners, of whom all are Masons, are still pretty active.

Freemasonry was once a concern in Southern Baptist life. In fact, the North American Mission Board’s apologetics website has a few resources on Freemasonry under “New Religions and Cults.”¹

A 1993 Southern Baptist study on Freemasonry concluded with a list of items showing where Freemasonry and Christianity were not compatible. However, the report also acknowledged:

That many oustanding Christians and Southern Baptists now are, and in the past have been Masons, including such notable past Southern Baptist leaders as B.H. Carroll, George W. Truett, L.R. Scarborough, W.T. Connor, Louie D. Newton, and J.B. Lawrence.²

What if you discovered that the deacons in your church were Freemasons?

Imagine that you have been attending a local church for a year. In the last few months you began to know a few of the deacons a little better. During that time you also began noticing that most of the deacons wore similar lapel pins.

Finally, you get a chance to privately ask one of the deacons about the pins. This deacon is glad you asked. He explains that they are Freemasonry pins and that all of the deacons are Masons. He was hoping that you would ask since Masons are forbidden from actively recruiting.

“Freemasons have always been part of this church,” the deacon explains. “Years ago we dedicated the Family Life Center in the name of our lodge,” he says as he walks you around to the dedicated stone that is etched with date, church name and Masonic symbols. The deacon encouragingly asks if you have anymore questions about Masonry?

What would you do?

• Ask more about Freemasonry including how to join.
• Ask about how Freemasonry lines up with Christianity.
• Say thanks, but no thanks.
• Talk with the pastor about this issue.
• Smash the Masonic stone and tell the deacon to repent.
• Or…

________________________

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Deacons Call for Pastor to Resign
2. Ethics: Potential Deacon Struggling with Pornography
3. Ethics: Female Pastor Presented to Preach Sunday Morning

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 12 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

First, James White weighs in on his Dividing Line radio show for two hours. There were so many listeners that the servers crashed.  Find the link and a description below.

A Mega-Friday DL on TD Jakes and Elephants in the Room

In any case, I addressed the TD Jakes: is he a Trinitarian? issue head on during the first hour, and then took calls on the topic for a full hour after that. The callers were wide ranging, and while none defended the ER or Jakes, they did provide some good insights. Lots of positive feedback on Twitter and FaceBook. Hope it will be helpful! Here’s the program.

Next, a past resource from 9Marks by Greg Gilbert who reviews 11 various books by T.D. Jakes. It seems that Jakes’ theology improved somewhat with the new books on Ephesians. Check the link for more on the titles listed below. (HT: Keith L. Tolbert)

Book Review: T.D. Jakes: Various Works

• Woman, Thou art Loosed!  Treasure House:1993, reprinted 1999.
• Can You Stand to Be Blessed?  Treasure House: 1994, reprinted 1999.
• Naked and Not Ashamed.  Treasure House:1995, reprinted 1999.
• So You Call Yourself a Man?  Alsbury Publishing:  1997.
• Anointing Fall on Me.  Pneuma Life Publishing:  1997.
• The Lady, Her Lover, and Her Lord.  Berkley Books: 1998.
• Maximize the Moment.  G.P. Putnam’s Sons:  1999.
• The Great Investment.  G.P. Putnam’s Sons:  2000.
• Six Pillars from Ephesians: Loved by God.  Albury Publishing:  2000.
• Six Pillars from Ephesians: Experiencing Jesus. Albury Publishing:  2000.
• Six Pillars from Ephesians: The Spiritual Worship of the Believer.  Albury Publishers: 2000.

Gilbert comments.

On the whole, most of T.D. Jakes’s works belong on the psychology shelves at the bookstore.  They have little to do with the gospel of the Bible.  Stories and truths in the Bible are used as encouragements to think positively and overcome hardship, or to prove that God is waiting to bless us if we’ll only believe more and stop feeling sorry for ourselves.  Sin is mostly absent and when it is discussed, it is usually no more insidious than a bad self-esteem.  Sometimes Jakes makes it sound as if we are innocent victims of sin, which has evilly placed us in bad circumstances and tries to shackle us to our past.  There is no mention of hell or punishment.  God’s grace is most often talked about as a way to release us from our past, or heal old wounds, or teach us how to handle difficult relationships.

P.s. Richard Barcellos interviewed former Oneness pastor and friend Jordan Dayoub about Jakes’ statements at the Elephant Room. Below is one question and answer to whet your appetite.

ER2 Q&A with a former Oneness pastor

RB: Did you hear (or read) the discussion on the doctrine of the Trinity between T. D. Jakes, Mark Driscoll, and James MacDonald and what was your over-all impression of that discussion?

JD: I read the article and even saw a clip on YouTube. Here’s the problem. Driscoll and MacDonald let him expound on his own views and experiences and I know it was in a spirit of love. What they’re unable to detect, because they’re unfamiliar, is the ecumenical smokescreen that big-time prosperity preachers like Jakes put up because he really cares nothing for theology. If you listen closely, his entire discourse is centered on denominational identities and bridging the divide. He says he was Metho-Baptist-Pentecostal because of his upbringing. He sees theology simply as petty divisions among varying tribes of Christian sects. Because he sees himself as a ‘bridge builder’, doctrine is merely semantics among those who profess Christ. He told them he believed in ‘God in three persons’ but never called himself a Trinitarian. His position today is exactly what it was 15 years ago – vague.

Related posts:

1. What Would You Ask TD Jakes at Elephant Room 2?
2. Elephant Room II and TD Jakes’ Oneness Association
3. Did Mark Dever Withdraw from Elephant Room 2?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to
Post tags: if elected, James MacDonald, James White, Mark Driscoll, modalism, Oneness, TD Jakes, Trinity

On the Trinity

First, Pastor Tom Chantry has provided a actual transcript of T.D. Jakes words on the Trinity from The Elephant Room 2, session 4.¹

Chantry then made a follow-up post in which he shares his thoughts in the following five points.²

1. Jakes masterfully deconstructs the entire practice of theology.
2. Driscoll and MacDonald are too much in awe of Jakes’ massive numeric success to call him on this.
3. James MacDonald is angry.
4. The mega-pastors are one big lovin’ family!
5. If you aren’t defined at least somewhat by what you are against, you aren’t really defined at all.

I have also asked E. Calvin Beisner³ his thoughts on Jakes’ recent statements on the Trinity at Elephant Room 2. Beisner has written two books covering the Trinity and answered as follows.

Those words are absolutely consistent with the modalist heresy of Oneness Pentecostalism, and they remind me precisely of the kind of intentionally vague, off-topic language used by Arius and his supporters at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. Jakes will be believable in saying he believes in “One God – Three Persons” when he renounces Oneness Pentecostalism and separates from the officially modalist, anti-Trinitarian United Pentecostal and other Oneness denominations, and enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity with clarity and precision and a clear repudiation of modalism. Jakes’s language above fits perfectly with Oneness Pentecostals’ belief that the only difference between Father and Son is that the Son is the Father manifested in the flesh. The crucial element of the doctrine of the Trinity is that the distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit are revealed in Scripture to be utterly independent of anything external to God–i.e., they are internal distinctions. Jakes’s god is not the God revealed in the Bible, and his gospel is not the gospel revealed in the Bible.

Angry Apostles

Some will label those who say and agree with the above comments as haters, as angry or maybe both. However, the Apostles had much to say about carefully handling and teaching doctrine as well as false teachers. Below is a sample of such teaching.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.(2 Peter 2:1-3 ESV)

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.(Acts 17:11 ESV)

This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:18-20 ESV)

But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, (2 Timothy 2:16-17 ESV)

A little leaven leavens the whole lump. (Galatians 5:9 ESV)

Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message. (2 Timothy 4:14-15 ESV)

you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 5:5 ESV)

But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. (1 Timothy 6:9 ESV)

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. (Romans 16:17-18 ESV)

He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound1 doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:9 ESV)

Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. (1 Timothy 4:16 ESV)

____________________________

Related posts:

1. TD Jakes Reviews: Elephant Room and 11 Various Books
2. TD Jakes: Association Lacking Discernment?
3. What Would You Ask TD Jakes at Elephant Room 2?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 7 comments | Add to
Post tags: Elephant Room, James MacDonald, Mark Driscoll, modalism, TD Jakes, Trinity

What would you do Wednesday!

Today’s situation deals with the uncomfortable issue of church discipline. To make the situation more uncomfortable a church discipline contract will also be involved. The scenario is inspired by real circumstances surrounding a former Mars Hill Church member named Andrew who was issued a church discipline contract to sign.¹

Imagine that you (or a friend if you wish) has just confessed and repented of being sexually involved with a fellow church member who happens to be the child of one of the church elders. The confession took place in the covenant group that you are a part of where it was then taken to one of the pastors/elders.

The pastor then issued a church discipline contract which he expected you to sign and follow. The discipline contract laid out the following steps that would be taken on the road to restoration.

• You will attend a covenant group and meet with its leader on a regular basis.
• You will not be involved in serving in the church.
• You will not pursue or date anyone inside or outside of this church.
• You will write out in detail your sexual and emotional attachment history and share it with covenant group leader.
• You will write out in detail the chronology of events and sexual/emotional sin and share it with the covenant group leader and a pastor.
• You will write out a list of all people you have sinned against during this timeframe, either by sexual/emotional sin, lying or deceiving, share it with the covenant group leader and develop a plan to confess sin and ask for forgiveness.

How would you respond (or advise your friend to respond)?

• Follow the contract no questions asked.
• Possibly follow the contract after some clarification.
• Inquire as to whether or not the elders child was also issued a contract.
• Dispute the contract explaining that you have repented.
• Leave the church.

__________________________________

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Resign Church Membership To Avoid Discipline
2. Ethics: Business Bribes
3. Ethics: Adding Alcohol Abstinence to the Church Covenant

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 13 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

As far as I know, being rebuked is not something to which most Christians look forward, especially, being publicly rebuked. However, Scripture says it is good for rebuke (2 Tim. 3:16). Scripture even includes the well-known example of one Apostle publicly rebuking another Apostle (Gal. 2:11, 14).

Today, there is no shortage of Christians rebuking one another online. Though direct, public rebukes in person is not often carried out. Occasionally, one might hear a public rebuke about  a particular person, but the more popular route is to address poor teaching in general leaving the teacher unnamed. In the past, I have argued whether or not the practice of general criticism aimed at the unnamed is a good biblical practice.¹

Furthermore, public rebuke as carried out by Paul toward Peter in Galatians 2 is almost unheard of today. However, a recent situation come very close. Matt Chandler offered what appears to be a public rebuke in his recent sermon at Steven Furtick’s Code Orange Revival at Elevation Church. It seems Chandler’s message could be easily set against that of the other speakers at Code Orange. Elevation Church was actually accused of censoring Chandler’s sermon.² Chris Rosebrough has further documentation and insights into the reasons why Chandler’s sermon was not replayed during the Code Orange re-broadcast.³

Chandler was certainly the odd man out at this conference. One may even argue biblically that he should have declined the offer to participate. However, his message and attendance were needed. He preached the gospel, did not boast in himself, and challenged those in attendance that God is about His glory. Chandler explained finding joy over happiness in the Christian life.

Chandler’s most direct rebuke is found in the following words.

I think God is for you, and I think God loves you and He delights in and He’s going to shepherd you, He’s going to lead you. But He’s going to do it all to make much of Himself and to point people towards Himself. So just be careful. Because with a little shift here and a little drift there, God’s name is still on it but you know, ‘That Pastor Steven, it was his vision’ and ‘We have the best worship in the world,’ and before long you can weave these things into your culture and into your ethos that are opposed to the things of God. So when I pray for this church and your pastor, I pray God will protect you.⁴

Chandler’s warning was clear, but the exact target subtle. He provided a good example of warning against a potential unbiblical practice in the church. He could have gone further though some may say that would have been in bad taste since he would have been clearly rebuking the church that invited him.

Would a clearer rebuke have been in bad taste?

I would like to use the example of Paul rebuking Peter to answer this question with a “no”. Before preceding, understand that I am not criticizing Matt Chandler by using his sermon as an example. I am thankful Chandler was courageous enough to say what he did. What I am saying is that Chandler could have gone further and it would have been biblically acceptable to do so.

In Galatians 2 beginning in verse 11, Paul writes about publicly rebuking Peter. A few verses earlier, however, Paul acknowledges that Peter was also entrusted with the gospel (v. 7) and viewed as a pillar of the faith (v. 9). Given Peter’s standing in the Christian community it would seem the Paul would be somewhat sensitive in his public correction of Peter. What Paul writes may lead one to think differently.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. (Galatians 2:11 ESV)

Paul uses strong, direct words. He continued.

But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all…(Galatians 2:14 ESV)

It is clear that the gospel is more important than the Apostle Peter. It is also clear that Paul is speaking publicly in his rebuke in which he directly corrects Peter’s errors.

Notice what Paul does not say and do. Paul does not excuse Peter because God used Peter’s gospel preaching at Pentecost to convert 5,000 people. Paul does not excuse Peter because of his Apostleship. Paul does not show signs of being judged as a hater as reason enough to cowardly back down and not publicly rebuke Peter while defending the gospel.

Rather, Paul shows what the two greatest commands given by Jesus look like in action. First, he loves God by defending His gospel. Second, flowing from Paul’s love for God, he expresses his love for others in caring for their souls by defending the gospel making sure God’s grace and Christ’s death are not made void (Gal. 2:21).

Finally, there is good reason, i.e. the sake of the gospel, for Christians to follow Paul’s biblical example of public rebuke just as they follow many of his other examples.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

P.s. I had other points to consider, but did not want to make the post too long. One of those points was about public rebuke being potentially more helpful if the person being rebuke is clearly stated. The reason may be shown in the example of Matt Chandler’s rebuke noted above. The careful listener, and even the person toward whom the rebuke was aimed, may have picked up on the theological issues Chandler was reproving. However, judging by the audience applause, it was not clear that they got it. Therefore, the way Paul pointedly addressed Peter along with Peter’s theological errors provides a further illustration of how a public rebuke may be carried out. If it is not clear which messenger and message is being reproved this may lead the audience to theological confusion or simply leave them embracing theological error.
__________________________

Related posts:

1. Internet fellowship
2. Christless Christianity Q and A With Michael Horton
3. The Albert Mohler Program

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 7 comments | Add to
Post tags: Code Orange Revival, Matt Chandler, public rebuke, rebuke, Steven Furtick

What would you do Wednesday!

The question of plagiarized sermons comes up every now and then. Whether or not one should preach someone else’s sermons has been debated in the blogosphere, too. Selling sermons must not be too bad of a business considering the eight sites listed on Sermon Source that continue to sell sermons. There are probably more than just these eight sites selling sermons.

Of course, buying someone else’s sermons does not mean that they will be delivered as original work from the pulpit. However, this does happen to the extent that one pastor recently stepped down over sermon plagiarism.

Today’s scenario is slightly different though it is based on a true situation. The situation is that one relatively prominent pastor  has used sermons of another prominent pastor with no citation of who the work belongs to.

The situation is that someone discovered the same sermon on two different church websites from two different pastors with both listing the source of the sermon as that church’s pastor. One pastor has had the sermon on the website dating eight years earlier than the other. It would seem that the pastor with the later dating copied the work of that of the earlier dating.

Consider the following ethical questions concerning this situation keeping in mind that you are not part of either congregation.

Are you obligated to say anything to anyone? Is it best to keep silent? If you don’t keep silent, what biblical principle should be followed? Is Matthew 18 to be followed? How would you start the process and the follow-up?

Is using someone else’s sermons immoral or unethical? Do the churches have a right to know? Should the churches who pay these pastors have a right to original sermons?

Maybe the second pastor has permission from the first pastor to use his material. Maybe neither man cares if anyone is cited as doing the original sermon, then what?

Would you feel responsible if you reach out to the churches and reveal what has happened and a pastor loses his job? What about his family? Does it matter that the sermons are spiritually healthy and the flock is being fed by them?

What would you do?

What would you do if one of the above were your pastor?

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Seminary Student Preaches Someone Else’s Sermons
2. Ethics: If Your Pastor Says You Suck?
3. Ethics: Pastor Opposes Tim Tebow Preaching

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 10 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

What would you do Wednesday!

The New York Times reported that Roman Catholic charities in Illinois must comply with a new requirement to “consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money.”¹ Catholic bishops claim that these requirements infringe on freedom of religion. Catholic charities in other cities have closed their adoption services rather than comply with the new requirements. The article also states that five Catholic Charities in Illinois get 60 – 92% of their revenue from the state.

For today’s scenario, let’s move the above situation to your local church.

Your church has been providing adoptive services for the community and surrounding areas for 20 years. State legislation was just passed requiring your church adoption services to consider homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents or foster parents. If this new requirement to consider homosexual couples is not met, state funding will be cut-off.

State funding makes up 60% of the adoption services revenue while the other 40% comes from donations from various outside sources. You have only been on the board of directors for a year. Yet,  you must consider all of the options on what’s best for serving the community while not compromising your Christian beliefs.

What would you do?

• Comply and take the money because it’s needed and we shouldn’t judge anyway.
• Comply and take the money for now, but slowly ween the charity from state funding.
• Don’t comply and just shut down the charity.
• Don’t comply and trust God to continue providing.
• Don’t comply, stand on your beliefs and fight on the basis of freedom of religion.
• Move the charity underground and offer black market adoptions.

_________________________

Related posts:

1. Ethics: A Church Member Wins the Lottery
2. Ethics: Christian Converts to Islam to Marry Muslim
3. Ethics: Pastor Admits to Homosexual Orientation

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

Elephant Room II is only 20 days away. T.D. Jakes is still on the schedule.¹ Several of us disagreed with Jakes being a participant², including Mark Dever who withdrew³, but I did suggest some questions for Jakes.⁴ Although I am still not very excited about Jakes participation, I am interested in what he will have to say, especially, in his session with Mark Driscoll where the following issues are supposed to be addressed.

What are the ‘majors’ of Christian doctrine that cannot be diluted or denied for a person to be a Christian? How can we help one another move beyond the bare minimum of accepted belief, to a pursuit of robust, soul-satisfying, biblical substance? How should we relate to those who do not yet embrace the benefit and priority of sound biblical doctrine? Is there a difference between a person in error and a wolf in sheep’s clothing? What benefits derive from keeping the majors on a separate list and not letting the ‘minors’ divide us? Is it possible to love the truth without compromise and still work passionately for unity?⁵

In light of the answers I received to recent questions, an additional question of ministry associations would be interesting. T.D. Jakes has long been affiliated with the organization Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies (HGAAA). On their Facebook page I asked (screenshot below), “Is T.D. Jakes still the Vice-Prelate of Higher Ground? Also, is Higher Ground still Oneness in their theology of the Godhead?”⁶

The answer from Timothy Starkey was “Yes and yes.” Yet who is Mr. Starkey? The West Virginia & East Tennessee Council of Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc. lists Mr. Starkey as “Minister Timothy Starkey” of the “United Apostolic Faith Church.”⁷ This Council is a Oneness organization as evidenced by their statement of faith which states, “There is but one GOD in essence and in person” who is the triune manifestation, the divine three-fold manifestation and relationship.”⁸

Little did I know that all I had to do was check out the flyer for the “2012 Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies, Inc. National Convention.” The flyer has Jakes’ picture with his title of “Vice Prelate” under it.⁹

So what’s the big deal?

The big deal is that even if T.D. Jakes proclaims a clear, unequivocal belief in the Trinity¹⁰, the question remains of why Jakes continues to serve in ministry with Oneness folks. (Other doctrinal concerns remain as well.¹¹)

Would an alleged former Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness get a pass in the same situation? If Jakes’ claimed to be raised in a Mormon or JW congregation, later alleged that he has moved beyond those communities, yet was still a officer serving with a Mormon or JW organization, would the Elephant Room organizers ignore the obvious? I hope the answer is that the ER folks would address such affiliations, but if they were consistent, it seems that the invitation would still have been issued.

Will the question of associations go unasked and unanswered? I have no idea though I hope both with be asked and answered. Let’s hope there is truth in advertisement since the ad on the ER website states:

“You know the rules…No wavering. No sidestepping. No Excuses.”

___________________________

Related posts:

1. What Would You Ask TD Jakes at Elephant Room 2?
2. TD Jakes Reviews: Elephant Room and 11 Various Books
3. Did Mark Dever Withdraw from Elephant Room 2?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to
Post tags: Elephant Room, modalism, Oneness, TD Jakes

The following top 10 posts are those that received the most traffic from July 2011 through December 2011. The amount of attention some of these topics received on the web at the time they happened is amazing. However, thinking over the topics now is like thinking about ancient history that happened years ago.

We really do live in a soundbite society. Here today, cached tomorrow.

1. TD Jakes: Association Lacking Discernment? – A reply to James MacDonald’s defense of using discernment and association for inviting T.D. Jakes to Elephant Room II. The post includes interesting quotes from T.D. Jakes giving insight into his theological perspectives from the Trinity to his ministry associations. I have an upcoming post verifying Jakes’ continued association with Oneness folks.

2. The Shack Review – A review of William Young’s The Shack that continues to draw attention.

3. Dynamite Sermon Illustrations – A brief look at the misuse of the Greek word “dunamis” which means “power”. This post uses D.A. Caron’s Exegetical Fallacies to show how dunamis is used anachronistically.

4. Did Mark Dever Withdraw from Elephant Room 2? – I was alerted by a reader that Mark Dever had withdrawn from participating in Elephant Room II. Dever withdrew quietly probably due to the participation of T.D. Jakes. This post references Dever’s explanation of his practice of separation.

5. A Look at Passion City Church – A post critiquing Louie Giglio’s interview about an Atlanta church plant. Interesting that this post still gets traffic.

6. Mark Driscoll On Prophetic Dreams and Seeing the Future – Very interesting assertions by Mark Driscoll on God giving him visions into the private lives of people.

7. Was Anders Breivik a Christian? -An attempt at refuting some of the media claims after Breivik murdered several people that he is a Christian. I used Breiviks own words in the refutation.

8. A NASCAR Prayer, Parody or Blasphemy? – An unusual public prayer by a pastor that seemed to make light of prayer.

9. Southern Baptist Church Offices, Elders et al. – A defense of the use of a plurality of elders in SBC churches including documentation that the current SBC President pastors a church with a plurality of elders.

10. Brewing Controversy: A Respectful Disagreement with John MacArthur – A local friend of mine responds to MacArthur’s assertions about alcohol and the Young, Restless, and Reformed.

Related posts:

1. Top 10 Posts for 2011 at the Halfway Point
2. Top 9 Posts for May 09
3. What Would You Ask TD Jakes at Elephant Room 2?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to
Post tags: blogging, top 10

What would you do Wednesday!

The Michael Medved Show recently covered the topic of the discrimination lawsuit filed against Aloha Bed & Breakfast by a lesbian couple. The B&B owner, Phyllis Young, allegedly denied the couple a room due to her Christian views on homosexuality. The lesbian couple is suing claiming a violation of Hawaiian law by discrimination based on sexual orientation. Young is being legally represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization which defends religious freedom.

This should be an interesting lawsuit to follow.

As a Christian, would you do the same as Young? As I understand it, Young actually lives in the Bed & Breakfast which is common among B&B owners. At least one Medved Christian caller said that he would have a problem renting a room inside his home to a homosexual couple, but would not be troubled renting a house or apartment.

What would you do?

• Follow Young’s actions and not rent to them.
• Rent a room to them.
• Rent a room to them, but share the gospel first and explain how their lifestyle is sinful.
• Tell them you’ll rent them the shed.
• Or…

Also, would your decision be different if you were renting a house or apartment rather than a room in your B&B home?

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Pastor Admits to Homosexual Orientation
2. Ethics: Church to Lose Funding Over Homosexual Adoption
3. Ethics: A Homosexual Asks About Christianity

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2011. | Permalink | 12 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

What would you do Wednesday!

Today’s scenario is an interesting one involving blogging, although it could be applied to any online writing. The online exchange of words and ideas is amazingly fast.

If a blogger has any kind of audience and he posts something that challenges that audience there is probably going to be a response. The large technology and political blogs certainly get responses, but a blog need have a huge following to get feedback. Even in the small world of Christian blogging one can get into some pretty heated discussion.

So what if one Christian blogger asks another not to quote any of his words without permission?

This recently happened on another Christian blog. The following was requested.

 Jared,
On a personal note, I would request that you NOT use my comments on other blogs or websites in your blog articles … without …my permission.  My written comments are personalized to that blog article and its context.  I would appreciate you honoring my request for the future. Blessings! – Ron Hale¹*

Interesting request. For readers who are unaware, the U.S. Copyright office has a doctrine of “fair use” which states that quoting others may be considered fair in areas “such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.”² The commenter above responded again admitting that permission to quote him is not required, but that he is asking that his request be honored nonetheless.

What would you do?

• Honor the request no questions asked.
• Honor the request, but ask questions.
• Not honor the request in general.
• Not honor the request as long as he continues writing online.
• Write extra blog posts quoting him as much as you can.

*Note: The example used above is just an example of a situation that has occurred on this topic and it is not the topic of this thread. The topic is to answer the question of what you, the reader, would do in this situation.

______________________

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Pastor Introduces ‘Kings Way’ to Reach Muslims
2. Ethics: Betting On NCAA March Madness Brackets
3. Quote of the Day

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2011. | Permalink | 23 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

What would you do Wednesday!

NFL quarterback Tim Tebow gets a lot of news coverage because of the way he and the Broncos are winning football games and, more specifically, for his outspoken faith in Jesus Christ. It could be argued that his Christianity has become more of a story than the last minute wins.

Today’s hypothetical scenario might bring Tim Tebow to your church.

In an upcoming Sunday, your church is holding a youth outreach event that will be held after the morning service. The church youth have been encouraged to invite friends and neighbors.The whole church was asked to think of how they might contribute to this event.

Well, one of your fellow church members just happened to get connected with Tim Tebow through the friend of a friend. He was very excited about inviting Tebow, but he knew he would have to run it by church leadership. Tebow is willing to help with the youth event and would like to share his story and give an invitation at the end of the sermon to close the service.

In his excitement, this church member told a few people and the news spread like a wildfire throughout the congregation. Before he could contact the pastor about inviting Tebow, the pastor had already received a dozen calls.

Your pastor tells you that he will get back with you in a week with his decision about inviting Tebow. A week goes by taking with it dozens of phone calls to the pastor about his decision. Based on the phone calls the congregation does not seem to be of one mind about having Tebow speak.

The pastor decides to bring this decision to a congregational meeting since this is a congregational church and everyone is not on the same page. (I know, but stay with me here!)

At the meeting the pastor explains that as a congregation everyone does not agree that inviting Tebow is the best thing for their local body. He then states his personal reasons why he does not think Tebow is the best idea. After some research, your pastor explains that he does not agree with Tebow’s methods which include the following.

Inviting everyone to ask Jesus into their heart, decisional regeneration, an altar call, leading a sinners prayer and then proclaiming the salvation of those who recited the prayer welcoming them to the family of God.¹

 It is time for the congregation to vote.

What would you do and why?

• Trust the spiritual leadership of your pastor and vote no.
• Vote no for other reasons.
• Vote yes.
• Try to get Tebow to your house for dinner.

____________________

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Deacons Call for Pastor to Resign
2. Ethics: Which Pastor, Anger or Homosexuality?
3. Ethics: Prominent Pastor Plagiarizes?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2011. | Permalink | 16 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, NFL, Tim Tebow, WWYDW

What would you do Wednesday!

In one of the episodes of TLC’s new TV show All-American Muslim a local high school football team changed their practice time for the observance of Ramadan.¹ Ramadan is a month of Islamic fasting where “Muslims refrain from eating, drinking, smoking and sex during daylight hours.”²

Today’s scenario is based on the above true story.

Your son’s high school football coach sends notice home with each player that practice is changing for the month of Ramadan. The notice is sent a month before Ramadan begins. Instead of practicing at the usually time immediately after school practice will be moved to the early morning hours.

The coach’s note explains that during Ramadan Muslims can’t eat or drink during daylight hours. Since he and most of the football team are Muslim the coach explained that practicing under such malnourished conditions would not be healthy for those observing Ramadan. He also claims that practice itself be less effective.The players will also be somewhat tired from the workload of their regular school days. Therefore, the new football practice schedule during the month of Ramadan will be as follows.

Monday through Friday from 1o p.m. to 5 a.m.

What would you do?

• Nothing and let your kid practice with the new schedule.
• Express disagreement with the coach, but ultimately go along with him.
• Go the principle and school board if need be to stop the new schedule.
• File a formal complaint about religious favoritism toward Islam.
• Or…

___________________

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Pastor Opposes Tim Tebow Preaching
2. Ethics: New Church and a Pastor’s Affair
3. Ethics: Immodest Dress In Church

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2011. | Permalink | 6 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW