Now that Southern Baptist leaders are embracing the idea of a woman leading this nation, will they rethink their rejection of the idea of a woman leading their congregations?

Probably not.

Since Baptist Faith and Message 2000 states the position that women are not to be pastors there’s really no probably about it.

…the SBC’s Richard Land — who said he is “ecstatic” about the selection of Sarah Palin as Republican candidate for vice president — threw holy water on any notion that a woman he considers qualified to lead the free world can lead him in prayer and worship.

The funny thing is that this is not what Land said.  There are women in SBC churches that lead in prayer and that lead in worship, if by worship the connotation is singing hymns and spiritual songs.  If by worship he means pastor then the statement is correct, however, for some churches simply leading worship doesn’t mean the pastor is the one always doing it.  What Land actually said here in reference to Waters’ above statement is actually quoted by Waters in the next paragraph.

“The only restrictions we find in Scripture are, that for whatever reason women are not to be in charge of a marriage and women are not to be in charge of a church,” explained Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “That has nothing to do with governor, or senator or the House of Representatives, or president, or vice president.”

So here Land lays out his position with qualifications yet he’s charged with holding to a double-standard?  Since when is a church and a home the same as political office?  Some politicians may think they’re reverends and such, but that’s a different topic.  Waters then attempts to build his case.

It has a lot to do with the men who took control of the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1980s. Previous Southern Baptist faith statements set no gender limits on the office of pastor. In fact, it wasn’t until 2000…

And?  The 1925 statement has the least amount of text so should it never have been changed or do we just change what outsiders deem appropriate?  Different issues need to be addressed so they were added and some of those additions were simply putting into words what was already practiced and believed.  Slavery was not part of any historic confession as I recall yet the Convention has been frowned upon for its relationship to slavery in the past.  Waters continues his case.

Of course, there are countless Christians (men and women) who believe these biblical ‘restrictions’ have been misinterpreted, and are no more applicable than biblical ‘restrictions’ on eating pork, selling your daughter into slavery or resisting evil.

And there are, of course, countless who believe that the Old Testament Sundry Laws aren’t as applicable as the restrictions of men for the pastoral office.  In fact, since we are talking about the SBC, of their 40,000 plus churches a vast majority agree with my statement.  I raise Waters one assertion for another, but in context.  I know people try to draw parallel’s to the OT laws in comparison to NT restrictions concerning woman, however, I have to wonder who argues for comparative applicability.  And resisting evil?  I’d like to know how that fits in this context.  We certainly resist evil in the church age.

The SBC’s current gender restriction was based on short verses from I Corinthians and Timothy, including this line in I Cor. 14:34: “The women should keep silence in the churches.

Short verses?  So what?  We don’t build our theological positions based on how short a verse is.  The verse “Jesus wept” has been very powerfully preached to the edification of the church.  But maybe we should just not pay attention to the implications of this verse because it’s too “short.”

Waters goes on to quote Russell Dilday on the word “silent” in 1 Corinithians on how there are different interpretations.  Then goes on to quote the BFM2000’s addition of the wife submitting to her husband.  Which spurs this question by Waters.

What’s a governor and married mother of five to do?

I think she should go on being governor.  Isn’t that what she’s been doing?  Besides, Palin is not Southern Baptist and we are not voting on a position within the Southern Baptist Convention.

It always has amused me that there seems to be only one fundamental on which the male leaders of conservative Roman Catholic, evangelical and pentecostal Protestant, Mormon, Orthodox Jewish and Muslim denominations all agree: A woman cannot lead their congregations or denominations.

So?  What do these other organization have to do with trying to apply claim Southern Baptists are operating on a double-standard?  Let them answer for themselves.  Besides, there were women on the BF&M2000 committee helping decide the current theological positions.

How do these guys keep a straight face? How do they explain this to their American daughters: “Honey, in America you can grow up to be anything you want, except the pastor of our church.”

This has already been explain by Richard Land whom Waters quoted as well as others he mentioned.  My daughter and wife both understand this and I didn’t have to convince them.  There was nothing to explain away.  And if it meant that much to them they could always leave the SBC and go try and pastor a churhc in another demonination that would except them.

After Palin’s selection, it will be interesting to see how they explain this double-standard to American voters.

In this final statement we see just another assertion without proof.  Waters has not shown a double-standard.  Just because he is convinced in his own mind doesn’t make it so.  Why pick on Southern Baptists?  We’re hardly alone in this as Waters admitted.  Why the bias?  And even IF there was a double-standard who says anyone is owed an explanation for it, especially, those outside the SBC?  Our votes are going to count regardless.  Maybe that’s what Waters is really concerned about.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

(HT: Denny Burk)

Dr. Youseff’s review, Uncovering The Shack, can be downloaded directly on mp3 here.  There is also an iTunes feed if you’re interested.  He actually stopped in the middle of a sermon series to review this book because he thought it was that important.

Dr. Youseff begins, “In the 33 years since I’ve was ordained to the ministry, I remember, only, this is to be the third time of all 33 years that I have taken sermon time.  The entire sermon time to focus on a book.”  He explains that his responsibility as an under shepherd to feed the flock as well as protect them from false teaching.

Another excellent quote as he begins, “I want to warn you, especially, of books and teachings that are almost right, but devastatingly wrong.  Teachings and preachings and b0oks that have a measure of truth in them, but they’re wrapped in a whole lot of poisonous dough.”

AMEN!

Mark

David Harris never considered his conversion to Catholicism six years ago to be a rejection of the Baptist faith that nourished him from childhood in Eastern Kentucky.

How does a man with an M. Div. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary  come to this conclusion?  I understand that there are areas in our seminaries that need improvement, but I didn’t think that theological education touching on what Rome teaches vs. what Southern Baptists’ teach was one such area.  Nor did it seem that Rome was so unclear on the issue since calling us “separated brethren” sure tells us something is amiss from their position.

What is interesting is that he will be a married Roman Catholic priest.  Since the Vatican will be giving Harris approval on this I doubt much, if any, opposition will be seen.  Another interesting observation from a Catholic spiritual director is the very argument I’ve heard used as a reason why priests should be allowed to marry is practical experience.

“He understands what it’s like to be married, to have children, to have that life, besides being a very spiritual person”

Harris is own pope?

Protestants get charged with being their own pope as basis for their spiritual, theological and biblical interpretive decisions.  You can see one of many examples in Steve Hays’ post Self-popery where he answers the charge.  So what of Harris? On whose authority did he submit to Rome?  Not only on his own authority, but it seems that it was his experience that drew him.

Harris said he was captivated by its vision of a deep contemplative prayer life and began reading more of Catholic spirituality, including works by 20th-century Kentucky author-monk Thomas Merton.

So not only do we have another warning to heed here about contemplative prayer, but this also shows that Harris was relying on self in making this decision.  Some may argue that’s a bit reductionistic, however, existentialism does reduce to self reliance.

The Lord’s Supper

I have no idea what Harris’ own thoughts are on the Lord’s Supper, but the reporter in the story states.

Baptists believe the Lord’s Supper is strictly a symbol, while Catholics see it as in essence the body and blood of Jesus.

While that statement is not necessarily inaccurate it doesn’t say enough to its readers.  Just take a look at some examples from the 1689 London Baptist Confession on the Lord’s Supper.

 …spiritual nourishment and growth in Christ, and to strengthen the ties that bind them to all the duties they owe to Him. The Lord’s supper is also a bond and pledge of the fellowship which believers have with Christ and with one another.  …a spiritual offering up of all possible praise to God for the once-for-all work of Calvary. …receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and receive all the benefits accruing from His death. This they do really and indeed, not as if feeding upon the actual flesh and blood of a person’s body, but inwardly and by faith.

Now the Roman Catholic position of transubstantiation says that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ.

That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii). -Catholic Encyclopedia.

There is just a greater difference than let on in the article.

On Rome’s Authority

Moving from existentialism to Rome’s teaching Harris apparently understood enough.

“I’ve come to understand enough of it that I began to believe and trust in the … teaching arm of the church”

I wonder what “enough” is?  I certainly wonder this in light of the beginning statement of not having to reject his baptist roots to become Catholic.  This again comes back to Harris himself in deciding and accepting what he sees as correct.  And if you accept “enough” does the rest just automatically follow?  I believe that if one just accepts Rome’s authority that this just may be the method of accepting all of her teachings.  I wonder if Harris would fall along the same lines as Beckwith as seen in some of James White’s questions.

I’m Okay You’re Okay

Apparently his family is supportive of his move to Rome.

His wife and sons remain Baptist, but support him…

Why?  How?  How does one’s spouse make such a drastic religious move like this alone?  Who will now be the spiritual head of the home?  Maybe his former baptist church should initiate church discipline.

“I’m real happy for him,” said his brother, Mike, of Louisa. “My brother has always had a fantastic heart for people.”

David Harris said his mother had the most difficulty with his conversion.

“At this point she’s real supportive.”

I wonder what brought Harris’ mother from a position of difficulty to support.  I would hope she’d change her mind.  Pretending that Protestants and Roman Catholics are united doesn’t make it so no matter how nice it sounds and feels.  The differences are drastic hence the current and continued divide.  Another example of why theology matters.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

Who cares, though, right?  I do for one.  And, well, her parents apparently do according to the recent Christianity Today article linked above.  Quoting the artist’s mother.

I hate the song… It clearly promotes homosexuality and its message is shameful and disgusting. Katy knows how I feel. We are a very outspoken family.

I can’t even listen to that song. The first time I heard it I was in total shock. When it comes on the radio I bow my head and pray.

Good for her mother for saying something.  How many musicians grow up in a Christian home only to go on to be some sort of sexual icon and the parents either join them or stay silent?  It’s nice to finally see someone stand up and speak.

So why do I care?  I don’t particularly care for the influence this stuff has, especially, one teens.  More especially, since I have a teen daughter.  The Pew Forum study this year found that 78.4% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians.  So why won’t parents step-up and stop buying this type of music?  Are we really so busy that we can’t stop and see what our kids are doing?  Can we be a little more involved in their lives?

See, if parents don’t buy then records don’t sell and the exposure has a better chance of being minimized.  I’ve talked to parents with kids my daughter’s age and they are surprised that I don’t just lie down and let the daughter have whatever she wants with no discernment.  I’ve heard several “but” responses to which I say, “BUT, I’m the parent.”  Parents don’t normally let their kids have just or do anything and everything without using some type of discernment.  Feeding, clothing and caring for your child doesn’t stop at the fridge, clothing store and first aid kit.  Those are minor issues compared to what they are going to face.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

Do you have faith or do you have reason, Dr. Bahnsen, for being a Christian?  I say, well, it’s a matter of faith.  It’s a faith without which reasoning would be impossible.  Now since reasoning would be impossible without this faith, then ultimately the best reason according to reason is to have faith.  And those who do not have this faith destroy reason.  But that doesn’t mean that I am following Christianity because it satisfies my reasoning as the ultimate authority.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Seminary Course in Apologetics, Lecture 5.

SHACK ATTACK - OR A CALL TO DISCERNMENT?

“Discernment is not simply a matter of telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather it is the difference between right and almost right.” -Charles Spurgeon

At the encouragement of friends, I recently read The Shack by William P. Young. A national bestseller widely embraced by some churches and many professing Christians, The  Shack is a work of fiction that embodies lengthy conversations between the main character, a man named Mack, and three persons who represent a version of the Trinity.

Frankly, I was dismayed at many messages conveyed by The Shack and have been surprised that many of my Christian friends have read the book uncritically, finding it a charming and heart-warming story. Some say that it is unfair to have theological expectations since the book is fiction. However, The Shack is marketed as a spiritually transforming book, and it being received that way by many.

It seems to me that a more critical reading is required of The Shack than a secular work of fiction because the author creates characters that purport to speak as God and to guide Mack on his spiritual journey. The fictional story becomes a device to have characters representing the Godhead explain a particular theology. As believers, our spiritual antennas should be fully deployed when we approach such a book.

In The Shack, God the Father appears to Mack as a large, jovial black woman whom Mack calls “Papa.” The Holy Spirit appears as a small Asian woman, and Jesus appears as a Jewish man. Putting aside gender confusion and the attempt to give human form and voice to the Father and Holy Spirit (“no man hath seen God at any time,” John 1:8), it is critical for the Christian reader to carefully consider the message author Young has those voices bring and to weigh their message in the light of the clear teaching of the Bible. That is to exercise discernment, a requirement – not an option – for Christians.

When we read The Shack with discernment, I submit that we find many distortions and untruths. Consider just a few of the words Young puts in the mouths of his created Trinity (my comments are within the parentheses):

Papa to Mack: “We [the Trinity] have limited ourselves out of respect for you.” (Isn’t this Open Theism – God choosing to limit Himself?)

Jesus: “God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things . . .” (Isn’t this Pantheism – God in all things?)

Sarayu (Young’s Sanscrit name for the Holy Spirit): “We [the Trinity] carefully respect your choices, so we work within your systems even while we seek to free you from them.” (“Neither are your ways my ways . . . my ways are higher than your ways.” Isaiah 55:8-9. Does God respect man’s choices, or does His Word demand that we repent of our ways and that we enter His narrow way?)

Sarayu: “Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to Light and Good; they do not have any actual existence . . . Light and Good actually exist.” (Really? Does the Bible teach that evil has no actual existence? Was the biblical Jesus aware of that when He conversed with Satan in the desert temptation?)

Papa: “I don’t need to punish people for sin Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” (Certainly there are consequences of our sin which we realize in this life and which impact other people. And certainly God has provided the cure for sin. That “cure” is the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross. Most certainly there is punishment for sin. Christ suffered the punishment for us. However, the implication of Papa’s statement is that the only punishment for sin is sin’s own punishment in a person’s life. The Bible is clear that punishment for the unredeemed, those who refuse Christ’s atonement, is the sting of spiritual death and eternal separation from God. The Shack makes light work of the cross.)

Young’s Jesus character states that he, Papa, and Sarayu are “indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be . . . . In fact, we [the Trinity] are submitted to you [Mack] in the same way.” (Why, then, did the biblical Jesus submit Himself to the will of His father? Does the Bible teach submission to authority in spiritual and family and secular environments? What do you make of the claim that the Trinity is submitted to us? I believe that Young’s anti-authoritarianism is risky in human terms and that it is blasphemous to attribute such egalitarian sentiments to God.)

When requested by Papa to forgive the murderer of his young daughter, Mack balks. Papa says, “Mack, for you to forgive this man is for you to release him to me and allow me to redeem him.” (So God can only redeem those whom humans have forgiven and have released to God for redemption? The effectiveness of redemption for the unrepentant murderer is to be accomplished with Mack’s participation? Find biblical support for that, my friends!)

Christian, what about this assertion by the Jesus of The Shack? “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu.” (This is a false Jesus. The Jesus Christ of the Bible does not say that He is the best way, He says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” John 14:16. He is not the best way – He is the only way.)

The Shack evidences a low regard for Scripture. When Mack mentions biblical events or concepts, Papa brushes them off and glibly explains how it really is, thus suggesting that the Bible is the work of man, not the divinely inspired work of God. Yet, some argue that The Shack has value in that it demonstrates a loving God of grace who invites man to a relationship. But it does so with grievous distortions about the nature of God, the nature of the Trinity, the authority of God’s Word, God’s hatred of sin, the requirement of repentance, and the nature of conversion and salvation.

My brothers and sisters, even in reading and discussing a work of fiction, we must be prepared to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), and to do so without apology to the world. The Shack may, from its human author’s viewpoint, be in all sincerity intended as an inviting look at a highly relational God, but would you place even a drop of poison in pure water and invite others to drink? As Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said, The Shack “contains undiluted heresy.” Don’t you and I have a responsibility to be equipped to recognize heresy and to shine the light of truth so that we and others are not deceived?

- Wayne Elliott

Download as pdf

sermoneutics (ˈsər-məˈnü-tik) - n. The art of interpreting Scripture in a sermon by giving its meaning as an abstract, peripheral idea that is not the main point of the text.

My motivation for the above word is Dr. John Walton’s post Hermeneutics and Children’s Curriculum. He lays out “five basic fallacies that appear repeatedly.”

1. Promotion of the trivial
2. Illegitimate extrapolation
3. Reading between the lines
4. Missing important nuance
5. Focus on people rather than God

This is a very good article that I hadn’t seen yet.  Let me briefly explain the coincidence providence in how I learned about it today.  As I got in my car to leave for work a local well-known preacher was on the radio.  I listened for a few minutes before putting on yesterday’s Issues, Etc.  I noticed some points being made that I will touch on below.  A good friend calls me about 10 minutes later and tells me about Dr. Walton’s article above and how several people, including my friend Pastor Reggie, were commenting that it’s not just childrens’ curriculum that has this problem.  We talked about this well-known preacher I had just heard and it all fit together nicely and hence, sermoneutics came to mind.

For an example of sermoneutics, I will touch on what I heard this morning.  The topic was God’s favor and the illustration came from Nehemiah. I picked up this sermon at the point of Nehemiah 1 transitioning into Ch. 2 where Nehemiah finishes his prayer to God and the king asking why Nehemiah was sad.

So the well-known preacher (WKP) asks, “How do I know [Nehemiah] walked in there with faith?” in refering to Nehemiah going into the presence of the king as cupbearer.  WKP’s answer, “Because of what he requested” of the king.  “He walks in” and the king notices a problem and inquires.  The WKP tells us how Nehemiah, in answering, just “let it fly which a cupbearer would never do” and “notice how he said it in verse 3″ which was “rather courageous” for a cupbearer.  Then, the WKP asks “why would the king respond so quickly and so affirmatively.” To which we’re told it is because Nehemiah had been crying out to God and he walked in there believing that God sent him and it was God’s responsibility to make these things happen.

i. Did Nehemiah “walk in?”  This may be very frivolous, but why keep saying it? Is there some sort of imagery being painted?

ii. The picture of Nehemiah walking in and requesting something isn’t accurate to the text.  He was answering the king’s question.

iii.  How do we know a cupbearer would never answer in such a manner?  This was a very trusted and prestigious position.  Plus, Nehemiah was very respectful in answering.

iv.  We don’t know how “quickly” or “affirmatively” the king responded since we’re not told.  The point?

v. The inference of Nehemiah’s faith as causing the king to respond as he did isn’t in the point and that’s not what Scripture says.  This breaks down to having faith in faith rather than faith in God and His promises.

vi.  Nehemiah was able accomplish such things because of God’s faithfulness as seen in his prayer in chapter 1.  The case is being built about Nehemiah for our example, but what are we learning about God here?

The WKP then tells us that Nehemiah had the favorable hand of God upon him because “he was a man with a purpose in his life and he was a man who knew how to pray and talk to God.  And he was a man that was willing to trust God for every single need.”   And that Nehemiah was walking into a situation of needs which Scripture doesn’t indicate he had the skills to fulfill, but since “God sent him God would make it happen.”

i.  The text doesn’t tell us God’s favor was found because Nehemiah had a purpose.  That’s so general and what does it even mean in this context?  Is it not God who supplies His own with purpose anyways?

ii.  What does it mean he knew “how to” pray and talk to God?  The text doesn’t explicitly tell us this.  Doesn’t Paul tells us that we don’t always know how to pray?  What does this insertion even clarify?

iii.  The lack of Nehemiah’s ability is inferred from the silence of Scripture and then the point of having faith built upon that inference.   Why make a blind observation and then teach on it as if the point is explicit?

There are definitely more assertions of  what God “probably” did and said as well as what Nehemiah “probably” did and said.  Then, from the “probably” statements are accurate teachings from other parts of Scripture.  It’s just that the conclusion, though accurate, doesn’t always follow from the premises.  There is more to point out to both illustrate my point and to praise contra my point, but this will suffice.

The word of God is not incapable of speaking to topics in our lives so that we must insert or even make-up ideas from which to teach and learn.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

(HT: JT)

I will share one more thing with everyone. One of the things we treated ourselves to this year were some cookiez just like we had at our wedding reception. You probably think I spelled cookiez wrong, huh? Well, I didn’t because I’m talking about:

Amy Looz Handpainted Shortbread Cookiez

This is a picture of one of the boxes we ordered this year. Let me tell you, the cookiez are just as good today as I remembered three years ago.  Full-disclosure, Amy is a fellow Christian and a friend which makes them that much easier to recommend.

My wife and I love these cookiez and they bring back great memories for us.  That’s about all I’m sharin’ for now.

Loving my wife…

Mark

Anyways, if anyone wants to hear my brief testimony you can listen or download it below.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

Description: Confused about the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism? Tired of uneducated clergy and layman confusing “classical Calvinism” with the error of hyper-Calvinism? Would you like to know how to answer the false Arminian charges often brought up in a discussion like “Calvinism makes God the author of sin?” or “Why evangelize?”

Learn how the sovereignty of God does not relieve man from his duty or responsibility. Discover how the gospel can be shared without compromising God’s sovereignty. Finally, learn that Calvinism is more than five points of theology, but a world and life view that has great implications on how we are to live our lives, love our spouse, raise our children and disciple the nations.

Hopefully, some will find this book helpful.  Read more about the book by clicking on the picture.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

Quite the title, huh?   This is the reason this book will appeal to both Catholics and Protestants.  We all want to see, “What happened?”  Most likely, Catholics will want to see what they can learn from Beckwith’s journey that will help them evangelize Romanize Protestants.  We Protestants will want to know how to keep such a “return” from happening and address any misunderstandings.

BrazosPress, the publisher’s website, lists some questions that the book addresses.

What does it mean to be evangelical? What does it mean to be Catholic? Can one consider oneself both simultaneously?

Yes, what does it mean to be Evangelical?  Even a modern dictionary will point you to Protestantism.  My understanding of being Catholic is that you abandon key Protestant positions such as the Five Solas.  And embrace such doctrines as the immaculate conception of Mary, purgatory, transubstantiation and the doctrine of infallibility to name a few.  So I’d like to see these definitions and whose definitions they are. It seems that the only way to blend these positions is to redefine Evangelical.  Let’s move to the answer.

The answer given?

He seeks to explain what prompted his decision and offers theological reflection on whether one can be evangelical and Catholic, affirming his belief that one can be both.

If this stated answer is true then categorically one could be a Catholic and an Evangelical without joining the Catholic church. Of course, Rome would never go for that. I want to read this book to see how such a position is worked out. What is lost?  What is gained?  What is unchanged?

I am eager to see what definitions are used of words like Evangelical and Catholic.  Whatever Beckwith has to say on these things, in more ways than one, the Devil is certainly in the details.

UPDATE: Dr. Beckwith has created a site about the book,  Return to Rome.  Seems as though there are going to be some excerpts from the book.

UPDATE II: What would James White ask Beckwith today?  Some very good questions!

A commenter also stopped by to answer the question of “What is an Evangelical Catholic?

I have to wonder if this movement/position is sanctioned by Rome.

For your indulgence…

Mark

HT: JT

Our friend Chris Arnzen, host of the Iron Sharpens Iron Radio Show, is having Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias as a guest.

As I understand listeners will be able to call in with questions and a downloadable mp3 will be available after the show.

He will be speaking on the theme of his book NEW BIRTH Or REBIRTH? JESUS TALKS WITH KRISHNA .

WHEN: Monday, July 14, 2008, 3-4 PM est

WHERE: Listen Live by clicking here

CALL WITH QUESTIONS: 1-631-321- WNYG (9694)]

CLICK HERE for full details.

SDG,

Mark

p.s. What are the odds that I call in and get lunch with Ravi since we live very close to each other?

Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete

He reads Paul in his context?

On Buddhist salvation, the Buddhist will get to heaven “probably faster than I will.”

How about an atheist? Just watch.

Not sure what it’s worth…

Mark

Can you guess where lyrics below come from?

TRIUNE PRAISE LYRICS
VERSE 1
Praise God the Father, the Immortal Creator (1 Cor. 8:6)
For Your glory you made us (Is. 43:6), You’re the Sovereign Orchestrator (Eph. 1:11)
All that You decree will most surely come to happen (Is. 14:24)
You’re awesome as can be and Your glory none can fathom (Ps. 104:1)
Nothing could ever stain You, the heavens can’t contain You (2 Chron. 6:18)
We thank You for sending Your Son to explain You (John 1:18)
Otherwise we would have remained in the dark but You sent Your Holy Spirit to spark a change in our hearts (Matt. 4:16-17, 2 Cor. 4:6)
According to Your eternal purpose and will
You determined to reveal Yourself to those who deserve to be killed
(Luke 10:21, Rom. 1:32)
Those of us whom You foreknew adore You
We praise You that You predestined us to be conformed to
The image of Your Son who’s the radiance of Your glory
(Romans 8:29, Heb. 1:3)
When I meditate on it, the weightiness of it floors me
(1 Chron. 16:25,Psalm 139:6)
So Father, we’ll praise you over and over again (Ps. 34:1)
Because You sent Your only Son to atone for our sins (Dan. 9:24,1 John 4:9)

CHORUS
Glory to the Father, Glory to the Son,
Glory to The Spirit- Three and Yet One
One in Your essence, Three in Your Person
The same in Your nature, distinct in Your working
Oh my soul- behold the wonder of the Trinity
Blessed be the Trinity, Oh, what a mystery!
I’ll stand amazed for the rest of my days
Pouring out my heart in Triune praise

Who do you think this is?

Believe it or not it is hip-hop artist Shai Linne. Click the picture and you can download this song along with a devotional, the lyrics, reflection questions and book recommendations for further study. His new album The Atonement is now available and the whole thing is deep. You can also download a free album from the Lamp Mode site called Grassroots which might be something you could give away as a way to reach out to someone.

Imagine if our contemporary worship songs were as deep!

Mark

Yankee or Dixie?
Check on your dialect and see if you might have crossed over to the “other side”! Simply click on the correct answer. As you go, the quiz will automatically interpret each answer to show you what your answer implies about you. When you are done, press Compute My Score. Your score will be calculated as a percentage: 0% is pure Yankee and 100% is pure Dixie.

You can join the fun and take the quiz now!

Click here to see my results!

I do not like the cavalier way you approach the Bible and Christian issues.
I am Dawson Morrison Pastor of Mountain Home Baptist Church in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
People like you run around collecting up unholy dust and muses of the devil; you will find a host of friends as you continue down that path of relevance, but you will find no consolation from heavenly host.

I don’t like the cavalier way you come here accusing me.  You don’t know me, but you certainly can learn a whole lot more about me than I can about you by simply reading this site.  Notice there are no examples to support this charge of being cavalier.  Also, if we keep this charge of being cavalier in mind the whole post wreaks of irony.

What is “unholy dust” anyways?  Muses of the devil?  Again, no examples.  I have found a host of friends amongst whom many are pastors.  The path of relevance?  Hardly!  Just have a look around.  I’m not even close to being a emergent nor post-modern thinker.

Here is an article I want to share with you on my feelings for alcohol. I will plainly state that Jesus NEVER drank fermented wine. I believe in total abstinence. I am certain the Bible teaches total abstinence.

Once the “Jesus never drank fermented wine” argument comes up it’s very hard to find a common starting point.  It’s actually almost fruitless (no pun intended) to dialogue.  I’m certain the Bible doesn’t teach total abstinence and even God told those in the Old Testament to buy wine or strong drink if they so desired.

The crowds supporting casual or social drink do so because of their personal desire for alcohol and their interest in compromise.

This certainly goes to questioning ones motives without actually “listening” to the reasons given for moderation.  I guess those folks who believe in moderation are lying in their reasons?  Can our commenter judge that too?  What about the folks like Al Mohler or John Piper who believe the Bible doesn’t teach abstinence, yet personally abstain?  What are their motives?

Or how about people like me who came out of a cult?  A cult believing Joseph Smith to be a prophet and one teaching that a drop of alcohol would send one to hell?  Have you ever thought how freeing the grace of Christ is in these situations?

There are so many little wimp laymen, who have not been called by the Holy Spirit to shepherd churches, yet they are expert theologians.

I can’t tell if you are speaking about me here or not since “laymen” is plural and the charge general.  My wife really didn’t like this comment.  She was upset and laughing at the same time that you might infer that I’m a wimp.  I found it amusing.  I would say that there just might be pastors who fall into this “wimp” category.  Yet we have a graceful Savior who is a far greater Savior than we all are sinners.

The other thing though is I don’t shepherd a church, but I certainly do share in ministering to folks.  I’ve been complemented about my blog, personal teaching and relationship as well as about my kid.  I say that not to boast, but to give you some facts.  I’ve not met any laymen nor pastors who claim to be expert theologians.

I have 42 years on the job as a SBC Pastor; it irks me when I cross the path of such pathetic and futile exercise.

I’m sorry you’ve formed an opinion as such.  Although, I don’t know where that came from.  That is, if I assume you’re referring to me.  Again, you don’t know me and your comments and approach here would not be considered very pastoral from my non-expert point of view.

Please go study William Patton’s book, “Bible Wines”.

Perhaps Mr. Patton should have read the Rev. John McLean’s articles in the 1841 Princeton Review for the months of  April and October.  Please study those articles and read Ken Gentry’s God Gave Wine: What the Bible Says About Alcohol. Readers may also find this debate between Ken Gentry vs. Stephen Reynolds On a Biblical understanding of beverage alcohol use.

OPEN LETTER ON ALCOHOL USE
Compiled and written by: Dawson Morrison, Pastor
Mountain Home Baptist Church

This should be more fairly titled “Abuse” rather than “Use.”

“Reassert our truceless and uncompromising hostility to the manufacture, sale, importation and transportation of alcoholic beverages” SBC (1896).

We can trade historical baptist moments, but the Bible is what’s important.

• It appears it does not take much alcohol to impact a person physiologically. Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle determined among test subjects that even one “strong drink” can cause a “substantial perceptual deficit.” This “inattentional blindness” in those whose blood alcohol level was less than half the legal limit resulted in these individuals being more likely not to notice an object that appeared unexpectedly in their line of sight (Reuters, “One strong drink can make you ‘blind drunk’,” July 4, 2006).

While I believe abstinence has absolute biblical underpinning, sociological indicators persuade me that any use, social or other, is unwise.

An adolescent’s view of alcohol is positively associated with his or her parents’ drinking behavior and attitudes, I suppose in much the same way a child’s view of prayer and personal Bible study is impacted by his or her parents’ behavior.

A study done a few years ago found that in homes where the parents were total abstainers from alcohol, 16 percent of the teenagers in the home experimented with alcohol before adulthood. In homes were the parents were social drinkers, 66 percent of the children experimented with alcohol before adulthood.

And a child who drinks before age 15 is four times more likely to develop alcohol dependence, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism reports. Furthermore, recent studies have shown the alarming extent to which alcohol decimates an adolescent’s still-developing brain and nervous system - far more harshly than it does those of an adult.

In modern American society, the human toll taken by alcohol abuse is staggering. According to a recent USA Today/ 20 percent of Americans indicated they “had an immediate relative who at some point had been addicted to alcohol or drugs.” The article, “In Tim Ryan’s Family, He is the Addict,” in the July 20, 2006, issue of USA Today notes, “That translates into roughly 40 million American adults with a spouse, parent, sibling or child battling addiction.”

I think I have responded enough.  The first charge against me was “I do not like the cavalier way you approach the Bible and Christian issues.” Then we get a position supported by research rather than the Bible.  I don’t discredit that research, but a charge was made concerning the Bible.  There is good information in the above and some of it ambiguous.  This certainly doesn’t make the case that the Bible teaches abstinence.  It just shows what sinful people can do when they abuse, not just use, substances like alcohol.  I can tell you stories about abuses in people’s lives.  Things you wouldn’t believe from people who may just live around the corner.

At the end of the day we, as people, must understand our sinful state before God.  As Scripture tells us in Mark 7 it is not what goes into us that defiles us, but what comes out of our hearts.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

Most Americans agree with the statement that many religions - not just their own - can lead to eternal life.

Cal Thomas was upset, and rightly so, that the majority of conservative evangelical Christians believe this statement.   Jonathan Morris responded to Thomas and he, wrongly, doesn’t agree.  Morris is more in tune with the survey claiming that “followers of non-Christians religions” may find “within their own traditions a participation in the same truth” as Christianity.

I want to take a look at some of his claims.

Elements of goodness and truth found outside the structure of Christianity may still lead its followers in the right direction.

If this were to play out to be true then those followers would actually find Christ.  We wouldn’t even be having this argument.

In other words, as a Catholic Christian, I believe the grace flowing from the redemptive act of the passion and death of Jesus Christ is capable of reaching out to all people of all places in ways we can never fully grasp.

Scripture tells us this is done by preaching the word and spreading the Gospel to all nations.  That is the grace of God.  Is the all-knowing and all-powerful God incapable of sending missionaries with the Gospel to such folks?   And if Morris can never fully grasp this then what warrant does he have for even believing it in this context?

Christian belief in Jesus as the one mediator between God and man should not be understood as an eternal death sentence for the man born in a remote jungle who will never hear the name of Jesus.

Again, is the all-knowing and all-powerful God incapable of sending missionaries with the Gospel to such folks?  Did God not know such people would live in such remote places?  Does God know if they’d believe or not if presented the Gospel?

In God’s limitless creativity, he will always find ways to present himself as a gift to each of his beloved.

I wonder if “limitless creativity” is a mutable or immutable attribute of God.  Yes, He will “find a way” to present Himself to His beloved via sending someone with the Gospel.

It is fair to say, then, we are responsible to God in as much as God reveals himself to us.

Maybe I missed it, but how was this conclusion reached again?  It’s fair to say because Morris says so?

This recognition of God’s power to use various and imperfect instruments of salvation shouldn’t undermine the value of sharing in a respectful manner one’s faith with others.

Would these instruments be something other than Christ and His Gospel?  If so, there is no salvation in any such instruments.  Nothing “various” nor “imperfect” is going to save anyone, only the exact and perfect Jesus Christ saves.  There is no problem is sharing one’s faith respectfully though when the Gospel is shared many times there is opposition and disrespect.

If you know you have found something good, true, and beautiful, why would you not want your friend to have the same?

I agree here.  So why would one who has found such attributes as this in Jesus tell those of other faiths that they too can find truth and right direction without Jesus?

For what it’s worth…

Mark

A typical patriotic service might include a presentation of the American flag, singing of patriotic hymns, and a message centered around the Christian roots of the United States and a call to return to them. Are these services God-honoring? Are they wise?

Read the whole thing: Three Hymns for the Red, White, and Blue: Thinking About Patriotic Worship Services

I’ve always cringed when patriotic songs have been sung during a time when the congregation comes together to worship God.  We have six others days of the week in which to celebrate our cultural holidays.  Why do so many insist on including the type of praise that is focused on the creation before to the Creator?

Can you imagine singing Derek Webb’s A King & A Kingdom?

(chorus)
my first allegiance is not to a flag, a country, or a man
my first allegiance is not to democracy or blood
it’s to a king & a kingdom

For what it’s worth…

Mark

1. “Is the statement, ‘God loves you and Jesus died for you,’ an accurate summary of the gospel?” 2. Given a very brief amount of time to explain the gospel, should we tell non-Christians, ‘God loves you and Jesus died for you’?

These questions make me think of Tom Ascol’s question Have we lost the Gospel? from last year, Nathan Finn’s post on the most pressing issues in the SBC and my recent observations that a form of Pelagianism may be a serious issue. The point is that if the above statement, which seems to be a common way of sharing the Gospel today, is not an accurate summary then maybe we have lost the Gospel.

Now let’s take a look at the questions.

1. “Is the statement, ‘God loves you and Jesus died for you,’ an accurate summary of the gospel?”

Given that Jesus and the Apostles didn’t share the Gospel this way in “long form” my initial reaction is that it is not an accurate nor necessary summary.  Some may say that this is being too harsh and complicated.  I posit that the above statements without a context don’t really mean a whole lot.  It sounds like good news, but why would anyone need to know such news?  If someone doesn’t understand the bad news that they are condemned all ready in their sin the proposed good news doesn’t make much sense.  The Gospel is reduced to a half, so to speak.

Will Metzger explains.

WHOLE GOSPEL/SHRUNKEN GOSPEL
How dangerous a half-truth can be when presented as the whole truth!  For instance, the truth that God is love is a wonderful part of the gospel.  However, if the whole presentation of the gospel is built primarily on this truth, distortion develops.  Sinners can relax with the thought of God’s love for them and find an excuse to delay repentance.  This biblical truth is inverted by non-Christians to mean, “Love is God.”  Then a human definition of love (nice, tolerant, nonjudgmental) is substituted, and sinners find great comfort in this personification and deification of love.  The love deity is programmed to only treat us kindly.  We have a “mush” god.  A biblical truth thus becomes twisted into an excuse for complacency.  Such a view of God contributes to the pervasive idea (even among Christians) that God is obligated to save me.  Created humanity is put on par with the Creator and his autonomy, and salvation by grace is devilishly undercut.
But what if the truth that God is love was balanced with the truth that God is light?  God is morally pure, holy.  He is a just judge.  He is angry with sin and will punish those who persist in it.  The love of God is now given a backbone. It is seen as a tough love, not as sentimentalism.  That he can still love sinners and freely offer himself to all who believe becomes astounding news.  One good question to evaluate an gospel presentation of God is, “Was the nature of God defined clearly and its implications impressed on the mind and heart lovingly and firmly?”
Metzger, Will. Tell the Truth. 3rd. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002: 39.

I conclude that the statement in question is not an accurate summary of the Gospel.  I believe Metzger’s quote above answers the question well.

2. Given a very brief amount of time to explain the gospel, should we tell non-Christians, ‘God loves you and Jesus died for you’?

Again, given that the regular presenting of the Gospel was not given in this way I see no reason why we should do it this way.  Again, to tell non-Christians this second statement doesn’t really tell them much.  In other words, what does it mean to someone that only hears, “God loves you and Jesus died for you?”  This bare statement gives no context.

The statement is not a calling, a pleading or a command.  It is basically just an informational statement.   We don’t see the Apostles evangelizing in such a manner.  There is no call to repent and believe in this approach.

Even the most famous Bible verse, John 3:16, in context goes beyond just saying the God loved the world.  Just reading to verse 18 we see, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”(ESV)  This shows the non-Christians’ state before God which is condemnation.

So what should be said with not much time?  This is a good time to re-visit the idea from Mark Dever that I blogged about of presenting the Gospel in 60 seconds.  His approach takes the structure of God, man, Christ, response.  Using this approach I came up with an acronym during a recent week long workshop.  I was able give this presentation at the workshop.  I used Dever’s structure with what will hopefully help people remember better.  I will post that idea very soon.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

p.s. Greg Koukl has a great piece on “God loves you” evangelism going through the book of Acts summarizing the evangelism.  Preaching God’s Love in Acts?

Among other laughs the above video clip will help men to know what NOT to say to your wife!

This clip gives you a little insight about Tim leading “worship” before he was a Christian.

Those are from his Full Range of Motion DVD and it’s definitely worth buying!

No, I don’t get any commission, but I will gladly take some! 

Mark

In short, not only can we find ourselves wanting to wear a Pharisee’s cloak, but we also see the truth of Proverbs 29:25 as we fear man more than God. Unfortunately, we don’t have the rooster crowing as a reminder like Peter did during his denial, but we do have the word of God.

So what is this about these dangers? Well, if you will first read Pastor Aaron’s great article Fears of a New (and Young) Pastor you will understand from whence I come. It’s wonderful to see such a clear admonition and transparency from a pastor. My attempt here is to build on that article and take a look from the other side as a church member. I will broaden the challenge from the first person to members in general while definitely including myself. Yes, these are dangers I fear of myself and fellow church members. These dangers stem from past experience when I was on a church staff to observations in general as a member in contemplating the life and health of the church family.

Danger of acting on one way around church members and another way around everyone else.

Many times we judge ourselves in the faith by comparing ourselves to each other. We tend to be more careful in our words and actions around one another, especially, around our pastors. At the same time, we expect our pastors to live up to the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 with the utmost perfection 100% of the time with absolutely no room to be sinners themselves. Worse yet, I dare say there is even a tendency to hold our pastors under a microscope to a point which even the apostles might fail.

What we should all understand is that we are that we are that tax collector in Luke 18. For if we are that Pharisee indeed we must repent. The only one we are fooling by acting righteous at the appropriate times is ourselves. Derek Webb puts it well in his song I Repent, “trading sins for others that are easier to hide.” We are all to be conformed, not to each others’ image, but to the image of Christ.

Danger of not listening to the truth.

It’s a blessing to have a pastor that preaches uncompromisingly from the Bible. However, we may not always like it. The word of God is convicting and doesn’t always conform to our thinking in a way that we want.

I don’t mean to say that we aren’t to be good Bereans and test what we hear by Scripture. However, there is a danger of falling into the trap as 2 Timothy 4 says of having “itching ears” and following what we want. Some preaching might be challenging to our preconceived notions, but we should submit to sound teaching and to God’s appointed authority.

Danger of becoming a professional church member.

In the USA’s capitalist economic system people can become a professional at anything with virtually unlimited potential. There many ways to make a living and indulge our time with the economic freedom to do so. We are used to being in control on many levels. Church membership and involvement can be no different.

Just as much as pastors’ face a danger of becoming professionals so do church members. We should not want the church to become a bunch of scheduled events. Those events may begin to become self-serving instead of Christ serving. We are all not always going to agree with everything going on in the church. Instead, Christ should be magnified as we serve one another and seek to glorify God as a body.

Danger of being disappointed by the pastor due to unbiblical expectations.

Our pastors are not Superman, Fortune 500 CEO’s nor are they Adam in the garden. Besides, Adam fell anyways. There seems to be an expectation out there, either said or unsaid, that the pastor is to grow the church numerically or he’s failed. The irony in that is if it is just the pastor “growing” the church then he really has failed. God grows the church. The pastor may be the vehicle through the ministering of the word nurturing the body spiritually. God may or may not add numbers of people the way we might want. Sometimes there may be spiritual growth may first be in order.

Sometimes, due to a sinful congregation and their expectations and desires the pastor may be kept from moving forward in a biblical manner. These issues might stem from arguments over an altar call, when/how an offering is taken, structure of church government to something as simple as the color of the curtains. These are bad arguments in general and even worse ones to run a pastor off over. So let’s look to the Scripture for our understanding and seek not to be 1 inch deep and 10 miles wide, but 10 or more miles deep and as wide as God will bless.

Danger of a lack of accountability and openness.

This is a very tough issue that we face as a church at large whether locally or nationally. There is this little thing which many (all?) of these issues start with, pride! And so much more does pride seem to effect us on such a personal level of openness and accountability. For one thing, people are afraid to be gossiped about if they are too open. At the same time, if we are to be biblically faithful and bear one another’s burdens we can share with each other carefully choosing our words.

Openness can also lead to being accountable to one another. This may mean being ready to be called, in love, to repentance of sin as well as being ready to call another to repentance. This cannot be just the pastor’s job as he cannot have omnipotent knowledge of everything in the church. More importantly Scripture tells us in James 5 to bring others back from sin and Galatians 1 tells us to restore one another in gentleness. These are not easy things to do given our sinful desires, but with Christ all things are possible. Just as Paul wrote 2 Corinthians 12 that the Lord’s “power is made perfect in weakness” so that when Paul was weak he was strong.

My concluding rudimentary observations are that most of these dangers stem from being me-centered rather than God-centered. I pray for the health of the local church as we work together seeking glorify God. May continue to encourage on another to turn to the cross of Christ both individually and corporately.

I’d like to suggest Thabiti M. Anyabwile’s new book What Is a Healthy Church Member? which you can actually order by clicking on the picture above. You may even read a preview of it online at Crossway’s site.

My friend Steve Camp’s The Mark of a Man of God is a great song applicable to all in the church. You can listen online to this great song as a reminder of how we should live our lives in Christ.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

A quote from the article by friend and Research Director, Ed Stetzer.

“Almost a third of Americans and almost half of those who do not attend a place of worship - the people we are trying to reach - say our view of sexual morality would negatively impact their decision to visit our churches…”
read the whole thing.

I would say that our view of morality in general would not be particularly inviting though that wasn’t the focus of this survey.  I imagine that there is a stigma out there that Christians in general have a (No, I don’t care for the man nor his approach.) Phelpian view of homosexuality among other issues.  This study in some ways shows that’s not the case.

Should we have a great concern over folks not wanting to merely visit churches over an issue such as this?  Wouldn’t the cross be offensive enough to keep people away?  I almost hesitate to say that maybe, just maybe, we have a wrong view of evangelism.  Evangelism is so often reduced to merely inviting an unbeliever to church.  Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians seems to indicate that unbelievers in the church weren’t the focus nor the norm, although they may be present.  The word “church” also gives us an indication of just who is gathering together.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t invite people to church.  I am saying that we shouldn’t focus on inviting them to church as our primary means of evangelism.  That is not the primary purpose of corporate worship.

Mark

This is a picture of the #pros friends that were present for the presentation on Islam.  It was great seeing everyone!

This picture was an “accident” by Smith as he was just taking a test shot without even paying attention to what he was shooting.  I saw it and wanted it.  It’s a very nice looking picture and I will be able to use it in some upcoming projects.

Mark

He goes to have dinner at a restaurant.  He asks the server if she has been busy due to all of the Southern Baptists (SBs) in town.  She said they’ve noticed a little more business, but nothing overwhelming.

He asks how tipping has been with the visiting patrons.  Her answer is that they’ve not been too great and that a co-worker had just been given a $.02 (yes, that’s two cents) tip by a few SBs.

My friend then jokes and asks if beer sales have been up during this time.  She laughed and said that many SBs are very much against even one drink of alcohol.  She said that the Bible only forbids drunkenness and does not  teach total abstinence of alcohol.  And she just doesn’t understand the general SB insistence of abstinence.

He agreed that that’s what the Bible teaches.  He told her that he is a Southern Baptist, that it’s not a sin to have a drink and he’s going to have a beer with his dinner.  She was actually fascinated  by his position that it was okay to drink a beer and that he actually drank one.

When he was finished with his meal he felt bad about the lack of tipping and the two cent story.  He ended up leaving a very generous tip of around 40%.

At the end of his telling me this story he mentioned Abraham Piper’s interesting post during T4G about this topic that I had not read.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

In the SBC, we’ve just elected a new president, Johnny Hunt. I want to look at a few issues concerning Calvinist in relation to Johnny Hunt since he was just elected SBC President and was already a prominent and notable pastor in the SBC. Bro. Hunt has been criticized by many Calvinists by what they feel have been misrepresentations by him. I’m not in disagreement and you can read Ted Olsen’s article where he lays out the concerns with some potential answers. One of those concerns is the John 3:16 Conference being held at the church Hunt pastors. One of the potential answers is that Hunt has recently said he is only really concerned about hyper-Calvinism.

Before we get into whether the concern over hyper-Calvinism is valid or not I want to peak at a few ironies. Pastor Hunt’s just recently told us that he is against hyper-Calvinism not Calvinism. Being a local, I know of people who’ve been asked to leave his church due to their Calvinism. Bro. Ben tells us at this week’s pastor’s conference Hunt quoted Calvinists A.W. Pink, Charles Spurgeon and J.I. Packer. Paul Washer will be speaking at the Deeper Conference at Hunt’s church and a few months later the John 3:16 Conference will occur there. Pastor Hunt endorsed Mark Dever’s book The Gospel and Personal Evangelism. I will only mention in passing the sermon by, host of the John 3:16 Conference, Jerry Vines’ sermon that was included in a mailing to Florida baptists. A very interesting mix of events, I’d say.

Should we be concerned over hyper-Calvinism in the SBC? Personally, I don’t think so. My own experience along with talking with others leads me to believe the many (most?) in the SBC churches don’t really know what Calvinism or Arminianism is and some have a skewed view or misunderstanding. I do wish, however, that if there are hyper-Calvinists in the SBC they would step forward or someone would name names. Of course, my own experience doesn’t inconclusively validate my belief that no real concern exists.

How about some actual statistics? A 2006 study by LifeWay Research revealed that only 10% of SBC pastors considered themselves Calvinists. Also, the research by Ed Stetzer presented at the Building Bridges Conference should not lead one to believe the Calvinism is cause for concern in the SBC. I might also add that Dr. Galyon’s interview with SBC presidential candidate Dr. Wagner sheds much light on Calvinism