More Baptist Sexism In The News

A more than 95-year-old church in Atlanta Georgia is about to be ousted from the Southern Baptist Convention because they have a woman pastor on staff. This is nothing new as it is regular Southern Baptist policy now since The Baptist Faith and Message (2000 version) unabashedly states:

VI. The Church

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

Matthew 16:15-19; 18:15-20; Acts 2:41-42,47; 5:11-14; 6:3-6; 13:1-3; 14:23,27; 15:1-30; 16:5; 20:28; Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 3:16; 5:4-5; 7:17; 9:13-14; 12; Ephesians 1:22-23; 2:19-22; 3:8-11,21; 5:22-32; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:18; 1 Timothy 2:9-14; 3:1-15; 4:14; Hebrews 11:39-40; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Revelation 2-3; 21:2-3.

Audrey Barrick of The Christian Post reports:

The Rev. Mimi Walker has been serving as co-pastor at Druid Hills Baptist Church with her husband, the Rev. Graham Walker, since 2003. But earlier this month, leaders of the Georgia Baptist Convention recommended cutting ties with the local congregation.

"It seems sad that they decided to go backwards in time," Mimi Walker told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "I'm not sure what the value is of trying to go back in time when women were held in subservience."

Ironically Fundamentalists in their zeal for biblical inerrancy and biblical literalism do not take the bible literally enough---as one of the main verses so often abused to forbid female pastors can also be used to forbid single, childless, divorced and remarried male pastors as well as male pastors with one child or adopted children if the text of the verse is stretched enough. The main verses used against female pastors are:

1 Timothy 2:9-14 (King James Version)
9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1 Timothy 3:1-5 (ESV)
Qualifications for Overseers (Bishops/Elders/Pastors)
3:1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer [1] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, [2] sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?

1 Timothy 3:1-5 of course can be used to forbid single, childless, divorced and remarried male pastors as well as male pastors with one child or adopted children---but all of these have been ordained within SBC churches without question. Also notice that in 1 Timothy 2:9-14 it is the author's or authors' opinion that women cannot teach men not God forbidding female pastors. Looking over 1 Timothy 3:1-5 again a lot of men who are pastors now should be disqualified based upon their failure to uphold any and/or all of these qualifications. So why shouldn't/can't females be pastors now if even males can't keep these so-called "Absolute and literal biblical standards?"

If Jesus Had Anything To Say To The SBC What Might He Say?

Wade Burleson ponders this question in a recent post Grace and Truth to You: Jesus Pronounces Eight Woes on the Southern Baptist Convention (Matthew 23):

It's easy to preach texts when we think Jesus is talking about others in the abstract. It's not near as easy to preach texts when we believe Jesus could be talking about us. This modern edition of Matthew 23 is adapted to cause me to look within myself.

Then Jesus spoke to the Southern Baptist Convention saying: (2) The pastors and self-proclaimed leaders of the SBC have seated themselves in positions of authority; (3) Do not imitate their actions; for they say things that they themselves will not do. (4) They create heavy burdens and lay them on the peoples' shoulders for them to carry, but they themselves are unwilling to even lift a finger. (5) What they do in terms of acts of service they do only to be noticed by the world; for they lie on their resumes and take great pains to dress as the epitome of success.

(6) They love the place of honor at national events and want to be seen next to the powerful politicians, (7) and they cherish being respected and powerful in the eyes of others, even demanding that they be called "Dr." by those who know them. (8) But you, do not allow yourself to be called "Dr." by others, for One is your Teacher and you are all equal in honor. (9) Do no call anyone on earth your "Father" for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. (10) Do not consider yourself a leader; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. (11) But the greatest among you shall be your servant. (12) Whoever promotes himself will one day be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will one day be exalted.

(13) But woe to you, SBC pastors and self-proclaimed SBC leaders, hypoocrites, because you emphasize the building of your own kingdom and shut people out of the kingdom of heaven. (14) Woe to you SBC pastors and self-proclaimed SBC leaders because your love for money causes you to devour the widows' income for your own gain and yet for pretense purposes you act as if your motivations are all spiritual; therefore, you will receive greater condemnation.

(15) Woe to you SBC pastors and self-proclaimed SBC leaders, hypocrites, because you travel internationally to share your global causes and urge others to partner with you; but when you convince someone to join the efforts of the SBC you make him twice as much a recepient of God's judgment as yourselves.

Read the rest: Here.

The SBC And The Social Gospel

Tim Rogers of SBC Today waxes eloquent about the SBC's possible movement toward a return to the Social Gospel. Here is an excerpt from that post:

Before I articulate my thesis I want our readers to understand a couple of things. First, I am not against doing social ministry. I believe that every church must involve herself in reaching out to community projects and other secular ministries in order to help meet the needs of the poor. Second, I do not discount the power of meeting the needs of someone that is in need of help. It certainly opens a door that otherwise would not be opened. Third, I am by no means insinuating that the ministries mentioned below are pushing for a Social Gospel. With that said, allow me to reveal my concern that we may be heading down a road in a return to a Social Gospel movement within the SBC.

Interesting prospects---one can only hope that there is a future for social ministries within the SBC. Others are worried that the SBC is moving beyond Fundamentalist positions since the Fundamentalists won the war to drive the Moderates/Liberals out of the state and national Conventions. The battle for biblical inerrancy---the hill on which the Fundamentalists set their stakes to die on is no longer an issue within the SBC as they've already fought that battle and declared their self-victory. Inerrancy is pretty much set in stone within SBC life---what with the advent of the revision of the Baptist Faith and Message in 2000.

Because of this new battles have sprung up within the SBC---which causes great and major concerns for all Baptists---some Baptists such as the Southern Baptist Peter Lumpkins are worried that the SBC is moving too closely in the direction of legalistic confessional Dortian Calvinism/Semi-Hyper-Calvinism. Critics within and outside of the SBC are wondering what the future of the SBC holds. Can all the competing factions within the SBC ever stabilize? They must learn to in order for the Great Commission Resurgence to move forward. And what of the relationship between Southern and non-Southern Baptists---how will competing factions within the larger Baptist world effect our relations? Only time will tell how all of this will play out---so what are your thoughts?

Al Mohler Attacks The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [PCUSA]

Al Mohler notes:

"Liberal Protestantism, in its determined policy of accommodation with the secular world, has succeeded in making itself dispensable." That was the judgment of Thomas C. Reeves in The Empty Church: The Suicide of Liberal Protestantism, published in 1996. Fast-forward another fourteen years and it becomes increasingly clear that liberal Protestantism continues its suicide -- with even greater theological accommodations to the secular worldview.

The latest evidence for this pattern is found in a report just released by The Presbyterian Panel, a research group that serves the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [PCUSA]. The panel's report is presented as a "Religious and Demographic Profile of Presbyterians, 2008." The report contains relatively few surprises, but it is filled with data about the beliefs of Presbyterian laypersons and clergy.
............
Back in 1994, a team of sociologists considered this phenomenon, looking particularly at the Baby Boomers in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Dean R. Hoge, Benton Johnson, and Donald A. Luidens published their findings in Vanishing Boundaries: The Religion of Protestant Baby Boomers. They identified the phenomenon of "lay liberalism" in the PCUSA and throughout liberal Protestantism.

As they explained, "This perspective is 'liberal' because its defining feature is a rejection of the orthodox teaching that Christianity is the only true religion. Lay liberals have a high regard for Jesus, but they do not affirm that He is God's only son and that salvation is available only through Him."

The title of their report points to the quandary of liberal Protestantism. As the boundaries between liberal Protestantism and the secular culture vanish, there is little reason for anyone to join one of these churches.

That report explained that "lay liberals who are active Presbyterians do not differ sharply in their religious views from the people who are not involved in a church but describe themselves as religious. There is, in short, no clear-cut 'faith boundary' separating active Presbyterians from those who no longer go to church." The researchers also repeated their point that the defining mark of "lay liberalism" is "the rejection of the claim that Christianity, or any other faith, is the only true religion."

This abandonment of biblical Christianity is a tragedy of the first order. Churches and denominations birthed in biblical orthodoxy have been ransacked and secularized. The crisis has migrated from the pulpits to the pews, and recovery is only a dim and distant hope.

Evangelicals should consider this tragedy with humility and theological perception. If similar trends are allowed to gain traction among evangelical churches and denominations, the same fate awaits. The larger issue here is not the continued vitality of any denomination as an end in itself, but the integrity of our witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Make no mistake -- in the end, vanishing theological boundaries will amount to vanishing Christianity. This report makes that point with devastating clarity.

Do you agree or disagree? What is this "Biblical" Christianity and what does it look like? Do men from the 1500's and 1600's get to decide what this so called "Biblical" Christianity looks like or how about the late 19th century to the early 20th century because they had an agenda---despite the fact that Christianity is much older than either of these centuries and the Christian tradition is much larger than either of these movements as well? Is Christianity a living tradition or not?

All questions aside---yes there are problems with the Moderate, Liberal and Progressive strains of Christianity as sometimes we allow too much of an equally devastating extreme. Sometimes we become just as fundamentalist as our Fundamentalist counterparts about our opposing ends. Sometimes we become so much about what we are against that we forget what we are for.

And what of the worldliness of Conservative and Fundamentalist Christianity? What about the secular ties of the Religious Right---how they are so closely aligned with the worldly and secular policies of the Republican Party? Aren't these paradigms just as equally concerning to Christians as the Moderate, Liberal and Progressive extremes? Oh how a large majority Conservative and Fundamentalist Christians love the worldly patterns of war and injustice; authority and power; greed and arrogance; theocracy and caesaropapism; slander and libel; idolatry and materialism; hate and division, etc.

What also of the worldly way in which the Fundamentalists hijacked and Talibanized the Southern Baptist Convention?

Ken Silva This Video Is For You!

After critiquing my friend and fellow Campbell University classmate Tripp Fuller as well as my friend John Harrison---I thought I'd send you this video, Ken:



Perhaps it may serve you well!

The Errancy Of Inerrancy: A Dialogue

Big Daddy Weave recently posted on Bart Barber's critique of Jim Denison's critical paper on inerrancy---here is a snippet of that:

The Errancy of Inerrancy: Bart Barber’s Critique of Jim Denison
OCTOBER 27, 2009
Southern Baptist Texas pastor Bart Barber has written a lengthy response to a self-published paper titled “The Errancy of Inerrancy” authored by Jim Denison who is the Baptist General Convention of Texas’ Theologian-in-Residence and President of the Center for Informed Faith. Barber’s post, An Errant Bible: The Gateway Heresy, has received much attention across the blogosphere. Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, featured Barber’s critique of Denison on his blog. Nathan Finn, Assistant Professor of Church History at Southeastern College, also featured Barber’s critique of Denison on the popular blog Between the Times. Between the Times is sponsored by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and included among its contributors are Daniel Akin, President of Southeastern Seminary, and Ed Stetzer of Lifeway Research. Outside of the Baptist Blogosphere, popular evangelical blogger Justin Taylor highlighted Barber’s critique of Denison.

From Barber's post---here are the major points of Denison's paper:

Those main arguments are six in number:

Denison argues that the word “inerrancy” has been defined and qualified in too many different and highly technical ways to be of any theological use; therefore, we ought to prefer to speak of the “trustworthiness” or “authority” of the Bible.

Denison argues that the concept of inerrancy, since it is applied exclusively to the original Bible manuscripts, actually undermines the faith of believers in their own copies of the Bible.

Denison argues that inerrancy is a recent doctrinal innovation not shared by those in Christian history whom we ought to emulate—that it is not among our theological “roots.”

Denison argues that rather than the denial of inerrancy's leading to other heresies, the affirmation of inerrancy leads to unwarranted divisiveness.

Denison argues that inerrancy is a philosophical position not supported by the statements of the Bible itself.

Denison argues that the Bible actually is not inerrant; therefore, to apply the test of inerrancy to the Bible is to set the Bible up to fail at a test that it does not and would not apply to itself, and thereby to undermine one’s belief in the “trustworthiness” of the Bible.

Barber's main point is summed up in the beginning of his post:

An Errant Bible: The Gateway Heresy

One of the things I most appreciated about Dr. Danny Akin's sermon about the Axioms of a Great Commission Resurgence was his bold statement that there is no room in the Southern Baptist Convention for people who do not agree regarding the inerrancy of the Bible. It is an utterly unenforceable concept, but nonetheless a welcome clarification of what it means to be a Southern Baptist.

Inerrancy-fatigue has meant that there has not been much discussion in the blog world about the nature of the Bible. Indeed, inerrancy-fatigue may mean very little response to this blog post. Nevertheless, I have decided to reproduce a paper that I wrote some time ago on the topic of inerrancy. The paper amounts to an attempt to interact with the thoughts of James Denison, the official theologian of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, and his attack upon inerrancy in a self-published paper entitled, "The Errancy of Inerrancy." It is longer than my standard post, so if such things bore you, I won't be offended if you just don't bother. Otherwise, enjoy.

So what are your thoughts on all of this? I believe Bruce Prescott says it best.

Southern Baptist Robin Foster On Simply Being Baptist

Here is a good quote from Robin Foster from SBC Today:

I am a Baptist, pure and simple in the historical and biblical sense. I believe being a “good” Baptist means we are to be people of the book and that the truest form of a New Testament local church is a visible group of regenerate Christians who covenant together to practice believers baptism by immersion, carrying out the two ordinances of the church: baptism and the Lord’s Supper (participants are to be saved and properly baptized), organized under a congregational system of polity, submitting to the Lordship of Christ, and propagating the gospel to the lost. As a “good” Baptist, one should uphold the doctrines of inerrancy, priesthood of all believers, and soul competency. Now, in a biblical sense, there is no one “good” but God. I am only borrowing the language used by both speakers, but also in a biblical sense I am under the strong belief that these doctrinal stands, working together, identify us as Baptists. I again revisit the question, “Why can’t we all identify ourselves as Baptists and be free to be a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist?” Why does identifying with Calvinism make one a better Baptist than a non-Calvinist? The answer, it doesn’t. Both groups have been instrumental in passing on a rich heritage to us. To classify us into a hierarchy based on our understanding of soteriology creates nothing but worldly division. Again, for all including those who distort Calvinism as the dreaded death knell to Southern Baptists, let’s be Baptist and be free to choose how we define our soteriology.

I would prefer to be known as a Baptist pastor who diligently searches the scriptures for God’s wisdom, shepherds the flock for which I have been given responsibility, and tells others about the love of Jesus for them. Pure and simple.

Might I add an amen---now if the rest of the SBC would follow suit maybe they could get back to the basics of being Baptist. A return to Liberty Of Conscience and Soul Freedom---the traditional Baptist virtues for starters would allow the freedom for one "to be Baptist and be free to choose how (they) define (their) soteriology" rather than blind creedalism. Even better---putting Christ at the center and as the main point of all things will eradicate "the worldly divisions" within the Body of Christ as a whole---for focusing on Christ and participating actively in His redemptive work eliminates the need to get caught up in the external trappings of religion and the non-essentials of faith.

SBC Leadership Increases Abortion Rates While Gay Marriage Drops Divorce Rates In MA

Mainstream Baptist: Southern Baptist Leadership Causing Increase in Abortions---excerpt:

A story today from Baptist Press, the propaganda arm of the Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Board, features the headline "Rep.: Health care plan would lead to abortion increase." The article is part of an ongoing campaign against health care reform by the fundamentalist leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention. Central to that campaign was the delivery of more than a million signatures to congress opposing health-care reform. The petitions were delivered by Richard Land, head of the SBC's wed-to-the-hip-of-the-GOP, tax exempt, political action arm. Undoubtedly, many of those signatures were a knee-jerk reaction to false information about "death panels" and abortions.

The sad truth is that the fundamentalist leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention bears much responsibility for about 97% of the abortions that have occured over the past 30 years. They have long been at the forefront of the uncompromising pro-life people that caused former surgeon general C. Everett Koop to withdraw from the abortion controversy.

More than anyone else, C. Everett Koop, along with the late Francis Schaeffer raised awareness about the issue of abortion among evangelical Christians. Bill Martin, in his book With God on Our Side, quotes Koop's explanation for why he dropped out of the controversy:

If the pro-life people in the late 1960's and the early 1970's had been willing to compromise with the pro-choice people, we could have had an abortion law that provided for abortion only for the life of the mother, incest, rape, and defective child; that would have cut the abortions down to three percent of what they are today. But they had an all-or-nothing mentality. They wanted it all and they got nothing.

Before the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, the position of denominational leadership, like the position of the majority of Baptists today, was that we support abortion when necessary to protect the life and health of the mother, in cases of rape and incest, and when the fetus is known to have severe physical deformities such as anencephaly.

Had the moderate position prevailed, abortions could have easily been reduced by 97%. Instead, for 30 years the SBC fundamentalist "all-or-nothing mentality" has swollen the ranks of those who are uncompromising on this issue.

Interesting news and just another way Fundamentalist corruption destroyed the SBC. One Southern Baptist adds this to the issue though:

If we are going to lower the abortion rate it should come because loving SBC members are in the lives of teens and single moms. It's personal, it's relational, it's not meant to be public. Our convention should support the local church and unleash it to do good for the kingdom.

---so at least there is hope within the SBC itself. And I might add that I agree with the above statement.

On the other side of things, Massachusetts seems to be enjoying a decrease in divorce rates since legalizing same-sex marriage. Massachusetts Enjoying Decreasing Divorce Rate Because of Gay Marriage?:

We're not quite ready to say that same-sex marriage is "saving" straight marriage in Massachusetts, but when you put together two pieces of data, you might be able to reach that conclusion. As Rachel Maddow did. As she points out, when gay marriage was legalized there, the divorce rate stood at 2.2 people per 1,000. Now, it's down to 2.0, giving the state one of the lowest divorce rates in the country. Meanwhile, as we've previously noted, the state of Florida currently bans same-sex marriage; Florida also enjoys one of the highest divorce rates in the country.

Here is an excerpt from a Huffington Post article on this fact:

Opponents of same-sex marriage reject it on religious and moral grounds but also on practical ones. If we let homosexuals marry, they believe, a parade of horribles will follow -- the weakening of marriage as an institution, children at increased risk of broken homes, the eventual legalization of polygamy and who knows what all.

Well, guess what? We're about to find out if they're right. Unlike most public policy debates, this one is the subject of a gigantic experiment, which should definitively answer whether same-sex marriage will have a broad, destructive social impact.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire have all decided to let gays wed.

Actually, the "experiment" has been running in Massachusetts for fully 1/2 decade now. Over three years ago I wrote a story, "Christian Right Wrong on Gay Marriage", summing up the apparent non-impact of the then-2 year "experiment". Now, we have 4 consecutive years of data. According to the most recent data from the National Center For Vital Statistics, Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor that triggered the US entrance into World War Two.

Provisional data from 2008 indicates that the Massachusetts divorce rate has dropped from 2.3 per thousand in 2007 down to about 2.0 per thousand for 2008. What does that mean ? To get a sense of perspective consider that the last time the US national divorce rate was 2.0 per thousand (people) was 1940. You read that correctly. The Massachusetts divorce rate is now at about where the US divorce rate was the year before the United States entered World War Two.

Current President Of The SBC Denounces Wiley Drake's Prayers

http://www.woodlandforestbaptist.org/docs/Articles%20of%20Faith.pdf:


My how things have changed---now, lets compare Pastor Drake's prayers with some of Jesus's words---

First, Pastor Drake's prayers:

“I think it’s appropriate to pray the Word of God,” Drake said. “I’m not saying anything. What I am doing is repeating what God is saying, and if that puts me on somebody’s list, then I’ll just have to be on their list.”

“You would like for the president of the United States to die?” Colmes asked once more.

“If he does not turn to God and does not turn his life around, I am asking God to enforce imprecatory prayers that are throughout the Scripture that would cause him death, that’s correct.”

Now, here are Jesus's words:

"But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" - Jesus of Nazareth, as recorded in Matthew 5:44 (NIV)

Matthew 6:9-13 (New International Version)

9"This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
11Give us today our daily bread.
12Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.

This is exactly why we must always read the bible in light of Christ, because while some things may be 'biblical' not everything in the bible is Christ-honoring, Christocentric nor Christian. Thankfully, current leadership of the SBC---President Johnny Hunt knows this and has denounced Pastor Drake's hate speech:

The current President of the Southern Baptist Convention has denounced Drake: Pastor’s comments on Tiller ‘unbiblical’.

Dr. Johnny Hunt, pastor of First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Georgia, and president of the SBC, says Drake’s comments are out of line.

“[That’s a] terrible statement, [a] very unbiblical statement,” Hunt responds. “I’m still encouraged that the [Book of] Proverbs teaches that God has the water in a channel — and my prayer has always that God would turn hearts.”

Related Post: TheoPoetic Musings: Former Vice President Of The Southern Baptist Convention Praying For Obama's Death.

Former Vice President Of The Southern Baptist Convention Praying For Obama's Death

This is a good illustration of the absurdity of bible literalism and why belief in biblical inerrancy is meaningless:

Wiley Drake was interviewed by Alan Colmes. In that interview, Drake admitted without hesitation to wanting Obama to die.

Asked if there are others for whom Drake is praying "imprecatory prayer," Drake hesitated before answering that there are several. "The usurper that is in the White House is one, B. Hussein Obama," he said.

Later in the interview, Colmes returned to Drake's answer to make sure he heard him right.

"Are you praying for his death?" Colmes asked.

"Yes," Drake replied.

"So you're praying for the death of the president of the United States?"

"Yes."

Source

This is exactly the type of nonsense that comes about from replacing a Christocentric reading of the bible with the false premise of biblical inerrancy.

Here is an atheist's response to this news:

Drake says that imprecatory prayer (praying for the misfortune or death of one's enemies) is found throughout scripture, particularly in the Psalms.

And he's right about that. Here are some of the verses from Psalms that Wiley especially likes.

Let their way be dark and slippery: and let the angel of the LORD persecute them. ... Let destruction come upon him at unawares Psalm 35:6-8
Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell. Psalm 55:15
Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth ... let them be as cut in pieces. ... The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.Psalm 58:6-10
Thou therefore, O LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel, awake to visit all the heathen: be not merciful to any wicked transgressors. ... they make a noise like a dog ... Behold, they belch out with their mouth ... But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision. ... The God shall let me see my desire upon mine enemies. Psalm 59:5-10
Consume them in wrath, consume them ... let them make a noise like a dog. Psalm 59:13-14
But God shall wound the head of his enemies ... That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same. Psalm 68:21-23

Read On: Here.

Is it any wonder then that the worst thing to happen to the SBC is when they kicked the Moderates and Liberals out? After all Fundamentalist Christianity is not the same as following Christ as Fundamentalism is a Modernist invention itself. There is no distinct difference between Extremist Fundamentalist Christianity and Extremist Fundamentalist Islam either as both are born out of fear, hatred and a will to violence. However, there are some relatively decent fundamentalists---but can they really be called fundamentalists?

I agree with Chad Crawford over at Homebrewed Christianity in that this makes one embarrassed to claim a Baptist identity. Thankfully, there are Southern Baptists like Wade Burleson who denounce the violent tinged words of Pastor Drake.

See also Big Daddy Weave:

Wiley Drake is an embarassment to all Baptists, an embarrassment to all Christians and an embarassment to all Americans.

Pro Tongue And Cheek Article On CBF

Squandered Missions
JOURNAL EDITORIAL STAFF
Published: November 16, 2008

Those darned moderates. Just when the conservatives at the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina must have thought they'd routed them all, the moderates came tiptoeing back last week. At the convention's annual meeting in Greensboro, the moderates mounted serious opposition to a motion to remove the progressive Cooperative Baptist Fellowship as a giving option for member churches, and tried to reinstate funding for the Woman's Missionary Union of North Carolina, which has had the gall to assert more autonomy over its operations.

The moderates ultimately lost out, and more of the last holdouts will almost surely now leave the convention. But the convention is the real loser, because it could reach a lot more people through missions with the CBF and the Woman's Missionary Union. Yes, the convention does a lot of good missions work, but it could do so much more.

As it is now, churches that like CBF and the Woman's Missionary Union and are unhappy with the state convention may well support those groups instead of the convention.

Some conservatives in the convention probably voted to keep up the CBF option, realizing that they would lose moderate churches if they didn't. But, true to form, most of the conservatives in the convention left no room for compromise. After all, the CBF is willing to work with churches that put gay Christians into leadership positions. And the organization doesn't require a belief in biblical inerrancy. "If we don't take a stand, this is tolerance," Eric Page of Victory Baptist Church in Columbus said at the meeting, according to the News & Record of Greensboro.

Heaven forbid that a Christian organization would show tolerance.

Draw the line in the sand instead, even if that means losing the opportunity to maximize mission-work opportunities -- and even if it means declining attendance at the annual meetings of the convention. Attendance last week was down an estimated 1,000 delegates from the last couple of years.

"Don't ever forget a Baptist will only do one thing because you tell him to, and that's to stay home," Vic Ramsey of Moyock Baptist Church in Currituck County said at the meeting. "Looking at these seats, a lot of us have taken the hint. To be that broad convention, we need lots of people."

Nah. All they need is a relatively small group of committed conservatives, even if the convention has strayed from the key historical Baptist principles of autonomy of local churches and the right of all believers to interpret and follow Scriptures as they see fit, not as they're told to do. That's moderate talk, anyway.

After last week, more of the last remaining moderates will probably give up on the convention and give their money to other Baptist organizations. So be it. Why would the convention want to preach to the masses when it can preach to the choir?

See more on the SBC here: Is This the Future of the BSCNC? and here: MAINSTREAM BAPTIST: Second Wave or Last Gasp.

Baptist State Convention of North Carolina Decides No Longer To Cooperate With CBF

Although, I wasn't at the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina as I was at a CBF dinner with my mom, my grandmother went with a group from Campbell---so we heard bits and pieces from her and attendees of both events. Anyways, here's what Tony Cartledge had to say about the decision of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina to no longer give to CBF:

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2008
BSCNC to no longer "tolerate" CBF
Encouraged to “pull out a can of spinach” and “put an end” to toleration of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF), messengers to the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (BSCNC) annual session pulled out their ballots and approved a new budget structure that eliminates any option for contributing to CBF.

The action came Nov. 12, during discussion of a proposal to scrap the four cooperative giving plans the BSCNC has offered for more than a decade.

The initial proposal, from the Cooperative Program Giving Committee, would have retained an option by which churches could designate 10 percent of their gifts to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF).

Matt Williamson (right), pastor of Oak Forest Baptist in Fletcher, offered an amendment to eliminate the CBF option, saying the BSCNC should not partner with an organization that might send new converts to a church that does not teach inerrancy. “I will die on the hill of inerrancy,” he said.

Eric Page, of Victory Baptist in Columbus, said keeping the option would imply that the BSCNC tolerates CBF. Like the cartoon character Popeye, he said, the convention should “pull out a can of spinach and put an end to it.”

The proposal also called for funding for theological education at North Carolina Baptist divinity schools, budgeted at 10.9 percent of the current Plans B and C, to become a sharply reduced two percent option. The proposal was approved with that option intact. The BSCNC is currently in the middle of a two-year budget cycle, so the new structure will not take effect until 2010.

(Read More: Here).

Also, Big Daddy Weave had this to say:

The Demonization of Moderates: NC Baptists Oust CBF
Messengers to the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina decided today that Churches will no longer be allowed to support the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship through the BSCNC beginning in 2010. Check the Biblical Recorder for the story later today.

One NC Baptist fundamentalist had this to say about the decision over on his blog, Southern Baptists in NC:

The reason this amendment passed is that NC Baptist are Southern Baptist they are not CBF Baptist. (This statement is something the Baptist General Convention of Texas would do well to heed.) NC Baptist are trying their best to say that we do not want anything to do with CBF. If there are churches that desire to be CBF then have at it. However, do not try to tell the world that you are Southern Baptist and be part of an organization that was organized as a result of being disgruntled with doctrines Southern Baptist believed and held dear. What does this mean for BSCNC? It means that the churches that were bypassing the convention are now going to need to stop. It means that we are in this together and thus we need to support the budget together.

Also, there needs to be a call now to the head offices in Cary that NC Baptist have clearly stated we are not CBF. Thus, an employee at the convention offices should be a member of a NC Baptist church not one that is dually aligning themselves with the CBF and the BSCNC. We had the clarion call today during the budget vote that we will not even give you an opportunity to send funds through us to the CBF. We certainly should be able to say we want you attending a BSCNC church.

And here is a response to the BSCNC's decision from a moderate North Carolina Baptist. The blog post is appropriately titled Demons.

I am sitting in my office after spending the last day and a half at the Baptist State Convention of NC. I witnessed a historical moment, and it breaks my heart.

The Baptist State Convention has, for about 18 years, provided 4 giving plan options for churches to contribute their missions giving through the state convention. One of those plans, plan C, provided for 10% of our total giving to the state to go to CBF national. For years now, the multiple giving plans have been under attack, with the primary focus being on plan C. In the last couple of years, the state had determined that the 10% apportioned to CBF would not count as NC Cooperative Program giving. Last year, the state formed a committee to investigate a single giving plan that would preserve multiple options. That committee brought its recommendation today. There would be a single giving plan, and churches could check a box on their giving form if they desired a portion of their proceeds to go to CBF. An amendment was brought from the floor to remove this check box. After a secret ballot vote, the amendment passed. After years of efforts, plan C was officially dead.

This isn’t what broke my heart. Anybody with a brain has been able to see this handwriting on the wall for years. There are going to be those who argue, as there were today, that churches can just send their money directly to CBF and negatively designate the SBC out of their missions giving. CBF churches are still welcome in the Baptist State Convention of NC, they will say.

They are lying.

Those who spoke in favor of the amendment based their arguments on 2 points: CBF doesn’t affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, and CBF isn’t true Baptist. There were calls for the convention to “take a stand”. And so they did. They thought they were taking a stand against some faceless organization. Instead, they took a stand against Christian men and women I serve and work with every day. They called me, my church members, and my peers in ministry enemies. They demonized us.

That is what breaks my heart. They made people I love and respect into demons in order to get what they wanted. I could have lived with a decision that said, “We are SBC, and we want a plan that says we are SBC only.” I would not have agreed with it, but I could have respected it. I can’t respect this. Especially when I know it is going to be followed by somebody saying, “We aren’t kicking you out. You can still send your money to us.”

When the announcement of the vote was made, there was no comment or response. A couple of folks clapped, though not as many as I honestly expected. The President just moved on to the next item of business. The convention moved on and left behind Christ-loving, Christ-serving people who had just been accused of not being true Baptist or even true Christians, people and churches who have been a part of the state convention for decades. I’m sure some will say it was just an example of the convention saying, “Get behind me, Satan.”

Funny, Jesus said those words to Peter, the rock upon which he would build his church.
To those CBF pastors, laypeople, and churches who winced at being made to feel like demons, my heart hurts with you and for you. My prayer for all of us is that we will be able to put aside the hurt and anger that rises in our belly at being called a demon so that we might fully concentrate on being the rocks upon which Christ will build His kingdom.

Texas Baptists should pay attention to the fundamentalist from North Carolina cited above and the actions taken today by the fundamentalists in the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina. What happened today in North Carolina is just one of MANY examples which demonstrate that Cooperation with Fundamentalists is not possible. It just ain't.

Fundamentalism by definition seeks power and control. First, the state convention cuts the CBF option off. Second, the state convention decides to tell its employees which Baptist churches are OK to attend and join. Power and Control.

We can be nice and drop the fundamentalist tag and just call 'em Southern Baptists - as if a good many of those Southern Baptists are not fundamentalists. That what some folks here in Texas are doing. They pretend that somehow moderates and fundamentalists can work together under the same roof. They pretend that somehow a Baptist organization can be supportive of both Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and George W. Truett Theological Seminary. They pretend that a Baptist organization can support programs which affirm Women In Ministry while also accommodating an institution that wants to keep women out the pulpit and in the home; baking cookies, cleaning, and birthing babies, Quiverfull style.

Naive? You Bet'cha. That's putting it charitably. Why any person who eschews fundamentalism would want a better relationship with a Baptist group completely controlled by fundamentalists is beyond my comprehension. Some Texas Baptists need to pay attention to what happened in North Carolina and Georgia this week. They need to read a book or two. A primer on fundamentalism is apparently needed. Or, just keep that head in the sand.

The ONLY Way to Cooperate With a Fundamentalist Is To Obey Him.

Labels: North Carolina Baptists, Texas Baptists

posted by big daddy weave at 11:17 am

I guess us "evil Moderate/Progressive/Liberals" are too leprous to cooperate with, because we may taint the Fungelical Pharisees with all this talk of female pastors, errant bibles, tolerance and Christo-centric social justice and what not.

Georgia Baptist Convention Says No To Female Pastors

Read more at That Baptist Ain't Right: That Baptist Ain't Right: Georgia Baptists Get Rid of Women Pastors.

Here is another Blog post on the decision:

Georgia Baptists target FBC Decatur
November 12, 2008 · No Comments

The Georgia Baptist Convention approved a policy restricting affiliation with churches who are led by women. At first glance this might appear to impact several congregations, but the reality is that FBC Decatur is the only one that falls into this category. Welcome to Georgia, Julie Pennington-Russell, from your Georgia Baptist brethren. This greeting really isn’t all that unexpected.

FBC Decatur has been part of the state convention for almost 150 years, so it is signficant that the state convention is severing ties. I’m sure that the church considered the possibility of this happening when they brought their new pastor to the state. There might be some sentimental reaction to this news, but I hope that the church will move forward with the Lord’s work through its partnership with the CBF. This is one of many congregations who have been faithful in building the SBC through its financial support and participation who are no longer welcome in the denomination.

One of the primary lessons taught through Baptist life is the autonomy of the local church, which means congregations can ordain whom they choose, carry out their mission and ministry without outside coercion, and call their own staff. Autonomy also relates to the concentric circles of Baptist involvement beyond the church, including the association, state convention, and ultimately the Southern Baptist Convention. So, it is not a violation of FBC’s autonomy for Georgia Baptists to say they don’t want this church in the fold any longer. FBC can still do what it wills, but it might sting emotionally that after all this time and years of support they are told their money is no good.

Just When You Thought The SBC Couldn't Get Any Nuttier

Read this from The Big Daddy Weave's Blog:

Sunday, October 26, 2008
SBC Ethics Guru Dick Land Goes Anti-Vasectomy


I never realized that the Southern Baptist Convention had taken a position on the Vasectomy until I read this quote from Southern Baptist ethics guru Richard Land:

The Southern Baptist Convention is not opposed to the use of birth control within marriage as long as the methods used do not cause the fertilized egg to abort and as long as the methods used do not bar having children all together unless there's a medical reason the couple should not have children," he told Dallas television station WFAA.

Good gracious. Land definitely puts the kook in kooky.
Labels: Richard Land


posted by Big Daddy Weave at 12:35 AM

Dorothy And Paige Patterson's Sexism

Big Daddy Weave had a recent post about Paige Patterson's support of the SBC's male headship doctrine, which states: "how women should graciously submit to men."

Here is an excerpt from Big Daddy Weave's post which is part of a "transcript of Patterson's answer to the question about how a battered and bruised Christian wife should respond to her violent husband:"

I had a woman who was in a church that I served, and she was being subject to some abuse, and I told her, I said, “All right, what I want you to do is, every evening I want you to get down by your bed just as he goes to sleep, get down by the bed, and when you think he’s just about asleep, you just pray and ask God to intervene, not out loud, quietly,” but I said, “You just pray there.” And I said, “Get ready because he may get a little more violent, you know, when he discovers this.”

And sure enough, he did. She came to church one morning with both eyes black. And she was angry at me and at God and the world, for that matter. And she said, “I hope you’re happy.”

And I said, “Yes ma’am, I am.” And I said, “I’m sorry about that, but I’m very happy.”

And what she didn’t know when we sat down in church that morning was that her husband had come in and was standing at the back, first time he ever came. And when I gave the invitation that morning, he was the first one down to the front. And his heart was broken, he said, “My wife’s praying for me, and I can’t believe what I did to her.” And he said, “Do you think God can forgive somebody like me?” And he’s a great husband today. And it all came about because she sought God on a regular basis.

And remember, when nobody else can help, God can. And in the meantime, you have to do what you can at home to be submissive in every way that you can and to elevate him.

Sounds a lot like Mr. Patterson is on the same page as Dr. Ware.

You may also remember Patterson's role in the "Klouda Affair." See this related post: Grace and Truth to You: I'm Both Sad and Glad Over Klouda vs. SWBTS.

In other SBC news, Dorothy Patterson wrote an article on male headship:

The Southwestern Theological Seminary news magazine devoted the entire Fall 2008 issue to the subject Modeling Biblical Womanhood. The magazine featured six articles on women, with one being a profile of Dorothy Patterson, wife of SWBTS President Paige Patterson. Another article, authored by Mrs. Patterson, is entitled "Is There a Biblical Paradigm for Womanhood?" The SWBTS news magazine used to be available online, but unless it has been moved to a location on the Internet of which I am unaware, the only way to now read the SWBTS news magazine is to subscribe to it or be an alumni of the seminary and receive it free of charge in the mail. This post is a critique of Mrs. Dorothy Patterson's article "Is There a Biblical Paradigm for Womanhood?"

---see Grace and Truth to You: A Critique of Dorothy Patterson's Article in the Fall 2008 Southwestern News: <i>"Is There a Biblical Paradigm for Womanhood?"</i> for full context.

Tony Cartledge's Wit And Witticism About The SBC

Good stuff from Tony Cartledge

Since I don't watch TV dramas, I don't care what cell phone company the characters use or what cars they drive. I do wonder, however, if Pepsi might pony up a few free 12-packs if I mention "Diet Pepsi with Lime®" often enough in my blog.

While TV programs and movies are using more product integration, the Southern Baptist Convention's LifeWay bookstores are serving up product segregation. When a recent issue of Gospel Today featured women pastors on the cover, LifeWay yanked the magazine from its shelves lest anyone think the SBC might find women pastors to be acceptable in any way. SBC defenders cited the denomination's Baptist Faith and Message statement of 2000, which claims that the Bible rules out women pastors.

As I took a brisk sip of Diet Pepsi with Lime®, I ruminated that when the SBC adds a provision opposing the wearing of makeup and jewelry -- which the Bible addresses even more directly than women pastors -- I'll believe that they are truly trying to follow the Bible, rather than cherry-picking biblical texts to reinforce their preferred cultural norms. (More...)

SBC & Women