2010 CBF-NC General Assembly

Our General Assembly this year was a blast. This year marked the 16th year of CBF-NC. This year is also the last year that my mom helped with the setup of exhibits as she is rotating off of that committee next year.

If you haven't read them yet Tony Cartledge has two excellent postings on the 2010 CBF-NC General Assembly. Here is a snippet from the main posting---Baptists Today Blogs: CBFNC at "Sweet Sixteen":

The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of North Carolina (CBFNC) celebrated its sixteenth year March 19-20 by affirming core partnerships, approving a record budget, and looking to a hopeful future. More than 950 persons packed the ornate, historic sanctuary of First Baptist Church in Winston-Salem for the opening session on Friday night, and the house was comfortably filled for the closing worship on Saturday morning.

Built on the theme "Generations Connected: One Family, One Faith, Many Journeys," the annual assembly recognized the founding generation of the CBF movement by hearing from from Cecil Sherman, CBF national's first coordinator, and gave attention to emerging generations with a closing message by Craig and Jennifer Janney, a young couple who serve as both ministers and instructors at Chowan University.

Sherman noted that the national Fellowship movement is now approaching 20 years of organized existence, and reflected on the importance of remembering how CBF emerged from a conflicted Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), even though some younger people "don't want to hear our war stories." Sherman related both the "face of conflict" from in an SBC overtaken by conservatism and credalism, and the "face of growth" that emerged as moderate Baptists coalesced around the historic principles they believed had been violated.

Although some early participants wanted CBF to focus on single issues, Sherman said, its early and continuing focus has been to provide a "missions delivery system for the churches" that defined missions as more than evangelism and church starts, to support Baptist theological education, and "to teach Baptist polity to people who have forgotten it or never knew it."

Sherman acknowledged that his generation will be off the stage as the next generation of CBF leadership emerges, but he advanced three ideas "that I hope some of you will keep in mind" as future decisions are made. "I hope you stay in touch with mainline Baptists," he said -- not just an elite group and big churches, but Baptists across the spectrum of size and locality. "If the decision makers know Baptists, they'll make good decisions," he said.

The second posting is about the presence of female ministers and female ministries within the CBF world in NC. Here is a snippet from that post:

There may be more, but the number of Anglo Baptist churches in North Carolina I know of who have women pastors can be counted on my fingers with some left over. A few others have women serving as co-pastors. There is no question that churches would be well served if there were more. The eleven moderate seminaries established in the past two decades have helped to train and prepare a number of God-called women for ministry roles -- including that of pastor -- but the churches willing to call them are few and far between. I know several women who are convinced of their call and standing ready to serve, but most of the churches willing even to consider them still conclude "We're just not ready for a female senior pastor."

In my more cynical moments, I think they're just chicken. There's no guarantee that all women pastors will be pulpit stars or effective leaders, but there are some real gems out there who could be, if they were just given a chance.

I've seen, and I believe.

Baptist Responses To Haiti

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Executive Coordinator Daniel Vestal explains how to best respond to the earthquake in Haiti.

See also: Prominent Baptist pastor in Port-au-Prince confirmed among dead in Haiti and Baptists Today Blogs: The way we are.

Lottie Moon: "A Champion Of Biblical Inerrancy"?

We all know Lottie Moon as perhaps the most famous Baptist missionary or at least the most well known one, but according to Paige Patterson she is "a champion of biblical inerrancy:"

In a story that's been largely overlooked (who reads Baptist news during the holidays?), Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary unveiled several shipping crates purported to contain remnants of Lottie Moon's rented house from P'ingtu City, China, along with personal possessions and other 19th century antiques from the area.

Seminary president Paige Patterson displayed open crates reported to contain "some of Moon's furniture, such as chairs and a stove, as well as shingles, bricks and other remains from her house in P'ingtu, China," according to the article, which offered no information about how the items were authenticated as being Moon's.

Since Moon is known to have lived exceedingly frugally in a tiny dirt-floored house, the 35,000 pounds of materials reportedly contained in the shipment must have included many tons of bricks and clay shingles, as well as a lot of stuff that never belonged to Moon.

As expected, Patterson used the occasion to praise Moon as a champion of biblical inerrancy, something I've heard him do since the old "School of the Prophets" days at Criswell Bible College back in the 1970s. According to the article, Patterson prefaced his dedicatory prayer over the artifacts with a talk that "explained why Lottie Moon is so significant to Southwestern Seminary and the Southern Baptist Convention 'in the aftermath of the conservative renaissance of the convention.'"

This is nothing short of idolatry---though Lottie Moon indeed is a Baptist hero. Paige Patterson's zeal to prove his beliefs are the only correct ones have clouded his views of Lottie Moon. It is ironic that the fundamentalists believe that women cannot preach the Gospel at home but allow them to preach the Gospel abroad. Anyways what are your thoughts?

Al Mohler And Tony Cartledge: Heresy And Heroism

In a recent Blog post Al Mohler critiques an article by Tony Cartledge on Crawford H. Toy and famous Baptist missionary Lottie Moon. Dr. Mohler's Blog post is entitled "Heresy is Not Heroic — Is Crawford Howell Toy a Baptist Hero?" Of course to Dr. Mohler the answer is no because "doctrinal purity" is more important than whether someone lives a Christ-like life or not so there is no surprise there.

All Baptists admire Lottie Moon---it is ingrained within our upbringing from when we are younger sending money to Lottie Moon mission offerings. However most do not know the story of Crawford Howell Toy who was engaged to Lottie Moon. However because Toy championed biblical criticism over the absurd belief in biblical inerrancy. It has been rumored that he and Lottie Moon broke their engagement off because of his "theologically liberal" beliefs.

Indeed Crawford Toy is a Baptist hero of faith because of his commitment to intellectually living out his faith in the same way that Lottie Moon lived out hers on the mission field. Despite the fact that Toy later became a Unitarian, he should be celebrated for his contributions to Baptist life because he was not afraid to stand upon the traditional Baptist principles of soul competency, liberty of conscious and the right to dissent---despite the pressures of the "status quo."

Anyways here are some of the more critical parts of Dr. Mohler's post:

The most troubling section of Cartledge’s article has little to do with Lottie Moon, however. After stating his admiration for Lottie Moon’s “willingness to suffer deprivation because of her devotion to Christ and to missions,” Cartledge then states, “Increasingly, I have also come to admire Crawford Toy, who was no less devoted to Christ, and was willing to suffer rejection by Southern Baptists rather than surrender to the narrow-minded demand that he forgo scholarship and limit his teaching to popularly accepted notions.”

The admiration of liberal Baptists for Crawford Howell Toy should be a matter of both amazement and genuine concern. It is also a telling indication of how many of those identified as “moderates” in the Southern Baptist Convention controversy actually view the Bible. To celebrate Toy is to celebrate his beliefs about the Bible. Those beliefs were not heroic.

Neither is biblical inerrancy and elevating the bible as an idol heroic.
.........................

As later became clear, Toy drank deeply from the wells of theological liberalism and Biblical criticism during his years in Germany.

In his inaugural address as a professor at Southern Seminary, Toy argued that the Bible has both a human and a divine element. As his theological pilgrimage revealed, Toy would use this hermeneutical distinction in order to argue that the Bible contains nothing but truth in its divine element, even as its human element shows all the marks of human fallibility. The human element contains both errors and myths, but the Bible’s “religious thought is independent of this outward form.”

Because the bible indeed contains elements of "Mythic Truths" as well as downright absurdities that are in error---however, the bible is divinely inspired despite being the product of fallible human hands. After-all, it was sinful humans who did the actual writing and compiling of the bible.

..........................

Nevertheless, Toy’s theological trajectory did indeed take him not only out of the Southern Baptist fellowship, but out of the Christian faith altogether. During his time at Harvard, Toy eventually became a Unitarian — a faith that denies the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. He also accepted an evolutionary understanding of religion which accepted religion as a purely natural phenomenon.

In other words, Toy became what Christians throughout all the centuries of church history and in all the major traditions of the Christian Church would rightly identify as a heretic. He abandoned faith in the deity of Christ and abandoned the Christian faith. Yet, moderates in the SBC controversy often celebrated Crawford Toy as a hero and as a theological martyr for academic scholarship. Tony Cartledge continues this tradition by expressing his admiration for Crawford Toy, going so far as to claim that he “was no less devoted to Christ” than Lottie Moon. “There’s more than one way to be a hero,” Cartledge concluded.

I can only hope that Tony Cartledge either does not understand or does not mean what he writes in this article. To declare Crawford Toy and Lottie Moon to be equally devoted to Christ defies both common sense and theological sanity.

Idolatry of the bible is theological insanity.

As Old Testament scholar Paul House, now of the Beeson Divinity School, has argued, the roots of Toy’s later heresies were found in the presuppositions of his hermeneutic as he set forth his thought in his inaugural address at Southern Seminary. House does not question Toy’s personal integrity, noting his honesty in presenting his own beliefs. Toy himself recognized that his beliefs changed even during the years he taught at Southern Seminary. The key issue is that Toy’s understanding of the Bible left him completely vulnerable to every heresy and doctrinal aberration. Broadus rightly warned Toy of this danger at the time of his resignation.

Fundamentalism is a heresy and doctrinal aberration.


We should grieve the example of Crawford Howell Toy and learn from it, even as we are inspired by the courageous and Gospel-centered witness of Lottie Moon. The story of Crawford Howell Toy contains a cautionary message for every Christian teacher, seminary, church, and denomination. The elevation of Crawford Toy to the status of a hero alongside one of Christianity’s most famous Gospel missionaries is both tragic and scandalous. Heresy is not heroic.

Fundamentalism is what's not heroic.

North Carolina's Constitution Anti-Separation Of Church And State

Weird stuff all around:

No faith, no service?

I was surprised to learn that the North Carolina Constitution has a provision that disallows persons who don't believe in God from public service. The issue came to light after Cecil Bothwell, who describes himself as a "post-theist," was elected to the Asheville City Council, creating a stir among some conservatives and making national headlines.

Bothwell is a long-time environmentalist, resident, and author. He has been a syndicated coumnist, wrote a best-selling guidebook to Asheville, and in 2007 published a biography of evangelist Billy Graham, who lives in nearby Black Mountain. Bothwell belongs to the Unitarian Universalist Church, which is home to many folks who are skeptical about God's existence but still value spirituality, fellowship, and social justice. That's not enough to satisfy critics, including Mark Creech, who leads the North Carolina-based Christian Action League. I appreciate Mark, especially with regard to his opposition to alcohol and the lottery, but I have to disagree with him on this one.

It's true -- and a bit mind-boggling -- that the N.C. Constitution seems to think belief in God is an essential characteristic for all office holders. You can look it up:

Article Six, Section 8 says
The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
Second, with respect to any office that is filled by election by the people, any person who is not qualified to vote in an election for that office.
Third, any person who has been adjudged guilty of treason or any other felony against this State or the United States, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of corruption or malpractice in any office, or any person who has been removed by impeachment from any office, and who has not been restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law.

It's interesting to note that atheists are disqualified even before would-be candidates who aren't qualified to vote or who have committed treason or other felonies.

Dr. Cartledge goes on to state:

Relying heavily on David Barton's The Myth of Separation, which argues against church-state separation, Creech holds that "the founders" intended only that there should be no denominational test (Anglican, Presbyterian, etc.), assuming that all potential office holders would be Christian. In addition, he suggests (with the late D. James Kennedy) that those who don't believe in God have no external basis for life-affirming values and thus have no business serving the public.

Read the full article here: Baptists Today Blogs: No faith, no service? Mark Creech's arguments are typical theocratic nonsense.

Why Biblical Criticism Is Important For The Church

Here are some quotes from James F. McGrath's recent post: Exploring Our Matrix: Review of Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted:

In his latest book, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them), Bart Ehrman seeks to introduce a wider audience to important aspects of the New Testament. The contradictions, tensions and diversity of viewpoints in the Bible which Ehrman highlights, and the historical-critical approach he outlines, are common knowledge to Biblical scholars, as well as to anyone who had studied in a mainline seminary in the past half century or so. Yet more often than not, such information seems to fail to filter through to the wider populace. The information Ehrman presents is not at odds with Christian faith, although it is at odds with the claims that some Christians make about the Bible. Yet ironically, those Christians who affirm the Bible’s importance seem to put no greater effort into familiarizing themselves with the details of the Bible’s contents, much less scholarship that might aid in understanding it.

Ehrman recounts in the book how he entered seminary as a conservative Christian, ready to resist the attacks liberal scholars would wage against the Bible. Instead, he discovered that this scholarly way of viewing the Bible in fact made better sense and did more justice to what one actually finds in the Bible (p.6). And so Ehrman, like many other students of the Bible from conservative backgrounds (including myself), found his view of the Bible being challenged by the evidence itself (p.xi).

Because of his experience of conservative Evangelicalism, Ehrman is able to address not only the New Testament and other ancient writings from the same period, but also the strategies some Christians have developed for avoiding the natural implications of the Biblical evidence – for instance, “harmonizing”, which usually involves creating one’s own Gospel out of the four found in the New Testament, combining them so that one ends up with a version that isn’t what any of the canonical Gospels say (pp.7, 69-70).

Through the chapters of his book, Ehrman shows how the view of Jesus evolved with time in early Christianity (pp.73-82, 245-247, 260), showing in the process what is wrong with C. S. Lewis’ famous “trilemma” that Jesus must be either “liar, lunatic or Lord”: it assumes that Jesus made the claim to be divine attributed to him in the Gospel of John and only there among the canonical Gospels. A historian cannot have this confidence, and thus must add a fourth option, namely that this claim attributed to Jesus is a “legend” (pp.141-142). The nature of historical study, and its inability to affirm miracles as probable since they are by definition improbable, is also explained (pp.175-177).

In relation to this here is a post by Tony Cartledge: Baptists Today Blogs: Biblical criticism, when the new becomes old. My friend Justin's comment is of particular interest here:

Joshua Brown said...
Dr. Cartledge,

I'm looking forward to class today to hear how you handle the issue of biblical criticism. Those of us fortunate enough to study Religion, specifically Christianity, are well aware of the true nature of biblical criticism. However, as you stated, today's negative connotation of "criticism" makes it difficult to bring such scholarship into the church. Perhaps today's church often feels that scholars desire to tear down their faith instead of enlightening it. Whatever the reason, it's clear that the "older" (and newer)critical methods are lost on the largest population of Christianity: the congregation members. In a time where we give the people in the pews such power by telling them they can read and interpret the Bible for themselves, many ministers have made our congregations fear the very tools meant to help them in their task. Shame, shame, shame.
January 12, 2009 12:02 PM

Justin said...
Joshua said:
"it's clear that the "older" (and newer)critical methods are lost on the largest population of Christianity: the congregation members."

You have captured perfectly why I have feel called to the Church and to education (in the broadest sense of the word). There needs to be more and more people helping bridge the gap in responsible Bible Study!!! You've hit the nail on the head. Its not that they CAN'T do it, its that no one has (will) teach them how!

good comment!
j
January 12, 2009 1:43 PM

Anyways, while I agree with my pastor that from a pastoral level---historical criticism isn't helpful when dealing with congregational needs---however, I do believe that on an instructional level that pastors that are aware of biblical critical methods should at least make clear how these critical methods are of no danger to the congregations' faith and how biblical criticism can inform our faith. Also, I believe this is necessary to prevent the kinds of bibliolatry and abuses of the bible that is rampant in all types of churches, nowadays. This is also one of the reasons that I like Justin "have feel called to the Church and to education (in the broadest sense of the word)" and another reason why I started blogging. Also like Joshua, I have experienced first hand how "today's negative connotation of "criticism" makes it difficult to bring such scholarship into the church" when I tried to inform a small group I participated in about biblical critical methods. Most wouldn't hear of it as they believe the bible is clear and literally says what it means in a literal/face value sense. Most in the laity are also unaware of all the complexities and subtle nuances of the transmission/collation/translation/interpretation processes within an academic/scholarly hermeneutical framework of the bible. I think this all goes back to something Justin once said that there seems to be a disconnect between academic theology and the church. I agree and that's why we need more people like William Barclay and Bart D. Ehrman to make academic theology accessible to the church.

Ridgecrest's Ceiling Collapses

Ceiling collapses at Ridgecrest

Read Tony Cartledge's post on the event: Baptists Today Blogs: Watch out below!.

Read about Tony's wife's experience at Ridgecrest: Here.

Thankfully no-one was injured or killed during the accident.

Tony Cartledge Posts On The CBFNC General Assembly

Baptists Today Blogs: CBFNC challenged to share gospel, use words

Here is some of that post:

It’s not enough for believers to “walk the walk,” Fred Craddock told participants attending the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of North Carolina’s 2009 General Assembly Mar. 20-21. “Somebody needs to talk the talk.”

Craddock, a retired professor perennial cited as one of America’s top preachers, spoke to an enthusiastic group of more than 1,000 registrants to Snyder Memorial Baptist Church in Fayetteville. In two sermons packed with his trademark stories, he focused on the difficulty of hearing Christ’s message and the challenge of sharing it with others.

“The principle pain in hearing is that we just don’t want to hear some things,” Craddock said. “We avoid things we don’t want to hear because they might disturb us.”

Read More: Here.

Here is an article on Craddock's preaching style from Wikipedia:

Preaching Style

There are at least three major features of Craddock's new homiletic that distinguish it from traditional homiletics. First, instead of using a traditional deductive approach, in which three points are named and illustrated, in his sermons, Craddock advocates an inductive style. Critiquing traditional homiletics--called the "old homiletic"--Craddock turned toward induction, in which the preacher re-creates for the listener the inductive process of study used to create the sermon itself. A second unique feature of Craddock's new homiletic is that a sermon should seek to create an experience for the listener, rather than attempting to gain the listeners' assent through sermons utilizing deductive, linear logic. As a result of Craddock's inductive model, the role of the listeners fundamentally changes: no longer are listeners passive recipients of a conclusion already reached by the authoritative preacher, to which they must acquiesce. Rather, in Craddock's scheme, the listeners are active participants in the sermon by virtue of the sermon form itself, which enables the hearer to "finish" the sermon that is intentionally left open-ended. Third, Craddock emphasizes that the form or genre of the biblical passage to be preached should shape in some way the form taken by the sermon. While Craddock does not require that a sermon slavishly adhere to the biblical form--a psalm need not be preached entirely as a poetic sermon--he argues that various biblical forms seek to accomplish a variety of rhetorical aims and as such, the sermon should attempt to "do what the text does" in both the "what" (content) and the "how" (rhetorical strategies) of the text.

Craddock offers an inductive approach to preaching with an aim of active participation by the listener in the movement of the sermon as well as in the discerning of the message. His grounding principle is that good preaching is a socializing force that creates community.[3]

Often characterized as preaching with a style that is "folksy,"[4] Craddock is a strong supporter of using humour in sermons.[5] Newsweek ranked him as one of America's greatest preachers.[2] Craddock's new homiletic has influenced further generations of homileticians who have developed new sermon forms while holding to certain values found within the new homiletic: narrative preaching, phenomenological preaching, and conversational preaching, to name a few.

Craddock's style like Harry Emerson Fosdick's style fits in well with the blended styles of CBF including it's welcoming embrace of the Emerging/Emergent Movement and Postmodern language and it's acceptance of the good parts of traditionalism.

CBFNC General Assembly Day 2

The theme of the 2009 General Assembly:

About 4 or more hours ago, I returned from 3 long Spirit-filled days at my first CBFNC General Assembly. Anyways, Day 2 was a day of fellowship around displays on CBF friendly missions and other projects that CBF takes part in. I will blog on all the displays in subsequent posts. Also going on around this time was a gathering of Baptist Women in Ministry of North Carolina in another church in Fayetteville, in which another FBC-Wilmington resident member, Mary Margaret Brooks was recognized for her years of service to the Baptist community. She is a dear friend of our family as she kept me in the nursery when her husband Lamar was the pastor of our church at FBC-Laurinburg in the early 80's. See also: Baptists Today Blogs: BWIM NC celebrates preaching without words. A deli lunch was provided for the exhibitors which my mom, my grandmother and I assisted with and Snyder Memorial Baptist Church of Fayetteville, NC for non-exhibitors. After lunch, people milled around and/or attended various breakout sessions. My grandmother and I attended these 2 breakout sessions:

Charles Barrett Howard: Preacher, Professor, and Philanthropist, Glenn Jonas ...............................................................B1052
(2:15 p.m. - Annual Meeting of the NC Baptist Historical Society - Room B1052) and New Church Start Track
Emerging Faith Communities in the 21st Century, Beverly Hatcher and Pete Zimmerman ............................................ A2002.

I'll blog more on them later. All through the day I ran into old friends, Campbell people, blogging buddies and new friend which is a testimony to the openness of CBF. At dinnertime, we ate in the Fellowship Hall with Jim Everette---we have to get ideas for the 2013 General Assembly as FBC-Wilmington is hosting that one. Following dinner was our evening worship service with Dr. Fred Craddock preaching on “Hearing What is Said.” The main theme of Craddock's sermon was truly listening to what people say. An audio and video of the service should be available soon on the CBFNC official website. Sitting beside us on the front left pew with us was a family friend, Steve DeVane, taking pictures for the Biblical Recorder. Tony Cartledge was taking pictures and blogging from the front right pew for Baptists Today.

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.

4,300-Year-Old Pyramid Found in Egypt

4,300-Year-Old Pyramid Found in Egypt AP
posted: 22 HOURS 57 MINUTES AGOcomments: 288filed under: Science News, World News

SAQQARA, Egypt (Nov. 11) - Egypt's chief archaeologist has announced the discovery of a 4,300-year-old pyramid in Saqqara, the sprawling necropolis and burial site of the rulers of ancient Memphis.

The pyramid is said to belong to Queen Sesheshet, the mother of King Teti who was the founder of the 6th Dynasty of Egypt's Old Kingdom.
Egypt's antiquities chief Zahi Hawass made the announcement Tuesday at the site in Saqqara, about 12 miles south of Cairo.
Hawass' team has been excavating the site for two years. He says the discovery was only made two months ago when it became clear that the 16-foot-tall structure uncovered from the sand was a pyramid.
Hawass says the new pyramid is the 118th discovered so far in Egypt.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2008-11-11 11:33:26

2008 seems to be the year of interesting historical events and archaeological findings.

For another interesting archaeological finding see Tony Cartledge's recent post: Baptists Today Blogs: Ashurbanipal Invades Boston.

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...)

The Absurdity Of Biblical Inerrancy

Tony Cartledge has an interesting article on inerrancy on his Blog.

An anonymous poster raised these valid questions---

Anonymous said...
Well, at the risk of starting the fight all over again, here are the questions I asked then and have never heard an "inerrantist" answer yet:

1. How do you KNOW "the Bible" is without error?

Which "Bible" are you talking about? Which translation? Which set of manuscripts?

A. No one alive has ever examined a single one of the original manuscripts.

B. And if you did have one of the original manuscripts, just exactly to what would you compare it to establish that it contains no error?

What is the available standard by which accuracy would be judged?

It seems to me that if "the Bible" was inspired by the Holy Spirit, you'd have to take that original manuscript to the Holy Spirit and ask Him, "Would you please check this to see if the writer got it right?"

The whole question of "inerrancy" is specious. It is a question that is impossible to answer. And if a question is impossible to answer, then it is not a reasonable question in the first place.

That's about like asking, "Can God create a boulder so big that He can't move it?"

As a statement of faith, I can accept someone's declaring that he BELIEVES the Bible to be inerrant.

But when it comes to someone's "proving" that the Bible is inerrant, he has absolutely no available tool with which to perform the analysis and evaluation.

Therefore, for one to demand that SOMEONE ELSE subscribe to HIS BELIEF about the inerrancy of the Bible, especially in order to qualify for or be retained in a position of employment, that is absolute arrogance and presumptuousness. And it's done as a demonstration of power in order to control.

How does one person DARE to demand that another person subscribe to a postulate that the first person cannot PROVE?

What EVIDENCE has ever been produced that the Bible is without error?

Just as a personal observation, one of my Bibles has a misspelled name in it--twice. At least it is misspelled in comparison to the other Bibles of the same translation I've examined. But I must admit, I haven't checked it against the original manuscripts.

Still, I'm fairly confident that this is ONE BIBLE that is not without error!

And if this one is not, how do you propose to be certain that all of the others are not?

IMHO.

Brother Deaux

---------------------------------------
Additionally I'd like to ask inerrantists:

Where is the support for Mosaic authorship of the Torah in the Torah itself?

If then the theory of Mosaic authorship doesn't come from the canon itself but Apocryphal sources, does that mean that those sources are inerrant, too? Why or why not?

If Apocryphal sources then are errant but contain truth in them---why not the canon itself?
Additional questions: How can mere humans decide what God's truth looks like?

Is God's truth something that we can vote on?