Possible Changes in SBC Missions

[HumbleMan]

Good post, Chris. One thing that I was looking for when looking for a new church (I came out of the CoG) was autonomy of the local church, while having similar beliefs of like minded bodies.

I've tried to stay out of political discussion lately, because I've become so disappointed in our current leadership (both parties) in Washington. But the moves that the SBC leadership is making reminds me of what's happening there. All the while giving lip service to autonomy of the church (and states), power is being consolidated at the highest possible level with little or no say or input from the people who elected them.

PressingOn,

Thanks for the links. I haven't had time to get back until now. I might start a new thread on Landmarkism and some of their teachings.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Andyman...

Here's a link for ya... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmarkism.

It covers the basics, but if you want a bit more discussion about some of the current uproar, you might visit http://www.wadeburleson.com (there are a couple posts on "the dangers" of this belief which have generated some good discussion in comments).

Thanks for the info.

Unfortunately I've already bumped up against this at my church. I teach the college/twentysomething Sunday school, and last year we studied through the Gospel of Luke. When we came to the Last Supper, I had an idea that the lesson would be the class taking the Lord's Supper...........I floated that idea to the leadership and you would have thought I was wanting to teach that Satan is lord or something, the implication was Sunday School teachers have no business dispensing the elements...........

That article really brought into focus how my church is embracing Landmarkism..........and certainly something for me to think and pray about.

Thank you.

 

[catch21wide]

Hey Andyman. What you said about a church being an autonomy made me think. It made me think of what my pastor said about how a church is supposed to be run. He said a church is NOT an autonomy which it is run by the deacons and/or pastor. It is NOT a democracy run of the people, by the people, and for the people of the church. The church my friend is a CHRISTOCRACY run by Jesus Christ, of Jesus Christ, and for Jesus Christ. If He leads the pastor in a decision regarding the church, then the church should consider it to be God's will to let that decision come to be. I don't want to start a debate or anything, but when I see something about the church that makes me think about it I am going to speak my mind. I hope this post helps you to understand where I am coming from. I also hope I didn't get off tack of what you were saying. If I did I apologize.

 

[Danfrey]

The church my friend is a CHRISTOCRACY run by Jesus Christ, of Jesus Christ, and for Jesus Christ. If He leads the pastor in a decision regarding the church, then the church should consider it to be God's will to let that decision come to be.

Who decides if the Pastor is following God's will or his own? What happened to the idea of a servant leader?

Matthew 20
25Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave

 

[Andyman_1970]

Who decides if the Pastor is following God's will or his own?

And what if the pastor makes a decision (with catch 21's post in mind) in which

then the church should consider it to be God's will to let that decision come to be

has no basis in Scripture, then what? Do we let the pastor do whatever he wants or thinks is "right"? If his decision has no basis in Scripture then how do we know it's "right"?

The example I shared of the Lord's Supper debacle I experienced had no basis in Scripture, and yet the decision was made as though it had the full authority of Scripture behind it........I have serious problems with that.

catch21wide, of course your pastor is going to say he (the pastor) runs the church, he's in charge.

 

[JPPT1974]

This could go either way
Either pros or cons
Just put aside the differences
Experiment with it
If they like it that's great
If they don't, think up plan b.

 

[Danfrey]

The key here is common accountability. Let me give an example to I believe is similar.

When my wife was alive, she was wonderful at submitting to my authority as her husband. (there goes political correctness) Saying this, let me also explain that my wife would not tolerate me making an ungodly decision in the home. She would break out her Bible and we would discuss the problem she had with my decision. If my heart was in the right place and my ego was in check I would submit to scripture and to God who was obviously showing me something through my wife. If she was mistaken, she would submit.

All that to say a pastor has to be ready to be admonished just as he expects his congregation to be. Let us just remember to do it according to scripture. As far as those things that are not addressed in scripture, it is time we let them go and move on. How many church divisions come from items that are not found in scripture. The Mennonites who I am very fond of, have had this problem throughout their history.

 

[Chris Norwood]

I absolutely believe that every church should be a theocracy/Christocracy in which God himself is in charge. I also agree that the pastor is the primary leader and should help to give the church direction and vision. The thing is, however, that because Baptists are strong believers in Soul Compentency and the Priesthood of all Believers, we use democratic processes to best determine the will of God.

The theory is that the Holy Spirit is in each one of us working to reveal the will of God, and that while one individual (including a pastor) may at times not get the message clearly, the majority of the Christians in a congregation should be able to come together to discern what God wants to happen. Now, the pastor certainly has the right and responsibility to make suggestions based on what he thinks that direction should be, and should also remind the congregation that they are voting for what they feel God wants instead of their own opinions or wishes. But in the end, Baptists should still use democracy as the tool to discern God's will.

 

[eldermike]

IMHO, the conservative SBC leadership saved the SBC. I have been SBC all my life and I can tell you that if there had not been a conservative take over the SBC would be gone today. People woke up and went to conventions, they voted with their wallets until the SBC was flat on it's face and then they took it back. I grew up in an SBC town (wake forest NC). The school was in danger of being condemned by the town, today it's in better shape than ever. I am not one to condone every move made by the conservatives but in the case of the SBC I'll hide and watch, because the have been right up to this point.

 

[pressingon]

Mike,

I don't think many in the SBC would disagree with you on that... the conservative resurgence was, for the most part, a good thing. Some of the methods used to re-establish conservative leadership left a LOT to be desired... but the conservative direction of the convention is, in general, a good thing.

The thing to me is this... missions, through the cooperative program, is what makes the SBC such a wonderful organization. It enables us to have such an impact on the world... making a real difference for Christ. But what is our leadership doing? Narrowing the bounds of cooperation. It's starting with missionary candidates... if you practice a private prayer language or if your baptism wasn't done just right... you can't serve. So... unreached people groups continue to go unreached. But what's next? A crackdown on end times views? At what point does this narrowing of acceptable theological viewpoints result in individual churches either leaving the SBC because they're no longer welcome or being excluded from affiliating with it? What impact does this have on the cooperative program (and thus, missions)?

We can't sit on the sidelines on this one. This isn't a conservative / liberal issue... it's, as Wade Burleson put it, a "crusading conservative" / "cooperating conservative" issue. Do we want our convention leadership establishing more restrictive (and divisive) bounds on scriptural interpretations, or are we going to agree to disagree on debatable, non-essential doctrines (to preserve unity)?

It's a big deal, particularly to the younger generation of leaders who see themselves more and more marginalized by the convention every year.

 

[Andyman_1970]

The thing to me is this... missions, through the cooperative program, is what makes the SBC such a wonderful organization. It enables us to have such an impact on the world... making a real difference for Christ. But what is our leadership doing? Narrowing the bounds of cooperation. It's starting with missionary candidates... if you practice a private prayer language or if your baptism wasn't done just right... you can't serve. So... unreached people groups continue to go unreached. But what's next? A crackdown on end times views? At what point does this narrowing of acceptable theological viewpoints result in individual churches either leaving the SBC because they're no longer welcome or being excluded from affiliating with it? What impact does this have on the cooperative program (and thus, missions)?

Well said, it seems like a line in the sand has been drawn without any Scriptural substantiation of said line.

Our church (SBC) sends missionaries to Ecuador on a regular basis. This last trip our associate pastor baptized 30-40 people who had been saved in that village between our missionary visits (8 months or so). I didn’t think much of this until I started digging into this matter, I thought “why couldn’t they have been baptized but their own people” instead of say our pastor going down there. Then the light bulb came on [after researching this matter] evidently one has to be baptized by a “real live” SBC pastor in order for it to “count”………….I find no Scriptural basis for that.

We can't sit on the sidelines on this one. This isn't a conservative / liberal issue... it's, as Wade Burleson put it, a "crusading conservative" / "cooperating conservative" issue. Do we want our convention leadership establishing more restrictive (and divisive) bounds on scriptural interpretations, or are we going to agree to disagree on debatable, non-essential doctrines (to preserve unity)?

The interesting thing is, Jesus more than once says His followers will be known by their love (agape) for one another, and the world will know He is real by our love for one another, Jesus never mentions that the world will know He is real because we had intellectually assented to the correct doctrine.

It's a big deal, particularly to the younger generation of leaders who see themselves more and more marginalized by the convention every year.

It’s a big deal to me as my family and I increasingly see ourselves as “not fitting” with this current wave of perceived landmarkism.

 

[eldermike]

Mike,

I don't think many in the SBC would disagree with you on that... the conservative resurgence was, for the most part, a good thing. Some of the methods used to re-establish conservative leadership left a LOT to be desired... but the conservative direction of the convention is, in general, a good thing.

The thing to me is this... missions, through the cooperative program, is what makes the SBC such a wonderful organization. It enables us to have such an impact on the world... making a real difference for Christ. But what is our leadership doing? Narrowing the bounds of cooperation. It's starting with missionary candidates... if you practice a private prayer language or if your baptism wasn't done just right... you can't serve. So... unreached people groups continue to go unreached. But what's next? A crackdown on end times views? At what point does this narrowing of acceptable theological viewpoints result in individual churches either leaving the SBC because they're no longer welcome or being excluded from affiliating with it? What impact does this have on the cooperative program (and thus, missions)?

We can't sit on the sidelines on this one. This isn't a conservative / liberal issue... it's, as Wade Burleson put it, a "crusading conservative" / "cooperating conservative" issue. Do we want our convention leadership establishing more restrictive (and divisive) bounds on scriptural interpretations, or are we going to agree to disagree on debatable, non-essential doctrines (to preserve unity)?

It's a big deal, particularly to the younger generation of leaders who see themselves more and more marginalized by the convention every year.

You could be right on the conservative/conservative nature of these issues. I pray that's the case. I do personally hold that we have more non-essential doctrine than we need. But, you and I may not agree on which of these doctrines are actually non-essential; thus, the need for leadership.

 

[catch21wide]

Our church (SBC) sends missionaries to Ecuador on a regular basis. This last trip our associate pastor baptized 30-40 people who had been saved in that village between our missionary visits (8 months or so). I didn’t think much of this until I started digging into this matter, I thought “why couldn’t they have been baptized but their own people” instead of say our pastor going down there. Then the light bulb came on [after researching this matter] evidently one has to be baptized by a “real live” SBC pastor in order for it to “count”………….I find no Scriptural basis for that.

The reason why your associate pastor baptized those people was probably for the fact that there are a lot of villages in South America who do not have the christian faith. Look at the missionaries in all the different countries in the world. They baptize hundreds of NEW believers each day in the name of Christ. Maybe your pastor was proud enough to baptize a person in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit. He was probably proud to baptize his brothers and sisters in Christ, not because he wanted it to "count" as you say. He more than likely wanted to baptize them because he wanted to. Think about it.

 

[Andyman_1970]

The reason why your associate pastor baptized those people was probably for the fact that there are a lot of villages in South America who do not have the christian faith. Look at the missionaries in all the different countries in the world. They baptize hundreds of NEW believers each day in the name of Christ. Maybe your pastor was proud enough to baptize a person in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit. He was probably proud to baptize his brothers and sisters in Christ, not because he wanted it to "count" as you say. He more than likely wanted to baptize them because he wanted to. Think about it.

The issue is not was his baptizing a good thing, it was I praise God for that, it's that those people could not be baptized until and "offcial pastor" did it........there is no Scriptural basis for that period. There is no reason those new believers couldn't have baptized each other or baptize yourself (which BTW is the way Jesus and the other Jewish converts to Christianity did it in the 1st century, it was called a mikvah).

I have thought about it..................