Surely this Task Force, whose members include such Convention stalwarts as Dr. Paige Patterson, Dr. Albert Mohler, Dr. David Dockery, Dr. Kevin Ezell, Dr. Tom Eliff and others, are surely wiser than Newman, thus applying the Old Testament principle and realizing that Conventions — like babies — cannot be split into two different groups with two different identities and, knowing the New Testament principle that “a house divided against itself cannot stand” must be applied to any proposed Name Change recommendation. That being the case, it is hard for me to understand how this can be a “win-win” for the Convention of churches now known as Southern Baptists. However, with a long drive from Dallas to New Mexico on Tuesday, I had plenty of time to come to an understanding of what I think Dr. Draper, in his report to the Executive Committee for/through President Bryant Wright, meant by “win-win.”

Perhaps he meant it like this:  Suppose a good-sized County Seat First Baptist Church was in search of a new pastor.  The church, although the oldest in the county and the mother church to all the other churches in the area, had hit a bit of a rough spot.  Not content to continue on a downward spiral, the Pastor (or Elder if you prefer) Search Committee interviews a nice young man about serving the church.  He is passionate and energetic, telling the committee that he wants to reach families in the area.  The committee likes what it hears.  Who wouldn’t want to reach families for Christ?  Of course, when the Pastoral candidate said “families,” he really meant people under 40, but the committee thought families included senior adults as well.

The committee recommends the pastoral candidate to the church and the church, based largely on the committee’s glowing recommendation, calls the new pastor.  Eager to make an impact and purposefully-driven to implement his vision, the young pastor arrives on the scene, only to find that the church has very few families, at least not how he would define families. He’s really not sure how this church has survived this long because it doesn’t seem like they know what a “true” church looks like. He sets out to “bring ‘em in,” and, in fact, does attract a lot of younger families with children (which is a good thing). So many new families start coming to the church that a second worship service needs to be added.  Not to worry.  An early morning worship experience at 8:30 a.m. would be perfect.  Not too early and not too late so as to interfere with Sunday School.

Just to mix things up, why not try something different at the early service.  How about more contemporary songs and a praise band (not that there’s anything wrong with that — another Seinfeld reference)?  The folks who have been at the church, despite their initial reluctance and questions, get behind the pastor because they believe that he sincerely wants to reach people for Christ.  After all, more families have started coming to the church. After the new service is announced, but before it launches, the pastor has a change of plans.  Not a big deal, really.  It turns out that young families with children don’t get up early on Sunday morning (I can vouch for my family on that). It would be better if we moved the “traditional” service to 8:30 a.m. (old people get up early and they are the only ones who would go to a traditional service, anyway) and the new, contemporary service to 11:00 a.m.

While some of the older folks are not happy, the pastor begins to pull out the Al Haig card, “I’m God’s man here and I’m in charge. I cast the vision for my church.  If you don’t like the direction that my church is heading, then there are lots of other churches down the road that you can go to.  Anyway, we’ve attracted 50 new families to my church in the long six months I’ve been here.  If we lose one or two older families, it won’t matter much because I’m growing my church.”  Now mind you, this is said to an elderly Deacon and his wife who have been pillars in the church for over 50 years.  What the pastor has just said is, “you can shut up and get with the program or you can get out!”

If you think this is far-fetched, then you have not been in Southern Baptist life for any length of time nor do you know anyone who has been in the SBC for any length of time.  Churches have been destroyed because of “driven” pastors — driven by methodology, theology, or their own cult of personality.  There are Calvinists, non-Calvinists, anti-Calvinists and, Arminians among the driven bunch.  It takes all kinds!

Why do I share this story?  Because the pastor of this story, when selling new — and sometimes radical — ideas, will often use spiritual language similar to what we have already heard from the Name Change Task Force — it’s a “win-win” situation. Tell that to the older Christians who were displaced from the church that they loved and lovingly served for 50+ years. Tell that to pastors and lay folks in the south who have labored for the Kingdom by sending missionaries throughout North America and the world, all the while identifying themselves as Southern Baptists but, apparently unaware of the stigma that attaches to the name.

With all due respect to the unofficial Name Change Task Force, I’m not sure that a committee which was created to circumvent the will of the messengers and perhaps contravene the Constitution and By-Laws of the SBC in the process, are the best folks to unilaterally declare the nickname option a “win-win” (although some of our leaders sure like to do things unilaterally; some don’t even need a vote to change the name of a seminary). That only a few EC members had the courage to vote against bringing the recommendation to the floor of the Convention is a sad commentary on the “ends justifies the means” mentality that is so often employed in the hardball political process of the SBC. And, when trustees dare to speak up against the establishment, they subject themselves to ridicule from “denominational servants.”

The Nickname path, as has already been demonstrated in the report, is one that will surely lead to more division in the short run. How?  Wrap your minds around the concluding paragraphs of the Name Change Task Force Recommendation:

“That the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention report to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 19-20, 2012, that it will study ways in which the use of the phrase “Great Commission Baptists” might be protected and preserved for use by those churches and institutions (emphasis added) which find its use beneficial and will assess how using the phrase in various ways in its communications and publications might be helpful to those groups.

We deeply believe that if the phrase “Great Commission Baptists” is regularly used in publications and promotions of the Southern Baptist Convention, as well as in state conventions, associations and churches, that it would provide an identification that not only tells who we are, but what our mission as Southern Baptists is — the fulfillment of the Great Commission.”

Before the Task Force Recommendation has even been officially approved by messengers in New Orleans, the President of our oldest seminary tweeted this:

“Let the word go forth: THE Southern Baptist Theological Seminary proudly is a Great Commission Baptists institution”

I guess Southern now joins Lifeway in demonstrating that they really don’t care what the messengers have to say at the Annual Meeting.  But, I do applaud the boldness of Dr. Mohler in making such a statement.  Coupled with the wording of the Task Force Report and Recommendation, Dr. Mohler’s words are a clear signal of where our Southern Baptist entities will head. Those entities whose trustee boards are populated by “yes men” – who think their job is to serve the interests of the entitiy head instead of the interests of the SBC — will embrace the Great Commission Baptists moniker quicker than the Kardashians recycle husbands.   If the Convention messengers meeting in New Orleans vote to approve the recommendation, those who still choose to identify as Southern Baptists — folks who cling bitterly to their God, their southern heritage, their outdated identity, their traditions (CP, State Conventions, Local Associations) and, their anti-Great Commission mindset — will be on the outside, looking in, and muttering to themselves, “What happened?” But, the Great Commission Baptists will be a leaner, younger and, smaller house, much better off without those traditional-minded folk who just didn’t understand how to do church in the first place.  And, get this – no longer a divided house, either.  After all, it’s hard to be divided after the troublemakers leave!  Just ask conservative Southern Baptists what happened when the Moderates left.  Well, on second thought, maybe that’s not such a good idea.

In several tweets by Dr. R. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, now known as a “Great Commission Baptists institution” (who needs the messengers to vote on this?), Dr. Mohler, who is no doubt a brilliant scholar and theologian, communicates a condescension unbecoming the President of one of our entities.  Of course, I could be reading entirely too much into the tweets, much like others have read too much into Dr. Mohler’s use of the word “Reformed” in a Gospel Coalition interview.  For those who don’t tweet or follow people on Twitter, I thought you might be interested in a few of Dr. Mohler’s tweets regarding the Executive Committee deliberations on the Nickname proposal:

“A member of the SBC/EC just voted against receiving information. It does tend to cut down on mental clutter.” (2/21/12 at 1:36 p.m.)

“SBC/EC member just argued against the name change proposal saying, “Southern Baptists are easily confused.” No argument on that point, huh?” (2/21/12 at 1:19 p.m.)

“Let the word go forth: THE Southern Baptist Theological Seminary proudly is a Great Commission Baptists institution.” (2/20/12 at 7:38 p.m.)

I am glad that Dr. Mohler felt comfortable enought to post these unrestrained comments on his Twitter feed, particular the one directed at a member of the Executive Committee (paging Dr. Page –  hello).  One can only imagine how he and others really view the unwashed masses who help pay his salary, but who are obviously an “easily confused” people (although I’m sure that’s not what he meant, even though that is the most reasonable interpretation of his words).  As Mr. Mendelbaum would say, “It’s go time!”

Of course, the big story of Monday was the announcement by the unofficial “official” Name Change Task Force of a new “unofficial” nickname for the Southern Baptist Convention.  Completely optional, the new nickname will be “Great Commission Baptists” (no one saw that coming).  Just a few observations (to add to the increasing number of diverse voices on this issue — here, here, here) before devoting more extensive analysis later this week.

1. The only thing surprising about this announcement is the “informal” nickname angle.  I predicted earlier that the Task Force would not recommend an official name change, which would have required a 2/3 majority vote of the messengers at two consecutive SBC Annual Meetings. I also predicted, wrongly, that a d/b/a would be recommended as a way around the supermajority requirements to amend the SBC Constitution and By-Laws.  How this is any better than a d/b/a or how this can be characterized as a “win-win” situation is baffling.
2. The “informal” nickname angle — totally optional for each church within the Southern Baptist Convention – doesn’t even sound good on the surface.  When I talked with my wife Monday night on the phone and explained the new nickname recommendation, her first thought was about the same as mine.  I won’t repeat the word she used (not a bad or vulgar word) because it was less than flattering.  I imagine that many folks on both (or all) sides of the Name Change debate had less than flattering initial reactions to the announcement.
3. How will this be implemented?  As this is an “informal” nickname, this should not be given equal, much less preferential, treatment by any officials, officers, or entities of the Convention.  Good luck providence on that one!
4. Much like the GCR before it, this will be touted as a way to bring unity to the Convention and to help strengthen our Great Commission efforts. After all, if you put “Great Commission” in the title of anything, how can it not bring unity and strength? In the end, this will be more divisive than the GCR. Much like a “traditional” church when a new “contemporary” pastor comes on board, we will see young pitted against old and “traditional” pitted against “contemporary.”  Questions will inevitably be asked and have to be answered, such as: “Do you have an affinity for churches who go by the nickname “Great Commission Baptists” or do you like those churches who still cling (along with their guns and flags) to the name “Southern Baptist?”  The questions might be subtle at first (“Which service do you attend?”), but they will become more pointed (“Do you want to see the world won for Christ or do you just want to stay stuck in the past?”).
5. The process that brought us to this point was fundamentally flawed.  Unless the Executive Committee votes to reject bringing the Name Change/Nickname recommendation to the floor of the Convention — which I highly doubt — we will continue to see hardball politics employed at the highest levels of our Convention.  Who would have thought that The Great Commission would be used, not to unite us, but to divide us?

These are just some of my initial observations.  I will flesh out some of these in additional posts throughout the week. I will not have access to a computer for most of the day on Tuesday.  I will try to interact with those who comment as soon as I can either late Tuesday or Wednesday morning.  God bless!

While I might be an inconsistent Calvinist in my practice, I know and believe in God’s total sovereignty. When I share with the congregation at Bethel Alamogordo on Sundays, “No one is here by accident or coincidence. God has brought each of us here today with purpose and reason, to hear from Him and to leave changed because we have been in His presence,” I truly believe that. By the way, I don’t think you have to consider yourself a Reformed Southern Baptist to be able to affirm God’s sovereignty

God gives us freedom to choose, but He often will use our own background, experiences, and circumstances to help us make our decisions. If Cornerstone Church, where Pastor Dwight McKissic serves as Pastor, would have had a later service, we might have chosen to worship with those brothers and sisters.  If FBC Farmersville, where Bart Barber serves as Pastor, was not about an hour’s drive north of our hotel, I seriously considered worshipping with those fine folks.  And, if I would have told C.E. Buttrill, who served on the Pastor Search Committee that God used to bring me to Bethel Baptist Church in Alamogordo, NM, that I was in the Dallas area (C.E. relocated to Dallas a few years ago), I would have probably ended up worshipping with him at Prestonwood Baptist Church and finding some great BBQ in the process (more on that later).  But, The Village is where God wanted Stephen and me on Sunday, February 19, 2012!

On The Village’s website, worshippers were encouraged to arrive 30 minutes early. Stephen and I arrived about 40 minutes early, just as the 9:00 a.m. service ended.  With so many vehicles, The Village has staff to assist in parking.  That was great.  We found a spot close to the front.  When we walked into the main entrance, we were greeted warmly by two ladies holding the doors open.

I quickly noticed that I was overdressed. I was wearing khaki’s and a button-down shirt, but I could have just as easily worn jeans, tennis shoes, and a hoodie.  Most of the folks were dressed like my son.  He fit right in as far as his clothing was concerned, although he stood out because he was one of the only minors in the service. I stood out, not because I was overdressed, but  because I was old!

The overwhelming number of people must have been in their twenties and thirties. Those my age – 45 — and older were definitely in a distinct minority.  Nothing wrong with that and, in fact, it is certainly a blessing to see so many younger people at church on the Lord’s Day!  That is the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the faithfulness of the covenant community of The Village Church.

One of the reasons that I wanted to worship at The Village Church was to hear God’s Word proclaimed by Matt Chandler, the Lead Pastor.  I didn’t know whether he would be preaching live in-person or live via streaming video, but either way, I was excited to hear what God was going to say through Matt.  Alas, I would not hear Matt preach in-person or via video, as this was the church’s Quarterly Celebration Service.

But, as Campus Pastor Steve Hardin reiterated several times throughout the service, what was happening at The Village Church was not centered around a pastor or anything that individuals have done, but instead was centered on Jesus Christ and His glorious Gospel.  If you walked away from the service confused as to who Jesus is and what Jesus has done for you, it was not for lack of a clear Gospel presentation.

God would speak throughout this service, from the congregational songs that were sung with passion (including “Oh, How He Loves,” a song that my Student Pastor would tell you is one of my very favorites  ) to the Baby slide show and from the Baptismal Service to the observance of the Lord’s Supper, God spoke.

There were some aspects of the worship service at The Village Church that I found different  from my own experience as a Southern Baptist. Just to be clear, different does not necessarily mean bad or wrong — it just means different.  Apart from the last baptismal candidate, the first five were baptized by friends and/or family (including one man who was baptized by his sister and wife).  I don’t believe any of those performing the first five baptisms were ordained (although I could be wrong), but I have never experienced a non-ordained man (much less a woman, ordained or not) officiating a baptism. While I may not do it that way in the church where I serve, the beauty of autonomy of the local church allows us to do things differently.  Ultimately, I thought each of the candidates’ testimonies were powerful and spoke clearly of how God, through Jesus Christ, had changed their lives.  Not only did they preach (testify) with words, they preached a sermon by being “buried with Christ in the baptismal waters, rising to walk in newness of life.” 

At the conclusion of the service, the Lord’s Supper was observed.  Before the bread and juice were served, Pastor Steve told the congregation that this was “an open communion” for those who have trusted Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.  That was about as much fence that was put around the Table.  Serving the Lord’s Supper were both men and women (mostly younger) who were covenant members of The Village Church and who had volunteered that morning to serve.  In order to quickly serve about 500-600 people (my estimate), both the bread (in bowls) and the juice (in standard cup holders) were passed around at the same time.  Stephen and I both participated in this very special time of worship.

I don’t know if The Village Church has Deacons (none are listed under “Leadership” on the church’s website), but it was different to have the Lord’s Supper served in the way that it was.  Again, different is not always bad or wrong — it’s merely different.  After we took the bread and the juice, we waited for everyone to partake together.  At that moment, I wasn’t really thinking about who served me the elements that day, but instead was meditating upon the One who came, not to be served, but to serve and give His life a ransom for many.

After we sang a concluding song and the Worship Pastor prayed, we walked out.  I dropped my “Guest Card” in the black box at the back of the Worship Center ( which was also used for tithes and offerings as there was no “formal” offering taken nor was there a “formal” response time or invitation).  Perhaps it’s Dallas and/or other big cities, but Stephen and I were able to come and go rather anonymously.  Apart from the fellowship time during the service, no one really talked to us or tried to make contact with us other than when someone directed us to move toward the center aisle to make room for others.  I don’t say that as a criticism, but rather as an observation of some of the differences between larger churches — where it’s easier to blend in and go unnoticed — and medium to smaller churches, where that’s much harder.  Of course, there are some smaller churches that don’t talk to strangers guests either, but that’s another post.

I can honestly say that Stephen and I enjoyed worshipping at The Village Church.  We were blessed to have had the opportunity to go to church in a city away from our home.  I have no doubt that The Village Church is impacting the city of Dallas and the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  That’s as it should be, whether in Dallas or in Alamogordo, NM.  But, having worshipped away from my home church, it does make me appreciate all the more how God has blessed me with a wonderful church family to serve as Pastor.

The church service lasted about 1 1/2 hours, getting out at 12:45 p.m.  That’s just long enough for the Presbyterians and Methodists to have come and gone at the restaurants.  Being Baptists, we headed out on our continuing quest for great BBQ in Dallas.  We ended up at a place that served ribs as their only pork on the menu.  They were good, but not great.  Maybe we’ll try another spot tomorrow.  I’m beginning to think that Texas in general, and Dallas in particular, doesn’t know how to do great BBQ.  I hope I’m wrong, but that’s rare

Early Saturday morning, my oldest son, Stephen, and I head to Dallas for his six-month check-up at Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children.  Diagnosed with Legg-Perthes Disease when he was six, Stephen has struggled with this childhood hip condition for half his life.  There are certainly times when, like any of us coping with aches and pains, he struggles more.  However, he continues to handle his “thorn in the flesh” quite well for a young man on the precipice of his teenage years. 

In November 2010, Stephen and I embarked on our first Father/Son road trip to Big D.  Apart from time spent in DFW Airport, that was my first trip to the land of the Cowboys, Rangers, Mavericks and, Ewings.  In spite of my built-up prejudice against all things Texas because of too many stories from congregation members about how “better” things are in that state, I found that I really liked Dallas.  I’m not sure that I would want to live in the Metroplex, but it is a neat city to visit.

From the Farmer’s Market to Dealey Plaza to the Galleria Mall (and Five Guys Burgers and Fries, yum), Stephen and I had a blast.  While I am not looking forward to the long drive, I am looking forward to spending some quality time with my son.  As a Baptist pastor, one way that we will spend time together in Dallas is eating.  I will probably eat too much on this trip, but having lost 25 pounds since the beginning of December (thanks to an emergency appendectomy), it won’t hurt to splurge just a little. 

In addition to finding the nearest 7-11 and indulging in a Slurpee or two, Stephen and I will be on a quest to find a good BBQ joint in Dallas.  I say “good” because everyone knows that truly “great” BBQ is pork based (as in pulled/sliced pork and pork ribs) and Texas is not known for great pork BBQ.  :-)  Although I have come to appreciate good brisket, give me pulled pork or pork spare ribs with a great sauce (not that NC vinegar stuff, either) and I’ll be a very happy camper.

So, to my readers in the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex (or those familiar with the area), I ask for your help.  If you know of a good (or even great) BBQ restaurant that my son and I can eat at that serves killer pork or pork ribs, leave a comment telling me why you think it is worth our trying.  Even if it’s in a neighboring community, we don’t mind driving for good BBQ.  We’ll pick at least one (maybe even hit a couple of cue joints) and let you know what we find.  Enjoy the weekend and I’ll catch back up with everyone on Tuesday when I have a post about the SBC Name Change (most likely to be announced on Monday night).  God bless! 

For all the talk about Calvinist conspiracies and Baptist Bogeymen, there is obviously an effort well underway to reform the Southern Baptist Convention.  It is not secret, unless, of course, you count unilaterally sealing GCR Task Force records for 15 years secret.  Unlike the Conservative Resurgence, which inspired grassroots Southern Baptists to help restore Biblical fidelity and accountability to the SBC and her institutions, this generation of reforms, known as the “Great Commission Resurgence,” has been an establishment-led movement which has sought to consolidate power and control in an ever-smaller number of leaders.  Just who are these leaders who seek to implement a radical redefinition and reformation of the SBC?  That question, “Who Is Reforming Us?”  is one that Rick Patrick and others have been asking. Unless and until we can answer that question, we will not be able to fully understand the reforms that are being implemented at lightning (i.e., non-conservative) speed.

The simple answer would be, “The Calvinists!”  While Reformed Southern Baptists (whatever one might mean by using the word “reformed”) are no doubt an integral part of the current reformation movement within the SBC, the changes that have taken place — particularly since the GCR — cannot be solely attributed to our Calvinist brothers and sisters.  Of course, publicly talking about even the perception (much less reality) of the rising influence of Calvinism within the SBC will surely get you forty lashes (or, at least, a verbal tongue lashing accusing you of McCarthyism, which is, other than being called a Nazi, the last refuge for liberals).  That some within the current establishment leadership of the SBC seem comfortable adopting the political tactics of the Obama-left in this country should give all Southern Baptists cause for concern.

Before my Reformed brethren start lovingly and gently correcting me for my errors, let me add that this reform movement, of which Calvinists are a part, is by no means limited to the Reformed wing of the SBC.  Despite some high-profile Calvinists within the Convention, their numbers, notwithstanding the Founders Movement, would simply not be able to radically alter the course of our Convention within such a short period of time.  If that is the case, then how can this movement possibly have any success at implementing a radial reform agenda for the SBC?  In a word, alliances.

What we are witnessing in the SBC is not primarily a Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist battle for the heart and soul of the Convention, but rather a battle between competing agendas and visions for the future of the Convention.  One side is comprised mainly (not exclusively) of large church pastors (both Reformed and non-Reformed and Celebrity Pastors of all stripes) and non-large church pastors who seem to be both younger, more restless and more Reformed.  This alliance, which seems to have been born following Frank Page’s defeat of Ronnie Floyd in 2006, is neither nefarious nor conspiratorial.  It is, however, highly political.  Nothing wrong with that.  It is what it is.  One of my readers summed up the underlying problem with this particular alliance:

“I think our biggest problem, that is an overarching principle with all of this is the issue of Christian celebrity and authoritarianism. I think it all goes back to that in some way or another. Power politics. And some are just very good at it.”

You got that right, sister!  Some are just that good at power politics.  Since Frank Page’s stunning defeat of Ronnie Floyd in 2006, there have been some who have re-grouped and re-doubled their efforts to maintain the positions of leadership to which they have become accustomed.  They have used the system to implement a radical agenda and new vision for the SBC.  I don’t believe that this was done for illegitimate motives, but there were times when it appeared that questionable means were used to accomplish the ends.  However, elections have consequences.  If the establishment alliance can win at the Annual Meetings, then they can continue to implement their agenda, an agenda that they believe will have a positive impact on the churches of the SBC.

There are others on the opposite side who themselves have begun to form alliances.  This other alliance, of which I would consider myself a part, is comprised mainly (not exclusively) of non-large church pastors who seem to be older (if 45 is old) and less Calvinistic (inconsistent Calvinists like myself, non-Calvinists, and the few truly anti-Calvinists) and, who are more likely to be supportive of the Cooperative Program, local Associations, and State Conventions.  I’m well aware that I am painting with a broad brush, but this is how I see the alliances and agendas which continue to form in response to the GCR’s radical redefinition of the SBC.

They say that “politics makes strange bedfellows.”  Perhaps that’s true, even in the highly political climate of the Southern Baptist Convention.  But, there’s nothing strange about grassroots Southern Baptists of all varieties — Reformed, semi-Reformed, non-Reformed, anti-Reformed, large church, small church, urban church, rural church, traditional church, contemporary church — forming an alliance to stop the radical redefinition and reformation that we believe will ultimately weaken our cooperative missions and ministries.  With a Name Change likely to be revealed next week, this is not the time to stand down.  It is past time to speak up and remind OUR leaders what it means to be a cooperating Southern Baptist!  If not now, when?  If not you, who?

All the while, I always knew in the back of my mind that CNN, like most of the mainstream media, leaned to the left in their reporting.  But, at least they had Crossfire, which allowed conservatives of that day to have a voice (albeit very small) on the only alternative news network to CBS, NBC, and ABC.  Then, in 1996, something monumental happened which impacted (and continues to impact) journalism and news in this country — Fox News was born.  On October 7, 1996, Fox News launched what would quickly become a wildly popular 24-hour cable news network that would give viewers a real news choice for the very first time.

It was not until I started watching Fox News regularly that I came to understand just how liberal CNN truly was (and is).  No longer would Americans have to swallow the liberal pabulum that the mainstream media — including CNN — would try to spoonfeed its viewers.  Instead, we would be offered a truly “fair and balanced” approach to news.  After all, real journalism, as the late James Deakin, long-time White House reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and one of my favorite professors at George Washington University taught us, journalistic reporting should be balanced, fair, and complete.  Although Professor Deakin probably would not have liked that Fox News uses the “fair and balanced” label to describe their journalistic standards, he could not argue that these standards were not what he taught and what he lived by, even if his reporting got him put on Nixon’s Enemies List.

James Deakin was no conservative, but he taught this conservative a healthy respect for journalism.  It is through the lens of his three criteria for objective reporting — balanced, fair, and complete — that I critique news stories.  And, just because a story happens to emanate from a source that I might otherwise find trustworthy does not mean that the story gets a pass.  Such is the case with the Baptist Press’ reporting on the Gerald Harris kerfuffle following his OPINION piece, “The Calvinists are here,” originally published in the (still) independent Christian Index, the autonomous Georgia Baptist Convention’s newspaper of record (see here for the article republished with proper permission granted).

Within 24 hours, Baptist Press had posted a “news” article responding to the Harris article.  Entitled ‘Encroachment of Calvinism’ concerns editor, the reporter, Erin Roach, quoted four direct sources who opposed Harris’ article.  These sources included Dr. R. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Dr. Danny Akin, President of The Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Both seminaries are entities of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Also quoted in opposition to Harris’ article was Mike Ebert, the new NAMB’s Vice President of Communications and, Lifeway Christian Resources’ Corporate Communications Director, Marty King.  Being in the business of communications, both Ebert and King sure have a funny way of trying to advance their message to all Southern Baptists.  The way they responded to Harris almost makes one think that they were trying to communicate a message to a particular sub-culture within the Southern Baptist Convention.

Mr. Ebert’s response, as published in the BP article, is curious indeed.  I find it quite perplexing and disturbing that Ebert, an employee of one of our entities, would call Mr. Harris — the well-respected editor of The Christian Index – “a friend who has a passion for evangelism and missions” while at the same time accusing him of evoking “the McCarthyism of the 1950′s.”  Mr. King does no better, accusing Mr. Harris of publishing “false accusations without offering any evidence of their truthfulness.”   In other words, Mr. Harris and the Christian Index publish lies.  With friends like this, who needs . . .?

If the resources and power of the SBC’s public relations arm — which is, after all, what Baptist “Press” really is — can be marshalled so quickly to write a scathing rebuttal to the Harris piece, one would rightly assume that BP’s article would at least have the pretense of objectivity.  Surely they would interview Mr. Harris to respond to an article written about him, wouldn’t they?  How about one or two Southern Baptists who agreed with Mr. Harris’ article?  Nope.  Instead, we are treated to more piling on supporting statements from Dr. Ed Stetzer (“The Baptist Bogeyman”) and Trevin Wax (SBC Voices interview), both principal players behind Lifeway’s The Gospel Project curriculum.  As an aside, why would it be necessary to ask whether contributors/advisers to The Gospel Project are Calvinists when the answer to that question is as clear as the blue New Mexico sky?

It has been five days since the Baptist Press article responding to Gerald Harris’ opinion piece in The Christian Index.  I suppose that BP could write another article which would quote Gerald Harris, as well as other Southern Baptists — both pastors and lay folk — who shared Mr. Harris’ perspective about the encroachment of Calvinism in SBC life.  The folks interviewed wouldn’t even have to be all Non-Calvinists.  I know a few Reformed Southern Baptists who happen to share Editor Harris’ perspective.  That would at least meet the minimum standards of balance, fairness, and completeness.

In a Baptist world with alternative sources of news — blogs and Associated Baptist Press come to mind — the Southern Baptist Convention’s public relations arm, Baptist Press, would do well to practice a modicum of objective reporting instead of publishing articles that appear to be nothing more than a blatant attempt to silence any opposition to the establishment.  Grassroots Southern Baptists are watching.  Before it’s too late, Dr. Page and others in leadership at the Executive Committee need to act to protect the continued integrity and trustworthiness of Baptist Press.  Otherwise, they will be viewed as the CNN of the Baptist World.  And, that’s not gonna be good for anyone!

Affinity:

1.  a natural liking for or attraction to a person, thing, idea, etc.; 2.  a person, thing, idea, etc., for which such a natural liking or attraction is felt.; 3.  relationship by marriage or by ties other than those of blood ( distinguished from consanguinity).; 4.  inherent likeness or agreement; close resemblance or connection. (Dictionary.com)

In the title for this post, I was tempted to use the word “Identity” in place of “Affinity.”  It would have conveyed almost the same thoughts, but some — perhaps many — would have gotten hung up on that one little word and not been able to understand what it is that I am trying to say.  I don’t mind the word “identity.”  In fact, I’ve been accused by some of being a Baptist Identity kind of guy.  On Jared Moore’s list of BI guys that he has interacted with, I was #2, only behind the esteemed Peter Lumpkins.  Really, Jared?  What do I have to do to displace Peter as the #1 BI guy?  (By the way, even though we have never met, I have an affinity for Jared and think he writes an excellent blog — check it out here – even if we have been known to spar from time to time).

I find it humorous that anyone would consider me a Baptist Identity guy (not that there’s anything wrong with that), not because I find my brothers in the BI movement humorous (although some can wield satire with the best of them).  I find it humorous because those who label me as part of the Baptist Identity movement (if you can call it that) fail to grasp that my association with these folk did not arise because I somehow “saw the light” and started agreeing with everything that BI stands for.  On the contrary, I have become friends with many within the BI movement because we have an affinity for one another based not on a general Baptist Identity but, on our common identity as cooperating Southern Baptists.

Before the GCR, I found myself in (mostly) silent opposition to the guys over at SBC Today and Peter over at SBC Tomorrow.  Sad to say, but I had not yet discovered SBC Voices.  I did not comment, but merely lurked.  I had not even started my own blog yet.  Apart from an introductory post when I launched From Law to Grace, my very first substantial blog posts were about the Ergun Caner/Liberty University kerfuffle (here, here, and here).  They were a direct ( and rather pointed) response to Tim Rogers’ (and others’) defense of Dr. Caner.  Go figure.

In time, I began interacting with a wide range of bloggers and blog readers – from Peter Lumpkins to Tim Rogers, from CB Scott (my “cuz”) to Bob Cleveland, from Lydia to SelahV (Hariette), from Dave Miller to Rick Patrick, from Big Daddy Weave to Stephen Fox and from Jared Moore to Mark Lamprecht.  While I may not agree with all of these folks all of the time, I consider each to be friends and brothers and sisters-in-Christ, even though I have never met any of them in person, except Peter.  I met him at a secret, smoke-filled meeting in Phoenix that I willed myself to attend even though I was holed-up in my hotel room, sick as a dog.  That’s the kind of pull that Peter has   I guess I wasn’t supposed to reveal that people actually meet privately before, during, and after SBC Annual Meetings to talk about vision, goals and strategy for reforms within the SBC.  Apologies to Dr. Patterson and Judge Pressler.  My bad.

Truth be told, I would have identified myself much more with the Reformed/Calvinist brethren (I am one, even if inconsistent in my practice) within the SBC prior to what came to be known as the Great Commission Resurgence.  Looking back, my journey began to take a turn at the 2006 SBC Annual Meeting in Greensboro.  It was there that I first heard of Dr. Frank Page.  Based largely on the passionate nominating speech delivered by (the late) Forrest Pollock (“you can’t spell SBC without a C and a P”) — and in opposition to the miniscule mega-church CP giving of one of the candidates — I, along with a majority of messengers, elected the non-establishment candidate, defeating Ronnie Floyd and Jerry Sutton in a three-way race on the first ballot.  At that same meeting, I sided with the Reformed/Calvinist wing in voting against the Alcohol-use Resolution, obviously putting me on the opposite side of that issue from Peter Lumpkins and others.

Since the Orlando Convention in June 2010, when the GCR was pushed through with much browbeating and parliamentary shenanigans passed by a majority of messengers, I have been a part of what might be described as the loyal opposition within the SBC.  How did I end up here?  Why can I now seem to get along with those who I had heretofore opposed and, no longer mesh with those who I had once been much more comfortable?  The same question could be asked of certain non-Calvinist mega-church pastors and certain well-known Reformed/Calvinist Southern Baptists, both of whom were not previously known for their joint cooperative efforts.

The answer to those questions lies in a word – AFFINITY.  I have found that I have much more in common and a much stronger connection with those whose primary identity is Southern Baptist (of course, that is after Christian, which should be presumed unless and until evidence to the contrary proves otherwise).  For example, my affinity would look something like (L to R):

Southern Baptist — New Mexico Baptist — Conservative Evangelical — Calvinist — Baptist

Based on the concept of affinity, my natural liking will be toward those who I have more in common with and who identify more closely with me.  That should not be hard to understand.  For example, many churches have discontinued traditional, age-graded adult Sunday School and instead implemented Bible studies based on affinity groups.  This is not only happening within individual churches, but it is happening within groups of churches.  When I served in Virginia, the Baptist General Association of Virginia admitted a few churches from Georgia into the BGAV.  At first I thought this was strange, but the more I think about it, the more sense it makes.  Those Georgia churches, who would most likely be considered moderate Baptists, would have had a stronger affinity for some of the more moderate churches (and the Convention as a whole) in Virginia than for their fellow churches in the more conservative Georgia Baptist Convention.  Affinity, not geography, was what ultimately drew these Georgia churches to cooperative ministry with their Virginia brethren.

And ultimately, it will be affinity which will either draw Southern Baptists closer together or which will drive us further apart.  What we are witnessing today is the slow death of the Southern Baptist Convention, not primarily because of politics (although politics is heavily involved), but rather because of the diminishing affinity that we have as Southern Baptists for one another coupled with the increasing affinity that we see demonstrated for groups that do not primarily identify as Southern Baptists.  It’s one thing to love one another.  After all, we are commanded by our Lord to do just that.  It’s something different to like one another.  Affinity cannot be commanded or coerced, especially when it comes to voluntary cooperation.  However, the more that we like one another, the easier it is to cooperate together (and trust each other) for the sake of missions and ministry.  The less we like each other, the harder it becomes to stay connected in cooperative partnerships.

As we begin to understand how and why some of the SBC’s establishment leaders seem to identify more strongly with, and be attracted to, certain non-Southern Baptist groups, we will perhaps begin to grasp why new alliances and reform agendas have been created in the last five years.  Check back on Friday for an exploration of some of those alliances and agendas that are at play within the SBC and what that might mean for the future cooperative efforts of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Once that label attaches – rightly or wrongly — your credibility goes out the window, usually never to return.  Sometimes, as in the case with Jon’s co-worker, the wackadoodle label is self-inflicted, either through one’s own actions or outlandish beliefs.  Those who bring it on themselves have only themselves to blame.

However, all of us, from time to time, could be accused of thinking wackadoodlish thoughts or expressing wackadoodlish beliefs.  No matter how smart we think we are, we are simply not immune from our inner wackadoodle.  Ask my wife and she is bound to share examples of my own wackadoodlish behavior.  Of course, if you asked me, I would tell you that in our almost 20 years of marriage she has never once acted like a wackadoodle or expressed wackadoodlish thoughts.  That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.  

Thankfully, real-life, certifiable wackadoodles are not the norm.  Most people — including most Southern Baptist pastors — could not legitimately be labeled wackadoodles.  Perhaps labeled as overweight and out-of-shape (I speak from personal experience), but not wackadoodles.  Be that as it may, there are always others who will attempt to put a label on you.  Labels, in and of themselves, are not necessarily a bad thing.  They can be shorthand for describing a person’s beliefs — conservative or liberal — or characteristics — short or tall — or theology –  Reformed or Baptist Identity. 

Problems arise when labels are intentionally misapplied.  This happens all the time within our political culture.  Those who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman are often labeled as homophobes.  (It certainly doesn’t help when some Southern Baptist leaders misapply that liberal-inspired label, but I digress).  It occurs when conservatives who oppose affirmative action or amnesty for illegals are labeled racists.  And, it even happens when those who question the current direction of the Southern Baptist Convention are labeled as conspiracy theorists – otherwise known as wackadoodles.  Some will even misapply certain labels to me simply because I published a guest post on SBC Tomorrow.  Go figure.

For some within the SBC, the charge that one believes in a grand Calvinist conspiracy to take-over the entities of the Convention or a conspiracy to secretly indoctrinate non-suspecting churches in Reformed theology through The Gospel Project somehow becomes a political weapon used to marginalize your opponents (much like misusing Scripture to stifle legitimate debate).  If you can successfully label your theological opponent as a wackadoodle who believes in such outlandish conspiracy theories, then you can effectively destroy any credibility that they might otherwise have. 

It is often easier to label our opponents as crazy than to engage in a spirited debate of ideas and ideologies.  Perhaps this can be attributed to a “yes man” mentality which not only refuses to ask any questions, but castigates others who have the temerity to think critically and to ask the hard questions.  One of the reasons that our nation is in the mess that it is in stems from the fact that most of the media refused to ask any penetrating questions of then-candidate Obama during the 2008 Presidential campaign.  Perhaps we would not be headed for more heartache in New Orleans if more folks (including so-called Baptist Press) were unafraid to be labeled wackadoodles just for asking questions that held our leaders accountable to the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Why should Southern Baptists have to turn to Associated Baptist Press to read about alleged financial irregularities at one of our seminaries?  Where is Baptist Press?  On second thought, don’t answer that question.

In the run-up to New Orleans, especially once the Name Change Task Force announces its recommendations at the SBC Executive Committee meeting later this month, hard ball politics will be on full display.  However, there will be nothing about the great Name Change — just as there was nothing about the GCR – which was conspiratorial.  No one that I know thinks that there is any type of conspiracy (Calvinist or otherwise) to take over the SBC.  A conspiracy, by its very nature, is something that is secret.  What has happened in the last few years, with both the GCR movement and the Name Change Task Force, is open and far from secret (the sealing of the GCRTF records notwithstanding).  This is simply hardball politics at its best and worst.

I never have liked the phrase “speak truth to power,” but that is exactly what needs to happen over the next several months.  The SBC establishment will not like it, but if they are not held accountable by and to their constituency — the churches of the SBC — then they (like any of us) might find themselves tempted by that other maxim which says, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  And, you don’t have to be a certifiable wackadoodle to believe that!

Yes Man: a person who agrees with everything that is said; especially: one who endorses or supports without criticism every opinion or proposal of an associate or superior (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Throughout recorded history, we have always had “yes men” (and women too), those people who simply refused to ask any questions — much less the hard questions — of those in leadership.  Given our human nature, that is completely understandable.  After all, who wants to be seen as “difficult” or “divisive?”  Those who dare to ask any questions often find themselves not only with less benefits, but also on the outside looking in.  Not an enviable position to be in, to be sure.

Perhaps because of my legal background but, more likely because of my personal upbringing, I have never been accused of being a “yes man.”  My dad, who served on the town council and as mayor of my hometown, Lake Placid, FL, always distrusted “yes men.” He saw his fair share in the political arena, but, unfortunately, he also ran across a good number of “yes men” within the church.  These “yes men,” whether or not they held formal positions of power within the church, were good at protecting the pastor from the slightest criticism or questioning.  No one in leadership, even pastors, likes to be criticized.  However, when we surround ourselves with “yes men,” we often end up making unwise decisions because we did not allow the hard questions to be asked, which in hindsight, might have saved us much grief and heartache.

There will always be a long line of “yes men” who will gladly agree with and never question the opinions, beliefs, and even actions of their leaders.  That is simply a reality.  However, every leader — from pastors of churches of all sizes to CEOs of Corporations to Presidents of SBC Entities — can either encourage or discourage the “yes men” mentality.  Unfortunately, our culture, including the culture within the Southern Baptist Convention, seems to be encouraging, rather than discouraging, “yes men.”  Why should this be the case, particularly within a religious organization of churches such as the SBC?

Could the answer to that question lie somewhere in the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention has morphed from a servant-leader model of ministry to a CEO-leader model of ministry?  And, when I say CEO, I’m not talking “Chief Encouragement Officer.”  It seems that more and more pastors — regardless of the actual size of their congregations — are “running” their churches more like a business than the body of Christ.  These leaders surround themselves with “yes men” and even a few “yes women.”  If you want to stay in the inner circle, you give unquestioning loyalty to the pastor.  (I’ve even known of a few churches who require some sort of written loyalty oath pledge of allegiance to pastoral authority in order to be eligible to serve in any position within the church.)  If and when you begin to question, your time on the inside (and perhaps even the church — see here) will quickly come to an end.

What’s wrong with this picture?  Quite simply, our unquestioning loyalty should be to Jesus Christ and to the protection and safeguarding of His church, not to a particular person, not even the pastor.  Scripture is clear that we should submit to our leaders and should not bring any “accusation” against the pastors/elders without at least two or three witnesses.  However, we cannot misuse and contort that Biblical principle to mean that any questions — even hard questions — are off-limits.  Leaders, particularly in the GCR-era of “transparency” (the real kind as opposed to what has been practiced by the SBC establishment — here, here, and here), should not hide from questions, but rather should welcome a wide latitude of questions.  After all, leaders who have nothing to hide should not only practice transparency, but should live above reproach.

These same principles should apply to the entities of the Southern Baptist Convention.  The Trustees of each of our entities should not serve out of unquestioning loyalty to the Presidents of these institutions, but rather should serve with unquestioning loyalty to Jesus Christ and to the protection and safeguarding of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention.  The title “Trustee” carries with it a sacred obligation to serve the interests of the churches of the Convention, not the interests of the President of a particular entity, be it the oldest seminary or the youngest seminary.  In fact, Trustees are nominated with this very principle in mind:

“The (Nominating) committee shall recognize the principle that the persons it recommends shall represent the constituency of the Convention, rather than the staff of the entity.” (SBC ByLaws, Section 15E)

Our Trustees would do well to remember that their constituency is the churches that comprise the Southern Baptist Convention.  Churches of all sizes.  Churches with celebrity pastors and churches with pastors that no one really knows.  Churches that send ten messengers to the Annual Convention and churches who don’t send any messengers to the Annual Convention.  Traditional churches and contemporary churches.  Older churches and new church plants.

There was a time in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention when the Trustees of the various entities ignored the will of the majority of churches.  Instead of representing the majority constituency, these Trustees, particularly at our seminaries, acted on behalf of an elite minority of the churches.  When this abuse of power continued unabated, the Conservative Resurgence was born and accountability was eventually restored via the grassroots churches of the Convention.  If the SBC’s leaders — and their “yes men” enablers – continue to act on behalf of an elite minority, don’t be surprised when a second Conservative Resurgence (and the GCR wasn’t it) – led by grassroots pastors and lay folk — emerges to restore accountability to the entities that are supposed to SERVE the churches of the SBC!