John H Armstrong

I Stand Corrected About the Southern Baptist Convention

My post yesterday, about Mark Driscoll and the Southern Baptist convention, had several inaccurate statements in it. I acknowledged one of these by saying that I incorrectly stated that Mark Driscoll preached at the SBC. (See the comments following the blog of yesterday.) This statement came about because I did not read the story in Christianity Today carefully enough. It was not intentional I can assure you. I simply messed up.

The second point, made by two gracious men who commented from their own personal experience, gives them far more credibility than me. It was noted that the SBC did not pass the five resolutions presented on the floor regarding Driscoll. I actually should have known better since such resolutions are made by various messengers in almost every such convention. This is a unique part of Southern Baptist polity, one that I do not like. But it must be understood for what it is and I failed to do that. For this mistake I humbly apologize to those who were misled by my original comments. I try to carefully check my facts and sometimes I mess up. In this case I clearly did.

I went back to the Christianity Today news item (August, 2009, page 14-15) last evening and read the report again, this time more carefully. I think it is fair to quote the entire section that is apropos to my original concerns. I am perfectly willing to accept Mark and Tom's excellently written words and thus I too shall pray the SBC will move forward in the way they both clearly desire. I am a friend to such missional engagement, not an opponent.

Here is the way Christianity Today reported the news:

There were five motions made against Driscoll at the convention, including a motion to have all Southern Baptist entities report any contact with Driscoll or the Acts 29 church planting network of which he is a part. That motion was sent to Southern Baptist agencies for review over the next year, along with a separate motion to ban any speaker who swears or drinks.

What this means, and I am willing to be corrected once again, is that agencies will look at these resolutions and offer some response. Will they be required to report any contact with Driscoll? Not at the moment, since this is in process and not approved. I would suggest that we stay tuned. I would also suggest that this does put some pressure on SBC agencies and employees to stay clear of Driscoll knowing full well that this is now a convention controversy, albeit a small one perhaps.

My concern, even though I obviously messed up some facts, still remains. I hope the two good brothers who corrected me are right in every thing they report. I hope the SBC is being positioned to move in a decidedly missional direction, one that sees the burgeoning mission we have in North America much more clearly. I see some signs of this locally. I know one SBC church planter near me who is doing some of the most amazing and creative stuff anywhere in America. He is supported by the North American Mission Board so he is not an outsider.

Having said this, and I could say a lot more that is very, very positive, I have to also say that my original blog of yesterday cited leaders in the SBC who do not share zeal for the Great Commission Resurgence (GCR). I shared a few of these names and quotes from the Christianity Today report. I am aware that there is an ongoing battle between Morris Chapman, president of the executive committee of the SBC, and other SBC conservatives. I am also aware that these battles are very important, having read a number of blogs on both sides of this present debate. I can guess where my friends are in this disagreement and I am quite likely on their side. But my point remains. The SBC is still struggling and dealing with missional concerns in a context of a Baptist political controversy, a context that I see as harmful to the gospel in so many ways.

All of this underscores a point that I made here several years ago. The SBC has been torn asunder by major battles over the last thirty years. These battles have resulted in some very good changes. But they have also left some scorched earth in their path. I am persuaded that most such battles leave a church, or denomination, weaker in ways not readily seen. Outwardly some agencies of the SBC are better for the past decades but overall I do see the impact in a more sanguine way than many of my conservative friends.

Could I be wrong about this? Of course I could be and likely I am in some ways. Could I be right? Of course I could be and likely I am in some ways. The point is not to pontificate but to encourage thought and to promote missional-ecumenism, the core of my vision and commitment to the whole church. Do Southern Baptists embrace this vision? Some do I am sure. I just do not believe the agencies and leaders are quite ready for this kind of thinking yet. I hope I am wrong. If I am right I pray for a new wind to blow through the SBC and cause it to become a movement of churches that are far less concerned about their culture than the kingdom of God and the good of all of Christ's church in America and beyond. The day of sectarianism in mission should have ended a hundred years ago. Might the SBC become a leader in bring this to an end? It is possible. I pray it will happen. Humanly, I have my doubts.

By the way, forgive me if I was unduly offensive. I am not striving to create controversy but rather to promote a different what of thinking and doing Christ's mission.

How Mark Driscoll Became Controversial in the Southern Baptist Convention

Christianity Today reported in their August issue that Mark Driscoll, well-known pastor of a mega-church in Seattle, created quite a stir at the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) this year. The flash point was the “Great Commission Resurgence” (GCN), a group of Baptists who believe the convention needs to change if it is reach real non-Christians in the coming generation.

Most outsiders know that the SBC began a battle about the Bible some thirty years ago. That battle energized Baptists in a unique way. I am not impressed that it did them a lot of real good in the end. Conservative commentators say that this first battle was about the Bible. Some now believe that a new battle is growing in the SBC and this one is about the church. GCR says that by 2050 the SBC will lose half its members unless changes are made in the coming years. Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, says “Southern Baptist decline isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of math.” Southern Baptists are getting older and having fewer children. Second, they are mostly white while the nation is becoming increasingly multi-ethnic. Southern Baptists are growing, says Stetzer, by “methodological consensus.” I think he is right on target. Stetzer is a true friend to those who want to do serious evangelism but the old guard will likely never hear him. My guess is that Ed had a lot to do with Mark's being invited.

I grew up a Southern Baptist and understand this church culture fairly well, or so I think. While every congregation is legitimately autonomous 99% of the congregations have traditionally had a methodological core that could be counted on when you went from one church to the next. If you went to a Southern Baptist congregation you knew what to expect. This is no longer the case. Michael Spencer, known as the iMonk because of his great ministry online, said, “The idea of a tee totaling, suit-wearing, hymn-singing, chicken-eating, gospel-quartet version of the SBC is the Titanic.” Spencer is stating the obvious but many Southern Baptists do not seem to hear it. Like so many cultural Christians they seem tone deaf when it comes to understanding their own deafness. Will Hall, editor of the Baptist Press, says the SBC needs a minor course correction but no big changes. His comment seems to sum it up: “I hate to use these terms, but you can’t reach people if there isn’t a market.” Hall says the real problem is that Southern Baptist churches are still located in rural areas and their lack of evangelistic fervor is about location as much as anything else. I wonder where this man actually lives and doubt he has done any serious demographics at all. He surely has very little grasp of mission in the best sense of the word. But Hall is not alone. The president of the SBC’s executive committee, Morris Chapman, and the president of the North American Mission Board both have failed to take any serious interest in the GCR. Chapman even says that moving away from SBC methodology is dangerous. He calls it “cultural compromise.” Again, this would be utterly amazing if you came from somewhere else and heard about this debate for the first time. But for Southern Baptists this is the grist that will make for more conflict.

When I read that Driscoll spoke at the convention I was stunned. I think I know why he was invited but I could have easily predicted the response that he got would be very mixed. The “methodology” Baptists will never welcome Mark Driscoll. Instead, they will focus on his risqué language and his open acceptance of drinking alcohol, a taboo that older Southern Baptists will likely never drop until their generation dies off. Outsiders do not understand this stuff at all. For cultural Baptists drinking alcohol is akin to a blatant attack on the very life and soul of the SBC. This is serious stuff for these folks.

The convention so reacted to Mark Driscoll's preaching ministry that they passed five different resolutions aimed at him. I know Mark and my guess is that he got a certain pleasure from this political reaction since his goal is to help people grasp the missional nature of the church. He cares very little for the approval of conventions and conventionality. His passion is to reach people with the gospel. One of the motions against him asks that the SBC ban any future speaker who drinks and swears. What a delightful message that sends to the neediest of those among the younger generation.

The obvious fact here is easy to miss. Denominations, at least as we know them, are dying. Even the SBC is in the first throes of institutional death. For sure, the churches of the SBC will not all die. In fact, some will grow and prosper. But the denominational form we know as SBC will change or slowly die. The future for denominations, liberal and conservative, is very bleak. I am not alarmed by this at all. I think this could actually be the first wave of a new movement in mission that we have needed for several decades. Those groups that adjust will have a future and those that do not will march toward death decade-by-decade.

The SBC on Alcohol

The Southern Baptist Convention, which continues to discover new ways to promote the agenda of conservative populist groups within their circles, approved a resolution this week on the consumption of alcohol. The messengers to the annual convention dealt with fifteen resolutions this past week, including one on immigration and another on the environment, demonstrating that “hot buttons” often dominate conservative Baptist life. But it was the resolution on alcohol, and the debate surrounding it, that caught my attention.

The alcohol resolution was the most debated of all at the 2006 convention. This is most definitely not the first time this subject has taken center stage for Southern Baptists. It really serves to remind us that Baptists and abstinence have a deep historical, and contemporary, connection. I grew up in this setting and was thus taught from earliest remembrance that alcohol was a great evil and we must oppose it to be good Christians.

It is important to understand that the resolutions of the SBC are not binding on member churches. But they do have an effect, often an adverse one. An amendment added to this resolution also passed stating that the SBC is against the election of Baptists who consume alcohol from the convention’s board, committees and other related entities. Those who favor this statement argued that the abstinence position preserved Christian purity and testimony and would not put a “stumbling block” in the path of others.

The SBC has approved 57 resolutions against alcohol since 1886. One could almost say these Southern Baptists have alcohol on their minds a lot of the time. One leader referred to Baptists taking “the high road in our walk with the Lord Jesus.” This means, by obvious deduction, that anyone who does drink takes “the low road.” I grew up in a congregation that took this stand but many of the deacons and leaders did, in reality, drink. There was never any serious attempt to enforce any of this strong rhetoric in most cases.

Tom Ascol, an excellent Christian man and a leader among Calvinistic Southern Baptists, voiced opposition to the resolution by citing Jesus’ actions at the wedding in Galilee. Another pastor argued that the measure was “a position . . . contrary to what the Bible teaches in the flexibility of the scriptural admonitions as they relate to the consumption of alcoholic beverages.” Yet still another pastor, whose father died of alcoholism, spoke against the resolution saying: “the Bible teaches . . . flexibility . . .” with regard to admonitions about the consumption of alcoholic beverages.   

I think the most telling statement of all came from Jeff Young, pastor of Corinth Baptist Church in Ravenna, Texas. (I have never understood why anyone named a church after the biblical Corinth!) Young noted that older members of the SBC had won a battle for the Bible as “authoritative and sufficient, but when we pass extra-biblical resolutions such as this, we pull the rug out from underneath that teaching.” Well said Jeff!!! I sadly doubt, however, that you will be heard in the higher echelons of the SBC when those who control the politics of the present entity are so sure of their views on almost every issue that they debate these days.

When the SBC Mission Board Stayed at a Holiday Inn Express

You've seen the television commercials. A man falls from his bike. A man stops to help and begins to examine the guy's injured leg as if he were a physician. In another commerical a man is in a science lab working on a major experiment and is asked by the attendants, "Where did you go to school doctor?" He answers, in both cases, "I am not a doctor but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night." The idea is simple. Those who stay at a Holiday Inn Express will have judgment that allows them to go well beyond their normal abilities and expertise.

I thought about this when I noted last week the decision of the International Mission Board (IMB) of the Southern Baptist Convention, by a vote of 50-15, to no longer appoint candidates for overseas missions who speak in tongues in their private prayer life. Several years ago the IMB voted to not appoint a missionary who practiced tongues, or encouraged this practice, in public. Now they have decided to go even further and stop any new missionary appointee who prays in tongues in their private prayer life. Even though God clearly does not forbid speaking in tongues in private the SBC overseas mission agency (IMB) must know better than God, or they stayed at a Holiday Inn Express and learned things the rest of us poor Bible believers do not understand yet.

The IMB also refuses to appoint candidates who come from local churches that do not teach "believer security and practice only baptism by immersion." Read that very carefully, and slowly, to get the hard sectarian edge of clearly it in mind.

I find this utterly amazing. This is the largest mission agency in the world, currently supporting 5,122 missionaries, serving 1,194 people groups. I was called to the ministry through the work of this agency. I owe my life, in many ways, to the wtiness of the SBC overseas missions witness. At age twelve, through an SBC missionary, I heard God's call to me.

This decision, by the IMB, is really part of a larger picture of the conservative take-over of the SBC over the last twenty-plus years. Many, like me, prayed for these conservatives in the SBC but now the present leadership leaves us seeking to make some sense of these kinds of decisions. 

I have no desire to be offensive I assure you, but what on earth were these folks thinking at the IMB when they passed a decision to inject their brand of Baptist politics into the private prayer lives of future missionaries? This is more sectarian than the old Landmark Baptist heresy which I fought as a child. (This heresy suggested that the Baptist church was the true church!)

I would hate to answer to God for passing a policy statement that bands what God makes permissible. I would also hate to explain Holiday Inn Expres theology to serious Christians who wanted to go to the mission field with my denominational agency.