John H Armstrong

Courageous

The recently released motion picture, Courageous, is the fourth film released by Sherwood Pictures, a church-based film production company that is an extension of the mission of Sherwood Baptist Church (SBC) in Albany, Georgia. The first hit-movie from Sherwood was Facing the Giants, a film with a football theme. This film was surprisingly successful, both commercially and among a significant number of Christians and churches. The second film, which was much better, was Fireproof. This is a film about marriage, Christian faith and conversion. The first film that director Alex Kendrick did for Sherwood Pictures was Flywheel, a not so widely-known feature about an unscrupulous used car salesman who resolves to win back his wife, become a better role model for his son, and stop ripping off his unsuspecting customers.

Courageous is, in my judgment, the best of the four films. (I have seen the three films that have appeared in theaters in wide-release.) The producers, writers and directors have all demonstrated noticeable improvement in film-making as they go along. They have also demonstrated that a church can actually make films that go mainstream.

This is the good news. But Christianity Today’s reviewer, Steven D. Greydanus, in a September 30 review, is surely correct when he says, “Right from the start it is evident how far the filmmakers have and haven’t come. Courageous opens with an unexpected grabber that establishes the main character as a competent hero, in the process introducing themes of fatherhood and self-sacrifice by showing rather than telling—all while demonstrating technical chops to boot.”

But this new film, like previous Sherwood productions, still feels more like a sermon than a film. Perhaps this is because it is rooted in a church, and a particular kind of church at that.

Courageous focuses on the lives of five men—four police officers, including an African-American, and one construction worker, who is Hispanic. The plot follows their domestic and professional lives, especially as this relates to their being good fathers. This is the central plot line of the film—how genuine fathers can and do make a real difference in the family when it is self-evident that their absence is destroying the next generation. (Though Sherwood reached out for consultation to Roman Catholics during development via marketing, they seem unable to actually acknowledge anything positive about Catholics on screen, a glaring result again of the producers own religious expression!) The film is, like all the previous films, has a simplistic sub-cultural Baptist and Southern context.

The film’s story lines overlap again and again and the texture is damaged in the process. I found myself asking questions about characters that came and went without any clear connection to the story line.

A criticism of most popular evangelical films, and one fairly made about Facing the Giants, is that the troubled protagonist can commit his life to God and everything will turn out just right in the end. While Courageous avoids this directly it cannot escape it indirectly. Once the lead character gets his life together it will not be long until his son embraces his dad and all is well. But this is not how many family struggles end in Christian homes. If a parent sees this film who has loved their child deeply and well and lives with alienation then this formulaic plot will miss the mark in a profoundly harmful way.

As with many such films there is a sermon scene where the characters are all in church and men stand up to commit their lives to being good fathers. While this is moving, if you understand the sub-culture as I do, it will miss the mark with scores of fathers and children in our culture. For this, and a half dozen other reasons, Courageous will play well with conservative evangelical Christians who want inspiration and encouragement. I have no doubt that for this reason it will do much good.

There is a deeply moving scene in this film. It is one that has never appeared in a Sherwood film. One of the lead characters, the black man whose father is deceased, seeks to make peace with his bad father. He writes a note and goes to his grave to read it to his dad. I believe a lot of people can relate to this powerfully. There is even welcome ambiguity at this point. Can the deceased hear our prayers? Can we ask God to speak to those we love in the next life? The film doesn’t answer this, which gave the scene even more credibility in my estimation.

Fireproof focused on a marriage that had failed but there were no children involved. Courageous does much better by focusing on marriage and children. It would have been greatly improved if all the prayers were not answered just right and all the outcomes were not so perfect. (There is one exception in this film, but even this exception is used to make the point that it too can turn out well in the end!)

Sherwood films is clearly making better pictures but they have a long way to go if they are to touch real people who live and function outside the sub-culture of the film’s characters and story line. I enjoyed the film but I was, as I often am with such “Christian” films, disappointed at the lost opportunity to reach a much wider and more critical audience.

The Debate in the SBC About a Name Change

The Southern Baptist Convention is once again discussing a name change. I hope they do it this time.

The president of the SBC, Bryant Wright, recently told the SBC executive committee in a Nashville meeting that he had appointed a task force to look at a possible name change. Giving up a 166-year old name for this denomination will not be easy to do. But make no mistake about it—this should be done for the sake of the gospel and the witness of the SBC to Americans.

Wright said the SBC name represented a region of the country when the denomination is now scattered to every part of America. What this means, quite simply, is that the name SBC is simply not accurate. It wasn’t accurate forty-one years ago when I pastored a little SBC congregation in suburban Chicago but it is really not accurate in the 21st century. SBC churches are now in all 50 states and thousands of missionaries have taken the gospel all over the planet. Jonathan Merritt rightly notes: “It’s safe to assume that if the denomination were forming today, the name ‘Southern Baptist Convention’ wouldn’t even be considered” (USA Today, September 26, 2011).

Al Mohler rightly notes that the SBC is not driven by a “Southern agenda nor a Southern vision. In the context of the United States, ‘Southern’ refers to a region. That region gave birth to the Southern Baptist Convention, but it no longer contains it” (USA Today, September 26, 2011).

The real problem here is not about a region of the country. The real problem has been identified for some time and this is not a conservative/liberal issue in any sense of the term. A 2006 Center for Missional Research/Zogby poll found that more than 40% of those between the ages of 18-24 said knowing theat the name of a church was Southern Baptist was a negative. I would have guessed that the number would have been higher.

The SBC has often been a major player in the culture wars. This is slowly changing as a new generation of leaders are more focused on mission and discipleship. I applaud this change, support friends who are engaging in it directly with my prayers and friendship and hope and pray the SBC soon changes its name to reflect its growing missional intention. The church in America needs a healthy and mission-oriented SBC now more than ever!

Southern Baptists and the NIV 2011 Translation

I wrote yesterday about the recent Southern Baptist Convention held in Phoenix June 14-15. I spoke of the new sense of unity in the Great Commission that many found encouraging, even historic. I sincerely hope that this will prove to be more than the euphoria of a convention in the desert. One of the great things that could happen for the church in America is for Southern Baptists to find their way again in terms of church planting and evangelism. It seems they have been in the wilderness with most denominations for some years now. All Christians should pray that all churches, where Christ is preached, will grow and mature.

But the SBC is generally a mixed-bag. This year was no different. A resolution was introduced, from the floor of the convention, regarding the 2011 New International Version of the Bible. It was pointed at the so-called “gender neutral” language of this updated version. (It must be noted, that the committee on resolutions did not bring this motion forward but a single pastor. This is one reason I grew to distrust Baptist polity so much.)

Tim Overton, pastor of Halteman Village Baptist Church in Muncie, Indiana, brought his own resolution to the floor in spite of the committee’s earlier rejection. He said, “This is the word of God. The best-selling Bible translation in the United States is now gender neutral.” Overton claimed that the NIV retains 75 percent of the gender neutral language included in the TNIV, which was publicly denounced in the 2002 SBC.

Dr. Russell Moore, a member of the resolutions committee and a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said that the committee didn’t feel the same sense of urgency about this translation that they did about the TNIV in 2002. He noted that the new translation was transparent and the process was more open. He is absolutely correct in this regard. This was precisely what happened in the work on the 2011 NIV thus the translation was sensitive and careful about both the translation process and the way the committee opened things up to their critics.

But many are still not happy. Overton said, “As Southern Baptists, I don’t think we have the luxury of not speaking to this important issue. People are buying this  translation unaware of what’s happening. We are the anchor of the evangelical world.” Read this last sentence again and realize that this language was actually approved by a significant number (a majority of those still in attendance at least) of Southern Baptist messengers to the convention.

The resolution further expressed “profound disappointment” with the NIV publishers, Biblica and Zondervan, for their “inaccurate translation of God’s inspired Scripture." The resolution concluded: “We cannot commend the 2011 NIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community.”

The inaccuracy of these statements, combined with the sheer arrogance of saying “we are the anchor of the evangelical world,” is staggering. Did those who approved this resolution mean to say what they actually said? I am sure many wonderful Southern Baptists are as appalled by this resolution as I am. The question is thus clear: “What will you now do about it?” Please do not tell me these resolutions mean nothing since every year you continue to pass them. If they mean nothing stop them altogether, which would be a great solution so far as I am concerned. The method of expression is both unwieldy and cumbersome. But some of these resolutions become huge fire starters in the churches. They are anything but harmless.

Whither Southern Baptists? Unity and Controversy in Phoenix

Many readers know that I grew up a Southern Baptist (SBC). While I am not a Baptist now I have huge respect for my childhood church and my spiritual formation in this context. I tell some of this story in my book: Your Church Is Too Small.

I have expressed my concern about the direction of the SBC for some years. Much of that concern is not limited to Southern Baptists. In some ways, Southern Baptists ARE American evangelicalism in one large cantankerous and evangelistic group. You’ve never seen a real old-fashioned democratic shoot-out until you been in a Southern Baptist meeting with many different opinions being expressed. It is truly the best and the worst of congregational polity on a very big stage.

Over the course of the last thirty years the SBC engaged in a serious debate over the Bible. The buzz word was “inerrancy.” Eventually the more conservative party won. But a lot was lost in the process. The SBC affiliated seminaries were all impacted by this political change, some more than others. The state conventions and area associations were impacted in many very different ways.

When the controversy began it was ostensibly about the direction of the SBC. How would the largest Protestant denomination in America remain faithful to the Bible? The problem was, and is, that the issue(s) is not as clearly defined as both friends and foes alike want it to be. The word “inerrancy” became the battle field term. But a lot more followed over time. The Baptist Faith & Message (a doctrinal statement for a denomination that insisted it did not have a creed at all) was eventually revised and the changes included things like the role of wives and women in the family and church. This further damaged the tenuous unity enjoyed in the SBC. Labels like conservative, moderate and liberal became “curse” words in the hallways of schools, churches and conventions. The SBC I grew up in during the 1950s no longer looked the same.

While all of this was going on the church in America began to decline. For years the SBC declared its strength by citing its numbers of baptisms and new growth. But then, like virtually every church body in America, the decline began. Now the SBC knows that it has problems. But the answers are not yet clear.

The annual Southern Baptist Convention gathering, held June 14-15 in Phoenix, was the lowest-attended annual meeting in 67 years. There was just over 4,800 people in attendance. Yet the news reports say the substance of the meeting led plenty who attended it in 2011 to argue that it shouldn't be judged on numbers.

What has been called a historic report that encouraged ethnic diversity, witnessed dozens of leaders standing together in support of a landmark unity pledge. Hundreds of pastors and laypeople volunteered to lead their churches to embrace one of the world's 3,800 unengaged people groups. In addition the heads of the major ministries of the SBC appeared together in a further show of unity.

Convention President Bryant Wright noted: "I do believe it could prove to be the most spiritually significant convention over the last 50 years. Coming back to the authority of Scripture was a correcting point that had to take place [in the SBC], but the mission is to fulfill the Great Commission. I think this was the most unified convention around the Great Commission that I have experienced. People came here with anticipation of that unity."

I hope and pray that this is the case. Regardless of Wright’s statement about “coming back to the authority of Scripture” being a “correcting point” the multitudes of leaders and bright young people lost to the SBC has left untold damage on the overall witness of this great body of Christians. I have always been of the opinion that the corrections could have been made without all the damage and destruction that ensued. And the results are not of one type. A new fundamentalism is now entrenched in the SBC that tolerates little or no dissent. This is well known and formal debate about it is simply not tolerated by the present leadership. This is why unity in their mission is not an easy thing to bring about. Decades were spent gaining power and cleaning house and the results are simply not what we were told they would be. As I noted just a few weeks ago the contending parties and groups in the SBC are numerous, at times too numerous to identify clearly. Read the blogs and posts of the various groups if you have time or interest and you will see what I mean. The spirit of contention remains strong in the SBC.

Tomorrow: One Very Bad Resolution Passed at the 2011 SBC

The Fault Lines in the Southern Baptist Convention

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) remains a major factor in American Christianity. But the decline of the SBC, in recent years, is alarming to anyone who cares about the overall health of Protestant Christianity in America. There are things to be learned here by all Christians.

Steve Lemke, provost at New Orleans Baptist Seminary, recently examined various points of divergence among Southern Baptists in a four-part series for the blog SBC Today (April 5, 7, 8 and 9 posts). Lemke offered two possible solutions. I am more than intrigued by what he wrote and find the attacks on Lemke on the Internet to be both sad and irresponsible.

Lemke says the SBC fault lines include points of contention such as:

• Greater versus lesser Baptist identity.
• Smaller versus larger churches.
• Anti-Great Commission Resurgence verses pro-GCR.
• Majority Baptist theology versus Reformed theology.
• Association and convention advocates verses association and convention detractors.
• Those who place great value on the Cooperation Program (the fund raising approach to the budget) versus those who place a lower value on the CP.

Lemke adds, “These fault lines are not identical, though they may be parallel and converge at times. But an eruption in one of the fault lines sets off shockwaves in each of these other fault lines, and hence a great deal of disagreement within the larger South Baptist fellowship.”

As one who was a Southern Baptist for the first twenty-three years of my life I remain deeply interested in the SBC. I have great regard for its history and impact on both American and world missions. I retain great respect for two major values that I took with me from the SBC. First, a deep respect for the liberty of conscience that I was given by my SBC influence. Second, a strong and clear understanding of the separation of church and state, which is a great Baptist contribution both to America and the whole world.

But I think the SBC was changed by human forces that created more than a few “fault lines” over the last thirty years or so. Knowing Baptist history I am quite aware that the SBC had major divisive battles in its past. But these battles were nothing compared to the battle over inerrancy and the control of the SBC in the 1980s and 90s. This battle changed the SBC like no previous battle in the 150-plus year history of the convention. Though the “conservatives” won the question remains, “What did they win and at what price in the end?” I am not sure of the right answer but of this I am persuaded – the SBC will never look like it did when I was a boy in the 1950s. It will never know the peace and mission focus it had then, at least not in the foreseeable future. It has been torn asunder and it cannot be simply patched-up by the good folks who now lead it. The spiritual blood that was shed destroyed people and this will not go away easily unless revival leads to humility and repentance. The SBC endured the equivalence of a civil war and the burned over sense of things that resulted will not be forgotten in my lifetime much as Reconstruction was not forgotten in the South I knew as a boy.

The SBC controversy was one of power versus power. People on both sides ought to be honest about this sad reality. Regardless of who was right and who was wrong, and I had friends on both sides though personally I had no horse in the race, the damage this schism did was immense. Schism always does damage thus it is almost never a good idea to fight church battles like this one, at least that is how I see it biblically and historically.

Dr. Lemke says that one way to achieve unity, going forward, is through division. In this option the debates continue and multiple splinters are the result. Perhaps a major split will finally come. Could the Calvinists and the non-Calvinists come to such a division? It has happened before and it could happen again.

Lemke also speaks about a “Baptist Babel” in which persons within each faction speak their own language and define terms differently, thus producing more confusion and frustration. He says the simple truth is that if one side wins we all lose. I really do share that perspective. He says that normally only a “win-win victory is a true victory in a Christian fellowship.” Amen to that!

The second way to deal with the “fault lines” is to seek “unity through cooperation.” This has been the way the SBC has kept its balance in the past and this actually helped to make it the largest and most influential Protestant body in America. This option, says Lemke, calls for more understanding as churches work to contextualize witness in their respective communities.

This option is important not only for the SBC but for all of the rest of us as well. Unless we can find ways to “contextualize our witness” and respect one another more deeply in the process divisions will remain the norm and likely increase. Lemke suggests something like a Jerusalem Council is needed. I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I would like to see an international council of the whole church in the literal city of Jerusalem itself! Why not draw leaders of churches to the same place where the church first worked to identify and preserve its unity in the first century?

I have no idea if the SBC can survive all of these debates and not suffer more schisms and splinter groups. I am sure my fears are real but my hopes are fervent for better days ahead. Lemke says for his second option to work the mission of the church must come before all personal preferences. This is precisely what I mean by missional-ecumenism thus the SBC needs this vision too. From reading about Dr. Lemke on the Internet it seems almost impossible that his appeal would be heard in the present climate of things.

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.