“The South is dry and will vote dry. That is, everybody sober enough to stagger to the polls will". Will Rogers
OK- so the SBC will keep the notes, recordings, and bar tab of the Great Commission Task Force secret for 15 years. I once had a conversation with my liberal dad who was spouting off about his right to call someone without having his phone number revealed to the receiving party. He was frustrated that I never picked up the phone when my caller ID showed an unidentified caller. I told him that I, too, have a choice. I don't have to pick up the phone from an anonymous caller. I found it amusing that he had not considered the other side. Needless to say, he made sure he identified himself if he wanted me to answer the phone.
So, since the SBC won't let me know the background information of the GCR, I am released to speculate.This, folks, is one of the consequences of "secrecy." More rumors fly around with secretiveness than openness.
The committee claims that they had promised some folks that their comments would remain anonymous. Has the SBC entered the computer age? It is easy to bleep out names, etc. I don't buy it. My guess is that it involves some information that is damaging to the once great SBC.
Your glamorous blogette grew up in Salem, Massachusetts. My father was a Russian immigrant and my mother proudly called herself a "Yankee." They were not believers; so I was raised in a secular home in a liberal environment. I understand, more than many in the South, the religious climate in the North. I also became a Christian at 17. There was a couple from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary who made me a part of their mission. Yep, that's right folks. There is a good seminary in the northern suburbs of Boston and it is actually conservative.
Now, we know the SBC is getting set to "invade" the North and spread its brand of "churchianity."(In fond remembrance of MIchael Spencer-The Internet Monk- who coined the term.) Here are some thoughts about this "plan." Why do I call it "churchianity"? It appears to me that this is more about making Baptists than Christians.
-The SBC is bleeding members. Even the current "official"numbers are highly suspect. Deb will deal with this more in-depth on Monday. Suffice to say, the SBC wants new members. The SBC has saturated the South. I bet they did some survey and found that the North has a boat load of non-Christians. And, dadgumit, they're just waiting for the SBC to teach them how to "walk the aisle."
-There is speculation that the International Mission Board and the North American MIssion Board will coalesce under one entity. As an MBA, I support combining the resources and, in so doing, lower costs might be achieved by eliminating redundancy. However, I think we will see costs rise. I am suspicious this has little to do with efficienies.
For example, it will be far easier to divert money intended for foreign missions to America. No need to tell the folks how much it will cost to start a church in NYC. Also, I bet there will be a few good old boys who will get some good old salaries.
-Has the SBC considered the numbers of resources available in the United States for those who wish to learn about Christianity? Churches, bookstores, television, radio, etc. abound. Contrast that the mission field in Muslim countries, China, and, as I have seen firsthand, Europe. Is blanketing the northern USA with loyal SBC churches the best use of limited resources? However, I do not believe this has to do much with the Great Commission. It has to do with money and numbers (although numbers and money may be the same thing-the more members, the more money).
-Does the GCR crowd understand the North? Do they know about the number of evangelical churches that exist in that region? There is Willow Creek in the Chicago area, John Piper's church in Minnesota, and Park Street Church in Boston along with many other larger and smaller churches. Presbyterians ,who abound in that region, are kind of like the Southern Baptists of the north. Are these churches just lazy in making converts? Or is the culture different?
Northerners are very blunt and have not been trained in the social graces of Southern church manners. While Southerners might put up some pastor pounding the pulpit and insisting they pay attention, Northerners would laugh and walk out. And the JImmy Smryl's of the Baptist subculture would be excoriated for calling Roman Catholicism a cult.
Liberalism is alive and entrenched in the north. Is the SBC willing to learn how to separate Christianity from politics? Most SBC churches that I have attended seem to have trouble distinguishing the difference. Usually, down here, being a Christian means you vote Republican. At a former church, members were given a "who to vote for" list by a pastor. That will not sell up north and would probably be cause for such a church to lose its tax-exempt status..
Now, I am a political conservative. But I know the difference. Unfortunately, many people do not. The SBC has done a good job developed a "church" culture; not a Christian culture. Can the SBC seminaries provide pastors equipped to deal with the liberal culture? As I look at some of the new guys hitting the circuit, I am not encouraged.
-Rumors abound that the SBC is exploring the possibility of a name change. Apparently they feel the words "Southern" and "Baptist" may be a major turnoff. Perhaps they think if they call it something different, people will flock through the doors.
A number of years ago, Amway changed its name to Quixtar. Presumably this was do to the bad "rep" Amway had amongst the potential base. However, they just changed it back again, presumably for the same reasons. They never dealt with the reasons behind the poor reputation.
The problem with the SBC is not the name. It is the deservedly negative viewpoint that the SBC has built for itself through the years. You can change the name but the issues remain.Hiding the name "Baptist" will only cause people to become upset once they discover that they had been duped, even if it was for a good reason. Secrecy usually causes more problems than it is worth.
A relative occasionally attends The Summit, JD Greear's church. When I mentioned that it was Southern Baptist, she became upset, saying that it wasn't true. When I showed her that it is, she was irritated and said that she wished someone had told her. Being straightforward (some say crude) is a trait of the North. Folks do not like to be manipulated.
– The SBC has made its name on elevating secondary issues to primary mandates. And, these secondary issues will not sell in the North. These might include young earth creationism, premillenialism/pretribulation eschatology,complementarianism, the role of women and the use of alcohol. Can the SBC learn to distinguish between major and minor issues? The past two decades of infighting leaves me filled with doubts.
Add to this is a perception that Baptists, along with other evangelicals, seem to be anti-intellectual. I heard JD Greear give a sermon in the winter in which he derided those who think they are special because they hold advanced degrees. Here is a link to that post entitled "You Are Just a Bunch of Dumb Sheep: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2009/11/30/you-are-just-a-bunch-of-dumb-sheep-bah-bah-humbug/#more-1615
As a long timer in the South, I understood what he was saying even though I thought that he did an extraordinarily poor job in explaining himself. I think others felt the same way. The church removed that part of the sermon from the one posted on his site. Such a sermon, given in Boston, would probably result in an insurrection ending with Greear's body being dumped, along with his PhD, in the Harbor (pronounced Hahbah).
-I am not convinced that the "mission board" of the SBC understands how ridiculous some of their stands might appear to others. Removing women from the mission field because they might have been in some position over a male is one example. The Sheri Klouda incident (a link is provided in our categories) would cause an uproar in Boston. Women hold to a more egalitarian role in the North. Also, Yankees are suspicious of any sort of authority. They will demand accountability from their pastors. None of this hidden salary and expense account nonsense.
Alcohol is another issue. There are a number of folks from an immigrant background and the use of alcohol is considered part of a normal lifestyle. As a child I attended weddings and Russian festivals in churches. Even the priest would drink! All it would take is one sermon on how Jesus never let demon alcohol touch His lips and the pastor would see half of his congregation walk out and repair to the local bar to continue the conversation.
– Back to my point about the GCR possibly being more about converting people to "Baptist" than to Christianity. There is a bit of egotism involved in this push north. Has the SBC ever considered partnering with some of the non-Baptist churches in the region? Not only would both groups benefit from economy of scale but it demonstrate that its about Jesus; not denominations.
However, I do not believe that will ever happen. In the SBC,there have been missionaries who have had to be baptized properly. This means from a proper SBC church that adheres to the principles laid out be some religionist who actually thinks that today's Baptists(and even then, certain Baptists) are the only "true" church.
I want to give you an example of what i am talking about. Shortly after my conversion, I decided to join a Baptist Church to the north of Boston. I had been baptized as an infant and came to the conclusion my conversion was a fulfillment of my baptism. The pastor allowed my to join the church without being re-baptized. He told me that he had no problem with my approach. This man used to teach part time at Gordon Conwell.
After many years I changed my mind on what I believed about baptism and was immersed baptized at my nondenominational church. This was never an issue forced upon me. However, if I had applied to be a missionary with the iMB, there are some who would probably call for me to be re-baptized. A nondenominational Bible church is not good enough for some of these elite Baptists. Thankfully,my churches knew how to major on the majors and drew in this Northern girl. My question for the SBC is this. Are you planning on preaching the Gospel or are you planning on making "Baptists?" There is a difference.
Well Dee, them damn Yankees up North don’t call it the Bible belt fer nuthin’! Hell, that Garrison feller just started out writin’ pamphlets about what a man cain’ & cain’t do with his God-given property (Negroes), and the next thing ya know Stoneman’s cavalry tore up the tracks and a whole way of life was gone with the wind!
I hope you’re not too offended with the satirical bit of tripe above (doggerel?), but its only purpose is to illustrate that regardless of where we hail from in this great Nation, we are all products of our own necks of the woods and the people we come from.
I’m originally from Wisconsin and there’s plenty of hilarious satire that can be written about us too!
“Rumors abound that the SBC is exploring the possibility of a name change. Apparently they feel the words “Southern” and “Baptist” may be a major turnoff. Perhaps they think if they call it something different, people will flock through the doors.”
I guess they left the SBC out of this list:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/18/11-brands-that-will-disap_n_617198.html
Bravo, Dee!
I’m down here on the cotton plantation howling over your post. I’ll have more to say when I can type on something other than my Blackberry.
Loved your comment, Muff!
Ya’ll have a great weekend. Don’t forget about Father’s Day. I’ll be visiting my dad on Sunday.
Hysterical, Richard
Muff
There is the thing with the cheesehead. Do you have one? One of my former pastors in one of my good churches used to preach once a year with his cheesehead if Green Bay made the playoffs. I am actually envious and would love to wear one but I have no excuse! I guess this mean you and I are what they call Yankees.
A Southerner told me this joke once. What’s the difference between Yankees and Damn Yankees? Yankees visit the South. Damn Yankees, stay!
My mom was a twin. Both were raised in the South and both raised by a very educated mother who was a Bible scholar. My aunt married and moved North in the 1950’s. She joined the other “Baptist” denomination in the North and several years later became a deacon in her church up there. My mom married and stayed in the South and in the SBC. My mom has always done the work of a “deacon” but without the title. (I often think of how Phoebe has been dumbed down to a mere postal service for Paul instead of the “prostatis” she was)
Note the difference. In the South, women are allowed to do the work of a deacon but not allowed to have the title. In the North, my aunt was allowed to have the title to go along with the work.
Lydia
Up North there is little time to quibble over the nonessentials. We were always relieved to find another believer and rarely were concerned about whether the anti-Christ was Henry Kissenger, etc. I was amazed to see such segregation in the South and I am not talking about racism although that is a sad chapter in SBC history.
The segregation has to do with method of baptism, the role of women, charismatic gifts, eschatology, creationism, etc. The churches I attended had folks from all sorts of bents and we all got along in the SAME CHURCH!
This is about the church of Jesus not the church of the SBC,Presbyterians, etc. I think the SBC types will be shocked by how well Christians get along in the Northern climes. Maybe it will be a reverse evangelism.
Dee, I can definitely relate.
I, too, was raised in “the North” (Michigan), in a non-religious family. I was not part of any church or denomination, and had a generally ambivalent (not hostile, but not interested) attitude toward all religions prior to my conversion. I moved to “the South” (Arkansas) just before I turned 18 and started college. It was quite a culture shock — I never gave much thought to regional identity, but those I met in the South seemed obsessed with it (both theirs and mine). What I considered being honest and straightforward, southerners considered being rude and blunt, while I thought their tendency not to say what they really thought and felt was rude and dishonest.
I became a Christian at age 19, after hearing the gospel in a Baptist church (which I only started attending with a college friend, a SB preacher’s kid, because I was bored when it seemed that everyone else was in church). I wasn’t in a church at the time of my salvation, I was alone in my dorm room. God had broken past my indifference and shown me that I was indeed a sinner in need of Christ as my Savior. At the time, I knew nothing about the Bible, and all I knew about God and Christ were the things any American grows up with (Christmas was about Jesus’ birth, Easter was about this His death and resurrection). I waited several months before being baptized and joining a Southern Baptist church because I wanted to be sure I was becoming part of something that was based on the Bible. (Even as a young Christian, with no doctrinal background, I somehow instinctively knew that as a Christian I should try to live by the Bile and so I wanted to be in a church that did the same.) After some study I became convinced that the beliefs of Baptists were as close to anything in the Bible as I could find, so I was baptized and joined.
There’s a lot more to my story, but I shared all that to say this: because I was not raised in “the South” or going to church, I did not have the ingrained associations of Christianity with specific cultural or political ideals. While I, too, am a political conservative (leaning more libertarian these days, as I have become more convinced that government is more of the problem than the solution), I am often at odds with the prevailing culturally-based attitudes and assumptions I see in Southern Baptist churches (and many other churches in the South). I think that not having been raised in the midst of that, it is easier for me to tell the difference between what is biblical and what is cultural, at least some of the time.
The last couple of churches I have been part of were not Baptist (just independent evangelical churches), and it has been very refreshing to be around dedicated, Bible-believing Christians who don’t all always believe alike on secondary and tertiary doctrines, or on politics or cultural matters. I guess my life background is why I enjoy it so much here at TWW.
Since I grew up in Tennesses (a few miles across the river), I have some understanding of Junkster’s comment. I think that what he did is the best way to become a Christian. He had (or was getting) his act together and knew for sure what he was doing. He may have “walked an aisle” or not depending on how the church he joined did it–but it was not because of pressure if he did.
We have a number of “independent, evangelical” churches in our area. Most of them (if you look at their doctrine) are really “Baptist” churches–and often the organizers came from Baptist churches. Their “practices” are often not traditional from the Baptist view–they tend to believe that gifts have not stopped. They certainly don’t have all the baggage and issues that churches that are “officially Baptist” have. They tend to business, take care of those they can, and preach and practice “The Word.”
Alas Dee, I don’t have one of them cheesehead hats, but I’m still a die hard Packer fan; always will be! My own religious tradition is Lutheran and I can remember a time when Lutheran pastors still wore the cassock on high holy days. Back then you couldn’t tell Pastor Sorensen from Father Doyle the Jesuit on high holy days!
I know an extremely intelligent Baptist lady who is a true and dear friend, she is an inerrantist; I am not. But we have not let religious differences cloud our friendship because we both know that the ensuing storm would ultimately strip us of our humanity, kinda’ like an Arthur Miller tragedy (The Crucible) made for real life.
Junkster
I see your comments on other blogs. I know I speak for the both of us and others who say that the pleasure is all ours. You are a kind, thoughtful shining example of your faith. I always look forward to reading what you have to say. I wish the SBC was made up of more folks like you.
You get it. I had been in such great churches and was shocked by what i saw in a previous SBC church. And you are right. It is cultural. I remember when a pastor told a story that I knew not to be true. But he made it personal, as if it had happened to someone close to him. It was an urban legend. I emailed him and informed him. He acknowledged my email and told the story again form the pulpit 6 months later. I went and told the lead pastor. he told me that it was “traditional” to tell such tales from the pulpit. I asked if that meant it was OK to like so long as it was a traditional lie. That did not go over well.
I am now back in a Bible church that is definitely not “traditional.” By that I mean it is not a cultural Christianity. You find all sorts there and I like it that way. In fact, there is a man in my Sunday school class who is in prison and is allowed to come to class with the pastor on Sundays. He is going to write a post for us. That ought to shake up some “upstanding” Baptists.
Ah, someday, Junkster, we will be in heaven where I think it will be a very joyful, “different” sort of crowd.
Bennett
Thank you for your input. I agree with you one million percent. The two best churches that I have been in were (and now are) just as you have said. They are nondenominational, conservative and major on the majors. We have young earthers, old earthers, premil, post mil, inerrantists, infalliblilists, imbibers and teetotalers, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and one Socialist(although he would never admit it). I am so glad to be back in a normal, loving Christian church.
Hey Cheesehead,
I would like to do a post on inerrancy versus infallibility. Do you lean towards the infallible side? I am drifting that way myself. Do you think I am nuts to do a post on such a controversial subject? I thought it would be interesting to get people to put in their two cents worth on this topic but i feel it might get heated. Still….
Dee,
I think that inerrancy vs infalibility would be an interesting topic. I have my own thoughts on the topic, but would like to hear yours and those of your readers.
Junkster
Thanks for your input. If Deb agrees, maybe we could wade into this in the next week or so. I’m afraid it could be quite incendiary.
It could be — but I think it will be a good discussion if you approach it with grace and your customary acceptance of those who have different views and allowance for differences of opinion between sincere followers of Christ. A simple “this is what I am thinking at present, and I want to learn more; what are your views?” goes a long way.
My Dad was a Baptist as a boy in Massachusetts. His pastor gave the prayer at his high school graduation, in 1956 – and my Dad’s pastor was a woman.
Elisabeth
So many of the current “patriarchs” know that the SBC would have failed without women who stepped up to the plate. Now that salaries are looking good for pastors, the boys are back and the women are expected to “settle down” with no so much as a thank you for services rendered in the past.
“He is going to write a post for us. That ought to shake up some “upstanding” Baptists.”
Years ago, my niece went on a trip with about 20 other Wheaton students to Israel for as part of a study course. Most were about 20. One man in the class was 45. He became like the Dad on the trip and the students gravitated to him as the elder because he was obviously spiritually mature.
The last night, around a campfire on the beach, he told them his story. He was an ex con who was saved through Prison Fellowship and now attending Wheaton. These white bread surburban students were stunned but learned a very important lesson about God’s Wonderful Grace.
Dee:
Funny post about cultural issues.
PLEASE don’t do a post on “infallible” vs. “inerrant.”
By all means, do a post on your view of inspiration. But the proposed topic is grammatically incorrect. Also, it was invented as an escape hatch in a regional denominational conflict about biblical inspiration.
A better post would simply be your thoughts on inspiration. Don’t get caught up on either term.
But it’s your blog.
I would just hate to see you waste capital by adopting the flimsy arguments of a losing side in a denominational conflict or getting stuck in nomenclature.
From what I have read from you (especially if you attend a Bible Church – DTS et al, right), you would in no way share the view that the Bible is full of myth and error (e.g. the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection etc.) but that doesn’t taint it’s spiritual message. Some Moderates in the SBC believed that, but most of them did not. They were just willing to allow people who did believe that to teach in SBC schools.
Dee,
In answer to your query, I tend toward the infallibility of Scripture so far as its overarching message embodied in the Nicene Creed. At the same time though, I reject the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
It may not be such a good idea to start a discussion on inerrancy and Biblical authority here because it would be hard to maintain civil dialogue. Crusaders and Templars (hyperbolic metaphor) would descend on this blog as if it were the walls of Jerusalem.
If it were my blog, I would just continue its mission of exposing abuses in the Evangelical Protestant system.
Annonymous
I am Scripturally conservative. I believe that the foundations of the faith must be true or we would, as Paul declared, fools. This includes the Virgin Birth, a Creator who planned, a death and Resurrection of Jesus, a Second Coming, the giving of the Holy Spirit. It is some of the other stuff that causes issues. Literal 6 day creation, 6,000 year earth; the fact that the “woman caught in adultery” was not in the earliest manuscripts, the Junius versus Junia issue which causes one to question some gender assumption, etc.
If Scripture was perfectly clear, then we would all agree on the method and purpose of baptism. Then there is the mustard seed which is not the smallest seed in the world, but it was the smallest seed in the known world when Jesus used it as an example.
The interest I have on this issue is one among conservative Christians who hold to a very high view of Scripture but differ on some points. I am not one who believes the Bible is filled with myth and error. But I do believe that it presents us with some dilemmas which cause us among conservative Christians to divide. This is the reason for the discussion. We must be able to accept some of the difficulties presented in Scripture and often reconcile differing views. Thus, infallibility (based on the facts such as the Virgin Birth) gets us all to the same point on the essentials and gives us some latitude on the difficulties. And you are right. The words and definitions can mess us all up.
Muff
You are probably right. I have a hard enough time with the King James Only crowd.
The matter of the definitions of the terms inerrant and infallible, and how those terms have been used (or misused) to support different positions is the very reason I think a post on the topic, and ensuing discussion, might be useful. But Anon is right that the distinction has been used as a means to signify a distinction without a difference, in support of SBC denominational disputes. And he’s also right that it’s your blog to do with as you will. If you chose not to discuss the topic, or to take a different approach and discuss inspiration, I will be happy to see whatever comes next at TWW. 🙂
I agree! I’m maybe as Northern and liberal as they come and I’ve never understood the whole southern mentality.
I have only recently come to understand that there are historical roots to the inerrancy ideology and that they can be traced regionally according to immigration patterns, which seems to explain virtually all the regional differences in religious thinking.
Personally, I’d like to see this discussed, as mentioned earlier, since it seems to me to be a regional/cultural argument and since the topic is the South, I’d like to understand it better with the help of our fearless bloggers.