SBC=>ENCOUNTERS

Now That Your Chicken Is Digested One Pastor Asks...

The television networks are abuzz and the internet websites are in a flurry as reports come in on the Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day.  One newspaper offers readers another way to handle the support for Chick-Fil-A: Sally Quinn urged gays to infiltrate the Christian business (check out her article/link).  In part, Quinn writes:

"Gays and lesbians could start applying for jobs at Chick-fil-A. Get in there. Become managers, take over the places.  Gays could begin patronizing Chick-fil-As and I don’t mean carry out. Make the restaurants the gay hangouts of the community.   Gay partners and Married gays could begin taking their children there. They could start having birthday parties for their kids. They could have Gay pride events there. (They have an events manager – just call)  They could even have gay weddings there."

New Mexico pastor, Howell Scott, published a piece his blog about the whole thing but it was one statement he wrote in the comment streams that grabbed my attention and made me think deeper on the matter.

"It will be interesting to see how Christians respond in the days ahead, now that the hoopla surrounding the National Day of Appreciation for CFA has passed. Will we go back to our unengaged lives and become oblivious to the subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on our religious liberty and free speech that take place on a daily basis? Will we become complacent? Or, will we continue to “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints?”"  Howell Scott of From Law 2 Grace

It does make one wonder if all the ruffled feathers in the "hoopla" are simply a one-time emotional outpouring of ire or another wake-up call to Christians everywhere.  In my thinking, the incident is not so much about whether gays are boycotting Chick-Fil-A or hetero-sexuals are supporting the restaurant in counter-protest.  It's about the subtle, but continual battering upon the walls of Christian beliefs, religous freedom, and civil liberties.  For example, what if Christians had said they were going to, not only boycott JC Penney, but the mayors of Louisville, Dallas, and Atlanta announced they were not going to allow JC Penney to open a business in their cities because their CEO supports gay-marriage?  What if?

As far as I can tell, this is the wishbone of the chicken this debate.  This is the position that we all must consider in our free America.  After the bones are picked clean, who is going to get the short side of the bone?  Are we to assume that one person's personal views should dictate the right to open a business within the parameters of the law?  Has there been some new amendment to the U.S. Constitution that exempts Chicago and Boston from complying with the law of the land?  If mayors who dance with the president have the authority to keep businesses to come into their cities and sell chicken sandwiches, what next?  Churches that preach that homosexuality is a sin?  Private schools that promote marriage is between a man and a woman?  Will licenses be refused to Christians who want to open all businesses?  Will there be some kind of vetting to get a license to operate a Christian business: a Mardel's, a Hobby Lobby, an Interstate Battery store?  Will anyone who owns a business be forced to shut up or be shut down?  Must they be politically correct, or lose an opportunity to feed their family?  Will they turn off Christian radio stations and television programing?

If you think not, then think again.  They may not be able to legally do it, but they can make business so difficult for Christians that they will be silenced.  The mayors of Chicago and Boston boldly proclaimed there was no way Chick-Fil-A could do business in their cities.  Sure, these businesses can fight it in the courts, but at what cost?

Steubenville, Ohio is removing the cross and a chapel silhouette from their city logos to avoid a lawsuit by one disgruntled citizen in their town.  People are demanding the removal of crosses from graves of soldiers in military cemeteries.  The law of the land forces religious institutions to provide drugs to support abortions for people they insure.

There is more to chew on than a chicken nugget these days.  There is more than one day of appreciation at stake.  Much more. And when business owners stop and count the cost, they may find it more than they can handle.  We shall see.  selahV

Will Southern Baptist Churches Cooperating with One Another BE NEGATED by Affiliation with ACTS-29?

I do not know.  However...

...reading various "voices" within the SBC blogosphere behooves us to consider whether the Cooperative Program, and Missions as we've always known them to be defined within our convention of churches, are at risk.  That said, should the convention of autonomous SBC churches be fully informed of the theology, mindset, goals, movements and clear objectives of the affiliations, and send messengers to vote with full disclosure of agendas, we might be better able to carry on intelligent conversations throughout the blogosphere.  With the barrage of controlled discussion, including ill-defined vocabulary, and complicated phrasing to disquise agendas, the average pew-sitter like myself, and 85 to 90% of the SBC, it becomes virtually impossible to debate, dialogue, discuss or inquire about things which concern Baptists today.  Below is one comment "reply" to another commenter's question, who is trying to discern how the presence of ACTS 29 and SBC affiliations is troubling to some.  I think he endeavors to be clear and honest in his evaluation and answer to Les:

"First, there is but a minimal "requirement" for churches to be affiliated with the SBC--only a few hundred bucks. Hence, there is no % mandate. Local churches vary. Second, that is not to say that there exists unwritten expectations the convention at large places on supporting churches. Few would view a church that gives a couple hundred bucks (unless it is a very very tiny church) as a "fully cooperating" SBC church. 

As for A29, I've done quite a bit of reading in their material. While they officially do not "require" 10% going to A29 churches (1% of which goes to the A29 Network), they make it clear it's expected, very similarly to our CP expectations.

Finally, you state that Mary overstated about A29 spreading Calvinism rather that Christ. However, embracing "Reformed" theology is a non-negotiable theological template for A29. They are uninterested in churches and/or church planters who are neither a) theologically "Reformed" and, b) elder governed. Both of these theo-ecclesial conditions apply. This remains one of the chief reasons I find A29 objectionable for SBC purposes. We demand neither; they demand both. Hence, it follows that A29 would be interested in affiliating with, at most, about 5-10% of Southern Baptists. Yet we are on course to making A29 our bread-n-butter church planting venue. From my view, this is suicidal for the Cooperative Program.

With that, I am...
Peter"    [replying to Les at SBC Tomorrow on post "Truth Is Unkillable"/see full post HERE]

Related posts which literally were prompted as a result of one innocuous dissenting comment by me in a stream of comments, on this subject can be found HERE@FromLaw2Grace, HERE@SelahVToday, HERE@SelahVToday, HERE@SelahVToday, HERE@SBCVoices, and HERE@SBCVoices, HERE@SBCVoices, HERE@SBCVoices, HERE@SBCVoices, HERE@DennyBurk,  HERE@DennyBurk, HERE@GospelCoalition, HERE@SBCVoices, and HERE@SelahVToday.

THESE links are hardly exhaustive of those which are related to, or prompted by, the following comment I inadvertantly, and unwittingly discovered with shock and awe to create such a firestorm of opposition towards my view in general and my personal character in specifics:

"Well, Brandon, I didn’t read your post. My mind shut down at the introduction of who Steve is: Director of Acts29 Western Europe.  I said to myself, Acts 29?  I’m not in Kansas anymore. I checked the link to ascertain I was at “SBC” Voices.   Acts-29 is not a voice I am interested in hearing. No offense…". selahV

I include my, now, deleted comment, and links above which pertain to it, in this post only because I find the furor and hailstorm of bloggers, and entity leaders within the SBC, more than curious and disturbing given the lack-of-discussion, previously relating to ACTS-29 Network. I'm curious, if simply writing a few words of dissent and disinterest in a forum designed to register opinions of Southern Baptists specifically, about ACTS 29's affiliation with SBC, then what could happen if some "brazen" autonomous SBC churches find, (upon deeper evaluation of ACTS 29, founded and run by Mark Driscoll), that affiliation and Cooperative Program monies spent to aid development of churches is objectionable to them?

Would the wrath of God come down upon those churches?  Would the pastors be ostracized and removed from Convention platforms to speak?  Would concerned pew-sitters and messengers like myself have our microphones muted on the Convention floor?  Would we be smacked down and told to sit down, and to go back to our churches and whine there if we wanted to whine?  Would any member of the church who spoke in opposition be shunned and sent out the back door of their respective church?   I don't know.  I'm just asking.  selahV  (a.k.a. one female voice crying in the grasslands)

[Comments are open, but are all moderated and cannot be seen by public until published by ME hitting the "publish" button. Feel free to voice your thoughts with grace. You do not have to read the full post offered at the Link provided with Peter's reply to Les, nor to read all the related links provided, to offer your thoughts on this op. Just to be clear.

And also, you probably won't have to be concerned about me arguing via email because I am taking Dr. Ed Stetzer's advice and not replying to emails which will go no where and end up back at the original opinion of the sender of the emails.]

VOICES IN THE GRASSLANDS...of the SBC, No.2

I've been wallowing a situation around in my head for a few days now.  Didn't give it a lot of thought at the time it all occurred. In fact, when an innocuous little comment I made was deleted at a blogsite I'd contributed to with complete harmonious accord for years, it kinda stuck in my craw. (That means, it was like one of those popcorn kernel covers that gets stuck back in your throat and you just can't seem to get it out.)  You drink some water.  You swallow some bread.  Then finally it occurs to you that the thing that is sticking tighter than a full-blown blood-sucking tick to a dog's ear bursts inside your mouth and you know...

...inadvertently, I had drawn first blood.  Inadvertently, I had been "predestined", I suppose, to think a thought, see a post I don't normally look at, and consider the point of the post in the first place.  So, I just offer my own little red flag in the sea of voices which rarely pay any attention to me anyway.  I write "I'm not interested".  Can you imagine what it would be like if I had been interested and published a comment?  stimulated dialogue?  entered debate?  spoke on substance?  read the entire post instead of the lead in?  Hmmmmmn, wonder what woulda happened then?  Well...maybe what everyone is running around the internet trying to squash...attention to some unappetizing tidbits within the ACTS-29 Network, and the schooling of the President himself.  Don't know.  Just don't know.

I do know, though...

that suddenly, my name is everywhere.  I thought, what in the world?  Who am I that anyone would care?  And what caused my little blog to quadruple in readership overnight?  And why are folks reading every snatch of info in all my posts?  Digging deep into the archives all of a sudden?  And what in the world has that silly post about the Dragon Lady conjured up?  Why the personal attacks?  Why the nasty remarks and the finger-pointing?  What was hidden in that little comment I made on a post that only garnered 4 comments, and was quickly buried out of sight with multiple postings from the editor and contributors?  All these questions were rolling around in my brain...along with the facts.  The facts.  The evidence of things we see, hear, read, and know for certain.

"Dots."  That's what Howell Scott calls them.  That's what some lurking lady named lydia calls them.  "Dots."  Dots that connect all this stuff together to give answers to one's questions.  At least a few.

Well...I belabor this post no longer...below is a fresh voice off the internet press.  Lady Lydia from Lurkland.  She's quite a busy lady.  I'm so busy going to the doctor, playing with my grandchildren, teaching them finer points of work ethics, reading Pinterest, and trying to keep up with the insanity of our POTUS and my weekly newspaper column, that I just can't be running all over blog-land looking for fires in the forest.  Bless Lydia's volunteer fire-fighter heart.  She may have stumbled upon the reason my nothing-comment, which I almost didn't post, has caused such a furor.  I don't know...you be the judge: 

 "Just reading around the meta and eureka, connected dots. Here is just one link http://phoenixpreacher.net/?p=11670), but there are plenty in the comments. Why the big deal on Harriet's simple comment at SBCV concerning the W. European Acts 29 guy? Setzer commeting so much over there to affirm Daves policies? Why the sudden "coincidental" "blog comment moderating" focus from other blogs around the NC/Reformed meta? Why?

Mark Driscoll. Since Petry, the former fired Elder/former lawyer, story came out-- some Acts 29 churches are not happy. Some are even leaving the network. Ergo, it is quickly being swtiched to Chandler. All to stop the possible bleeding of members or churches leaving the network. They want the blogosphere quiet about this and the post interviewing the W. Europe Acts 29 guy could have become a bit embarassing if any uncomfortable questions [were] asked.

Of course it is being spun that Driscoll leaving was planned all along but that would not explain Mark's announcement a month or so ago he had to come back to Acts 29 in a hands on way and get things in line there. But now, he is leaving a few weeks later to focus on ministry at MH? A bit flighty. Driscoll is stepping away to stop the bleeding.

Seems the guy who was running Acts 29, Scott Thomas, was one of the point guys for taking Petry down. There is documentation with him using Acts 29 resources to communicate with Petry. So, that involves Acts 29 in the spiritual abuse. So, now suddenly, Thomas is "going into another ministry" and not going to Texas to work for Chandler. Sojourn in Louisville has a letter on it's site saying it is leaving Acts 29 to become church planters dated March 28. Of course, they still love Acts 29. Will no one out in celebrity Christian land be Driscoll's Nathan? Must we all pretend this is not rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?" "Lady" Lydia at FromLaw2Grace

VOICES IN THE GRASSLANDS...of the SBC

Rooted in the grasslands of the SBC are baptists who love the SBC for her rich heritage of missions, of cooperative spirit, of adherence to John 3:16.  Some voices are Calvinists.  Some are not.  Some are men of sweat and blood tears of service to our King.  Some are little white-haired old ladies who've given their nickels, dimes and quarters to Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong.  Others are lawyer-turned-minister, gramas in sweatpants, welders, and deacons, retired ministers, and active ministers.  Baptists.  Southern Baptists.  Hear are a few voices I, admittedly, cherry-picked to express views on what they see within the heartlands of the SBC:

"Any dissent or questioning of the direction of the SBC or its leaders, no matter how tepid the dissent or how reasonable the questions, is now to be viewed as engaging in “Battle Blogging” or fighting against those mythical Baptist (and perhaps non-Baptist) “Bogeymen.” If either of those charges do not work to stifle debate, then the old stand-by — charging someone with engaging in the sin of “gossip”– is usually a winning strategy. Since the unofficial Name Change Task Force announced its recommendations to the SBC’s Executive Committee last month, there appears to be a more concerted effort to either marginalize or silence those who oppose the radical redefinition of the Southern Baptist Convention. Despite the grand pronouncements of a “Great Commission Resurgence,” we have witnessed a “great division” instead. The chasm between those who approve of the new direction of the SBC — including a new name, Great Commission Baptists — whose initials will be GCB, not to be confused with the ABC’s campy parody of Christians, GCB, which stands for something all together different — and those who believe that our current name is just fine and that the process used to bring about “name change” has been fundamentally flawed (here and here), continues to grow deeper and wider (some “traditionalists” still remember that song; others, not so much)." Howell Scott, From Law 2 Grace.

Discussion reached a cresendo regarding powerplays within the SBC with a little lady addressing a comment to her by Jared Moore:

"Lydia, YES. You’re a Southern Baptist aren’t you? Would you leave the SBC if you disagreed with the President? How would you feel if an outsider stereotyped you based on the current President of the SBC?" Jared Moore, pastor and contributing writer to SBC Voices, in comment stream of From Law 2 Grace

"Jared, I am having a hard time understanding why something like this needs to be explained but here goes: I was raised in the SBC. There is a big difference. And there is a huge difference between the SBC as a whole which has been known for "autonomy" and "cooperating" on missions and short on authoritarianism. Our historical identity has not been one man. Actually our unofficial historical identity is more Lottie Moon! Acts 29 is totally different. It was created and designed by Driscoll. It has his DNA all over it. So a more similar comparison would be asking me if I would join up and rally around an SBC today if it were new and Al Mohler were the creator and identity of this new SBC. The answer is no. Actually, No Way. The young men I know who have gone with Acts 29 were drawn to it precisely BECAUSE OF Mark Driscoll. He was the big draw, initially. They were drawn to his style. I am starting to weary of your thinking processes. There really is no point to us continuing. We will simply have to agree to disagree. We think differently on things. "I don’t think you’re being fair to Acts 29." I know you don't. And that is ok."  Reply from Lydia to Jared Moore in comment stream at From Law 2 Grace

These are but a small sampling of a few voices within the SBC blogosphere that are chattering and debating issues regarding our beloved convention.  I shall try to give more as days continue.  I've just been given this call to arms, so to speak.  So bear with me as I wiggle my way into the battle-fronts of bloggers in the grasslands.. This is the heat of one of the most front-burner issues we have at the moment.  Comments are moderated, but comments are welcome,  Just be sweet.  selahV (Reaper of the Grasslands)