SBC=>ENCOUNTERS

Dr. Paige Patterson, Muslim in our Midst, and More Controversy by hariette petersen

In my sabbatical from most all things controversial in the SBC, I've happened across a few blogpost titles about Dr. Patterson allowing a Muslim to enroll at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.  I had not once considered reading them until yesterday.  Planned on doing that today, but still had not gotten around to it.

I've really tired of the beating and finger-pointing and posturing and simply had no desire to peek into the pages of the latest attack on Paige Patterson.  I've even kinda adopted the same feelings as he shared a few years ago when he was asked to be part of another controversial SBC matter.

When I first read the flying reports about the man I affectionately refer to as Dr. P., I sat back and scratched my head a bit.  However, knowing what little I know about Dr. P., I deeply trusted that he must have an eternal purpose in mind for the situation.  Lord knows the hoary headed old fella is tired of the battles in the convention; he's said so himself when he was dealing with all those young and restless yuppies (my descriptor), wanting to change the name of the convention to Great Commission Baptists/link. (Irony of ironies that the same who wanted to be known as "Great Commission Baptists" now seek to block a non-believer from hearing indepth teaching about the commission itself, isn't it?)

Until reading Peter Lumpkins' post today I didn't know that it be "the man from Enid" who had his knickers in a knot over the situation.  For me, given the source of what Peter describes as "the dumbfounding outrage against Patterson himself for desiring to practice what God knows we all need to practice more—connecting one-on-one evangelistically", I am not surprised there is yet one more attempt to take down the old man in Dallas.  I do wonder if the man north of me enjoys stirring the waters of controversy regarding the honorable Dr. Patterson, though.  I wonder if he has never quite been able to free himself from the chains of ire he has held for Dr. P for nigh onto a decade of my life.

More than the fact that a president of one of our seminaries has dared to allow a professing unbeliever in the midst of we baptized, white-robed and righteous Baptists, it makes me wonder if perhaps doctrine is more an issue with the naysayers than the actual audacity of the white-haired saint in Texas. After all, Dr. P believes we should share the gospel message to all, believing that whosoever believes on the name of Jesus, confesses his sin and turns from his wicked ways will actually receive eternal life provided by the shed blood offering for all who trust in Him.  Jesus.   The cross. The blood. The propitiation. The justification.  The sanctification. And eventually, the glorification.

Is Dr. P's critic more inclined to believe it's already a done deal?  that this Muslim has already been predestined to his lot in life and therefore his presence at our holy of holy seminaries puts both in jeopardy?  That the Word he studies will just come back void, anyway?  Could this Muslim possibly taint the propriety of our seminary's campus? Could he defile the seats upon which he sits in various classrooms?  Could the air he expels in class somehow infect the masses of good men studying how to share the gospel in its wholeness and entirety?  Is SWBTS in jeopardy of being destroyed because we've allowed some "Trojan Horse" into the camp?

I don't think so.  It's no more sinful to allow this unbeliever to study the depths of faith in God than it is to invite a Muslim to our churches to hear the gospel preached and the Bible taught in our Bible studies each week.  I well remember the day I assured a Muslim lady it would be perfectly okay to bring her little Muslim boy to our VBS and equally as proper for her to sit with him in class to help interpret what the teachers were telling him about Jesus each day.  Was I wrong, too?  God knows.

[Another writer weighs in on Paige Patterson's decision to allow Muslim to attend a Christian seminary...HERE]

Related articles

Grace As I See It, by hariette petersen

When We Are Weary

He Ain't My "Weird Cousin from Georgia", He's My Brother

I encountered, as usual, several posts and comments yesterday and today, some worth noting, others...not so much.  I find the whole business and debate, if you please, quite sad and unquestionably stuck in the middle of double set of standards.

One voice I particular trust in the SBC community is David Brumbelow's.  As I penned my post yesterday and today, I thought about the effects it might have on any "tomorrow" should a person drop in and find it among the thousands I've written for cyber consumption over the past few years.  I think David's summation on the recent SBC "kerfuffle" is germane:

"It seems to me this post [link] is ridiculing Peter Lumpkins, and then saying if anyone doesn’t like it, we’ll make fun of you too.

Anyway, I’m glad you have him back. David R. Brumbelow"

When a brother-in-Christ uses his Christian faith as a jumping off point to influence culture and people about his personal views, and becomes a pseudo-spokesperson to admonish other Christian brothers and sisters for homophobic attitudes (at a time he was in this struggle with homosexuality), then yes, we [Southern Baptists] should be told who we are looking at when we pick up his book, A Faith Of Our Own, and consider what he has to say. This book promotes Jonathan as:

"...a faith and culture writer who has published over 350 articles in outlets such as USA Today, The Christian Science Monitor, CNN.com and Christianity Today. He is author of Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan for Our Planet, which Publisher's Weekly called "mandatory reading for churchgoers." As a respected Christian voice, he has been interviewed by ABC World News, CNN, Fox News, NPR, PBS, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Jonathan resides outside of Atlanta, GA where he actively serves and teaches at Cross Pointe Church." [emboldened mine]

"As a respected Christian voice", Jonathan has passed himself off as a purer, kinder, gentler idealogue who stands head and shoulders above his Southern Baptist brothers and sisters in today's culture.  Evangelicals are "homophobes and liars"; he is the righteous man who brings their sinful hypocrisy into the light.  He is a celebrity and a rising star in Southern Baptist and Christian forums of cultural debate. A political liberal, Kirsten Powers, wrote the forward for his latest book. Many Southern Baptist leaders have used Jonathan as a spokesman for their pursuits of environmental and cultural change; he's the son of a former SBC president, after all. He has doors in high places opened to him--he has friends with influence and power within the SBC political structure to add credibility to what he writes. Jonathan is the highly acclaimed writer interviewed by national newspapers, magazines, television programs and Huffington post. He is sought after for his opinion on Christian viewpoints.  With the outing of Jonathan by gay blogger and former Christian television personality, Azariah Southworth, Peter Lumpkins chose to alert the SBC community of Azariah's outlandish and alleged claim.

When Azariah's claim proved credible and not so outlandish at all, Ed Stetzer posted a confessional interview with Jonathan on his blog wherein Jonathan admitted in part to the allegations by Azariah which Azariah has since countered as inaccurate, "There was no dinner"...the "magic" happened in the back seat of his car after a drunken night on the town "in Chicago"...I was not the only one".  Meanwhile, Peter's blog was removed from the listings of the prominent aggregator owned by Tony Kummer a children's minister, and edited by Dave Miller, an Iowa pastor and recently elected 2nd VP of the SBC.

But let us just look at Peter Lumpkins--the recently dubbed "weird cousin from Georgia" by Tony Kummer. In comparison to Jonathan Merritt, Peter is a virtual nobody in the world.  Peter, like Jonathan, writes his personal opinions and started a little blog called SBC Tomorrow back in 2006 because he was concerned about the direction of Southern Baptists--just like Jonathan. The majority of Peter's blog consists of historical facts and information he has found in his research of Baptist history. He reads about, and reports what he finds. A smaller but more controversial portion of his blog addresses topics and behavior and rhetoric which he views inconsistent and duplicitious, of which could effect the views of Southern Baptists.  Peter was so concerned about the acceptance of alcohol use in Baptist circles that he wrote a series on alcohol.  That led to the publishing his first book, Alcohol Today, Abstinence in An Age of Indulgence. He is a pastor of a little church in Georgia. He's the son of an alcoholic father, not the son of a former SBC President.  Peter is not on the public stage of national recognition.  Peter is an enigma at times. On one post he may disagree vehemently with a leader's position and words, while the next day highly support said leader against all foes on another issue. That's because Peter is not writing about the heart or intentions, but the actions, positions, and words of others.  Peter was so certain of one leader's position in the SBC, and certain that the leader had been misquoted, that he went to a microphone (for the first time in his Baptist life), and asked for clarification and verification on the convention floor in Phoenix.  For his desire for truth he was ridiculed, smacked down and insulted repeatedly by fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.  That didn't bother Peter as much as the shock he got when the leader confirmed that he'd indeed been quoted correctly about homophobia among his peers in ministry.

Jonathan, on the other hand, writes about the hearts of man-- the motives and intentions of their minds.  He has repeatedly called evangelicals and Southern Baptist brethren homophobic. I, personally, would not have written about Southworth's outing or Jonathan's trist into gay activity, nor would I address many other topics Peter has, but that is not the issue here.  Peter wrote his article about Azariah Southworth's claim against Jonathan because he saw it as important and newsworthy to the general conversation of Christians and how it may effect Southern Baptists in particular.  His source of information was a gay man's testimony of having a relationship with Jonathan; the source wrote he had evidence to support his claim if need be.

However...

Peter's act is deemed sinful by some critics.  It's okay to tell the world that sisters and brothers in Christ are homophobes, to "out" them as liars about homosexuals without naming a single pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention, or citing a single sermon said pastors have preached.  But it is not okay for Peter to write about a gay man's credible allegation regarding the secret life of Jonathan who hides his homosexual sin in a closet of deceit and self-righteousness while writing critical anti-homophobic admonishments toward the SBC family of God.  No.

Yet, now, here in the court of public opinion of holy bloggers, Peter is censored, chastized, trashed, insulted, and belittled for not only this infraction of reporting a truthful accusation, but every single solitary word he's ever written is deemed suspect.  Every angry feeling anyone has for Peter is brought to the surface of blogland. Every bulging vein of contempt is opened for everyone to comment upon at will.  Several comments with links to appalling trash (of not only Peter but insults of other notables in the Southern Baptist family), are allowed to stand by Dave Miller (editor of SBC Voices, and 2nd VP of the SBC).  They still stand on line, for hundreds to follow to the disgusting anonymously written website and read the slurs upon Peter, Dr. Jerry Vines, Dr. Gerald Harris and others.  This kind of post is perfectly acceptable?

Throughout the comment section of the post at SBC Voices written to publically shame Peter Lumpkins was the call: "He sinned."  "He gossiped."  But not one word was written about Jonathan Merritt's deceit among us, was it?  Peter was given a "time-out" and sent to the corner and then after he'd spent sufficient time in the corner, he was then stood before the class and painted with a brush of "shame, shame, shame on you".  He was pulled into the public square and placed in stocks to be further condemned and ridiculed.  What about Jonathan?  Well...Ed Stetzer gave him an interview and whitewashed his guile in front of his peers.  Case closed.  

Make no mistake.  I felt bad for Jonathan.  I still feel badly for him.  He had the weight of sin upon him and any of us who know the heaviness of sin (which is a terrible choice we freely make against a holy God), knows the pain of brokenness we have when we carry our private shame.  We all know that "but for the grace of God go we".  We know that Jonathan is hurting, all the more, because of Azaraiah's "outing".  Yet, Jonathan knew this day was approaching.  He said he'd been thinking about telling everyone.  Exactly what Jonathan was going to reveal to everyone, we don't know.  And I don't care.  It doesn't matter because he didn't mean for me to know what we know or how we know it, and when we knew it. But now that we do, he is sorry.  For something-- what, we still do not know.  Certainly not for deceiving the brethren; it wasn't mentioned.  Now everyone tells Jonathan how courageous he is for sharing his forced confession and explaining away Azariah's claims.

Not so with the author and journalist who first reported it.  No.  Peter is dirt.  Lower than dirt.  He is the worm in a sewer.  Funny how one man's choice is barely gray among peers while another man's choice is so clearly black among the same peers.

It is perfectly acceptable to not only block Peter's site, without even a courtesy email to let him know why, then plop a post on the screen with a silly-faced boy and a "yanh, yanh, yanh" attitude pictured as, what appears to me to be, another in-your-face slap across the Georgia bad boy's cheek.  That's okay.  Why? I am not sure.  Perhaps because Peter is just a "sidenote in Baptist conversation".  He's not a nationally known writer.  He's not a prominent "respected Christian voice" in SBC heirarchy.

But hey, now, Peter has been "welcomed back" into the fold where he was once banned for daring to write a verifiable post.  A post over which a group of people have appointed themselves jury and judge and pronounced him evil in the sight of God and man.  I ask myself: Is their condemnation any more acceptable than Peter's alleged gossip and indiscretion?  Is Peter's alleged sin any more sinful than deceiving the brethren?  Is Peter's punishment any greater than the zero commentary or open comment section about another brother who has lived a lie and publically condemned and criticized his brethren regarding homosexuality? for addressing said sin in the pulpits of America?  Is Southworth a greater sinner for admitting he is openly gay and wanting Jonathan to be honest?  Does the righteousness of holy commenters (most of whom are pastors) exceed that of Peter who did not once condemn Jonathan in his original article?

Jonathan's accuser, Azariah Southworth was set to prove his account with evidence if people did not believe him.  Texts?  Photos?  Who knows what?  Had Peter not written about this, Jonathan might still be flying under the radar until Azariah unleashed "the rest of the story" with far greater embarassment.  Or maybe today, Peter would not be facing the firing squad of public criticism if he had not chosen to highlight the hypocrisy of another SBC leader in connection with Jonathan's story and admonishment of another alleged fallen Christian...entire story/link.

To me, this whole debacle seems to be an odd set of double standards.  It's so glaring I can barely see the connective sinews.  Perhaps a commenter on Peter's blog best explains the oddity used in reporting opinions of unseemly and sinful behavior of the "weird cousin from Georgia":

 "Merritt is SBC and trying to build a celeb [celebrity] profile. Schaap was the leader of an IFB [Independent Fundamental Baptist] cult started by Hyles. He is not ours [Southern Baptist] to deal with but we can sure beg people to get out of that cult. And the guy is a bonafide creep. The whole place up there is a huge cult.

The problem is, Schaap's heinous sin does not negate Jonathan Merritt living a lie while in ministry and promoting himself within the SBC with manifestos, public articles, etc. That is the truth the boys do not want to hear so they [Ed Stetzer and SBC Voices] change the subject to marginalize you [Peter] instead.

You are their whipping boy."

I am not privy to the behind the scenes machinations of SBC politics, nor the FBI investigation into Pastor Schaap. However, lately I have witnessed actions and words which repeatedly support the "marginalizing" of certain writers and Southern Baptist "voices" within our convention.  I have witnessed the demonizing and maligning of certain people.  I've seen the perjorative arrows directed at people who do not follow the leader like geese flying in a row. I've watched the way some people are targeted and picked off while others fly on unaware of the danger.  With traveling geese, a leader flies on point, the leader drops back to rest and allows another to lead for a time.  If only we were geese and could understand that the leadership is a chore for us all...not just one person. We all should be washing feet. No one is above reproach. Yet, we are left with the dirt of some feet having more weight than the dirt of others.

If you ask me, which you aren't, but if you were, I think it best if we all took a bit of a rest, and perhaps more than a few should be sent to "time-out". But as far as Peter Lumpkins is concerned?  well, he ain't my "weird cousin from Georgia", he's my brother.  And as far as some Southern Baptists are concerned, Peter is hardly a "side-note to the Baptist conversation" as Tony Kummer concludes.  One blogger, in support of Peter Lumpkins, wrote:

"Peter - Your writings represent the heart of a multitude of silent "SBC Voices" ... majority Southern Baptists who would stand with you on the essentials of your reporting, but yet not engaged in the critical issues at hand (a group which better wake up soon). The movers & shakers in the SBC reformed movement should consider a time out for their youngsters over at that "other" blog, lest they become too visible and lose their momentum by exposing arrogance and agenda.

There weren't any time outs when I acted up as a kid. My folks preferred knock outs and black outs! Keep flushing them out Peter. Truth can never be timed out." Posted by: Max | Aug 07, 2012 at 09:10 AM at SBC Tomorrow

Now, my friends and readers, I pray with all my heart, that we will examine ourselves in light of God's Word.  I pray for Jonathan in his struggle and shame.  I pray he is able to not only forgive himself, but find the path on which to walk that honors the Savior who died to cleanse him from all unrighteousness.  I pray he lives in the power of the Holy Spirit and accepts the offerings of a Father whose mercies are new each day.  I pray that grace be upon him and his family and abound.  I pray that as we point fingers at others we learn quickly that three point back at ourselves.  I do not think God made a mistake in how He constructed the hand of man.  May the gay community find it in their hearts to forgive Jonathan, also. If you think our criticism is harsh, the community which Jonathan has supported is cannibalistic.  May we not be the same.  May we extend the hand of mercy and grace.  May we seek forgiveness for any shred of ambiguity on our part as we encourage and reconcile with our brothers in Christ--no matter how "weird" they seem to us, or how wrong we think they are.  selahV

GOOD WORDS FROM Dave Miller on Sex

A few days ago, I addressed an op which I felt dealt a bit too preachy on "how to address sex" in the pulpits of America (and perhaps beyond).  Dave Miller, editor of SBC Voices, had his own take on the subject and I find his 6 Points far better than Dr. Ed Stetzer's 5 Points.  Perhaps you'll see what I mean here with a portion of Dave's post:

"So, for me, the “how do we address sex in church?” issue is not a theoretical one.  It’s very practical.  I have to do it Sunday.

So, here’s my thoughts on how to handle this hot-potato issue:

1. God made us male and female and called his creation very good.  Sex was made by God as a gift to husbands and wives. We need to remember that.  If I act as if sex is dirty, shameful or disgusting, we insult God’s creation.

2. Sin has, in fact, made sex into something dirty and disgusting for many people, because we have turned from God’s plan, ignored his ways and embraced immorality and impurity. So, I cannot treat sex lightly, or feed into the sexually-charged culture in the way I treat the topic.

3. Some topics deserve to be treated in private, not in public.  If you want to know my opinion about certain practices, ask me in private.  I’m not going to address them here or from the pulpit.  I will address them appropriately, but not publicly.

4. Using sex and sexual topics as a means of attracting a crowd to the church is, to me, a sort of ecclesiological prostitution; what one cult used to call “flirty fishing.”  It is my role to address sexual topics when they come up, but it is not my role to be a sex therapist or to promote sexual activity among my members.  Using a series on sex to promote church attendance just seems crass to me.

5. Thank God my dad taught me verse-by-verse expository preaching.  Pick a book and preach through it.  Then, when a subject comes up, you can just blame the Bible!  I’m not addressing sex on Sunday because I’m a perv, I’m addressing it because I’ve finished chapters 1-4 and now it’s time for chapter 5.  So much is solved by preaching verse-by-verse.

6. Preaching about sex is like walking a tightrope.  This is a real part of real people’s lives and the Word speaks to it directly, apologetically and unashamedly.  I need to do the same.  However, I need to be tactful, respectful, avoid crassness and crudity.  Walking that tightrope is not easy.  Especially when you are my size (and age). (excerpt from Dave Miller, SBC Voices: As the Kerfuffle Turns)

For those of you who rarely take the time to read the comment sections in blogs, I think there is another portion of this "hot potato" conversation worth mentioning which I have copied and pasted for your convenience:

Bill Mac wrote:

I’m going to take a bit of a contrary view here. I think the bible speaks very little about sex, and for the most part the church has done due diligence in teaching about it. Now, the sum total of verses that talk about sex may be dozens, but the messages are few, and simple.

Don’t have sex before you are married.
Get married to someone of the opposite sex.
Have sex only with your spouse.
Enjoy it.
Don’t withhold sex from your spouse.
Don’t lust after people other than your spouse.

Easy peasy.

Has the Christian church really withheld the above? And if not, what’s the problem? If someone is preaching through the books then by all means don’t shy away from the sex verses, but it’s not really that hard. The verses quoted in the article is encapsulated in what I’ve written above.

We don’t need books on sex, and seminars on sex. People know how to have sex. Sometimes they need to be told when and with whom. That message is pretty simple.

14DAVE MILLER REPLIES:

I can see your point, Bill, but I’m not sure I agree. In a culture as sexually sick as ours, I think the need to address things more directly and more biblically increases. Kids in my church come through high school having a certain (unbiblical) set of sexual values drummed into them. They are taught that it is unthinkable hate to question the righteousness of the homosexual lifestyle.

In a culture like that, it is more important to address sexual morals biblically (and perhaps more frequently) than in healthier cultures. I do not think it is advisable to ignore the topic. Not in a culture as sexually charged as ours. That leaves the other side shaping the values of our young people.

TO WHICH I REPLIED:

Dave, I am not sure, perhaps Bill Mac will return and expound, but I don’t think he would at all disagree with what you are saying here. It behooves the church and minister to address the misinformation which you describe. It is extremely important not to water down the word to be politically correct as society is doing in the school systems with the introduction of books like I Have Two Mommies, etc. That is more than appropriate for you. In fact, I think it would also go a long long way for a minister to take the time to address this issue in a closed session with all his youth teachers and leaders who will be the main influence of their young people.

For my part, I am no longer a youth leader, but I did address these issues with the permission of parents in our youth group sessions. Today I address them with my grandchildren and it is a topic we discuss on occasion over dinner when the littlest of these are not present.

I think if all preachers took the approach you share in your six points in your op, then there would be no hunger for the “hype” we see in the man from Seattle and his kind. My greatest concern at this juncture is that by validating his kind, we not only invite greater misuse of the sacred texts of Scripture, but risk the multiplication of his kind of “hype” and sensationalism. And the scariest part of that is, when one thing loses its sensationalistic attraction, the systematic bent to follow is to create a greater Circus and more explicit acts to draw the crowds. selahV

So, there you have another look at the way to approach the "hot potato" subject within the church situation.  I cannot stress any stronger my complete and utter dismay towards my opposition to others within our convention who continue to endorse Mark Driscoll's book, REAL MARRIAGE.  Especially, when one reviewer said he ought to republish it under the title REAL SEX, because that is how it written.

Another prominent Southern Baptist voice offers another review of this book as a result of the "kerfuffle" Mark Driscoll's book and presence at Liberty University caused.  I think it is well-worth taking the time to read and to consider as a warning for all those who would consider using Driscoll's book as a "marital counseling" guide. (And to be clear, this is exactly what happened to some dear young couple I know who have lived a celibate life and are getting pre-marital counseling...this is part of the reason for my own interest and my public outcry). Below is a portion of what Heath Lambert, Assistant Professor of Pastoral Theology, Boyce College, Louisville, Kentucky writes:

"Because I am a professor who teaches many classes on marriage, a pastor who does ministry with many married couples, and a husband who is married, I have a great stake in books on marriage. I am always interested when a book on marriage is released. I am always excited when such a book is written by an influential Christian leader and his wife with the potential to influence massive numbers of people.

I really wanted Real Marriage to be a helpful book and was concerned when I began hearing that many of the reviews on the book were negative. I was even more concerned when I found, after reading the book myself as well as a number of the reviews, that many of these negative reviews were far too favorable of the book. In fact, I was sad when upon completing the book it was clear that this book is a dangerous and troubling one that will cause confusion and difficulty in many marriages.

It is not as though there is nothing of any value in the book. The problem is that the good elements of the book are so frequently obscured and/or contradicted by very many bad elements of the book. The mingling of these helpful things with a lot of bad things are what I refer to as the ironies of Real Marriage." Excerpt from The Ironies of Real Marriage A Review of Mark Driscoll, Real Marriage: The Truth about Sex, Friendship, and Life Together. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012.

I do hope this offers another, less "hyped" and greater-balanced, perspective into what has become an extremely volatile discussion and debate among Southern Baptists today.  If not, it is not for lack of trying to walk Dave Miller's "tightrope" in my sweatpants and "Ask-About-My-Grandchildren" tee-shirt. selahV

RELATED POSTS ON MARK DRISCOLL "KERFUFFLES":

Hariette Petersen on: Redefining Sin, Discernment, Admonishment, and Exhortation

Peter Lumpkins on: Mark Driscoll responds to Peter Lumpkins

I ABHOR CONTROVERSY BUT

...BETTER CONTROVERSY THAN SURRENDER.

It is easy to sit behind a monitor, read the Word of God disseminated and dumb-downed and shout at the monitor, as if the writer who typed and posed information on the other side could actually hear our wails of protest.  We breathe out our threatenings and purge ourselves of righteous indignation we have for those who bring garbage into the sanctuary of God's forum of hearts, and who make a mockery of His holiness, purity and righteousness.  It is easy to do that in anonymity, behind closed doors, without a shred of proof that we take a stand where we stand.  It is easy to enjoy the comfort of a swim in lukewarm streams of blissful ignorance.  It is easy to wear sunglasses to deflect the glare of monitor enlightenment, and curb flashback blindness.

It is easy to forget all about controversy.  Let the rest of the world deal with it.  Let Peter, James, and John.  Let Tom, Dick, and Harry.  Let Lydia, Mary, and "Angelica".  Yeah...it's easy. 

It's easy to enter the fellowship hall of Believers and sit idly by watching mega-screens project up-close-and-personal scenes and replays of vehicles bumping tail-ends, nudging side-fenders, then crashing and flipping, burning and maiming any chance of God's drivers to stand and deliver His Word to the masses.

It's easy to cheer on our heroes and leave our seats, feeling defeated, when they lose their battle for first place.  No one sees our heads hanging down below our lapels, or our smiling faces in crest-fallen disappointment at the failure of heroes to champion our causes.  It is easy to sit and say nothing.

It is easy to avoid controversy and let others fight the battles that win the war and claim victory for the King.  We cheered.  We prayed.  We applauded and lauded from afar.  We knew they could do it.  We knew.  Why soil our hands?  Why get involved in something we neither understand nor consider a threat to our little world, behind our little monitor screen?  Why risk rejection, exclusion, and undiluted distortions of our integrity from our peers?  Why "choose this day whom I will serve"?  Why be a watchman at the door?

After all, the controversy is something I abhor.  Isn't it?

Or is it exposure I abhor?  Exposure?  Yes...of my own faithless position?  my own weak spirit?  my own inadequacies to articulate?  my own ignorance?  my own skeletons hanging in backroom closets?  my own position to protect?  my own battlefront to hold?  my own resume to censor? my own timidity?

Yes...I abhor controversy.  But sometimes...just sometimes, the ring is where I need to stand.  the center line of the race.  Why must we always be the puff or smoke leftover from in the bang of the starter's gun?

Should we not be a bullet on occasion?  Should we not start our engines and join the race?  I do not know the answer for others.  But...I do know the answer for me.

There are podiums in life, behind which I cannot stand.  There are theological streams too deep for me to balance myself within the currents and contend.  There are times when all I can do is close my prayer-closet doors, and lift my brothers and sisters in Christ before the throne of His mercy and grace.  However, there are times they need a cheerleader to get the fire started beneath the seats of those sitting on the benches.  Sometimes it is my responsibility when God so leads me to jump up, do back flips, and shout to the top of my lungs.

Go team; go!  We need to back the pro!

Go team; go!  People need to know!

Go team; go!  The vision needs to grow!

Go team; go!  This time we need to show,

Some people will say, "NO!"

Go team, go!

It behooves all women who believe in Biblical submission, and the phrase for which it is defined: "as unto the Lord", to take an in-depth look at the marital teachings of one, Mark Driscoll as written and exposed in his book, REAL MARRIAGE.  His misogynistic views of women are astounding.  Yet, men in high places find little to no fault in his instructions to women and empowerment to men.  Recently a Christian college, which defines itself as one which is "training champions for Christ", has come under fire for inviting a man from another "network" of faith to teach and usher in a new wave of thinking, and his misinterpretation of the Song of Solomon, to idealistic young people who have yet to have all the brain-power necessary to discern various logic and reason applications to life.  Champions like Tim Guthrie are coming to the ring of fire with his sword drawn.

Mark Driscoll, teaches by vision, counsels by what he describes as a "television screen" from God with pictures of all kinds of pornographic abuse and physical disgust.  He uses his visions to help guide young women to go back and bend down and do far more than wash the toes on their husbands' feet, in the name of Christ and for His glory.  Driscoll has his submissive wife, Grace, to share, and make public, her past indiscretions and sin to add flavor and impetus to his grand and glorious wisdom of marital bliss in the bedroom.  He is making thousands, if not millions of dollars, on his book tour around the country.  From "The View" to the various news outlets.  And now, if you live in Lynchburg, Virginia, he is coming to a theatre near you, for 35.00 a pop.  At the request and formal invitation of Johnnie Moore and the oversight of Jerry Falwell, Jr., on April 20th, Liberty University is turning over the microphone to, and providing the platform for Mark Driscoll to share his book and views with young Christian ladies and gentlemen under their watchcare.

I am appalled. I am disgusted.  I am a woman who finds Mark Driscoll's views on sodomy beyond the pale of filth and debauchery.  I am a woman who joins Tim Guthrie in his estimations.  Liberty's own approved invitation to this one man, does far more damage to the credibilty of Liberty University than any blogger's intent to relate what he understands as the truth of trustees who allegedly voted in secrecy that Driscoll is unwelcome--and trustees who also enjoy anonymity for protection of their privacy, and their loyalty (or not) to the school--(one not run or controlled by Southern Baptist but associated to SBC).

BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Liberty University (a school known for its fundamentalist views of Christian faith), has already done damage to their own good name by inviting a man who is propagandizing his unorthodox sexual preferences to a body of believers who are peer-pressured into sitting through his diatribe of "seeing things"  I see things too.  But it isn't on a magic television screen.  And if folks don't wake up and clean the gunk out of their eyes soon, the institutions we have with time-honored fidelity to the Word of God will be no more.  No more.

Poll the trustees...ask them to share how they voted.  Was it unanimous or was it one abstaining?  You don't have to name names or have them all come out to the public microphone.  Just give us the details of the vote on Driscoll's coming.  Was it just discussion?  Was it flap-doodle over cups of green-tea and honey?  Was the meeting even a meeting?  Were they just having pizza in the lobby?  Facts Liberty, give us some facts.  If Peter Lumpkins was informed improperly, spoke out of turn, and without your consent, then whoever told him what they did, is either mistaken over the vote and what went on, is lying to get Peter to write about it so as to discredit him, or is himself or herself being set up to find the "mole" beneath the foundation of LU's private sessions regarding this matter.

Any way we look at this, it wreaks of guile.  I prayerfully hope that the matter is resolved with sunlight...not just behind shaded windows to obscure the outcome, and bolted doors braced to withstand the controversy we all abhor and find distasteful to discuss.

I hate controversy.  I abhor controversy, BUT...better controversy than surrender to things which we find contrary to the fundamental truth of God's purity and righteousness.  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.]