The resolution failed
It amazes me how quickly information flows in the blogosphere. It has only been two hours since the resolutions committee made their report to the convention and already many readers of this blog know almost as much about it as I do...and I was there (a special thanks to all those live bloggers and commenters who kept folks informed!). So, in blogotime, this is like yesterday's news, but here is what happened this morning with my resolution on Integrity in Church Membership.
I learned as I was waiting to board a bus at my hotel to take me to the convention center that the published report of the resolutions committee showed that they declined to recommend my resolution to the convention. Bylaw 20 states a properly submitted resolution that the committee rejects can nevertheless be considered by the convention if 2/3 of those voting agree. So, I went to microphone #1 and asked for a point of order. President Bobby Welch recognized me and very kindly asked me if I would wait until the committee had finished the first part of their report. Once that was done, he returned to my concern and asked about my point of order.
I asked how and when I could follow Bylaw 20 in an attempt to get my resolution before the convention. Dr. Welch explained the procedure and allowed me to read my resolution from the floor. After the resolution was read, he asked Tommy French, the chairman of the committee to explain why they did not recommend my resolution to the convention. I do not want to misquote him, but others who have commented here have it right, as far as I can remember. I will check the video record and correct any mistakes or misrepresentations that I may inadvertently make in this account.
Basically, Dr. French (who is a very nice man and treated me and my concerns with real respect) said while the committee shares my concerns they concluded that the figures that I cited could not be verified and that besides that we don't want to throw out all those members who don't attend because they are some of our best prospects for evangelism.
I must admit, I was incredulous at what he said, but in all fairness to him, I doubt that Dr. French would try to defend that position if we could sit down and talk about it. I hope he simply mispoke. Perhaps he was caught off guard by attempt to get the resolution before the SBC, although I have publicly blogged that I would do that and informed two members of the resolutions committee that this was my intent. Nevertheless, he did make these statements and on the basis of his statements considerably less than 2/3 of those gathered voted to consider the resolution. I turned and looked at the raised hand vote and would guess that 75% voted not to consider the resolution. For accuracy's sake it is important to note that the convention did not vote down the resolution, they voted not to consider it.
What is my take on all this? Well, I am disappointed that the committee did not bring it out for debate. I think the discussion could have been very healthy. I am disappointed that our inactive members were identified as legitimate because of they are such good prospects for evangelism. That certainly gives a whole new definition to "prospective church member!"
On the positive side, I am very grateful to God that I was allowed to read the resolution before the whole convention. I appreciate Dr. Welch and the parliamentarians for allowing me to do so. I am grateful that 25% of the people wanted to have the resolution debated. And I am very grateful for all of the encouraging conversations--mostly with younger pastors--after the failed attempt. This is a conversation that Southern Baptists need to have. I believe that it is inevitable that we will have it.
Two young pastors who approached me shortly after the vote expressed their deep concern and disillusionment with the SBC in light of what they had just witnessed. Here is what I said to try to encourage them. In a war, if you want to do the most good you must ride toward the sounds of the gunfire. The revelation of how bad things are, while sad, must not deter us from our commitment to reformation. Rather, it should call us to feel the burden all the greater.
I have long contended that many of the doctrinal and spiritual problems that we have in the SBC are deep and systemic. It does not do us any good to pretend that things are better than they are. It is painful and at times disheartening to be confronted with the depth of our problems, but honesty is necessary for an accurate diagnosis. And an accurate diagnosis is absolutely critical for any prospect of getting real help.
So, overall, I am very encouraged. Thanks very much for your prayers and encouraging words. I think the Lord was glorified in the effort. At the end of the day, that is all that really matters.
I learned as I was waiting to board a bus at my hotel to take me to the convention center that the published report of the resolutions committee showed that they declined to recommend my resolution to the convention. Bylaw 20 states a properly submitted resolution that the committee rejects can nevertheless be considered by the convention if 2/3 of those voting agree. So, I went to microphone #1 and asked for a point of order. President Bobby Welch recognized me and very kindly asked me if I would wait until the committee had finished the first part of their report. Once that was done, he returned to my concern and asked about my point of order.
I asked how and when I could follow Bylaw 20 in an attempt to get my resolution before the convention. Dr. Welch explained the procedure and allowed me to read my resolution from the floor. After the resolution was read, he asked Tommy French, the chairman of the committee to explain why they did not recommend my resolution to the convention. I do not want to misquote him, but others who have commented here have it right, as far as I can remember. I will check the video record and correct any mistakes or misrepresentations that I may inadvertently make in this account.
Basically, Dr. French (who is a very nice man and treated me and my concerns with real respect) said while the committee shares my concerns they concluded that the figures that I cited could not be verified and that besides that we don't want to throw out all those members who don't attend because they are some of our best prospects for evangelism.
I must admit, I was incredulous at what he said, but in all fairness to him, I doubt that Dr. French would try to defend that position if we could sit down and talk about it. I hope he simply mispoke. Perhaps he was caught off guard by attempt to get the resolution before the SBC, although I have publicly blogged that I would do that and informed two members of the resolutions committee that this was my intent. Nevertheless, he did make these statements and on the basis of his statements considerably less than 2/3 of those gathered voted to consider the resolution. I turned and looked at the raised hand vote and would guess that 75% voted not to consider the resolution. For accuracy's sake it is important to note that the convention did not vote down the resolution, they voted not to consider it.
What is my take on all this? Well, I am disappointed that the committee did not bring it out for debate. I think the discussion could have been very healthy. I am disappointed that our inactive members were identified as legitimate because of they are such good prospects for evangelism. That certainly gives a whole new definition to "prospective church member!"
On the positive side, I am very grateful to God that I was allowed to read the resolution before the whole convention. I appreciate Dr. Welch and the parliamentarians for allowing me to do so. I am grateful that 25% of the people wanted to have the resolution debated. And I am very grateful for all of the encouraging conversations--mostly with younger pastors--after the failed attempt. This is a conversation that Southern Baptists need to have. I believe that it is inevitable that we will have it.
Two young pastors who approached me shortly after the vote expressed their deep concern and disillusionment with the SBC in light of what they had just witnessed. Here is what I said to try to encourage them. In a war, if you want to do the most good you must ride toward the sounds of the gunfire. The revelation of how bad things are, while sad, must not deter us from our commitment to reformation. Rather, it should call us to feel the burden all the greater.
I have long contended that many of the doctrinal and spiritual problems that we have in the SBC are deep and systemic. It does not do us any good to pretend that things are better than they are. It is painful and at times disheartening to be confronted with the depth of our problems, but honesty is necessary for an accurate diagnosis. And an accurate diagnosis is absolutely critical for any prospect of getting real help.
So, overall, I am very encouraged. Thanks very much for your prayers and encouraging words. I think the Lord was glorified in the effort. At the end of the day, that is all that really matters.
posted by Tom at 6/14/2006 11:30:00 AM
114 Comments:
Regarding Brother Tom's resolution,
"And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?' He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them." (Matthew 13:27-29)
Tom,
This is an important issue and we will be well served if you and others continue pressing on this matter. The truth is ALWAYS worth fighting for.
Charles:
Thanks for the Scripture reference. Keep reading. Jesus is not talking about the church, but the world!
Your misreading of this passage may help explain the mess we are in.
Matthew 13:36-43
Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”
He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age.The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
Tom,
You have a second here! Charles read the text!
Tom,
I have been impressed with your (God given) desire and tenacity to see us (SBC) hold to the truth of the word of God. I sure hope Mr. French mispoke, or this is REALLY bad.
Thank you for your service. Men like you and many others have been given platforms with varying degrees of notoriety by God. Thank you for being obedient, and that with a zeal for Him that is evident.
I wish I had known you were going to get to read your resolution thingy on the floor. I'd have turned on the streaming video online. Oh well. Love you and can't wait to see you mañana!! :-)
Becca
I think the underlying issue we have here with the rejection of Tom's resolution and the reason given for rejection is this:
We've made evangelism into an IDOL.
No matter what it takes, no matter what Commandment we violate, we MUST evangelize! Never mind the theology behind what evangelism should be, never mind the fact that we're being dishonest, never mind that conversion is God's work, let's focus on the "work of evangelism!"
Well, that's wrong. Why is it wrong? The reason is that we've chosen to focus on a work that God has given us to do rather than the GOD Who gave us the work to do by His grace!
Yes, we must share Christ, and do so joyfully, but real evangelism doens't begin with demands that we do it more, and it is NOT an end within itself.
I plan to blog on this later on today or tomorrow so I don't take up Tom's comments section with more off-topic remarks, but I did want to say this:
Dr. Tom, you are an inspiration to us all with your Christ-like attitude and showing of patience. I often find myself rebuked when I see your lowly, humble, Christ-like attitude.
Persevere, my brother.
For the Honor of Jesus,
David B. Hewitt
Charles, we really want top be your friends. And you never fail to astonish us. Thanks for being more Puritan than us reformed Southern Baptists.
Anti-Calvinistic Baptists are always pointing out that the Puritans persecuted the Baptists, as if we reformed Baptists were Puritans and as if the Baptists the Puritans persecuted were not fellow-Calvinists. Where the Puritans and the Baptists in New England did disagree was on the theology of the church. Specifically the Puritans used the passage you cited to defend the idea that everyone should be in the church (The Lord's field), regenerate or not. The true church was defined by the preaching of the Gospel and the right administration of baptism and the Lord's Supper, not by membership; therefore there could (and should) be a state church composed of both saved and lost. Roger Williams demurred, saying that "the field" where the devil sowed was not the church but the world, and that the parable was Jesus' express teaching against his disciples attempting to seize power in this world, that state churches and persecution were abominations, and that this parable had nothing to do with the church, which should be composed of those who give evidence of being born again. The Puritans kicked the Baptists out and harrassed them for years - not because of "Calvinism", on which they agreed, but because of the Baptist insistence that church members should actually be saved.
Not so BTW, it is no mystery whether the field in Matthew 13 is the church or the world. See verse 38a. It's what we call a dominical saying, meaning that in your red letter Bible, it's in red.
As far as the practical question is concerned, inactive church members do not make good evangelistic prospects. They have been assured that they are "always saved." As one said in a conversation I heard second hand, "I'm not coming back, but that's my church, and don't you dare take me off the rolls."
Tom, Thanks so much for your faithful effort. You embolden us all.
Tom,
I signed in late this morning to watch the live webfeed, but I caught your presentation--excellent! Praise the Lord. Our mutual N. GA friend Ray encouraged me not to give up on the SBC after the events that followed your resolution (I also saw your statement about wine--which was also wonderfully put). The response of our Convention was sad. What about gluttony? Should we amend the resolution to forbid anyone 5 pounds overweight from serving in SBC leadership? That would get an interesting response! And wine is not a sin (and gluttony is)! While much reform has occured, there is A LONG WAY TO GO.
Tom,
Do you remember what Dr. French said? One of the reasons why this was not a good idea is that if we purge non-attending members from the rolls, we would be losing great propects for evangelism. I couldn't believe this. To gain membership in a Baptist church (at least in my church), one must have made a profession of faith and be baptized by immersion (by letter, statement, etc). If they're evangelism prospects, why were they members to begin with? His comment cuts to the heart of the unregenerate membership issue.
I wanted to run to the mic and remind him that one could be removed from a membership roll and still be an evangelism prospect.
church members prospects for evangelism?
what an oxymoron.
at least Dr. French gave a good biblical explanation:)
Two weeks ago my pastor stated at the end of his sermon that he is struggling with the idea of purging (for lack of a better word) our church membership rolls. I told him that I fully support him in this - it needs to be done everywhere!
I, for one, really hate the term "prospects." It sounds like we're buying real estate or something.
Tom:
If at first you do not succeed, try and try again!
But in many SBC churches the non-attending, non-participating members aka "evangelistic prospects" (according to the TIMID resolutions committee) GREATLY outnumber the Christians!!!!!
Maybe there is a better word than TIMID.
RE: Charles
If this is the Charles who is the clone of Bob Ross of Houston, the publisher of all the POWERFUL Biblical sermons by Charles Haddon Spurgeon -
It is not the first time Charles has failed to correctly interpret a passage in the Bible.
We can pray it will be his last.
Charles problem isn't that he hasn't read the text, but that he has a problem with eisegesis (you know, "those who have eyes to see...")! #:>)
Your problem Charles (having been to your blog), is pulling texts out of context, for your pretext, to wrap around your doctrinal presuppositions. HEY...if you love Christ and His word...STOP THAT! Instead, be a "workman" who rightly divides the word of truth so that you will have no need to be ashamed before Him.
Tom,
I support the resolution fully. I hope that you will present it for consideration again next year. I think that more support might have been given in voting to allow the resolution to come before the convention if you had been allowed to speak for the resolution after the other gentleman spoke against it. His statements could easily have been countered.
An additional statement in the resolution calling for continued ministry and evangelism to those whose named are removed from our church rolls through the disciplinary process might also help to disarm the critics and enable others to see that the goal of discipline is not punitive but restorative in nature.
Pastor Tom,
Please submit that resolution every year until it is considered, and then continue until it passes. Next year, I will save my vacation to go and vote for this in whatever form it is presented.
Dr. French serves in the same association as I do. As soon as I can see the video, and I am going to prepare a letter to express my dismay at this decision not to present this resolution.
David Hewitt,
You nailed it ! Evangelism has become an idol. Everyone neads to read Dr. Roy Hargraves little book called An Idol Called Evengelism. Roy pastors Riverbend Community Church (SBC) in Ormond Beach, Fla. The church number is 386 672-1821 or www.riverbendchurch.com .
I enjoy reading all of your posts. My name is James and I'm new to this whole blogging thing. I'm very grateful for all of you hard work. Thanks!
In all fairness, many evangelists would agree that many of the "faithful attenders" on our SBC rolls are good prospects for evangelism... afterall, why do we hire evangelists to come do "revival" meetings if we don't believe that?
Jeff,
Good point however I thought that a " Revival" was supposed to be for the saints but it has turned into " Evangelism of Church Members". Dr. Bailey Smith always has good stories to tell about how he was " I was down in Texas around the home of the Texas AM folks and I preached the Wheat and Tares and I had the Pastors wife saved, three deacons, WMU Director, and the song leader". Again, what do his stories say about the type of members that we have?
By the way those Texas AM folks need some type of serious "Revival". Have you seen that Football team lately. You can find one team that has had "Revival" down at the Plains in Auburn, Alabama( War Eagle)!
I think we ought to at least have considered it and had it talked out.
If the only basis for not doing it is simply that we use our membership roll as an evangelism tool... then that's no objection at all. There's no substance to that argument.
It was a good effort Tom. I wish the SBC were filled with more people that not only have a geniune concern for these matters, but also the desire to spend more time in thought and discussion on them.
I have said from the beginning that I did not believe that this would make it out of committee and that it would not be able to get a 2/3's vote to put it on the floor. I hoped that it would but was sure that it wouldn't. I am not dissilussioned with the SBC, we must remember that fixing the problems of bloated church rolls is a local church matter.
Tom,
Aren't your figures derived from the ACPs? Don't the powers that be cite such figures rather liberally when they support the arguments they want to make? Am I missing something here?
Tom,
I just got word that the resolution failed. Like many others, I feel a deep sense of disappointment, especially since they can move for resolutions on alcohol but not the integrity of the church.
Thank you for all the hard work you have put into this. The number of men and ministers behind you, praying for you, and supporting you are more than you know. You are correct that we must focus on the continuing reformation. We are just beginning, and by God's grace, we will continue to work to see real reform take place in the SBC. God bless you, brother, for having such a passion for Christ's Church and the men of whom God has called to care for it.
I was deeply saddened by this too. I thought we believed in regenerate church membership... Dave Hewitt is right about the "idol called evangelism." Over and over again in listening to the pastors conference/annual meeting, I heard the the statement that nothing else matters besides evangelism. It reminds me of the old saying that Arminianism is "all door and no house."
Pastor Ted Christman of Heritage Baptist Owensboro preached a sermon not to long ago at my church on how the Great Commandment always comes before the Great Commission and not the other way around. This is in stark contrast to the many calls to "engage yourself in evangelism first and then all else will fall into place" that were heard in Greensboro.
I agree that Dr. Ascol should bring this up again at the next meeting. Although I think that it would be great to bring up the Scriptural reasons for the resolution to the convention floor, my fear is that even then it might be rejected. I was amazed that the alcohol resolution passed, even with all the Scripture cited against it. The only Scripture cited on the other side was "abstain from all appearance of evil" (KJV) which reads "every form (or appearance) of evil" in the NASB. Even the NKJV uses "every form of evil."
Scott,
You said it well brother. There has been a revival on the Plains. I can really trust a man who not only holds to right theology but also has his heart right about college football. War Eagle!
Secondly, I echo what Ben said. It seems awfully arrogant to stand before a crowd and say that man's statistics are wrong without giving any evidence as to how you arrived at that idea.
As a newly Reformed pastor, I am becoming more and more convinced that the reason it is so hard to get a hearing on these issues (Reformed Theology, church discipline, bloated statistics, etc.) is because there is no legitimate argument against them. It is much easier to brush away the evidence with generalities than to face the hard truth of facts.
Tom,
Thank you so much for your resolution and for the courage to stand behind it.
I continue to pray for the SBC but I must admit...I am very disappointed by what I have seen take place at this year's Convention.
Tom,
Thanks for your efforts in preparing and presenting this resolution. I agree that it should be re-presented each year. Thanks for all your work for the kingdom! It was nice to see you at the Southern booth on Monday!
Blessings,
Steve
...and one of these days I hope to be blessed with a Tom Ascol sighting. :)
SDG,
David Hewitt
I think the real idol is Sunday School. Once a great evangelistic tool, the Sunday School has become nothing more than a Bible club, or dare I say "clique" in many cases. Our strategy of Sunday School is not all that different from the "strategy" of the emergent church, that "community presedes confession." Therefore, we never remove anyone from the roles of Sunday School, as they are prospects. In other words, never give up on anyone, but keep on evangelizing and sharing with them. This strategy has become the error of the church, which now believes that we never remove anyone from the church roles, because, as Bro French's comments have betrayed, they are now viewed as "prospects." With a president like Bobby Welch, the author of the FAITH strategy, it is no surprise that they don't get it! Church membership is based on regeneration, baptism, and a covenant relationship. Sunday School is based on no such conditions. We need to rediscover, and redefine these differences, and tear down the Sunday School idol.
By the way, I am no more opposed to Sunday School, than the previous poster was opposed to evangelism. Just the idolitry and the errant methodology of it all.
God bless, Tom. Keep up the fight.
It's not going to be easy, or quick.
"And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?' He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them." (Matthew 13:27-29)
I take it you affirm an unregenerate church membership. How ironic, for aren't you and your cohort on your website deriding us over here for alleged Presbyterians? If actual church members are to be considered prospects for evangelism, pray tell what is the difference between a regenerate and unregenerate church membership? You claim to be a Baptist, but you appear to be a closet Paedobaptist.
I agree with the others here: RESUBMIT IT EVERY YEAR UNTIL IT IS PASSED.
By the way, Brother Tom, get Wiley Drake in your corner on this. He's quite a character and has no problem telling people like it is about things like this.
I'd like to peg onto the Sunday School comment above...This is an odd issue for churches, because they often keep 2 rolls: membership and Sunday School. Sometimes they are blended. I was once in a church with 900 members, 600 in Sunday School, and 300 attended both any given Sunday. You are right, we need to test all our traditions and redo them. I'm all for Sunday School. In fact, my home church, Calvary Baptist in Winston-Salem was built on Sunday School and expository preaching, but I am not for conflating what we do with Sunday School rolls and membership rolls.
To quote Scripture Searcher: Persevere!
The rest of what I have to say is here: http://strangebaptistfire.com/2006/06/14/closet-paedobaptists-in-the-sbc
/#more-54
Thanks so much for all the encouragement and kind words. One of the joys that I have experienced the last two days is personally meeting so many new friends that I had previously known only via the internet. The conversations have been great and fellowship sweet.
I do plan to present this resolution again next year. Brother Wiley Drake encouraged me to just "stay with it" after the vote failed. As so many of you have pointed out, I think that is good advice.
And James...welcome!
Tom, Hello!
Thank you for your comment.
I hope to respond in a day or two.
Life is good. Hope you are well.
Charles
Will Dr. French be on the committee next year?
Tom, could you arrange to meet with him personally and discuss his comment? Like you, I sure hope he misspoke. It is possible.
If that is not feasible, perhaps each of us should write him a cordial, but well-thought out letter explaining our concern.
I appreciate your patience.
After listening to Edwin Young's message on "Sidestreets" on streaming video this morning, I would think that he might support your cause. He severely criticized the statistics and mocked the 16 million figure widely used. He said something about there being 10 million Southern Baptists that the FBI can't find.
Couldn't someone like Edwin Young help on accurate membership numbers?
While on the church discipline side he may not be willing to help (but maybe), I do know that he enlisted his staff and many lay people to call and in many cases visit EVERYONE on the rolls in 1998 and again in 2005. From what I heard, I believe they cleaned up those unwieldy rolls a good bit.
I realize Edwin Young in some respects is an unlikely ally for Founders.org folks, but in some ways I think he would be simpatico. He's a fair guy and a bright guy and he genuinely cares (a lot) about people coming to know Jesus. It's worth trying to enlist him when you renew this effort.
Tom,
I just became acquainted with your blog a few days ago. You present some very thought provoking things.
Your resolution was especially interesting. I too have come under conviction - as a SBC pastor for 13 years - about the way we inflate membership.
To me it's nothing short of lying to throw around this figure of 16 million members when you couldn't find that many Southern Baptists together on any given Sunday if you counted every person sitting in a SBC pew twice!
Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for inflating figures in the local church. Is this any different?
You didn't realize it, or maybe you did, but your resolution endangered a sacred cow in the convention. I've been a Southern Baptist all my life, and a Southern-rural-grass-roots one at that. We were taught early on that our membership and the sacred "church letter" that went with it were not to be tampered with.
Speaking of church letters... that's another practice that needs to be addressed in the convention. Some folks seem to think that deep within the bowels of every SBC church there is a vault. In that vault are kept the "letters" of every church member, and when Jesus comes back He'll dispatch angels to gather them from the four corners of the earth. These letters will be taken to heaven whereby we can claim membership in the New Jerusalem.
I have lost count of the number of times we have had request for church letters from the same ones who are on our rolls but have not seen in years. The implication in sending a church letter is that the person requesting it moved is a member in good standing. Ha!
One reason why your resolution was shot down might be the furor the committee knew it would cause in the grass roots churches. Just ask any pastor what happened when he attempted to "cull" the rolls. People who have not attended or tithed for twenty years become incensed.
Regardless, the issue is going to have to be faced one day. Thanks for trying.
Oh, and one more thing: this Charles guy is an egotistical fellow, isn't he? There's one in every blogosphere.
Brother Tom,
I find it ironic that we, as Southern Baptist, will spend 27 years in a "conservative resurgence" to ensure that our seminaries are populated by professors who teach and preach the "innerancy and infallibility" of God's Holy Word, but will tolerate BLANTANT LIES about the number of folks who populate our congregations.
Do you think that Southern Baptist Pastors would be in an uproar if the same SBC folks who are in charge of maintaining SBC membership data were in charge of the Pastors retirement fund.
This situation will have consequences. During the One Thousand Year reign of Christ here on earth, Southern Baptist will not be allowed to work in any accounting departments or jobs requiring accurate counts.
VI. The Church
A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. . .
Maybe we can ammend the BF&M with a footnote. "A church is also made up of all those we hope to evangelize by sending them the church newsletter."
Just a thought,
I was not there and have not viewed any video of the Con. But I did go to NOBTS and served in Baton Rouge during the Katrina recovery so I have been around Tommy French a few times. I do not know him although I have met him. I could believe that he was trying to make a joke by poking fun at one of our (SBC) weak spots. Tommy can be alittle more stiff at the podium than is in conversation. Just a thought.
Perry
Perry,
Brother, I appreciate your comment, but I was there, and in the tone of his response, there is no way this was intended as humor. It was clearly intended as justification for th committee's refusal of the resolution.
Roy Hargrave wrote a little pamphlet called 'An Idol Called Evangelism' that I got at the Founder's Conference last year. It's a good perspective on the SBC.
Anyone know how I would get a copy of that little pamphlet Dr. Hargrave wrote?
SDG,
Dave
I think the resolution is a great idea and thanks for being bold enough to present it. The sacred cow comment cracked me up. I sat here thinking "Someone popped a gasket over that one." Keep knocking brothers, that door'll fall down eventually!
Part of the problems seems to be the old "We ain't never done it that way before" syndrome. But I'm really convicted the roots of it are in a serious misunderstanding about how folks are saved. Active members take a "You never know," attitude about whether or not someone is lost or "Who are we to judge?" Which of course makes sense if YOU get to chose whether or not you're going to heaven.
Not only that, most of the Sunday School strategies that I've seen from, er, Lifeway? The Sunday School Board? Anyway most of them revolve around signing up anyone who walks throught the parking lot, bums passed out out front, and dogs and cats and armadillos if you're far enough South. And anyone who sticks around long enough is likely to get ordained as a deacon--saved or not!
Oh, and I have to add this: How could anyone call the last 27 years "a conservative resurgence" and keep a straight face?
This might be old hat to some here but its a bright new light to me. Thanks all and may the Lord bless and bless...
Josh
Hi Tom,
Thanks for addressing this issue.
We will continue to pray and work for changes that need to come about.
I have seen many changes for the last 50 years in SBC work. Sadly, much of it has been regressive to the work of the Spirit.
Just recently a state association employee brought us up to date on the latest terminology.
When I was a child we used the term, lost sinners, then we used, prospects, for many years. Now, we are told to use, pre-Christians.
Thanks again for helping us keep our focus on Him and His Word.
God Bless You.
jwo
Tom,
You made a valiant effort with the resolution. Take heart; the rising generation of pastors and informed laypeople seem to agree with your assessment of this issue, regardless of where they may shake out on soteriology. These are good and godly concerns, and I am confident that one day Southern Baptists will make the right call on church membership issues. And when we do, we'll sound more like the Baptists who have gone before us.
I assume that the membership of the resolutions committee is published. Maybe a number of pastors and churches ought to write to each one of them to express our disappointment in their lack of support for the resolution.
Also, it seems that a resolution like this is going to require some explanation, documentation, and argumentation to be successful. Should we consider putting together a paper that documents and makes a case for it and provide that document to each of the committee members before the meeting next year?
What do you think about this?
The pastor of the church my wife and I are now attending told me how they visited a member and family which had ceased attending. The member had started attending another church in the area. When asked why they left the member stated he was uncomfortable with the take on "Lordship Salvation" of the church and felt more comfortable with "Free Grace"... (though on further discussion it was evident the member wasn't clear on either concept.)
Regardless, the pastor's response was dead on, "Why didn't you approach the staff of the church with your concerns and allow us to work these issues out together?"
The attitude of church members as well as church staff seem infected with good 'ol American individualism and lack of understanding of Biblcal principles of discipleship, church discipline and simple respect and love for each other.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pastor Brian,
That's what I was afraid of! thanks for the info.
Great job Dr. Ascol!
Perry
David B. Hewitt said...
Anyone know how I would get a copy of that little pamphlet Dr. Hargrave wrote?
I went over to Riverbend's site and here is a link to the sermon http://www.riverbendchurch.com/wma/2004/101704p.wma. Also their media ministry website (reflectionsofgrace.com) stated that the booklet was coming soon. Not sure if this means if it will be free or not.
Also let me say that I have "lurked" here for some time, and I always enjoy reading the reasoned, wise and biblical responses that I see here.
Bloggers,
I talked to Pastor Roy Hargrave today. He is currently finishing the entire book called An Idol Called Evangelism. However you can read what he already has and the church has made a little booklet out of it. Call the church office to get a copy of it 386 672-1821. Pastor Jerry can help you out in getting it or one of the secretarys. It's a great booklet. He nails the problems. You need to get to know Riverbend Community Church( SBC). Some men can't stand the fact that the church is a strong calvinistic SBC church and is the largest in the SBC( Calvinistic). Yes, they practice Church Discipline and they have committed members.I hope this aggravates Pastor Roy ROY HARGRAVE FOR THE NEXT SBC PRESIDENT!
it was more than 75% that voted to not discuss your resolution. it was more like 80 to 85%. everyone saw it for what it was....a hyper..whoops...five point calvinists attempt to get thier viewpoints and preferences on the convention. we all know how five pointers love to kick people out. they seem to want to kick people out of churches rather than win them to the Lord and grow churches. a real badge of honor amongst five pointers seems to be how many you kicked out of church rather than how many you reached and baptized.
Volfan007, I believe that the fact you are allowed to make such ignorant and arrogant statements in this blog proves that Calvinists do not like to "kick people out."
You said...
they seem to want to kick people out of churches rather than win them to the Lord and grow churches
This is simply false. THe truth is that we love to win people to the Lord. We just prefer to do it before we make them members of the baptist organization.
You see, we care more about people actually getting saved and being discipled to lead others to Christ. We care more about that than we do about inflating our membership numbers so that we appear larger and more successful and influential than we are. No, we are not pragmatic about church growth. We are biblical about church membership and church growth.
The resolution was about being biblical, not Reformed, in how we represent our qualifications for church membership.
We do not believe that having your name on a church rollbook or simply being a part of a convention adds anything to being a Christian. We also believe that God grows the church, so there is no extra manmade program or anything else necessary outside of evangelism.
Calvinists may not have mega-churches, and that may disqualify our pastors from being the president of the SBC, but that's not our goal anyway. What we will have is churches full of healthy sheep.
Volfan:
Before I typed this response, I had to stop and pray for God to calm me down -- your statement aroused a good amount of anger in me.
If you continue to construe biblical soteriology (which includes the TULIP doctrines) as unbiblical hyperCalvinism, we cannot stop you. If you continue to say that we do not care about evangelism, we cannot stop you. You will, however, continue to misrepresent what we believe, and purvey little more than falsehood. If you are fine with that, then we cannot stop you.
But may God rebuke you for your error and unteachable spirit.
To the Author of Truth, our Lord Jesus, be the Glory.
DBH
"Integrity in membership" is not peculiar to Biblical (i.e. "Reformed" Christians). In fact, it shouldn't even be peculiar to Christians of any kind. It's just plain and simple honesty. To call someone a "member" who never (or very rarely attends), who doesn't contribute, and who may not even believe in what the organization believes in, is, quite frankly, to lie. Is there even a secular club that so cynically lies to the world in order to keep its statistics looking good? The Lions don't do it. We need to start telling the truth about who is and who is not a member of our church.
five pointer churches will go the way of the primitive baptist churches....die out.
i do believe in church discipline. i try to practice it...in the biblical sense. but, i am not more concerned with kicking someone out of church than i am in trying to win souls and lead them to know the Lord and serve the Lord. most five pointers i have been around seem to "brag" about how thier churches lost so many members.
i too want to see people genuinely converted to Christ...truly saved. but, i didnt see phillip telling the ethiopian eunuch that he had to read the book of romans and go to a new members class before he could get saved...lol.
david hewett...i am not trying to dis you, nor do i hate you. i am simply telling you like it is. i am trying to help you. sometimes i may come across too strong. sorry. but, i do pray that the Lord will bring you out of this tangent to know His glorious truth.
Volfan:
Apology certainly accepted, but what tangent are you referring to?
We don't do evangelism OR discipline OR discipleship, etc. -- we do ALL of them. It's not a matter of being more concerned with "purging the rolls" than with sharing the Gospel, and if I've come across as bragging about trimming people, then may God forgive me. Rather, it is being concerned about something that should have been happening for all along that has been lost, which is why it appears that it is our focus. It is a matter of returning to being biblical in how we do church in ALL areas of it, including the practive of evangelism.
I definitely desire to share the Gospel, though it has very little to do with adding numbers. GOD adds to the numbers. I shall simply go forward with the message through which He will work His miracles, in hopeful prayer that some will be saved in it, by His grace -- and ultimately, if an elect person hears it, someone WILL be saved!
I am also confused as to what you mean by saying "5-pointer" churches will eventually die out. If you mean "hyperCalvinist" churches, then you are right, but it isn't what you said. If you want to know what hyperCalvinism is, then read around to find out more. Otherwise, please stop throwing the label around. Please forgive ME if I sound harsh; I'm just a bit frustrated is all.
There are a lot of "5-point" churches today that are growing by leaps and bounds, and many (if not most) of the preachers of old were "5-pointers" in that they believed in these doctrines and preached the Word of God accordingly: Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, J.P. Boyce, John Dagg, George Whitefield, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, and yes, even the Apostles Paul and John. How is it that preaching according to the Word of God by men who believe these great doctrines leads to dead and dying churches? I simply cannot understand your reasoning; please help me so that I can and we can be mutually edified.
Lastly, you said:
i too want to see people genuinely converted to Christ...truly saved. but, i didnt see phillip telling the ethiopian eunuch that he had to read the book of romans and go to a new members class before he could get saved...lol.
Of course he didn't. However, we aren't talking about making people do that before getting saved. Rather, it is what to do when they claim they are. New member classes are a just that, though this isn't on topic. Anyway, all for now. I've posted too long the way it is. :)
SDG,
David Hewitt
i knew a leading five pointer...a prof....who told a young man who was interested in getting saved to go home and read the book of romans. the young man was saying that he wanted to get saved right then, but the prof. told him to go home and read the book of romans to see if the Lord would convert him or not.
Sounds like a very wise professor.
Dear volfan007,
How is telling someone to go to the Word of God to seek salvation (where the Lord Jesus said one could find it) somehow revealling a lack of concern for evangelism?
And how does lying to people that they are church members (when they don't attend, don't live like Christians, and don't believe what Christians are supposed to believe) somehow helping the cause of evangelism?
We cannot, by our own power, "win souls." The natural person is "dead in sins" and can no more be "won" to life than a corpse can be won to living again. The only way someone can be born again, repent and believe, is by a miracle from God. Since He doesn't do that miracle for everyone (since all are not saved), then he does it for people who He choses to raise from spiritual death.
By the way, ultimately it is Arminianism that leads to a diminishing of evangelism and destroys the life of the church. About 250 years ago John Wesley was convinced that Calvinism would kill evangelism (even though his close friend and great evangelist George Whitefield was a Calvinist). Wesley thought his evangelical Arminianism would better carry the gospel into the future. Does anyone really think that Methodism today is the embodiment of vibrant evangelical faith?
Tom,
I hope one day I will be as holy and spiritual as you.
Sincerely,
Jesus
Morgan, what's that supposed to mean?
Morgan,
Indeed sir, please explain yourself.
DH
Third that.
Dear volfan007,
Hi. Could you please rethink your post of 11:42 am? The Lord Jesus is God. You have taken the liberty of making up a quote, which appears sarcastic, and ascribing it to the Lord Jesus. I sincerely believe that is a violation of the third commandment: against taking the Name of the Lord in vain.
Seems that I've struck a nerve. When it comes to explaining my quote, it seems rather strange to explain a simple, to the point, description of what the heart of God is screaming out. I'll keep from adding too many "Woe to you" statements or making the brood of vipers comparison.
If you can get you nose out of Romans long enough, you can see that Jesus Christ came to this world to reach out to those who were the rejects. For some reason the religious leaders made any possibility of a spiritual life impossible among such individuals. They truly LOVED the fact that they had God all figured out... at least until He came among them. Walked with them. Talked with them. Amazed the people with the simple teachings of God. "When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law." Matthew 7:28-29. Jesus came to the religious leaders, yet they wanted to do nothing but catch him in doctrinal slip up.
Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 25 that it will all be revealed who is a sheep and who is a goat. This will take place at the judgement. You can call this the great purging of the church membership records to come. I think I will leave such a decision in his hands.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dear Morgan Owen,
Please see my 8:15 entry (incorrently addressed to someone else).
I believe you have taken the Lord's Name in vain. You have no right to make up a quote and ascribe it to the Lord Jesus Christ. You should, indeed, leave that to Him.
I believe that Arminianism is inherently human centered and thus frequently (and over enough time inevitably) leads to an irreverance for God. It puts God's entire salvation program at the mercy of sinful human beings.
This is exactly the reason why reformation is needed in the SBC. We need leaders to rise up who will take the bible seriously, and are able to discuss doctrine with maturity and grace.
Morgan,
You clarified your comment as a description of “what the heart of God is screaming out."
Do you believe that God’s heart screamed these particular things to you so that you would reveal them to Tom on the Founders’ blog? I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic, symbolic or straightforward - because that was the 2nd time that you have claimed to utter new revelation from God. I fear that you are ascribing God’s holy name to your own fallible words.
Hmmm... what was the context when Jesus compared the religious leaders to a brood of vipers? It was not (as you suppose) because they rejoiced in knowing their God or because they felt that doctrine was important. The context makes clear that He was referring to their speech.
Let's see what Jesus actually said in context:
"You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. [35] The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. [36] I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, [37] for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." Matthew 12:34-37 ESV
Morgan, you have neither explained nor retracted your earlier comment (which you imply is Christ's). No one quite understands what you meant by your remark; neither have you the courtesy to explain it. Therefore, were those idle words?
You do not need to explain your absurd sacrilegious remarks to anyone on this blog or on this earth. You will give an account to Jesus.
It is ironic that you cited a passage where Jesus literally says that on the Day of Judgment, you will stand before him and explain to Him why you spoke those words on his behalf, signing His name.
Needless to say, I share John's concern about wanton throwing around of the Lord's name and adding fictitious sarcastic remarks to his lips.
"You can call this the great purging of the church membership records to come. I think I will leave such a decision in his hands."
I have never heard of Matt 25 being interpreted as fatalism that way. If we are going to be consistent we need to make this argument also:
"Since Jesus is going to purge the church (and the world) of sin, we should do as we please and leave the final cleansing up to Him"
Andrew, you really don't make sense when you blog at nearly 3am. You probably need to take my advice given to Mr. Hootten and get some rest. ALSO keep from blogging past midnight, it could be hazardous to your spiritual health.
It is obvious that I explained myself in my reply of 9:05pm last night. You just choose to not accept the reasoning. That's fine. Thanks for bringing out even more of what Jesus said to the religious leaders...it just proves my point even more. Appreciate the help.
Dear Morgan,
I don't think we really should discuss anything else with you right now except for your breach of the third commandment in your 11:24 AM post. It is really an extremely serious issue. You simply have no right to ascribe words to the Lord Jesus, especially not in the way you did.
Please think and pray it over. The Lord will not hold anyone blameless who takes His Name vainly.
Morgan, did you know that some people work an evening shift and therefore have bodies that are well-conditioned to be awake at late hours? Of course you knew that. But that did not stop you from rendering judgment upon me.
Judging others thoughts and motives without omniscience dethrones Christ and places us on His throne. This is expressly forbidden of New Testament believers.
Repent, my friend. There is little more I can say until you do so.
Perhaps you will heed your own warning: if you will not repent of your sin "it could be hazardous to your spiritual health."
John the words the prophets ascribed to the Lord were not well received either. Selah
Andrew, so you're not judging me???? In your own words "Judging others thoughts and motives without omniscience dethrones Christ and places us on His throne. This is expressly forbidden of New Testament believers." Selah
oh, so I guess you're not working the evening shift tonight??
Mr. Owen,
Might I suppose that you wear your reading glasses when you post, or perhaps you should enlarge the font settings of your internet browser?
You have misspelled my name twice, and differently each time.
And yes, I work the evening shift. And so in my other post which was written at 12:48AM, I had been home less than an hour, and had just taken a rather delightful and desired hot shower and was sipping on a hot cup of earl grey tea. So I assure you, I was quite awake and evidently more aware of what I was reading that you were.
Andrew was explaining your view of fatalistic church membership. You said...
Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 25 that it will all be revealed who is a sheep and who is a goat. This will take place at the judgement. You can call this the great purging of the church membership records to come. I think I will leave such a decision in his hands.
I believe the main point of the resolution was focusing on integrity in church membership. Did you read the resolution?
Why do we propagate the view that church membership = salvation by allowing people's names to remain on church membership rolls, even though they do not attend the church, and in some cases are not even saved?
I can't even count how many times I have asked a young person if they are a Christian and are involved in church, only to hear them say yes. But upon further discussion, it was often a one-time decision, or in some cases, not even a decision or committment. They only showed up for an event in a children's or youth ministry years prior, and were signed up with no real understanding.
What is wrong with asking churches to contact the invisible members and either restore them to the fellowship or delete their names from the roll? The way I see it, the resolution was practically an evangelistic program!
I realize we would no longer be able to boast of being "16 Million Strong," but isn't it worth giving up a deceitful cliche in order to restore possibly thousands to stronger faith and fellowship in Christ?