Category: SBC

They go together like salt and cinammon. Like sugar and herbs. Like death and weeds.

The role of patriotic expressions in Christian worship services is a serious matter, and involves real and significant pitfalls that any bible-believing congregation should consider. In our Sunday worship should we recite the Pledge of Allegiance? Sing the “Battle Hymn”? The Star-Spangled Banner? Recognize those who have served in the U.S. military? Yet frequently the intramural discussion of these matters is acrimonious, to say the least, and in that infamous description, it tends to “generate more heat than light.”

Recent dust-ups about patriotism in worship demonstrate this trend. After reading three articles (if you dare) that address patriotic ‘worship’, ‘new-Calvinism’, and ostensibly improper use of company letterhead, you will be no clearer on what the connection is between the ‘new-Calvinism’ and patriotic ‘worship.’

Baptist 21 apparently re-published a letter sent by Chip Stam, Professor and Director of the Institute for Christian Worship at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS). The letter advocated against the use of patriotic music and imagery in Christian worship. In response, Howell Scott published a two-part post. In Part 1 Scott lays a ‘foundation’ from which to address Stam’s argument, which he claims to do in Part 2.

Scott is apparently bothered by the ethics of Stam being identified both as a church music minister and as an official of SBTS. In Part 1 Scott spills much ink addressing letterhead and then concludes with the dramatic question of whether Stam’s letter (or the position he espouses in it) is “indication of the theological/ecclesiological divide within the greater SBC?”

Scott then spends the greater part of his article repeating the tired canard that Calvinism splits churches. In so doing, Scott makes snide and sarcastic comments and repeats unfounded claims against the “new/agressive” Calvinism in such a way that deprives his targets of the grace he claims that they, themselves, lack. Scott’s summary warning to churches seems to be thus: 1. Calvinism is anti-patriotic; 2. Christian worship should be patriotic; 3. you should therefore beware of music ministers coming from Southern. Oh, and because Scott is not “mad about my Calvinistic theology” nor “consistent enough…to be described as truly Reformed” he can cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention (as if others cannot).

The gratuitous condescension looms large.

In Part 2, Scott addresses Stam’s various contentions regarding patriotism in worship. In general, I contend that Scott’s response seems to pass far afield of the point of Stam’s letter, despite the stated intent to meet it head-on. The careful reader can discern that for himself. My concern is for some of Scott’s assumptions, and it is those that I will address here.

First, Scott asserts that patriotism in worship is permissible because we should “show respect” and he cites Romans 12:10, 13:7 and 1 Peter 2:17 as biblical proof. But those passages speak of “honor” and “respect” in ways that relate to patriotism only remotely, if at all. And they certainly do not suggest that the honor to be shown should actually occur in our worship services, and consist of songs and flags and processions befitting the occasion.

Second, Scott says this: “Just because something can be easily confused in a worship setting [referring to patriotism in worship] does not mean that we automatically discard it. I’m quite sure that for many, the cross can be confusing.” I have no doubt that Scott does not mean to say that honoring military men in Sunday worship is as important to the faith as the cross of Christ. But this is the sort of muddled thinking and sloppy writing that characterize many of our discussions with each other, and that the confusion inherent in Stam’s statement itself would not be patently obvious and studiously avoided is incomprehensible.

Third, Scott seems unwilling to discuss the issue of whether Christian believers should incorporate expressions of patriotism in worship without alluding to some nefarious connection with “new-Calvinism.” In his “Final Word” on the matter, Scott infers that the only believers who could possible have concern about patriotism in worship are Calvinist. And, in the course of three posts, he broadened the scope of his disdain from the “new-Calvinist” or “agressive-Calvinist” to the wider “SBC’s Calvinist wing”, and to the wider still “Reformed theology.” Given a bit more blog space, Scott might have gone on to impugn the entire Western church (save Southern Baptist congregations which reject Calvinism and sing “America, the Beautiful” in a flag-studded sanctuary on July 4, ostensibly).

Yet over these three posts Scott utterly fails to show even the slightest connection between Calvinism and anti-patriotism. I am still left wondering why Calvinism was brought into the discussion.

Whether believers should express patriotism in corporate worship is a serious matter, and should be sincerely considered. If other believers raise a concern about the implications of such practice, the simple fact that those who raise it might be “Calvinist” should be of no consequence (whatever “Calvinist” now means — Scott refers to himself as an “inconsistent Calvinist” and others as “more Calvinist”, among other things).

Our inability to hear the valid concerns raised by other believers, and see past whatever soteriological badge we think they wear, does not serve the church well.

There is quite a bit of recent discussion about the “future” of the Southern Baptist Convention, and whether its icon will be the jeans-wearing, stool-sitting, Message-quoting, Acts29-giving preacher, or the “traditional” suit-wearing, pulpit-occupying, CooperativeProgram-giving preacher.

(See the SBC Voices article on the subject, which cites opinion blogs by both Ed Stetzer and Nathan Finn).

I’m not certain that the Hobson’s choice is an accurate reflection of the state of the Convention. There seems to be a false dichotomy between “traditional” and “hip”, but the discussion raises some interesting questions about the nature of the SBC.

First, in the SBC Voices article, Howell Scott says this about Ed Stetzer: “For those in positions of power within the Convention — who are supposed to be “denominational servants” – to convey such condescension and disdain for ”traditional” Southern Baptist pastors is simply amazing!” Read Stetzer’s article and tell me if you can find a source for Scott’s hysteria other than thin air.

But poorly-aimed attacks on fuzzy and illusory targets are not my primary concern. Two aspects of this article warrant attention.

First, another conclusory statement by Scott deserves a response: “The last of these — cooperation in and through the Cooperative Program — really gets to the heart of the matter about what it means to be a Southern Baptist” [emphasis mine].

Really? Are we certain that we want to ignore, in this context, other important Baptist beliefs? The functional authority of Scripture, regenerate membership, believers’ baptism by immersion, freedom of conscience, and congregational authority are viable contenders for the “what it means to be a Southern Baptist” award.

The Cooperative Program is certainly a laudable effort to concentrate energy and resources toward missions. But we should nevertheless be careful about the level of definitive importance we place on it. Because if the primary aspect of being a Southern Baptist is that we have the best clearing-house for money to be used in a myriad of purposes, then we are not much different than a more efficient Red Cross, or a sanctified United Way.

Second, a comment by Dave Miller raises more questions than it answers:  “You do not have to be a Baptist to be a Christian, but you have to believe basic Baptist doctrine to be Baptist. We need to define those parameters as broadly as possible. Baptism by immersion of believers, priesthood of believers, soul competency, and very little else.”

Admittedly, this is a comment in the stream, and does not reveal Scott’s opinion on the issue, but it reveals the divide about “crucial” Southern Baptist distinctives. Miller’s list, as you see, does not mention the Cooperative Program.

Contrary to Miller’s predicate, “basic Baptist doctrine” is not so easy to define. At one time, basic Bible doctrine would be the Baptist Faith & Message, but many of our non-Southern Baptist friends could agree with most of the BF&M. Miller gets closer to cracking the nut when he ostensibly defines the parameters broadly by limiting those things necessary for one to believe and practice in order to “be Baptist”: believers’ baptism by immersion, the priesthood of believers, and soul competency. When Miller says “very little else,” he politely allows for other things when in fact there is nothing else.

What should be clear is that when we speak of “basic Baptist doctrine” — that which separates us from Presbyterians, or Methodists, or Evangelical Free churches, for instance — we are really speaking of “Baptist distinctives.”

Of Miller’s three “basics”, believers’ baptism by immersion is the easiest. A baptism which follows regeneration and which follows profession of faith is a fairly obvious distinction from those who “baptize” infants, who practice “confirmation” of older members, or who do both for those who desire it.

“Priesthood of believers” and “soul competency” are terms common to many long-time Baptists, but seem to be quickly fading from the collective memory of the average congregation. Even at this point, then, much more clarification is needed before Miller’s suggestion can be properly assessed.

What this debate — as illustrated in the SBC Voices article — demonstrates is that each congregation has wide latitude in determining whether it is “Southern Baptist.” It also reveals the need for much more clarity of thought, so that those churches giving preeminence to CP giving don’t “go Pharisee” on those that don’t.

[This is the seventh article interacting with a series by Les Puryear — www.lesliepuryear.blogspot.com — regarding whether Southern Baptists can be Reformed]

Many in the SBC view unqualified support of the Cooperative Program — typically meaning that each church give “10% of undesignated gifts” to it — as a litmus test for discerning true (SBC) believers. Because the perception is that those who hold a Reformed Baptist perspective reject such support, the conclusion is that it is impossible for one to be both Reformed and Southern Baptist.

Critics complain that Reformed Baptists aren’t exclusive to Cooperative Program giving: that they also support non-SBC entities and agencies, most notably the Acts 29 network, which ‘plants reformed churches.’

But the idea that Southern Baptists must only support official SBC agencies and entities means much more than support for the Cooperative Program. The SBC maintains a publishing arm, LifeWay, which prints a plethora of literature and runs retail outlets to sell it. If the criticism is to be consistent, then Southern Baptists should not purchase non-LifeWay literature or books from a non-SBC press. I remember one local education minister who tried to force all teachers to use only literature from the then “Sunday School Board” — it was, in fact, as absurd as it sounds.

And what about non-SBC charity? Samaritan’s Purse is not an SBC organization, but plenty of SBC congregations fall over themselves to participate in Operation Christmas Child. (I’m not criticizing the enthusiasm; I like OCC…I’m just sayin’) To be consistent, pastors who hold to the same SBC-only mentality would have to tell their congregants not to give money or time or service to anyone but the local SBC church, local SBC association, state SBC agency, or the SBC itself. How likely is that?

Shibboleths are useful to detect outsiders. But even SBC shibboleths are due to be abandoned — that is, the sacred cows tipped and processed for boots and burgers — when they either don’t reflect the essence of the group or actually serve to keep outsiders out.

In the case of the Reformed vs Southern Baptist debate, shibboleths used to characterize Reformed Baptists as outsiders fail on both counts.

[This is the sixth article interacting with a series by Les Puryear — www.lesliepuryear.blogspot.com — regarding whether Southern Baptists can be Reformed]

Those who maintain that Southern Baptists cannot be Reformed utilize the latter’s caution about the use of “invitations”, “altar calls”, and the “sinner’s prayer” as proof positive. Good Southern Baptists, it is asserted, will do all of these, and more, in “leading a person to Christ.”

It is certainly true that we “persuade” men with the gospel, we “urge” men to be reconciled to God, and we make clear the urgency of the situation for those who hear the gospel, understand it, yet put off repentance and belief.

But this is not the same thing as concluding that the only way to persuade and urge men is to utilize the altar call. Nor is there any foundation for the assertion that a necessary and distinguishing feature of Southern Baptist practice is the invitation.

Reformed Baptists believe that the proclamation of the gospel IS the invitation, the expression of the good news IS the urgency: a preacher need not tack on to the end of his sermon non-biblical devices to CREATE them.

An additional problem with that view of Puryear and others is demonstrated in the description of the “sinner’s prayer”: ‘The use of a “sinner’s prayer” is a means to help guide the sinner to say what he wants to say to Jesus but doesn’t know how.’ Reformed Baptists would say to this that if a person does not know how to express repentance and belief, the gospel might not have been presented, and it might not be a good idea to admit to membership one who cannot express this basic work of Christ in his heart. Scripture tells us that when we “confess with our mouth” we will be saved, not that we will be saved when someone else confesses for us.

The worst example of straw-man argumentation and ad hominem attack, however, is this gem from Puryear:

‘If your church doesn’t want to invite people to Christ during a worship service then go ahead and call a reformed pastor to your church. But if you want for everyone to have an opportunity to come to Christ during all worship services, call a traditional Southern Baptist pastor.’

Again, if the proof of whether a church invites people to Christ is the use of an altar call, invitation, decision card or sinner’s prayer, then something is terribly wrong with the preaching and teaching ministry of that church. And equating ‘opportunity to come to Christ’ with man-made devices and ‘traditional’ services is an almost perfect example of the man-centered, gospel-weak, Spirit-impotent approach to evangelism that Reformed Baptists prefer to avoid.

[This is the fifth article interacting with a series by Les Puryear — www.lesliepuryear.blogspot.com — regarding whether Southern Baptists can be Reformed]

On this point, the criticism of Reformed Baptists is that they prefer an elder-led polity to one traditionally characterized as “congregational.” At least on this point the criticism correctly cites the predominant fact: Reformed Baptists do favor an elder-led structure.

Yet clarification — as seems to be the consistent need — is in order.

Reformed Baptists do not favor single-elder, autocratic rule that overrides the will and voice of the congregation. In fact, this type of wayward leadership is more possible in “congregational” churches than in the elder-led form favored by Reformed Baptists. The Reformed concept of spiritual leadership is that each church be led by a team of elders, consisting of both staff and lay elders. In this structure, the preacher becomes the “teaching elder” and member of the elder team. Although he is the point man, no one elder overrides or vetoes the others. And the congregation remains the final authority, approving significant elder action, and approving or removing elders as appropriate.

Furthermore, elder-led and “congregational” are not mutually exclusive. An “elder-led, congregational” form is, after all, the example found in Scripture. Elders tend to the ministry of the word and prayer, deacons handle service matters, and the congregation remains the final authority in issues related to affirming elders’ handling of doctrinal disputes and the discipline or expulsion of members.

The conflict between and elder-led structure and “congregational” form comes when the church is informed by U.S. style political notions of one-man-one-vote (pure democracy), rather than being conformed to the teaching of Scripture.

Additionally, the “priesthood of the believer” does not mean that every member has an equally valid opinion on every subject. If it did, teachers and preachers would be superfluous, and spiritual leaders an oxymoron. Scripture plainly teaches that there are differing roles for believers in each local body; to suggest that every member is equally able to lead ignores this truth.

Finally, it is unfortunately true that many Southern Baptist churches are neutralized by the presence of unbelievers with voting privileges. There are, as it were, tares among the wheat. To ignore this is naive. Our membership practices encourage little discernment in this regard, and granting a vote to every ‘member’ and granting members votes on every issue is inviting spiritual disaster, or at least virtual inaction. While an elder-led congregational polity does not completely eliminate this problem, it does a much better job at reducing the potential for having the foxes guard the henhouse.

There is no example in Scripture for a “congregational” form in which votes on every issue are put to the membership in monthly business meetings. God could certainly, if he desired, sanctify such a method, but the teaching of Scripture and the observation of experience suggest that he has not.

[This is the fourth article interacting with a series by Les Puryear — www.lesliepuryear.blogspot.com — regarding whether Southern Baptists can be Reformed]

Among the arguments that one cannot be Southern Baptist and Reformed is the notion that to be Reformed means, necessarily, that one also hold to “Covenant Theology.” As Puryear defines it, however, the point of disagreement comes primarily into focus on the issue of paedobaptism: the practice of baptizing infants because they are de facto members of the covenant by virtue of having been born to believing parents.

Again, Puryear falsely presumes that everyone claiming to be Reformed Baptist adopts paedobaptism, or, if they deny it, they are either mistaken or deceiving themselves and others. This is demonstrably false, and a tactic of logic unbecoming serious discussion of issues.

Even so, let it be known that this Reformed Baptist — and all the others I know — reject paedobaptism and that aspect of “Covenant theology” decried by Puryear and others.

However, is it prudent to pit “covenant theology” against “Baptist theology,” as Puryear expressly does?

There is no doubt that in the Old Testament God promises a “new covenant.” In the New Testament, Jesus describes himself as securing the “new covenant” by the shedding of his blood and the breaking of his body, both of which we commemorate in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. Hebrews tells us that Christ obtained for us a “better covenant” through his sacrificial death and perfect obedience.

This “new covenant” — of grace, as it were — is absolutely crucial to our understanding of grace, the security of the believer, salvation, and sanctification. No Southern Baptist should acquiesce to any theological framework that rejects an understanding of our place in this covenant.

“Covenant theology” is traditionally framed against an understanding of “dispensational theology,” and in that framing, Southern Baptists occupy a sort of de-militarized zone between them (although dispensational theology is quite popular with some prominent Southern Baptists). Puryear quotes Bart Barber’s description of covenant theology in terms of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments,and, it would seem, how this relates to the “pattern” of the New Testament church. It is unclear what this means, but apparently has to do with membership in the body: in the Old Testament, membership was determined by blood; in the New Testament, by conversion and profession (Baptism).

But this treatment makes two fundamental errors. First, covenant has to do with much more than the determination of membership lists, and cannot be limited to an expansion of the ‘church’ from ethnic identity to trans-ethnic spiritual identity: the terms of covenant are also vital. Second, it comes to rest in a position that seems satisfied not merely with a Southern Baptist understanding of ‘new covenant,’ but with an understanding of Southern Baptist thought with ‘no covenant.’

Puryear and others have thrown out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. They have identified an objectionable aspect of “covenant theology” (which is essentially Presbyterian), pinned that proverbial tail on the “Reformed Baptist” donkey, and cast them all out of the SBC barn.