Category: SBC

I’ve become more interested in Les Puryear’s blog (www.lesliepuryear.blogspot.com) since the Southern Baptist Convention, and find that his discussion about all things distinctive about the SBC are helpful in many ways.

Previously I posted a general response to some of his thoughts, but want to address some of his concerns about Reformed Baptist thought and practice specifically.

Before beginning his series on the differences between Reformed Baptists and what he calls ‘traditional’ Southern Baptists, he posted an article entitled ‘Why I Don’t Drink Alcoholic Beverages.’

I think that it is perfectly acceptable, from the perspective of both biblical interpretation and practical expedience, for a believer to decide it is better for him to avoid alcohol entirely. The grounds for such a decision might include the reputation of the believer and his ability to witness, the influence of alcoholism, and so forth. In this regard, I agree with much of Puryear’s assessment and have no difficulty with many of the reasons for his alcohol avoidance.

However, I part company with tee-totalers when they conclude 1) that all believers should join them, or 2) that avoiding alcohol is ‘who we are’ as Southern Baptists.

Part of the problem is the view that all alcohol consumption implicates the biblical principle of not being a ‘stumbling block.’ Puryear references this Pauline principle, and adds “While it may be perfectly fine biblically for me to have a glass of wine with my meal in a good restaurant, it is not perfectly fine biblically for my example to lead someone else to sin”.

The problem comes when we consider the use of alcohol — which is not categorically a sin in Scripture — a ‘stumbling block,’ and enlarge the avoidance category to include all things that ‘lead someone else to sin.’

In Paul, a ‘stumbling block’ is described in terms of those who have emerged from a culture of worshiping idols and sacrificing food to them, and are now faced with buying the same food in the marketplace as a matter of practical necessity. It is bad for the mature brother to eat such food when it causes the weaker brother — whose conscience bothers him about it — to deny the voice of conscience and eat, anyway.

So the essence of ‘stumbling block’ is causing a weaker brother to begin a pattern of denying conscience and behaving against its guidance. In the case of alcohol, it is similar to a mature brother who emerged from alcoholism drinking socially when the conscience of a weaker brother — who is fresh on the wagon — still tells him to avoid liquor altogether. It is not, as Puryear suggests, simply ‘leading someone else to sin.’

If it were such a broad principle, then I should avoiding eating, because someone seeing me eat a fried chicken wing might justify his eating a whole bucket. I should avoid driving a car, because someone observing me do a ‘rolling stop’ might justify his reckless driving. I should avoid going to movies, because someone observing me watch Toy Story 3 might justify his watching The Playboy Channel.

This is not, however, what Paul intended.

Believers have good reason to conclude, as Puryear does, that they should avoid alcohol. But categorizing the discussion in terms of ‘stumbling blocks’ removes any discretion and leads to a conclusion that all believers should act the same way.

Issues surrounding the creation of the Great Commission Task Force last year, and the report to the SBC Convention this summer, involve many agencies and missions endeavors promoted by the SBC. While I have personal opinions about the task force recommendations, I don’t know enough yet to evaluate them publicly. I can, though, generally agree that we shouldn’t waste mission money on domestic bureaucracy.

Not knowing enough, however, apparently does not stop others from opining,and I will assess the opinion whirlwind surrounding the GCR and its recommendations.

A church’s giving to Cooperative Program, has, for some years, been a litmus test of sorts. We tend to view the level of CP giving as an indication of denominational loyalty, manifestation of Great Commission passion, and, in extreme — but all too common — situations, cause to question each others’ salvation.

Large churches might give directly to missions projects and missionaries, while still giving to CP. Such a church might have a budget of $2 million, give $200,000 directly to missions, and $100,000 to CP. This sounds good, until smaller churches calculate and point out that the percentage of CP giving is “only” five percent (5%).

It has reached the point (and proceeded past it) that appointees to SBC boards, commissions, and other leadership positions in the denomination are considered unworthy solely on the basis of their churches’ CP giving. One recommendation of the GCR Task Force is to calculate “Great Commission Giving,” which would include CP giving as well as direct missions spending.

As a result, some say that such an effort is in violation of Jesus’ command not to call attention to giving. This creates the situation that the very people who called attention to others’ lack of CP giving are now sanctimoniously decrying the recognition of the existence of Great Commission giving.

Hypocrisy, it would seem, is no respecter of logic, nor appreciative of irony.

Unfortunately, the GCR reveals what has long existed regarding SBC attitudes toward CP giving. Without doubt, the CP serves a valid, important function in SBC life regarding out fulfillment of Great Commission living. But insisting that churches maintain certain levels of CP giving in order to qualify as true Southern Baptists, or worthy of leadership roles, is rank legalism.

First, if we assume that the New Testament obligation of individual believers is to give a tithe (10%) to their local church, fine. But the CP is NOT a local church, and congregations are NOT individual believers. Requiring — even informally — that congregations give a ‘tithe’ to CP is nothing less than adding a requirement to New Testament discipleship that is not found there.

Second, no church can evaluate the CP giving of another without judging what should be a matter of conscience and liberty for that congregation. When one church judges another in this way, there is a great danger that it will become envious of the larger church’s resources, liberty, or freedom not to give such a large portion of annual budget to CP.

Third,there are much more effective — and biblically faithful — methods to guage whether a given pastor would be the sort of denominational leader who is representative of a healthy Southern Baptist church. The ratio of members to attenders is one. Others include the level of involvement of members in discipling, witnessing, and serving; how biblically astute and aware the members are; and the degree to which members’ lives contradict the world.

The problem is that these other measures are difficult to assess, while CP giving is easy to see.

One thing, however, remains certain: if one church claims that the pastor of another is not qualified to serve in the SBC because his congregation gives more directly to evangelizing Muslims in India than to the Cooperative Program, something is amiss in our understanding of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The Christian Science Monitor has a good article on Calvinism, partly through the lens of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, where Mark Dever pastors. Check it out here.

At the recent Southern Baptist Convention held in Louisville, the SBC voted to appoint a task force charged with examining if and how the axioms of a Great Commission Resurgence (Dr. Danny Akin) should be implemented in the denomination.

It seems that a primary concern of Dr. Akin and others is that the prior Conservative Resurgence in the denomination has not translated to an appropriate increase in emphasis on and success in evangelism and missions.

For Southern Baptist Christ-followers holding to the Bible as God’s revelation to man, it should go without saying that we should “content earnestly for the faith” (Jude 1:3) as historically understood by Baptists, an idea represented by the Conservative Resurgence. It should further come as no surprise that we should be concerned to understand and obey Christ’s Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), an intent expressed in Dr. Akin’s Axioms and the Resolution passed by the SBC.

In many efforts to counter error or address inadequacies, however, there is a tendency in those efforts to distort the overall teaching of which the particular emphasis is a subset. For instance, efforts to counter teachings of works-salvation sometimes give the appearance of antinomianism. Efforts to counter cheap grace sometimes give the appearance of legalism.

While I do not suggest that Dr. Akin and other proponents of a Great Commission Resurgence have contributed to such a distortion – or that such a thing exists, at all – some of the language appearing in commentary surrounding this issue could lead to an unfortunate misunderstanding of the Great Commission (or serve to reveal that such a misunderstanding already exists).

Because the Conservative Resurgence was aimed at securing Southern Baptist doctrinal foundations, some characterize its focus as “inward.” And, because the Great Commission Resurgence aims to re-examine our denomination in terms of missions and evangelism, some characterize its focus, in contrast, as “outward.” Similarly, some denominational focus is characterized as being “local”, while the focus of the GCR is characterized as “missional” – addressing evangelism and missions across the globe.

Yet the Great Commission as found in Matthew 28:18-20 doesn’t seem to draw those distinctions, and certainly doesn’t support the inward-outward/local-missional dichotomy that seems to be presumed in these discussions.

Jesus commissions his church to “make disciples.” These disciples are made in the local church, and disciples made in the local church are ones who make other disciples. Truly, when disciples are taught to “observe all that I [Jesus] commanded you” they will behave as disciples, making other disciples, both near and far. Biblical doctrine leads to a desire for biblical obedience. Orthodoxy produces orthopraxy.

Some have suggested that when we are too “inward”, “missions” is neglected. This may be true, but not because there is such a distinction inherent in disciple making. And what is sometimes forgotten is that if we play into this supposed dichotomy and focus only on the “outward”, disciple-making is neglected.

The reason, perhaps, that we see either the “inward” or the “outward” being neglected at various times is that we act on a false dichotomy. “Disciple making” requires both inward-outward and local-missional in balance. Let us not forget that Jesus does not divide the Great Commission task into “inward” and “outward” elements, but simply commands us to “make disciples.”

The interest shown in a Great Commission Resurgence is encouraging, but my hope is that the SBC’s exploration of the matter will address this perspective.

After all, if we were truly making disciples, lamentations over the lack of evangelism should be moot.