As someone who graduated from an SBC seminary within the last decade I received an invitation to complete a survey for the NAMB Center for Missional Research. Most of the questions were mundane and related to evangelism training, church planting, and programming, but a few questions were telling, and may be of some interest to those posting. In retrospect, these few questions seemed to be the overarching reason for the survey itself.
Each question gave you the options of strongly or somewhat agreeing or disagreeing. The 3 areas of interest were 1. should one abstain completely from alcohol to be in church leadership 2. Calvinism and irresistable grace, and 3. has the gift of tongues ceased.
Given the current state of the convention and its search for relevancy I sense that it is seeking a cause or heresy to confront. I don't think I am going to be any help in their search. While I do not drink and see little or no redeeming value in alcohol, I do not see a clear scriptural prohibition of moderate consumption. I'm not sure that's what they wanted to hear. And, while I do not subscribe to the tenants of Calvinism and have discussed at length my scriptural objections to that particular theology I do not see it as heresy needing to be trampled. I'm not sure that's what they wanted to hear. And, while I have seen the damage of a charismatic emphasis can do to distort and destroy one's biblical theology and personal faith, I do not know that God has ceased using the gift of tongues to bring the unreached to salvation, mostly due to the fact that the Bible does not say He has.
Maybe it's just me, but I get the feeling that we are a little too busy creating and chasing real and imaginary boogeymen. We as Christians are stewards of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and it alone is the power of God unto salvation. No study, push, campaign, or proclamation for or against any cause by any convention will do what God can do in the heart of man. But that's just me talking on a Monday.
By the way, the results of the survey will be posted at www.missionalresearch.info.
7 comments:
Great post Jebo, As the son of and man who served the HMB/NAMB for over 35 years I was lucky/unlucky to witness many SBC functions...most of them being the Convention each year. I also talk often to my Dad about things going on within the SBC because I know he still follows it. Even though I do not consider myself a Southern Baptist, it is how I was raised and it is the denomination I spent the most time being a part of.....which is probably why I no longer claim it....at any rate...what continues to stick out to me is this overwhelming "need" for the SBC to be "Right".....it seems they have stoped caring about being rightous and only cares about being able to say others are wrong....and they do this with the same old "Because We Say So" reasoning that they seem to be so fond of. I talk to my Dad about this all the time...and I don't get it....one would think that the Convention would wake up and see that the mass of people leaving their churches is not because those people are wrong...but more that the Convetion has lost the true direction I think it was created for. These questions baffle me....I mean is this really the biggest concerns we have...I see it no differently than the obsession with gay marriage because it "attacks the sanctity of marriage"...I'm not advocating homosexuality....but is attacking people really the Christ like way? And doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical to say that it is destroying the sanctity of marriage when evangelical christians represent the highest rate of divorce in the country that has the highest rate of divorce in the world...We're the worst of the worst yet it is someone else that is destroying the sanctity of marriage??? Until Christians...and I mean all of us...not just SBC'ers...really focus on Calvary like love for ALL of those around us...we will continue to come off as suspect at best.
I see where you're going with this and it gives me great pleasure to report that you are wrong! On some of it.
I happen to know the Director of the Center for Missional Research, even heard him speak at the Reform and Resurge podcast. I don't want to speak for him, but I can safely characterize him as 'out there' in comparison to the SBC norm.
You say, "In retrospect, these few questions seemed to be the overarching reason for the survey itself." I think you are correct. Ed's intent, I believe, is to garner the response you and others of our more intellectually inclined brothers in order to foster more dialogue. He ANTICIPATES getting the responses you gave in order to refute what other, more mainstream leaders would anticipate.
i.e. in one sermon, Ed talks about these surveys and one in particular where he asked if traditional questions were still relevant. The intent was to show what Ed thought - that a certain methodology was outdated. It did not and Ed made light of the fact that he was wrong. I think this is typical - to get some meaningful discussion going as we can guess, some of the ideas he may have about 'missional' church would not be received if he put them out there but if he shows widespread agreement in a survey, well, suddenly, there's validity to his arguments. Ingenious really, and few will have the opportunity and resources of the CMR to do it.
Now to the questions. 1. should one abstain completely from alcohol to be in church leadership
I don't know how Ed feels about alcohol but I can guess, since he is pretty much brilliant that he thinks the SBC position is silly at best. Being a NAMB employee, he is not free to come out and say it, but he can show this to be the case if the survey comes back like he thinks it will.
2. Calvinism and irresistable grace,
You've probably guessed by now that he is Reformed. Others on the panel at R&R were Tim Keller and Mark 'Crazy as can be' Driscoll. Ed is adjunct professor at one of the PCA seminaries and widely regarded as a leading expert among Reformed persons, in church planting.
Once again, he is probably a little less sure of the reaction on this one, but wants to show the SBC at large of a tendency, if not toward Reformed principals, toward acceptance.
3. has the gift of tongues ceased.
I think he would say that it has and probably wants this to be reflected in the survey. But I don't know for sure - because I have to argue this even to the PCA crowd, despite what the Genevan Institue for Reformed Studies (and the PCA itself for that matter) says on the subject. http://www.girs.com/library/theology/syllabus/theo8.html That one, you seem to disagree with and I can't claim to know what is meant by the question, only I would guess the more theology-centric the responder, the more he would side with the Reformed position. As Scripture does not invalidate tongues per se, it does forbid anyone claiming to receive additional revelation and to be sure, there will be no more! That is not speaking to the whole private language thing but it would seem to logically follow in my mind that that stuff is a bunch of hooey. Just a guess.
But I'm not leading that charge as a push to get the heretics out, but more as an effort to curtail a growing problem of experiential and "there has to be something more" faith that is creeping forward. Couple quotes from other Baptists (Dever is SBC, Piper, not)
John Piper: The sufficiency of Scripture means that we don’t need any more special revelation. We don’t need any more inspired, inerrant words. In the Bible God has given us, we have the perfect standard for judging all other knowledge.
Mark Dever: I think of another friend who attended an evangelical student fellowship, where for two hours the students sang and prayed earnestly and pleadingly that God would speak to them, all the while with their Bibles lying there closed on their seats. This is the problem that “God told me” piety brings for the sufficiency of Scripture.
In sum, in shooting for a response, Ed's motives may not be pure but he's trying to get something going here, and I think he will do it. One of the SBC's good guys who has figured out a loop hole around the "if you actually speak your mind, you will be destroyed" practices of the SBC old guard.
Sola Scriptura, baby! It's the only way to live.
Sola scripture indeed. Just to clarify that for me, the use of tongues was not one of additional revelation but one of supernatural translation. As in Acts, the Gospel was preached, and everyone heard and understood in their own language. You have both the speaker and the interpreter in one. Why would I need a "prayer language?" Does God not understand English, or does He honor different dialects over others? The ridiculous answers reveal the absurdity of the question. We do not need additional revelation in the Church; we need to be transformed by that which we have received. For too long, Baptists have been known for what they are against. Where is the message of freedom in Christ? Where is our memory of being lost, slaves to sin leading to a compassion for those who are yet to be saved? It is much easier for us to put together a list and say, well, I don't drink (check), smoke (check), play the lottery (check). I went to church (check), I prayed (check), I gave an offering (check), and then to point out all those who have fewer checks than I do. Modern-day Pharrisaeism. All too often we are "white-washed tombs;" clean on the outside and rotten on the inside. The lost need to see truly transformed believers, and I will save the rest for another post which I may give soon, and I challenge you to do so as well entitled. If you could leave us, your friends, your family, your church (or former church) with one sermon, what would you preach.
JB - Just to clarify that for me, the use of tongues was not one of additional revelation but one of supernatural translation.
Hmmm. You got me thinking there. What about revelation revealed to those without the Word? Not to go Billy Graham on us but I could buy that as plausible. I would say that there is no content revealed outside the Word of God and Scriptural truth, that would be counter to Scripture itself.
But, let's be honest. The proponents of experiential revelation are not discussing Scripture and how it may be revealed, nor concerned with the notion that tongues in the OT were the vehicles by which people understood God. The intent is to create an intermediate level of communion with God, then present their system as above that intermediate point of merely being a Christ follower.
My small group is looking at the Tommy Tenney book "God Chasers" and I find it to be simple-minded, confusing, (not conceptually but by virtue of the author alluding to things and not speaking plainly) and poorly written. And that's on the positive side. At worst, its thinly veiled propositions promote the notion that in order to find God beyond salvation and Bible study and established truth, one must Chase God in a manner that God acts supernaturally toward you. The message seems to be that if you're really after God, God will do miracles through you and you will experience a relationship that is physically and evidentially supernatural. He does manage to fall just shy of being clear that he espouses tounges, miracles, Benny Hinn stuff, but I think this is Mormon-esque strategy in that he wants to whet the appetite, get people to say, "yes, I want this heightened experience" and then get them under the charismatic influence to begin the transformation. He knows to come out and talk about snakes and God-like powers (OK, this is a stretch but pretty much how I see it) would not attract many so he is quite nebulous. Of course, God is not into chaos or deception in this way but no matter.
Throughout, there exists this rather vague and ill-defined notion of intermediate spirituality. You have the non Christian, the Christian, and then you have the God Chaser, someone who transcends mere Christian living. "There has to be more" is a recurring theme.
Enough on that. I could go on and on but it would not add to what you know about the Atkins/Phillips crowd that seeks to be permeating the evangelical church. Suffice to say, there is no such thing as a transcendant point consisting of signs and wonders and the like. You are saved or not saved. Within Christianity, you are either living the Christian life or reverting to your old nature. As far as knowing God, there is nothing you can learn about God that I can't learn about God through the Scriptures. After all, who is the validator of such reported revelations? This teaching is particulary susceptible to corruption and distortion, evidenced by picking up the paper and reading about any number of local pastors. When one grants that God gives individuals information, one can easily conclude he/she is other worldly and can justify pretty much anything. Dangerous territory.
Now we ask, "what is the big deal?" The big deal is it is an affront to the character of God. And I think that is a pretty big deal. To say, this Word, your Word, your essence, indeed your very being, is not enough. Our Protestant faith for centuries has held to the sufficiency of Scripture for ALL things and plainly, this teaching flies in the face of suffiency. It is no different in my mind, than a pastor penning a book and having it printed and published and calling that the Bible. Blasphemy. Shame on us, because we all do it just not quite so boldly, when we are given the Kingdom, and show our insolence and disbelief when we want more and tell God we need more.
JB - If you could leave us, your friends, your family, your church (or former church) with one sermon, what would you preach.
I will look forward to this!!! Great question.
Best discussion that's been on the PR Forum. Can't say that I have anything to add...except that I agree with Jebo in that "tongues" seems to (Biblically) refer to the translation of the Gospel into a tongue unknown to the speaker for the benefit of one that doesn't know said Gospel. I had never heard of "tongues" referring to special revelation...although I can see where some might have placed that meaning on "tongues". Whatever the "real" meaning of the word....the 1st (Biblically) has not necessarily been removed (agree with Jebo) and the 2nd (Biblically) has definately ceased (agree with Tommy). I don't know that I have ever agreed with two people on (seemingly) opposite sides of a fence before. AC
OK. Now I need to clarify because I didn't think we were that opposed.
AC - I agree with Jebo in that "tongues" seems to (Biblically) refer to the translation of the Gospel into a tongue unknown to the speaker for the benefit of one that doesn't know said Gospel.
I agree with this concept and usage of tongues but also, validate particular teachings through tongues as the NT was not complete. It would be along this second line where I would invoke the special revelation prohibition. I say "special revelation" and what I should say is "an extra-Biblical word from the Lord" which is not valid today but I can see an argument for that in the formative church, in like comparison to miracles and signs and prophesies serving to reveal God during a time when the Word was not entirely revealed.
All of that is unnecessary now, to my understanding, and non-existent.
So, I suppose I have to ask, in today's context, what good is it? I would say understanding would accompany praise to God, else how do you know what it is? And rhetorically, if you don't know what it is and are thinking, "God knows what I'm saying", why not sit in silence and meditate on the Lord? No one is gaining from the jibberish and God doesn't have to hear something audible to understand your giving honor to him, so what is left? If I say "hamana, hamana, ariddy tack tack" and say, God gave me that to say to him, what is the deal there?
And if we say, OK, the tongues thing is only meant to convey truth to others, then fine. But as I said, we already have all the truth we need in the Bible, unless you want to take my comment about people without the Word and say tongues could come into play and if we allow for that, then I am in agreement.
Not that that in any way approximates the charismatic movement because I don't think they're interested in re-stating God's truth but rather, discovering new truths and finding this ever-elusive other-worldliness. Find me someone who embraces the suffiency of the Word and at the same time, the validity of tongues and maybe I'll change my tune.
I am on board with the Sola Scriptura....and it seems to me that very few have gotten it right by simply following that....I agree with Toom that the desire of this "other-worldliness" by so many misses the point that none of us has done a great job with leaning on the only thing we need.....scripture. I for one have not. But I do know that anything I could ever need to know about Christ is in the book on my night stand.
Post a Comment