The SBC in Orlando

I thought I'd share my impressions of the SBC in Orlando, particularly with regard to the GCR report. The report passed, but I voted against it (seemingly one of the few). My reasons are simple—Great Commission giving was left in the report. Although I like the amendment which reads that designated giving is to be a supplement to and not a substitute for the Cooperative Program, the idea is still there. Yes I know that designated giving has been and always will be done, but I don't think we need to 'celebrate' is as much as we need to discourage it. I would have liked recommendation 3 to just reinforce CP and that's it. The recommendation is 'better' but not what I would have liked. The other reason I voted against the report was that there is still the 'cooperative agreements' problem out there between the state conventions and NAMB. That wasn't debated, but a change in those agreements may be detrimental to our smaller state conventions. I would have liked to have heard more about that.

With that said, I will support the vote of the convention. I believe that once a decision has been made in a business meeting (in this case the SBC), the decision should be supported (if it's not heretical of course or contrary to the Bible). Thus I support the report and now pray that its impact will be positive and not negative upon the denomination I love and support.

I greatly appreciated the spirit of the debate on both sides. There was no rancor. There was passion, but Baptists should be passionate about how we're going to reach the world. We may have different ideas on how to do it sometimes, but that is ok. Debate is not a bad thing if done with love. It was and that was good to see.

I voted for Ted Traylor for SBC president because I know him to be a good man and pastor who has led a great church. I do not know the ministry of Bryant White, but I'm sure he is as well. He will be in my prayers. I agreed with a statement that he made to the press that he would like to see a smaller percentage of CP funds allocated to the states and more to national causes (NAMB and IMB in particular). That may not ever happen, but I would like to see that debate here in South Carolina. I appreciate the work of the state convention but I have a problem with half of CP funds staying in our Jerusalem and Judea.

The sermons I heard were primarily 'resurgence' centered in some way. I liked it when Mac Brunson (pastor of FBC Jacksonville) said that we did not need resurgence, we needed a refocus to Jesus.

 

The Unchurched Used to Be in Church

share

SBC In Orlando

Everyone and his grandmother are commenting on the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force [GCRTF] report so let me do so as well with a handful of bullet points of comments and questions as I muse.

• The SBC has always had a commitment to the Great Commission, something to applaud.
  
• We are not reaching the masses, something to grieve us.
  
• No report by any denominational task force will bring a greater commitment to the Great Commission in the local church, something to remember.
  
• Will Great Commission giving reported alongside gifts to the Cooperative Program lead to a splintering of the CP? Something to pray about.
  
• The Great Commission giving idea should be scrapped for sake of unity. Something to consider.
  
• Will passing the report as it currently stands lead to a more 'societal' approach as in pre-CP days? Something to watch.
  

I felt that the TF was hamstrung from the beginning, given the makeup of the team itself and because of its chairman. While the team was tweaked a bit later, in the beginning the TF did not really represent a cross-section of Southern Baptists—mistake. Also, his increased giving to CP notwithstanding naming Ronnie Floyd as chairman, when his church gave little through the CP, was a critical error by Johnny Hunt [please keep in mind that comment in no ways reflects upon Bro. Floyd as a good man and pastor—his church's giving through CP is a matter of record.].

Is the recommendation to celebrate Great Commission giving a way to make more palatable the nomination of men to leadership in the SBC whose track record on CP giving is less than stellar? I don't know…this is just the musing of a country preacher.

I'm not naïve. I've been around for a day or two now. I believe the SBC could do with some stream-lining, and I would like the state to have less of my CP dollar (although I appreciate the fine work of the state conventions), but I think changes should come from the bottom-up and not the top down. Churches must change, send people to their state conventions for them to change, and then the SBC will reflect those changes.

I also think the strength of the SBC is in cooperation. We can still do much more together than separately [even the super-churches]. Whatever moves we make should strengthen cooperation and our resolve to reach the masses with the Gospel. I'm concerned Orlando won't do that.

The Key Question in Hermeneutics

There is a key question when approaching any biblical text. Where one begins is where one ends. The issue: is a biblical text anthropocentric or theocentric? In other words, is a text man-centered or God-centered?

Sidney Greidanus has written eloquently on the topic:

 

"Fundamentally, the Bible is more than an ordinary history book, more than

artistically pleasing literature; it is religious literature . . . As religious literature,

the Bible reveals its theocentric nature. Everything is viewed in relationship to

God: the world is God's creation; human beings are image-bearers of God;

salvation belongs to God—in short, all of life belongs to and is governed by

God.

 

Every genre of biblical literature is theocentric. Even Esther, although God is not mentioned in the book, has a theocentric viewpoint. God is obviously working to protect the Jews. Theocentric interpretation seeks to expose in every passage the God-centered focus of the entire Bible.

Anthropocentric interpretation, on the other hand, is focused not upon God but upon human beings. Too often an anthropocentric emphasis is found in preaching and teaching. Interpreters love to focus on the human drama in the text. Bible characters are often seen as either good or bad examples of what one should or should not do for God—and because those examples are easily found in a text and resonate with the interpreter, a "man centered" spin is placed upon a text that was ultimately meant to teach a great truth about God.

While this is obviously a New Testament narrative, a good example of anthropocentric interpretation is found in the denials of Christ by Peter. As Ernest Best pointed out, "The incidents in which the weakness of Peter are (sic) shown are not recorded primarily to tell us about Peter's weakness but about the mercy of God who forgives him." Thus, Best argued, "The selection of incidents which we have been given about Peter has been dominated by an interest other than the character of Peter himself. It is foolish of us therefore to use these incidents to build up a picture of the character of Peter and then to go on and apply it to men generally. We ought to use the incidents of Peter's weakness instead to argue for God's mercy and strength."

Keep the following principles in mind when interpreting a passage of from the Old Testament:

• The Bible was given to reveal the character and purpose of God, not us.
  

  
   

• Even the moral requirements of Scripture reveal God and his intentions.
  

  
   

• Every text can be studied to discover what it tells us about God.
  

  
   

• Theocentric interpretation does not mean the sermon or Bible study is about
  God
  

  
   

• Theocentric interpretation asks, "What does this text tell me about God?"
  

  
   

• Use the basic concepts of a passage to consider how they point to God.
  

  
   

• In the New Testament, the basic question would then be, "What does this text tell me about Christ?" In essence, texts in the New Testament are Christocentric. The approach of a New Testament text would essentially be the same as that of the Old Testament.
  

  
   

Allow me now to turn to Genesis 22, the account of Abraham offering Isaac as a sacrifice. More often than not, interpreters focus on Abraham and offer a moralistic sermon or study on faith. Obviously, Abraham's faith is important in the passage, however, when one focuses only on the Patriarch, it is an anthropocentric interpretation of the text.

If the text is theocentric (and it is), then let us ask the key question: What does this text say about God? When one looks at the text from this perspective there is a change in focus. What did Abraham and Isaac learn about God that day? The answer to that question is found in verse 14 after Abraham found a ram caught by his horns in the thicket: "And Abraham called the name of that place Yahweh-Jireh (The Lord Will Provide)."

One meets biblical characters who are extremely human. Remember, however, they are never seen in isolation. They are always part of a much larger story—the story about God. Hence, when interpreters pass on the biblical story, "they ought to employ biblical characters the way the Bible employs them, not as ethical models, not as heroes for emulation or examples for warning, but as people whose story has been taken up into the Bible in order to reveal what God is doing for and through them." [Greidanus]

New Parents and Church

Does having children make parents better church goers? Here's an interesting article from Barna that didn't send great surprises my way. We better rethink, however, the old idea that parenthood makes people more inclined to think about God and more open to Him.

We Have Seen His Glory

I didn't read as much on this week of vacation as I usually do, but I did get through an interesting book. Ben Witherington has recently published, We Have Seen His Glory: A Vision of Kingdom Worship [Eerdmans]. Witherington is rightly concerned by the consumer mentality of today's worshiper and attacks it through what is in essence a very fine New Testament theology of worship. The author believes that worship should be seen in light of the eschaton 'rather than in light of what has already gone on in the past, in light of Kingdom Come rather than in light of kingdoms gone' [ix]. He writes, "I am convinced that one of the great detriments to having a more reflective and more Christian approach to worship is that even many of our ministers and worship leaders have very little understanding of what the New Testament actually says about worship" [x]. With those words in the preface, Witherington proceeds in eight chapters to concisely present what the New Testament does say about the subject.

Here are some salient quotes from the book that resonated with me:

• Salvation is a means to an end, not an end in itself—that end being the worship of God [7].
  
• Worship is the ultimate ethical act on earth, the most important act on earth because it is the ultimate fulfillment of the Shema, the Great Commandment, and indeed the First and Second Commandments [8].
  
• The function of music in worship is not to set the mood or even to rev up the troops, but rather to engage them at the affective level so that their whole being . . . are caught up in the wonder, love, and praise of God [17].
  
• One of the most disturbing trends in worship is its anthropocentric character. Worship is to be theocentric/Christocentric [20].
  
• Only God's glory should show up in worship [23].
  
• The confession of Jesus as Lord changes everything, including worship [31].
  
• We take the America's Got Talent approach to deciding who does what in worship. Paul says that the prerequisite is having given oneself totally to God, and then recognizing the character and measure of one's faith [40].
  
• Early Christians did not hold to theological principles which suggested that edifices for worship were inherently bad and worship in houses was theologically better [51].
  
• Worship is not just a matter of adoration, but also involves edification [66].
  
• We would do well to see invoking Jesus' name at the end of a prayer as signing his name to our petitions. If so, then we need to ask, Would Jesus sign off on our entreaties? [81].
  
• Did any of the New Testament writers believe they were writing sacred, God-breathed texts? The answer must be surely yes [97].
  
• The fundamental reason why Christian worship should be different is not because Christ has inaugurated his kingdom on earth, but because believers are different and should worship differently [134].
  
• All acts of work should be doxological, and thus should be acts of worship [136].
  
• As the biblical understanding [of worship] ebbs and the consumer mentality flows and grows, it is hardly surprising that worship has been turned into something it was never intended to be: a performance of the few fo the couch potatoes for Jesus in the pews [146].
  
• Worship is the means God uses to mold us into our better selves [150].
  
• Too often people evaluate worship and which sort they want to participate in on the basis of style, and this is a serious mistake . . . The issue is not style but substance. The issue is not 'where am I most comfortable. Did it ever occur to you that worship might be most helpful when it unsettles your ways and makes you profoundly uncomfortable with your present state of spiritual lethargy [153]?
  
• Worship without good preaching is not adequate worship, because God wants to clear his throat each week and address his people [155].
  
• It is not the preacher's job to 'put the cookies on the bottom shelf.' It is time to stop serving pablum in worship instead of real soul food [160].
  

Witherington does a marvelous job taking a difficult subject and dealing with it biblically and theologically. He synthesizes the NT witness about worship and makes is available to all who wish to 'have an ear to hear.' I found his thoughts on how the early church felt about 'buildings' over against 'homes' especially helpful, given statements in the "home church" movement that worshiping in homes is more 'biblical.' On the negative side, I felt his emphasis on rhetorical criticism a bit out of place. However, his chapters dealing with John 4, Revelation 4-5, Worship as Sabbatical, and Work and Worship, were very insightful and helpful to me. The reflective questions at the end of each chapter make this an even more helpful text. Preaching/Music professors should consider it. I may even use it as a book review text in New Testament because of the importance of the subject.

Ministers need to read this book. The consumer and narcissistic tendencies in today's worship is at partly (and maybe more) our fault. Ministers do need to understand worship, particularly from the NT point of view. Witherington has done us a service in writing this book.

Great Commission Resurgence

I've read the final report of the Great Commission Task Force. While I'm glad there is a strong affirmation of the Cooperative Program in the final report, I'm still troubled by its embracing of so-called "Great Commission Giving." My church gives 10% of its undesignated receipts to the CP, but we also give a substantial amount of money each year to other mission causes. I would never dream of reporting that giving alongside the CP.

Morris Chapman has written a concise article concerning this issue. I basically agree with his sentiments.

I wonder how much of this is politically motivated? In other words, I wonder if what drives at least some of this discussion is criticism of some recent SBC president candidates who lead churches that give such a low percentage to the CP? Just musing.

When the Word Is Ignored

What does a pastor do when the message that God lays on his heart is faithfully developed and preached but subsequently ignored? Does he give up? Does he turn in his ordination papers? Does he retreat to his study and crawl up in the fetal position? While those might seem to be viable options at the time (especially on Monday morning), what is the right thing to do? Obviously the right thing is to continue to preach. The preacher needs always to remember this—the response of people to God's message is not the responsibility of the deliverer. The preacher is responsible only for himself. If he has prayed; if he has studied; if he has delivered the message God has laid on his heart—a message based on God's authority (His Word), then that is all he can do. He can do nothing more. God requires nothing other than faithfulness from him. God will take care of the hearers. They are in His hands anyway.

Paul warned Timothy:
For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, will multiply teachers for themselves because they have an itch to hear something new. They will turn away from hearing the truth and will turn aside to myths [2 Tim 4:3-4]. We may be living in the era of 'itching ears' but remember what the Apostle said in vv. 1-2: I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is going to judge the living and the dead, and because of His appearing and His kingdom: ² Proclaim the message; persist in it whether convenient or not; rebuke, correct, and encourage with great patience and teaching.

The preacher's job, even when people don't listen—keep preaching! Be faithful! Keep praying! Keep studying! Keep preparing! The preacher doesn't work for the people anyway. He works for God!!!

 

Is there a reason you’re late … or is it just an excuse? : The Work Buzz

Is there a reason you’re late … or is it just an excuse? : The Work Buzz

Posted using ShareThis

A Good Word for Preachers

In a book by Paul Boller, the author tells a story about Woodrow Wilson. One of his cabinet members praised him for his short speeches. He then asked Wilson how long it took him to write a speech. "It depends," said Wilson, "If I am to speak ten minutes I need a week for preparation, if fifteen minutes, three days; if half an hour, two days; if an hour, I am ready now."

E. Earle Ellis

I'm saddened by the death of Dr. E. Earle Ellis, renowned New Testament scholar and churchman.

Southwestern Seminary has an obituary. Ellis' The Making of the New Testament Documents is a classic that will be quoted for years to come.

What Is Worship?

Being in church for the first time in two weeks today just reminded me again of how sweet it is to worship God corporately. There is nothing much else like it. Let's be reminded of the definition of worship I came across years ago from Calvin Miller, "Worship is the church busy at the business of loving God." Worship has nothing to do with music style or even preaching style. It has everything to do with the heart. Whether the music is liturgical or contemporary; whether the preaching is expository or topical (as long as it is biblical), the believer can worship. It makes no difference who is leading in worship. It makes no difference what the instrumentation is. Worship begins and ends with the heart of the individual. Did you show God you loved Him today? If you did you worshiped. If you didn't, well….

ACTS 6 AND DEACON MINISTRY

The recent edition of Bibliotheca Sacra has an interesting article by Phillip Sell, "The Seven in Acts as a Ministry Team." Traditionally, this passage assumes the Seven chosen to wait on tables to be the beginning of deacon ministry. For several years I've questioned that, and the article by Sell convinces me that I've been on the right track. Sell writes, "The continual growth of the church seems to have made the distribution of goods to the needy a large task that needed attention so as not to disrupt the unity of the church. This division of labor is situational not paradigmatic for the church for all times. It reflects their practical situation" [61]. Sell also believes that the laying on of hands in the passage was not 'ordination' to a lifetime office but the authorization of the apostles to act in their stead and confirming the selection of the Seven by the congregation.

I've believed for some time that Acts 6 was situational and that the Seven were simply carrying out a temporary ministry. Stephen and Philip, the only two of the Seven that we know anything about, certainly had preaching/teaching ministries—Philip being a church planter/missionary. Neither seems to have been a deacon in the church office sense. Certainly by the time Paul writes the Prison and Pastoral Epistles, the office of deacon was part of the church. The Apostle greets them in Philippians 1:1 and gives presents a list of characteristics to look for in deacons in 1 Timothy 3. It's not altogether clear what their primary responsibilities were, although practical ministry may have been the bulk of it. However, overseers were also to be involved in serving others. Certainly deacons were and are to be spiritual leaders involved in helping the overseer minister to God's people.

In his commentary, Bock writes that the actions of Acts 6 may have led to the creation of the office at a later time. Perhaps that is true, but that may be going too far as well. All we can really say is that the office developed over time—the need for the overseer to have help in ministering to God's people would be obvious so he can spend the bulk of his time in prayer and in the Word. However, the deacon's ministry probably should not be limited to waiting on tables.

Ministers and Depression

I have meant for a while to blog on a recent article in The Baptist Courier concerning minister's battles with depression. The suicide of a pastor I know last year caused me to think about this problem and the recent article made it even more of an issue for me.

There is a letter to the editor in this week's edition that will shed even more light on the pain in many a pastor's home.

I'll have more to write about this topic later, but the challenge of unrealistic expectations that most congregations have placed upon their pastors is a major problem. Both the article and the letter focus on that. Congregations need to take a hard look at what they expect, ensure that their pastor gets rest and has some down time, and help share the load. Pastors also need to take a day off, have a hobby or something to get their mind off the unending challenges of ministry (I admit that is difficult), and have some people around them who can encourage them along the way.

Read both articles--they are eye openers.

Kennett "Coke" Picture

Chet Andrews was recently at the Coke museum in Atlanta and found this picture of my hometown of Kennett, MO. Interesting!

Happy 75th Elvis!

This would have been Elvis' 75th birthday. Shouldn't today be a national holiday?

Christmas in Kennett

Christmas 2009 was a good one. We found everyone in good health and spirits and for that we're thankful! Hope yours was wonderful and Christ-filled!

Christmas Party 2009

Lesa and I had a good time at our staff Christmas party. I appreciate our church staff!

Politically Incorrect 12 Days of Christmas

I got this from the "Preaching Today Newsletter".

[12 Politically Correct Days of Christmas]

On the 12th day of the Eurocentrically-imposed midwinter festival, my potential acquaintance gave to me:
TWELVE males reclaiming their inner warrior through ritual drumming;

ELEVEN pipers piping (plus the 18-member pit orchestra made up of members in good standing of the Musicians Equity Union as called for in their union contract, even though they will not be asked to play a note);

TEN melanin-deprived, testosterone-poisoned scions of the patriarchal ruling class system leaping;

NINE persons engaged in rhythmic self-expression;

EIGHT economically-disadvantaged female persons stealing milk products from enslaved Bovine Americans;

SEVEN endangered swans swimming on federally-protected wetlands;

SIX enslaved Fowl Americans producing stolen, non-human animal products;

FIVE golden symbols of culturally-sanctioned enforced domestic incarceration, (NOTE: After a member of the Animal Liberation Front threatened to throw red paint at my computer, the calling birds, French hens and partridge have been reintroduced to their native habitat. To avoid further animal American enslavement, the remaining gift package has been revised.);

FOUR hours of recorded whale songs;

THREE deconstructionist poets;

TWO Sierra Club calendars printed on recycled, processed tree carcasses; and

A Spotted Owl activist chained to an old-growth pear tree.

Carl Watson

I read in our hometown paper that the first person I ever baptized went to be with the Lord. Carl Watson died at 87 years old. He was won to Christ by a retired minister in our congregation (Providence Baptist in Kennett, MO) and I baptized him a week later. That was in 1986. He was in his 60s. He was baptized along with three other people but he was the first in the pool. I've been fortunate to have baptized many since, but seldom have I seen someone who took his Christian walk more seriously than Carl. He was a wonderful man, quiet guy, who was a joy to be around and an asset to our church. His was truly a conversion. I'm glad he's with the Lord today.

I thought he deserved a word today.