DrLewKblog

2011-10-22T07:16:00.000-07:00

Egypt: Arab Spring or Persecution Winter

The cold wind of persecution or the warm spring breeze of freedom and democracy. What are the Coptic Christians of Egypt feeling? Their churches are being burned, their lifestyle disrupted, their very lives in danger. Why can't they be allowed to live free, at peace and safe?

2009-01-28T08:57:00.000-08:00

Excerpt from Rick Warren's Inaugural Prayer, January 20, 2009

"May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet. And may we never forget that one day all nations and all people will stand accountable before you."

I'll add a baptist "Amen!" to that.

In Quest of Barak Obama's Faith

2008-08-28T11:32:00.000-07:00

In reading about Barak Obama’s faith in his own words in his #1 New York Times Bestseller The Audacity of Faith I come away with the following impressions.

1. Barak was nurtured in and by his mother’s lack of formal faith. He describes her life as “devotional” in that she saw the value and beauty of each individual and the world around her, but, as well, she was skeptical, secular and with an attitude toward the various faiths we might call broadly ecumenical.

2. For Senator Obama the Scriptures of the Judeo-Christian faiths are not inspired in the theological sense that traditional Christians believe them to be. Example: “…nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.” (p. 222). He does not see the texts of Scripture as complementing one another by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but rather as differing opinions in opposition to one another requiring the interpreter to choose one and discard the other.

3. Whatever salvation means to the Senator he does not state it in terms of believing in Jesus as personal savior. Of course, I am responding here to the way he describes his faith in this one book, so he may have expanded his view of salvation in another book, on the stump, or in personal conversations with friends.

4. He basically views abortion as a “good thing” and stands opposed to those who, in good faith, cannot bring themselves to accept it even for the supposed good of the mother. He does not speak in terms of expecting the pregnant woman to make sacrifices on behalf of her baby, of bringing a new precious life into the world, or making their child’s life better than their own in spite of the influence of his mother who believed “in the ultimate value of this brief life we’ve each been given” (p. 206, italics mine).

5. Barak accepts his mother’s fundamental faith “in the goodness of people” (p. 205) essentially discounting the Bible’s theological doctrine of the nature of humanity. Here’s how he applies this view to the abortion issue; “I explained my belief that few women made a decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved and wrestled with her conscience when making that heart-wrenching decision;…” (p. 197). Are abortion, war, criminal activity, or global warming, for that matter, just the unintended consequences of the mistaken actions of good people wrestling with their consciences? Will President Obama be able to look into the soul of Valdimir Putin (as “W” says he did) and see that he is a good man despite the Russian incursion into Georgia or her posture towards the nations of Eastern Europe?

6. Barak describes a foundational lack of assurance about matters of faith. In recounting a conversation with one of his daughters he says “I wondered whether I should have told her the truth, that I wasn’t sure what happens when we die, any more than I was sure of where the soul resides or what existed before the Big Bang” (p. 226).

Like most Americans, even those who disagree with some or all of his political, social, and religious ideas, I like Senator Obama. I am delighted that (despite continuing problems in our nation) his nomination for President by a major political party has witnessed to the progress in race relations that America has made since the days of Jim Crow. His book is very well written and entertaining, and I like the family role model that he, Michele, and their children are setting for the families of our nation. I will pray for him, and where possible agree with him and support him, if he is elected President. He will be, as I have felt about all Presidents in my lifetime, my President.

His unorthodox “Christianity” is his choice. For many in the American Baptist Churches in the USA his theological doubts and weaknesses are similar to their own. He is welcome among us and, if he is not officially settled elsewhere, I invite him to become part of the ABC, often described by our leaders as the most diverse group of Baptists in the country. But, I have to confess, I hope he will come to believe the Bible. I hope He will understand it is God’s Word and not simply the fantastic thinking of religious fanatics wandering in the desert somewhere. I hope he will find assurance of salvation through personal, sincere commitment of his soul to Jesus Christ. And, I hope he will understand that seeking the good of all people in the world requires a commitment to standing for righteousness whether one is President or not.

I Could Have Told You

2008-06-25T05:03:00.000-07:00

The National Geographic has been pilloried recently in the press because of its apparent fibbing on the so-called “Gospel of Judas.” Remember the commercial exploitation of this topic two years ago, and the public debate by, probably, mostly liberal theologs about what it could mean? Now it appears (according to scholars in the field – I’m not one) that the “Gospel of Judas” is the Piltdown Man of biblical criticism. World Magazine reports (June 28/July 5, 2008) “National Geographic’s characterization of the text has proved grossly misleading.” and academic opinions indicate “…that the Gospel of Judas is nothing more than a Gnostic fantasy authored in the second century to legitimize a sectarian view of the life of Jesus.”

When defining Christian faith it is always best to stick with the scriptures, 66 books inspired by the Holy Spirit of God for the purposes of revealing God in Jesus Christ and bringing all who will believe to a saving relationship with Jesus. I’ll take John’s word (or Paul's, or Isaiah's) over Judas’ any time.

Any Relevance for Today?

2008-04-21T07:17:00.000-07:00

He wrote it in 1928 but this quote from E. Stanley Jones is still relevant today. It comes from his book Christ At The Round Table.
"Through pyschoanalysis you may come into the kingdom of the somewhat relieved mind; through social emphases you may come into the kingdom of a better and juster social organization; through education you may come into the kingdom of interesting fact; through systems of mental suggestion you may come into the kingdom of improved health; through self-culture you may come into the kingdom of refinement, but if you come into the kingdom of God, you must be converted. When Jesus, Son of Fact, uses the word 'except' in connection with conversion, there is no exception to that 'except.' The church will never sophisticate itself away from this need of conversion."
Surely no one who has read Jones, the famous Methodist missionary of India in the last century will accuse him of legalistic interpretation of scripture (at least, I would think not). So if he has it right even 'progressive' denominations, local churches, pastors, and laymen & women, have this need to go back to what the Bible teaches to have at the center of their social and political agendas the baseline of scripture teaching. The kingdom of God is through Jesus, and He must be the heart and soul of our actions in this world, and we only know God's truth about Him from the Bible.

What Does President Carter Mean?

2008-04-11T08:23:00.000-07:00

I have not given much attention to the New Baptist Covenant. Given the personalities who invented it, and their approach to religion and/or Christianity I estimated that it would be a liberal religious group dedicated to community service, but with little or no concern to also promote traditional Christian theology. The glowing reports I’ve heard seem to be coming from people I think would fall into that liberal -activist category. I am neither surprised, nor critical. If Baptists of the liberal sort wish to focus their religion on social concerns it is not a new thing. I would, however, hope that they would be forthcoming enough to make clear that their “social gospel” is not, nor is it intended to be, the biblical gospel of heart salvation.

Jimmy Carter’s defining words make that very clear to any who would think them through. He said (as quoted in MMBB Tomorrow Spring 2008); “For the first time in more than 160 years, we are convening a major gathering of Baptists throughout an entire continent, without any threat to our unity caused by differences of our race or politics or geography or the legalistic interpretation of Scripture.”

Essentially that sounds like “You can be whatever you are or want to be, and believe whatever you wish to believe and still be considered Baptist.” The practical, political, and spiritual naiveté is enormous, but I certainly applaud the idealism.

The biggest problem for me in President Carter’s underlay of the New Baptist Covenant is his assertion that “legalistic interpretation of Scripture” is a threat to Baptist unity. I must ask, as a Baptist who believes in a revelatory Christian faith, what is " legalistic interpretation of Scripture?"

Is it legalistic to believe that God has spoken in an objective form by revealing the Bible?

Is it legalistic to believe that anyone calling himself a Christian should take that book seriously?

Is it legalistic to declare, as God has, that Jesus is His Son, God manifest in the flesh?

Is it legalistic to expect that someone declaring himself to be a Baptist Christian should believe that Christ is literally risen from the dead as the Bible fully discloses?

Is it legalistic interpretation to place at the heart of our social action an invitation for those to whom we minister to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved when the Bible makes this the paramount calling of the Christian church?

If those things are to be discounted and disbelieved as merely legalistic interpretations of Scripture, how can the New Baptist Covenant be considered any thing other than a posse of political groupies, and where do we then find the things Baptists are supposed to believe?

Does that make sense to anybody in the New Baptist Covenant?

Truth to Power

2007-12-06T06:12:00.000-08:00

Going through old files I came across a letter I wrote to the ABCUSA General Secretary back on July 13, 2002 just after Roy had been installed. I thought I'd share with you the concluding paragraph. I wrote;
"I'm trying to speak truth to power. You're it, the power! You have the position, the moral influence, and theological persuasiveness to forestall the retreat from faith in God's Word that afflicts our denomination. I ask you to be a General Secretary who truly makes a difference for ABC by proclaiming God's disclosure of truth. I ask you to be a leader like the Judges of old who brought back God's people to Him when they strayed, a prophet to the denomination, not just a good administrator who lets entropy take its course."
I was convinced back in those days that Roy could reverse the direction of the denomination by being personally strong in his support of actual biblical authority based upon the truth that God really did inspire the Bible and Christian denominations are required to believe and teach its doctrine. I still think that there is a slim possibility that if he would become an outspoken evangelist for ABCUSA churches and organizations to yield themselves to the teaching of scriptures, come what may, the denomination could be returned to the biblical, or at least a more biblical path. I encourage him to try, though the trying will be a major effort, and would become the overwhelming focus of his ministry as General Secretary. But, I think that's what we need.

Continuing

2007-10-23T13:05:00.000-07:00

During this past year I lost the ability to post on this blog, and only today managed to regain it. I hope to be posting on a regular basis again. God bless you all.

More Wishful Thinking

2006-11-10T09:23:00.000-08:00

The announced departure of two of the denomination’s leading “progressive” lights gives our General Secretary one more opportunity to be dramatically prophetic and lead ABCUSA back to being a denomination of “un-compromised biblical values.”
Our GS should proclaim throughout the land that he intends to lead ABCUSA in a strategic renewal of historic Baptist tradition. He should announce a three-point program as follows:
1. All theological under girding of ministry in and through ABCUSA will be in the evangelical Bible believing mold.
2. Traditional morality in obedience to scripture teaching will be the norm for ABCUSA churches.
3. Missions will have the primary focus of leading individuals to ask Jesus Christ into their hearts as their personal savior. Agricultural and socio-economic aspects of Missions work, as valuable and important as they are, will be secondary to the task of personal evangelism.
There is life after ABCUSA on both the left, as well as the right, and the GS, after adopting this personal ministry philosophy for his leading of the denomination, should invite those, who cannot, with a committed heart, conscientiously minister and fellowship in an ABC returning to these historic Baptist understandings, to relocate to a more conducive organizational home.
Some might ask, “Why should those whose biblical vision is less than consistently based on the text be invited to relocate. They now are a small, but significant minority in ABC, and have worked themselves into positions of influence, and they have a strong base of people who foster the “holistic” approach to mission and the “anything goes” attitude towards theology. So why shouldn’t the conservative evangelicals admit defeat and relocate themselves, leaving ABC as the liberal denomination so many want it to be?”
Legitimate question!
Maybe the tenets the GS declares should instead of the aforementioned be like this:
1. Modern thinking interprets the Bible in a way that allows any church or pastor to be convinced it supports any theological perspective found anywhere in today’s church.
2. Traditional morality no longer serves the church because of a “social revolution” that has rejected the old ways.
3. Mission today now falls most importantly under the “holistic” vision of those who believe more in the importance of the “evangelism of structures” than in the importance of individual, personal conversions.

So, it is about time for very honest, open, and public declaration. If this is where our GS is coming from, and the denomination is going, then it would be fair for him to invite conservative evangelicals to relocate. I for one would accept his invitation, and as the sun sets in the west say a fond fairwell to hopes for ABCUSA’s reformation and resurgence as a force for biblical evangelism. But we need the GS to define where we are going under his leadership. The two differing directions possible are mutually exclusive. As I view the law of non-contradiction one is the right way for us to go, the other isn’t. It is time for the ABC, in the person of the GS, to define itself so we can all evaluate our options, and choose our direction.

"Thinking Out Loud"

2006-10-19T13:49:00.000-07:00

Aidsand has been “Thinking Out Loud” and it’s been shared with the denomination at large. I’ve been thinking about his thinking.

To sum up my feelings on his expressed thoughts, I can say that looking at the whole of his thoughts, I don’t really see anything different than what ABCUSA has or is now. He has used some “Shared Table” language but his picture of the “Shared Table” is not the picture those of us who read the Lancaster Proposal have envisioned, and that original Lancaster pic was not what Bible evangelicals, at least this one, were looking for in the first place.

In his critique of the SCODS overlay indicating that “Baptists don’t respond well to command and control,” he lays the groundwork for the weakness of his own ideas re: “By-laws guaranteeing perpetual relationship with the larger denominational ABC family,” and the “Board of General Ministries” nominating national leadership, and “some form of annual proportional assessment on covenanting ministry partners.” Baptists don’t respond well to command and control structures, especially those that are more Presbyterian, Episcopal, etc. than baptistic.

His thinking does not lay the biblical foundation that the average ABC church is seeking, a foundation, which takes seriously the authoritative role played by scripture upon Baptist theology and practice. His position appears to extend the kinda “do what you want under the rubric of soul freedom without any fear that the denomination will expect you to be in observance of and obedience to the teaching of the Bible” situation that currently defines ABC connection.

In fact, the references to theology in this paper “theological diversity,” “theological moderates and progressives,” clearly indicate that theologies that do not base their understanding of God’s revelation in the actual words of the book are not only more than welcome, but sought after. Just like today.

Actually, as I envision what is here being thought, I see the same old ABCUSA with a few label changes for boards and regional and/or other staff positions. The average ABCUSA church that can stomach remaining with the denomination as it is today will notice little or no difference (except the nomenclature changes, and maybe the assessment) after this set up takes affect.

Now, please, I understand that Aidsand is just thinking out loud, bouncing things off others, brainstorming, but since he is on the committee to rewrite what ABC structure should be, it is evident that his thinking will be pivotal in what evolves out of the mix, so it is fair game for pre-mortem evaluation.

If We (Evangelicals) Stay

2006-10-12T13:53:00.000-07:00

There are still many evangelicals who don’t want to withdraw from ABC. They still believe that there is a possibility for reformation. I don’t think so because for decades evangelicals have been (and I think still are) unwilling to do the things necessary to bring about reform, and without such willingness and follow through the options are only two: 1. Go 2. Stay.

If true reformation, renewal, or revival is to come to ABC, evangelicals need to be willing not only to post their 95 thesis on the internet, but be willing to act in concert in ways that will be excoriated by our liberal brothers and friends in places of power within the current structure.

The current denominational by-laws and rules are designed to keep evangelicals from gaining a majority in positions that can vote to bring change, while insuring that a liberal majority is almost always in ascendancy (since way back in 1968 I’ve been voting against the changes in denominational structure that have allowed this situation to occur).

With the design and layout of ABCUSA structures favoring the control of liberal leadership and blocking the resurgence of a majority evangelicalism at decision making levels, baptist evangelicals who have anything other than fantasy hopes for a return to biblical authority, need to take a new course.

If reformation is possible, it can come if (and it is a big “if”) evangelicals are willing to become “inside outsiders.” ABC evangelicals need to put their ministries and monies outside of denomination structures. For example: Evangelicals ought to form an independent version of BNM. Call it “Alternative North American Ministries in the churches of the ABC,” or some such nom de plume indicating it’s connected to the autonomous churches, but not with the denomination. Through it, commission evangelical missionaries under the direction of evangelical churches. Raise their mission support from the evangelical churches, and expend it outside of ABCUSA checkbooks. Over time it will grow to be the dominant national ministry group connected to ABC local churches.

Evangelicals should form a national Evangelical Pastors Council as an alternative to the Ministers’ Council that exists at this time. This new council would be open to evangelical pastors (youth workers and other ministry personnel) who are willing to sign, preach, and live by a biblical statement of faith. This would provide evangelical pastors (and through them their churches) a continuous voice to raise evangelical concerns to current denomination leadership representing the many evangelical pastors (“All for one, one for all.”), and help allieviate the leaning some churches have towards leaving the denomination.

Evangelicals, if they remain in ABC, need to keep the mission monies flowing, but not through United Mission. All giving that any evangelical churches do should be targeted and “specified” (SPC line on “Monthly Report Of Missions Support” form) to evangelical missionaries, ministries, and good works, that will carry on the good ABC Missions has done in the past, but in the exclusive context of a biblical message of salvation through Christ, and reform for individuals and society. Evangelicals need to be willing to begin a new unit, region, association, or committee whenever they find that an ABCUSA configuration does not represent evangelical thought and positions, and in the event there is intransigence to change in the national leadership’s approach to biblical ministry these alternatives could form the basis of an entirely new body of Baptist churches.

Selling the "Holy Donut"

2006-10-02T12:53:00.000-07:00

Sell the "Holy Donut?" OK with me, but don’t use the money to endow OGS.

It is clear that ABCUSA is divided over biblical issues, is there any one in our denomination who doesn’t realize this? So when we sell the HQ at VF don’t use the money to endow the point of view of OGS. Divide the money too. Set up two endowments; one to support conservative evangelistic ministries, and one for the social gospel ministries of the left. This will extend the long time cooperation of conservatives and liberals within the ABC organizations without showing favoritism by endowing and perpetuating one view over the other. To endow the OGS is simply to continue the Welcoming & Affirming approach that the OGS has more than tacitly endorsed and is unfair to the conservative churches of the denomination. Sell it! Good move, but don’t use the money to endow OGS.

Without Benefit of Clergy?

2006-10-02T12:29:00.000-07:00

In my opinion, and I’m sure there are some who wish I had fewer opinions, the problems of the denomination on all levels from national to local will only be solved when the leadership takes a stand. They must affirm the teaching of the Word re: homosexuality and all the social ills scripture addresses, or affirm the choices of the world outside the church. They must do this come what may.

Either decision will result in a smaller national body as ABC will lose some churches no matter which way leadership leads. It may result in a lot less money depending on which churches remain. It will certainly change the view the media and certain segments of society have toward us, but it will “make an honest woman” of ABCUSA (so to speak), and of each of our autonomous churches. Then the local churches will finally understand the direction of the denomination and will be able to decide to stay or go without twinges of conscience over issues of history, tradition, or loyalty.

Something out of the "Iceberg" Sermon

2006-09-21T11:34:00.000-07:00

I was listening to the Denver Biennial Address of the General Secretary again, I call it the “Iceberg” sermon ( i.e. The Titanic hit the iceberg, ABCUSA hit the biennial address), and one of the announced characteristics of radical Christian discipleship jumped out at me. Here it is, a radical Christian, according to the message, is one who has “a non-conforming engagement with the world.”

On the symptomatic issue that is wreaking havoc on and in ABCUSA it seems apparent that the denomination’s engagement with the culture does not match up.

Whether we like it or not, the scriptures do say homosexual behavior is not God’s plan for humanity. It is so not God’s plan that very emphatic and spiritually unflattering words for such behavior were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Essentially regarding this behavior, a biblically informed lifestyle can be summed up simply as “Don’t do this.”

On the other hand, the world says “It’s O.K. It’s just a different lifestyle. You don’t have to be restrained in your living by an old religious book, scripture or not. Do it, and/or approve it, if you like.”
What would a non-conforming engagement with the world on this subject look like? Would it resemble ABCUSA’s acceptance of the Welcoming & Affirming movement, or a welcoming & tranforming approach?

Rehashing orthodoxy & tolerance

2006-09-02T13:28:00.000-07:00

I've been reading G.K. Chesterton on vacation. Ask Phil Yancy, one of our Denver Biennial speakers, what that does to a Christian thinker.

In any case, orthodox (biblical) Christianity allows for many divergent view points. The American countryside makes that clear. Drive through a small town on Maryland's eastern shore, as my wife and I did between crab cakes, and you will see it clearly. On one corner is the Methodist Church, on another the Baptists, the Presbyterians and Episcopalians, among others. All these churches, at least in their formative days, believing something that made them into Baptists, Methodists, or what have you.

They did not burn each others churches, or battle in the streets over doctrinal differences. They lived and worked together for the good of their community. The Presbyterians might have been trusted to run the bank, the Methodists the mill, the Baptists the grocery store. They cooperated and did business with one another, and were good friends all the while believing that if you did not believe in baptism by immersion or the premillennial rapture of the church you should not be a Baptist, but join a church with which you agreed. They all believed that there were standards of belief for church membership (that's why they had different churches), and if one did not subscribe to the standards of a particular church they should not be in the church to which they did not subscribe.

Baptists were tolerant of the views of others, but did not want you to become a Baptist if you did not believe what Baptists believed. If you were willing to believe that Episcopal stuff you should be Episcopalian, etc. etc. etc. and "God luv ya." The Baptists will love you, work with you, play in the same games, enjoy your friendship, and cooperate in making the world a better place with you, but don't pretend to be a Baptist when you don't believe their biblical positions.

The same sort of thing should be happening today. If the Church of Non-biblical Posturing, or Christians Without Faith, or Sophia's Sophisticates should organize and become religious bodies, Baptists can and will be tolerant despite our great disagreement with them. Baptist can and will live in community harmony and seek the good of the world amongst them, but will simply ask them to be honest about their beliefs. Don't call yourself Baptists, American or otherwise, when your beliefs are diametrically opposed to those that Baptists have historically held. To be a Baptist requires a set of fairly regimented beliefs (biblical, of course).

One is free to worship as he/she chooses, but please have the integrity not to claim the name when you reject the game. This is what the ABC's General Secretary should have been saying since the first moment after his installation. It's probably an opportunity long gone.

Responding to the General Secretary's July 17 Statement

2006-07-28T05:55:00.000-07:00

What was our General Secretary thinking when at the ’05 Denver Biennial he gave the speech that might be the death blow to our denomination. Probably, he was thinking the conservatives would go along to get along once more, and step out of the way as ABCUSA made its headlong run into progressive liberal extremism.

That didn’t happen. PSW did what many other ABC people are thinking about. They voted their official withdrawal from a denomination which had turned the meaning of the Bible on its head.

Now the General Secretary has restated his opinion with the recently released statement of July 17, 2006. In it he expresses his personal belief in traditional morality, and his responsibility as General Secretary to implement the policies of the General Board. I am glad to hear him make such statements, however, they do not stand alone. There is a wide and serious context in which his words must be interpreted.

As a Christian brother I love Roy in the Lord. I am grateful for the many good things his ministry has accomplished over the years in ABC. I worked well with Roy when he was the Executive Minister of New Jersey, and gave him a supportive review when questioned by an evangelical brother in another Region prior to his becoming General Secretary. I want to keep my personal friendship with him in good standing, but realistically I can’t view this statement as anything more than a last ditch attempt to keep the denomination from coming apart.

In November PSW will be gone. At least, 80 individual churches have left the denomination since Denver. Regions and churches around the country are reevaluating and, some reconsidering, their connections to ABC. Who knows how many more are likely to say adios.

Into this milieu comes the July 17th statement. My take is that it is too little, too late.

TOO LITTLE: There is nothing in the statement that indicates the General Secretary will make any effort to implement the General Board’s policy in a way that would call the Welcoming & Affirming churches to repentance regarding their antibiblical endorsement of homosexual behavior, or invite them to relocate if they will not repent. The statement appears to be a sop to conservatives whose departure en masse would break the back of the denomination. It’s an attempt to staunch the bleeding. Roy, does not promise to use the bully pulpit of the OGS to promote a return of ABCUSA to traditional Bible believing faith. He does not promise to support associations or regions who feel compelled to discipline churches violating the teaching of scripture. He has not promised to advocate implementation of the 1992 Policy by National Ministries. Recent job descriptions mailed out by National Ministries (7/06) do not even list a biblical worldview as a requirement for consideration. He has not promised to attempt to steer clear of promotion of unbiblical theology and practice by speakers at Biennials and other national meetings, nor has he promised to give equal time to conservative theological biblical speakers.

I can only assume that while he will continue to implement the policy as he describes in his statement, that across the denominational landscape we will simply see more of the same kind of things we’ve witnessed over the last decade.

TOO LATE: I believed when Roy came to the OGS he could have turned our denomination around (the Executive Secretary of my Region still thinks he can). A letter like the July 17th statement with some specific promises, and projected implementations spelled out could have stopped the split. But back then such a statement was not forthcoming. It appears to me he proceeded then on the usual ABC experience that the conservatives would turn the other cheek “AGAIN,” as they had done so often in the past. But this controversy over the meaning of scripture appears to have been the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back.

Some think it’s about time.
It’s now or never. Turn ABCUSA back to the teaching of scripture as authoritative for faith and practice, and the expected standard for all member churches, or wish Bible believers well as they go in a new direction leaving Valley Forge and their memories behind.

We've Been Talking Long Enough

2006-07-25T11:33:00.000-07:00

What are the results of our (ABCUSA’s) more than 20 year long discussion of this behavior the Bible calls sin? Here are some:
ABE (American Baptist Evangelicals) declare no possibility of renewal in ABCUSA and goes out of existence to form a new para church organization.
ABCPSW declares no possibility of biblical renewal in ABCUSA and votes to withdraw from the denomination.
ABC of Michigan is said to possibly be on the verge of voting regarding withdrawal if there is no change in the Valley Forge position.
ABC of the West changes its name so as not to be too closely identified with the denomination.
ABCWV a national magazine reports that another vote on withdrawal is possible.
ABC of Indiana-Kentucky makes efforts in the ABCUSA regarding enforcing the Resolution on Homosexuality.
GREEN LAKE gears up for post denominational ministry.
INDIVIDUAL CHURCHES (number unknown) frustrated by Valley Forge’s unwillingness to promote biblical obedience among the churches consider leaving the denomination or remaining inactive. 81 churches (outside of the PSW) have recently withdrawn from the denomination, with 47 of those being linked to the current turmoil over the Bible’s teaching. It is my opinion that among those who gave no reason for withdrawing a majority withdrew because of the unbiblical stance of ABCUSA.
Now, are all these people simply so unlearned that they can’t read the words of the Bible and understand what they mean?
Are all these long time American Baptists just a bunch of mean spirited nasties?
Are they “mind numbed robots” who follow anything Pat Roberston says on t.v.? Or are they good people, denominationally concerned, who have realized that the discussion has revealed to them that there is very little hope our leaders across the denominational spectrum will ever go back to the Bible as a true authority for ABCUSA?

Another Thought From HEF

2006-07-11T07:00:00.000-07:00

“You see, we Protestant modernists have sometimes been so anxious to be liberal that we have forgotten to be religious.”
Some of you may not recognize that statement by Harry Emerson Fosdick. Harry is one of my favorite liberals. He was the "modernist of modernists" in the 1920's to the 1950's. He made this statement circa 1935, but it still carries weight. The current “modernists,” liberals, progressives (or whatever name they’d self identify with) are so anxious to be seen by the world outside the church as liberal that they have forgotten Christianity has a foundation upon which it stands.
Maybe they haven’t really forgotten. It’s just that they’d rather be liberal than stand on that foundation.
They’d rather be liberal than religious.
They’d rather be liberal than be biblical.
They’d rather be liberal than Christian.
Now here’s the kicker. Those of us who identify ourselves as Bible believing or evangelical don’t have a problem with them being liberal. We want them to believe what they choose to believe even if we disagree with them, but we want them to be straight forward enough to admit that their choice to be liberal, modernist, progressive, non-Bible believing, or however, they might characterize their position, is a departure from the traditional Baptist position, and we want them to start their own organization and not destroy the American Baptist Churches as a denomination. In my opinion, that would be the honorable thing to do. Do I have much hope that they will stop disturbing the ABCUSA? No, I don't. So Bible believing ABCers will probably continue to leave, not only because ABCUSA is not what it ought to be, because they have no other option if their desire is to be a part of a biblical denomination.

The Basic Message

2006-07-04T05:06:00.000-07:00

The clear message of the biblical gospel is that Jesus died for us.
He is perfect - we are sinners.
He is holy - we are ungodly.
He is accepted - we are condemned.
He is life - we are caught by death.
But by dying for us He offers us all that He is.
And, if we believe in Him, in some miraculous way God changes us, makes us like Him, and gives us new lives and newness.
It's amazing, it's a miracle, it's available, it's yours
if you will trust in Christ as your savior and Lord.

What Would Happen If...?

2006-06-06T12:18:00.000-07:00

In 2 Corinthians 12:11 the apostle Paul expresses the personal feeling of foolishness he has over defending his apostleship. The Corinthians, knew, or should have known the things he is saying, but circumstances required him to say them and he feels like a fool to be embroiled in such a discussion. Carrying out the logic of the ABCUSA’s position regarding what the Bible calls sin to its rational conclusion might be deemed foolish in the sense in which Paul was speaking, but it certainly ought to be done, if for no other reason than to call attention to the long term potential of ABC’s rejection of scripture as its norm.

So, if a denomination affirms one behavior the Bible calls sin, isn’t it logical that eventually other movements will come along seeking acceptance of their practice or practices (whether the Bible speaks of them as sinful or not)? What would happen if there were a movement in the denomination to affirm people who were committing adultery, how would VF respond?

“I was born this way,” the wayward husband opines. “I was born needing more intimacy than my wife can give. My wife doesn’t understand me. I still love her and the kids, but I can’t help it that God made me this way? I’m a Christian. I believe in the authority of the Bible, but “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is just proof texting. And, for me, this is not a choice, I was born this way. I’m a real (sexy) man.”

Would our leaders be understanding and progressive, and refuse to condemn such behavior? After all, does ABCUSA want to be poking our noses into other people’s motel rooms? And besides adultery seems to be a significant (and expected) part of today’s modern society (if t.v. is any judge of societal norms). We wouldn’t want the words of the old Book to make us look judgmental, would we? Would our leaders feel that their friendship with the members of the “Endorse Adultery Now” fraternity required them to refuse to pronounce committing adultery a rejection of the Bible’s teaching? Would they recite the following as justification? “I am STILL traditional in matters of human sexuality AND I do not want to be separated from those who in Christian conscience differ from me on the issue of”…adultery…or whatever. Isn’t that soul freedom?

Would General Board advocate continued conversation on human sexuality and married sexual fidelity. Can’t we just put aside the behavior, and rejection of scripture, and work on mission together? Besides, who’s to say someone will not be able to come up with some obscure, or invented, historical facts to show that the adultery of the Bible was something different than the sincere, heartfelt, family values oriented, love driven adultery of the 21st century. Where’s Dan Brown when you need him?

Suppose a new affirmation movement affirmed thievery and the National Ministries endowments were being systematically looted. Or perhaps anti-Semitism, or the idolatry of false religion in some sort of a re-imagining of theology? Where would our Valley Forge leaders be? Would ABCUSA give the same approval to new “Inviting and Approving” groups that they now give the current “Welcoming & Affirming” faction?

Well, you say, that’s ludicrous it would never happen? Ummm, I suppose not…, but then, that’s what many American Baptists used to say before ABCUSA became so sensitive to and accepting of churches who are actually, as we speak, endorsing homosexual behavior.

What Should Valley Forge Have said?

2006-06-01T08:42:00.000-07:00

How should ABCUSA have responded to the ABCPSW withdrawal? I think they should have said something like:

“Dear Friends,
We hate to see you leave. Your fellowship has been good throughout the years. You have been a major financial support to the denomination, and your people have provided significant leadership. You have been good for us.
We understand why you are leaving. Its because as ABCUSA we will not accept your understanding that what the Bible says must determine the theological and moral standards of the denomination. We know you are committed to such a faith, as are many others in ABCUSA, but we are not willing to limit our understanding of God’s working in the world to a strict acceptance of what the writers of scripture meant when they wrote so many years ago. Therefore, we realize the validity of your withdrawal. Amos 3:3 “Can two walk together unless they be agreed?”
So we wish you well. We have seen the wonderful growth of your ministries, and we recognize the strength of your fellowship. We will be glad for you if God allows you to have continued growth in local congregations as well as your corporate association. We will welcome any ministry opportunity you wish to share in with us. We love you and we will miss you.
Cordially, with faith in Christ,
ABCUSA Leadership”

That would have been an honest, loving reply.

Sadly, the impression that may be taken from correspondence and statements out of VF and other ABC enclaves is at best negative. Like: PSW shouldn’t have done what they did, they should have overlooked theological differences. Or: There are lots of PSW churches that will remain ABC. We’ll start fresh out there, and to heck with those transformational ministries, their withdrawal won’t matter. Or: Good riddance, who needs those conservatives anyway.

Hey, it's history, the separation happened. Instead of grousing, complaining, criticizing, and name calling ABCUSA should be assessing its theological and moral positions in an attempt to get to where the denomination wants to be. The problem is that when a Bible believing region like PSW understood where the denomination wants to be they felt they had no other choice but to withdraw, and it is likely that if other regions take seriously the Bible’s teaching and really understand where ABC wants to be they will feel constrained to leave as well. How many times can ABCUSA say good riddance?

"As Anyone Can See"

2006-05-24T10:16:00.000-07:00

It was a different time and a different context in which he wrote, but listen to Harry Emerson Fosdick, the leading light of the liberal assault on traditional Christianity in the early 20th century. He wrote the following critique of his own movement in "The Secret of Victorious Living" (1934). "...many of our modernist churches, as anyone can see, are spiritually dead and morally futile." Would it be too obvious to ask those in ABCUSA who reject the Bible's teaching to evaluate their churches in the light of HEF's observation? "As anyone can see," he said.

ABCUSA NOW A MUSEUM EXHIBIT

2006-05-11T12:29:00.000-07:00

The American Baptist Churches in the USA is already there in the museum of unlive things right between the bones of the Tyrannosaurus Rex and the dinosaur formerly known as Brontosaurus. I'd say a denomination is a gathering of churches around the truth of the Bible, for the purposes of working together to make that truth known to all the world. That truth is Jesus, of course, and He brings into the lives of His followers what the early disciples and the writers of scripture called “the way.” For Christians and their denominations there is a way of belief and behavior, and those things are laid out plainly in the Word of God, the Bible. When a denomination like ABCUSA (claiming to be Christian, biblical, and evangelical) turns against specific teachings of the Bible, because to follow such teachings would be politically incorrect in an unbelieving world, it virtually assures itself an agonizing death and a skeletal reference in the museum. The General Secretary’s address at the Denver Biennial (2005) was the meteorite that whacked this dinosaur.

No Reformation Without Separation

2006-05-02T02:09:00.000-07:00

When the 1,125 delegates of the American Baptist Churches Pacific South West (84% of voting delegates) directed their Board to withdraw from the American Baptist Churches in the USA, they did the only thing that might save the denomination from its downward spiral. They essentially said "By your position regarding God's revelation in God's Word, the Bible, you have separated yourself from us in spirit, so we now must separate organizationally from you." As difficult a decision as that may have been for some of the PSW churches, it was the best thing they could have done for us in ABCUSA. Hopefully, as a result of this major separation the denominational leaders will "come back to the Bible" and accept its teaching as our authority, and live it out organizationally in our life together. If they do not the future of ABCUSA is bleak. It may limp along as a dying bureaucracy for years, but it will be clear that it has lost the baptistic biblically evangelistic spirit that gives baptist denominations their life. Thank you PSW for doing what you had to do, and for opening the door to reformation, revival, and restoration in ABCUSA. There is no reformation without separation. I believe that ABCPSW will be wonderfully blessed by God in its ministry and outreach and its life together. May God bring reformation to the ABCUSA because of PSW's faithful step.

hisbarkingdog.blogspot.com

2006-04-19T13:40:00.000-07:00

According to this quote I found on the blog - hisbarkingdog.blogspot.com Charles Haddon Spurgeon would have severe problems with being an American Baptist. He is reported to have said "To pursue union at the expense of truth is treason to the Lord Jesus Christ." It comes from The Sword and the Trowel (Nov. 1887 p. 558). hisbarkingdog.blogspot.com is the best blog relating to ABCUSA issues I have found so far. I encourage you to visit it regularly.

Back to a Future

2006-03-27T14:01:00.000-08:00

Memo to The American Baptist Churches General Board Executive Committee: The way to save money and streamline the work of ABCUSA is to return to the Annual Convention of previous days when the delegates (a.k.a. Messengers of the churches) set and/or responded to the agenda of the denominational staff and officers by voting to make the decisions that chart the course for the denomination.

The current super structure of the General Board and other ABCUSA organizations should be discarded. In its place the historic democracy of Baptist delegates of the local Baptist churches voting the policy and practices of the national denomination should be restored. It should be apparent to onlookers (as noted on a web site of importance to ABCers hisbarkingdog.blogspot.com) that one General Board meeting a year will most likely provide us with nothing more than a rubber stamp for the opinions and desires of denominational staff and officers. Such a rubber stamp process would merely increase the distance and disaffection between Valley Forge and local churches.

The former criticisms of an Annual ABCUSA Convention are no longer valid. It was once said that delegates from the area of the country in which the annual convention is held overwhelm the meeting giving a regional flavor to decisions. It was once said that it was too expensive for churches to send delegates to meetings across the country. In this age of the Internet those reasons no longer hold water.

Now that we are all so closely connected by Internet technology, a democratic vote of delegates from the churches is as accessible as activating your ISP. Setting up a nationwide Internet service to ABCUSA churches for democratic voting could be done at very reasonable expense to both the denomination and ALL churches who are a part of it. Identification numbers and passwords for church delegates would safeguard the annual vote, and insure that ALL ABC churches would have their proper tally of votes if they chose to vote them.
Let’s give the denomination back to the local churches. Let’s put issues before them and count the votes. Then we’ll really be the American BAPTIST Churches in the USA, and not be the American Baptist HIERARCHICAL Churches in the USA.

The Fearful Thing

2006-03-24T05:13:00.000-08:00

In a radio sermon, west coast preacher and theologian, John MacArthur defined sin this way. He said, “Sin represents the dissent of man.” In that clear definition he spoke volumes. The attitude of humanity, the attitude of the world towards God’s revelation is to reject what God has said.

The worldly response to God is: “I disagree with you, God. Your way is too hard for me. Your way is too old fashioned. Your way is too restrictive. Your way is too unpleasant. Your way is too much against my natural instincts and desires. Your way takes too much discipline. You won’t let me be happy in my way. Your way is too controlling for me. I do not choose your way. I do not love what you call righteousness.”
The fearful thing in today's churches and denominations is that the world’s dissent from God seems to be getting a following.

Sadly, More of the Same

2006-03-12T14:11:00.000-08:00

Ravi Zacharias “If the church of Jesus Christ sets her house in order we will see revival.”

According to dowblog.blogspot.com The Washington Post recently published remarks by the actively homosexual Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. Asked about his personal sexual behavior he said: "It is not something of which I should repent and I have no intention of doing so. I have been led to understand that I am loved by God just as I am. That is not to say I am perfect but it is my belief that my orientation is value-neutral. It is what I do with my relationship that God really cares about." Apparently a vocal group of American Baptists would agree with him.

Then he adds the following: "We worship a living God, not one locked up in the Scripture of 2,000 years ago." Ah, there it is. The issue that is really the heart of the problem among us American Baptists. Is the Bible too old? Out of date? Has the shining light of its revelation faded? Is it no longer true (at least when it deals with issues of popular modern culture)? Has God finally freed Himself of the antiquated notions He once had?

I don’t agree with the homosexual Bishop about the Bible, but that vocal group of American Baptists affirming his lifestyle seems to.

So far in our denomination they have the upper hand. The leadership of ABCUSA is unwilling to censure them. Baptist polity is being compartmentalized to aid their argument. Denominational unity is being magnified to dwarf the damage they are doing to the Bible believing American Baptists who make up the larger portion of ABCUSA population.

Do you have any hope for ABCUSA?

It Says What It Says

2006-02-22T12:16:00.000-08:00

Helen Barrett Montgomery was president of The Northern Baptist Convention 1921-1922, a time when the leaders of this denomination, now known as ABCUSA, were taking a left ward direction. She was the first woman minister in the denomination, a social reformer and Greek scholar who translated the New Testament, and a feminist who, according to her brief bio published on the Internet by Christian History Institute, “read some of her feminist ideals into her Bible translation or added it to the notes.”

Yet, her Centenary Translation The New Testament In Modern English (compelled by the Greek text) reads in Romans 1:26-27 “That is why God has given them up to passions of dishonor; for on the one hand their women actually changed the natural function of sex into that which is against nature; and on the other hand their men likewise abandoned the natural use of women, and were ablaze with passion for one another; men with men practicing shameless acts, and receiving in their own person that recompense of their wrong doing which necessarily followed.”

She could hardly be called a radical biblical extremist. So, why would she ever translate that passage in the way she did? Because that’s the meaning of the scriptures as revealed by God in the Greek text. She was scholar enough to say what it says.

As an American Baptist who believes that the Bible speaks plainly on this issue, and that the Bible is right because it is inspired by God, I am not interested in telling people caught up in this behavior of “changing natural function” that they can’t do it. That’s their choice and they must explain it to, and, work it out with God.

I’m asking that the denomination stand where Helen Barrett Montgomery’s translation of the scriptures does, and say what it says. I’m asking ABCUSA to indicate to those who reject portions of scripture they dislike, to admit that it is inappropriate for them to claim to be traditional Baptists when they openly reject as true the basis for traditional Baptist faith and behavior.

Yes, it will mean that they ought to leave us. And yes, if they have theological integrity, they will require themselves to leave us, to start a new denomination or join with another that discards this significant portion of scripture as well, but that action will allow them to be who they want to be, without destroying this great denomination they claim to love.
Since our denominational leaders do not have the spiritual wherewithal to take the suitable action, shouldn’t the Welcoming & Affirming churches act sacrificially, and do it for them?

Duh?

2006-02-17T08:36:00.001-08:00

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently made a profound statement about the Constitution. “It says something and doesn’t say other things.” That’s fairly obvious to most observers. However, some want to allow whatever it says to mean whatever they want. Another obvious insight to observers is that the Bible, too, says some things and doesn’t say others. It says some behaviors are wrong, and it doesn’t say you can do them anyhow. How can there not be a division within ABCUSA? Some of us believe what it says, others want it to mean whatever they want it to. The leaders of the denomination should take a forthright stand and let us all know whether they believe what the Bible says, or, perhaps, that they think those believing the Bible re: moral issues are being extreme.

Reminder

2006-02-02T08:14:00.000-08:00

The gospel of Christ declared in scripture can be summarized as “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3). Scripture indicates the individual is called to realize that his (her) sins separate him from the relationship with God that gives forgiveness, newness, and life. He is invited to believe in Jesus as his personal and all sufficient savior and needs to turn from all other faiths, sins, or personal concerns that block his belief in and commitment to Jesus as the one and only way of salvation. This is the message that ought to permeate all ABCUSA positions and pronouncements.

"Sounds like" ECUSA

2005-12-09T12:05:00.000-08:00

When, in previous writings, I wrote about ABCUSA becoming the Episcopal Church in Baptist drag I may have spoken truer than even I thought.

The Episcopal Church uses the term “bridge church” to identify its mission to the society. Does it sound like the “bridge people” appellation trickling down from Valley Forge. Consider this quotation: “We are not of one mind on the subject of human sexuality.” And the idea that among believers there are “honest and legitimate differences on this subject.” Same playbook? Lastly, does this portion of a statement from one division of the Anglican Communion sound like something being said by some ABC people? “Others, reading the Scriptures with integrity, conclude, in the light of developing understanding of humanity and sexuality, that the time has arrived for the Church to affirm committed homosexual relationships.” Have you heard anything resembling these things in your contacts with ABC?

In response: a “bridge people” should build bridges from the sin that doth so easily beset and destroy to the high, safe, ground of God.

That there are different feelings regarding homosexual activity among people does not negate the Bible’s clear teaching.

There are no “legitimate” theological differences to be discussed by the church on this subject because the scriptures throughout express only one clear and consistent view.

If those espousing acceptance of homosexuality are reading the scriptures with integrity and still advocating a change in the church’s viewpoint on that behavior it means that they are advocating the rejection and overthrow of the meaning of the words of God’s revelation. If integrity is their claim they should be forthright in declaring what their position means.

For those approving, endorsing, and embracing the homosexual life style against Bible guidelines there is already a church where you would feel at home, the ECUSA. I would guess they will welcome you, and will accept you without any expectations for your church doctrine. You will be able to believe or disbelieve anything you choose without control from the Holy Bible. We Baptists will continue to be your friends, and love you in Christ, and fellowship with you where appropriate, but please don’t shipwreck ABCUSA by destroying any biblical foundation we still have.

The Debate: The Truth and Authority of God's Word

2005-11-18T18:42:00.000-08:00

The debate, of course, is not about one behavior, no matter how severely it is damaging the ABCUSA. It’s about the Bible.

Did God make mistakes when He inspired the Bible?
Was God unaware of scientific reality when He inspired it?
Did God purposely give us error when He inspired it?
Was God a sin-a-phobe (to coin a term) when He inspired it?
Did God have the right to say what He said about certain behaviors when He inspired it?
Has God changed His mind since He inspired it?
Are we more sensitive than God was when He inspired it?
Are we smarter than God was when He inspired it?
Was God, Himself, sinning when He inspired it?
Did God, when He inspired it, give us the right to reject His Word, and still consider ourselves being obedient to its authority?

My answer to all 10 of these questions is “No!”

I am a traditional Baptist. I believe that the Bible is inspired, authoritative, and inerrant.
I believe when it calls something a sin, that it is a sin, even if I like that sin or have friends who are living in that sin. I will continue to love those friends, but must be honest in telling them that according to God’s Word they are living in sin. And I will, while continuing to love them, tell them that it is not appropriate to claim to be traditional (American) Baptists while rejecting the clear teaching of scripture.

If the denominational leadership had been following such a straightforward course of action over the years we would not be standing on the precipice that we are. Maybe it’s still not too late for ABCUSA if the leadership will change direction. Maybe.

Kansas, New Jersey, or Oz

2005-11-09T14:07:00.000-08:00

A recent letter (dated 10/28/05) from the Office of the General Secretary rhapsodizes over that very office. “This ministry stands at the center of all we do. What the hub is to the wheel, what the heart is to the body, what the sun is to the solar system, the Office of the General Secretary is to American Baptist ministry and mission.”

I hope that was written by the public relations firm and not someone who is giving leadership to the denomination. It sounds like the Wizard of Oz ruling over the Emerald City.

I believe that the Office of the General Secretary, because it gets its life from the local churches, is supposed to be leading the denomination in the way the local churches wish it to lead the denomination. The local churches should not be revolving around the Office of the General Secretary, rather the orbit of the OGS should be set by the spiritual gravitational pull of the local church (or as the October 28 letter refers to your church “the fundamental unit of mission”).

The large majority of our churches want the denomination to endorse the teaching of the Bible, and expect all ABC churches to follow that teaching. The large majority of our churches want the denomination to preach a clear call to transformational faith in Jesus as savior and Lord. The large majority of our churches want the denomination to be cooperative with other Christian bodies in doing significant social action, but stand out among them as unashamedly willing to make our biblical commitment public as the heart which pumps the life of our social sensitivities and efforts. The large majority of our churches want the denomination to have the spiritual backbone to challenge and censure those churches calling themselves ABC who will not join us in this traditional Baptist ministry style. And the large majority of our churches want the Office of the General Secretary to be outspoken in supporting these principles, and leading churches that do not endorse the Bible’s teaching to repentance, reformation, or as a last resort – relocation.

The Office of the General Secretary may still have significant influence in the churches that are troubling ABCUSA by their appreciation of behaviors the Bible calls sin. If the General Secretary were to take the courageous step of announcing that he will follow the teaching of scripture, work to make it truly authoritative in all ABCUSA deliberations, and call the churches that are affirming what the scriptures do not affirm to return to full obedience to God’s revelation in the Bible - the denomination might be restored. I pray that he will.

But, except for those ABC churches in Kansas, we’re not in Kansas any more, and it may be that it is time to follow the suggestion of one ABC Region that the Office of the General Secretary be discontinued. Perhaps, it is time for all regions to separate themselves from the current denominational structure and remain united in a very loose confederacy, or perhaps, ABCUSA should divide into two denominations one for those who adhere to the teaching of scripture and one for those who reject its teaching.

A Letter to Young ABC Pastors

2005-11-02T13:18:00.000-08:00

Our mutual appreciation, respect, and Christian love for one another notwithstanding, what needs to be said about ABCUSA needs to be said.

Will the 59% majority of delegates who lost the vote in North Shore Association (NJ) to censure a church that had gone Welcoming & Affirming keep other association churches from becoming W&A? No. The practical reality is because of that vote North Shore is a Welcoming & Affirming Association.

Will the “smooth things over” amendment adopted the day after the Minister’s Council rejected biblical teaching dissuade any area from selecting a Senator whose lifestyle violates the plain interpretation of New Testament teaching? No. This amendment appears to be a standard political ploy to calm criticism of the Minister’s Council. “Well, after all, we did do something.”

Will the General Secretary’s words at the Denver Biennial (‘05) serve to call Welcoming & Affirming churches to repentance concerning their rejection of the teaching of the New Testament? No.

Will the vote of ABC West Virginia delegates to remain in ABCUSA have an impact on ABCUSA that will cause it to forthrightly expect ABC churches to follow the unembellished teaching of the New Testament re: non-natural sexual behavior? No. It is more likely to embolden those who endorse such sin to believe that Bible believing churches will stick around, and send money, no matter how far off course the denomination goes.

If denominational leadership wishes to endorse the sin that has so disrupted our ABC, so be it, but let’s at least see them honorably admit it. They can’t have it both ways. “Oh, we’re not denying the Bible, both beliefs are legitimate even though diametrically opposed. Can’t we just act as if what the Bible literally says doesn’t matter? After all we’re just reinterpreting it for our modern times because the unembellished interpretation is so outside the box when compared to up to date thinking.”

Sorrowfully, the actions of North Shore Association, the Minister’s Council, the Office of the General Secretary, and the delegates to the West Virginia Baptist Convention seem to speak far louder than the “simple” majority of American Baptists nationwide who want all our churches to be obedient to God’s Word.

My young friends, you, and young pastors like yourself, can turn the tide, but you have to step up and speak up, and, if necessary, get up (and leave). I would urge you, at the very least, to leave the Minister’s Council as an unambiguous statement of your belief in biblical integrity.

Don’t miss your opportunity to try to reform our denomination. If you do, I think you’ll regret it down the road. Let me repeat, it’s that important. Don’t miss your opportunity to try to reform our denomination. If you do, I think you’ll regret it down the road.

Blessings in Jesus, your friend,
Dr. K

Cheers for ABC Pacific Southwest

2005-09-30T10:45:00.000-07:00

By now most ABCers have heard that the ABC of the Pacific Southwest has begun formal action to withdraw from the Covenant of Relationships with ABCUSA. This action was one that someone had to take sooner or later. The ABCUSA had already spiritually left covenant with its churches and regions by refusing to uphold biblical standards for churches associated with the national body. The idea that ABCUSA is a biblical Christian denomination is simply an organizational fiction.

For a long time I have felt that reformation in ABCUSA is possible only if a large group of churches leave in protest of denominational faithlessness, and thereby galvanize the remaining evangelical churches into becoming an ER Trauma Team striving to save the life of the patient.

I applaud ABCPSW, I cheer them. They have set the stage for Bible believing churches, regions, pastors, and laypeople to make their own choice to, either, aggressively work to bring the national organization to a biblical stance, or to finally give up on a denomination gone sour.

In spite of our history with ABCUSA, and our love for ABCUSA, it is time to consider the wisdom of the protestant reformer, Martin Luther. “It is better to be divided by truth, than united by error.”

PRAY FOR REFORMATION

2005-09-21T22:38:00.000-07:00

Please pray for the evangelical, Bible believing pastors, lay people, and organization leaders who are gathering at Northern Seminary for the American Baptist Evangelicals' A Summons to Lead conference September 23, 24th. I ask you to pray that we will have the courage, the will, the discernment, and the sense of urgency to make a decision that will restructure ABCUSA through our own evangelical organization. Those committed to preaching obedience to the written Word of God can wait no longer, we need action or might as well just give the denomination up for lost. Without reformation ABCUSA is nothing more than the Episcopal Church USA in Baptist drag. Pray that the A Summons to Lead conference will be our Wittenberg door, and that ABCUSA will be brought to a biblical worldview that conforms the relationship of the denominational leadership to the teaching of the Bible and the understanding of the majority of our churches. Pray!

Sad Day At Green Lake

2005-08-31T12:20:00.000-07:00

Recently I had the privilege of preaching in a congregation of another denomination in Nevada. Following the message, I was greeted by a gracious elderly gentleman, a retired minister who had served churches in that denomination for 39 years. He told me he had been saved in an American Baptist Church, and then he added poignantly “They’re not what they used to be.” If you question whether his assessment of ABCUSA is true, you have no further to look than the recent vote at the Minister’s Council in Green Lake. There the “Senators” (representatives) of the various Minister’s Council areas voted to defeat an amendment to the Minister’s Council by-laws that called for the integrity of biblical teaching regarding sexual intimacy to be maintained in Minister’s Council qualifications for senatorial service, and for the ABCUSA policy regarding homosexuality to be the standard for sexual behavior. And they defeated it! They rejected it! They said "No!" to endorsing the teaching of scripture. Yes, its true, the American Baptist Churches are not what they used to be, or should be, when the ministers who stand in the pulpits are not willing to let the biblical teaching of the revelation of God be the expected and required standard of the church and its adjunct organizations.

August 22, 2005 is a sad, dark, pivotal day in the life of our denomination. The Minister’s Council abandoned it’s calling to be a biblical minister’s council. Evangelical, Bible believing pastors should be resigning from that unhappy organization in droves.

Specifics

2005-08-17T13:24:00.000-07:00

My youngest daughter, now a college grad, was really a funny kid. I can remember sitting at the dinner table where on frequent occasions she would say something so funny I would just break up. The whole family would be in an uproar. Sometimes her comment would be right in the middle of a bite of food or a drink of the beverage of the meal, and I’d end up choking or spouting liquid through my nose like a whale. But I never journaled the things she said. “I’ll never forget that,” I thought, “it was too funny.” However, over the years I did forget, and now I have the general memory but no specifics.

Christians, and in our case American Baptists, want to be careful that we don’t treat what the Bible says in the same way. To walk in the way of God we need the specific teachings of scripture not just a general feeling of religion. That is one of our reasons for seeking God’s will in His word.

There are some American Baptists who will tell us that they love God, or revere Jesus (I heard one leading light of ABC say “Don’t mess with my Jesus!”), or we enjoy the feeling of being Baptist, but they don’t want to observe (or expect from those declaring faith) the specific behavioral teachings of the New Testament. Without obedience to what the Scriptures specifically state regarding sin versus purity they have a general positive feeling for Christian faith if it can be defined without letting the Scripture dictate a lifestyle. They are missing the point, and the denomination, by accepting their redefintion, seems to have lost its way.

Non-grace or Grace

2005-08-10T10:01:00.000-07:00

How do we grace those whose rejection of certain teachings of God's Word has done such harm to our denomination?

Is it grace to endorse what the Bible doesn't? Is it grace to tell someone caught up in sin that the sin is O.K. before God? Is it grace to pretend that those who reject the clear teaching of scripture are still Baptists in more than name only? Is it grace to put friendship ahead of biblical principle? Is it grace to accept as orthodox a so-called theology that flies in the face of 2,000 years of biblical understanding?

All these questions have the same answer, "No." That would be non-grace.

How then do we grace those rejecting biblical morality who claim they are in the center of the tradition of traditional Baptists?

God's way of grace is the Romans 5:8 way, "...while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Grace is not looking at the sinner through rose colored glasses and pronouncing that his sin is not really sin. Grace is doing him the kindness of treating him with love, while recognizing the sin and calling him to make a new start.

Haven't our ABCUSA denominational leaders done disservice to the denomination by refusing to take an all out stand in favor of scripture's teaching, and haven't they also done disservice to the Welcoming & Affirming churches and individuals by giving them the false hope that God approves of their sin. It is time for our leaders to make a new start in advocating biblical morality, and if they do not it is time for Bible believing churches to take serious action to make their scriptural stance known even if it means breaking fellowship with a prodigal, runaway ABCUSA.

We Know What He Means

2005-07-30T00:31:00.000-07:00

When we read the indictment of sin that Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote in Romans 1:26-31 (26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:) we know what he means. We have no debate regarding the meaning of murder or covenant breaking. Backbiting and hating God are not in need of 21st century revisionism. Neither are the other sins listed there. Our individual responsibility is to believe what he has written and with care to avoid those sins in our lives or repent of them if they are a part of our lives already. Denominationally our responsibility is to declare that the scriptures are true, the activities listed here are sins, and to call to repentance those within (and without) our organizational fellowship to turn from those sins to live as God calls them to live.

You know what he means, don't you?

Real Radical Discipleship

2005-07-26T22:51:00.000-07:00

Radical discipleship, to use a current ABCUSA term, begins with faith in the one way of salvation God has offered to the world. One cannot be a radical disciple if he/she doesn't become a believer in and a follower of Jesus Christ. Radical discipleship includes the radical acceptance of the Christian doctrine that God has revealed His plan for humanity in an objective revelation we call the Bible. It gives the radical disciple a place to go to hear what God says to him about life and living. To be a radical disciple means that the individual, and corporately the local congregation and associated bodies of the denomination, will radically believe what God has revealed. Then in radical obedience to that word the Christian will, with amazing fortitude, love the world's unlovable, but will refrain from committing adultery. If the Christian does fall into sexual sin, of any sort condemned by the Bible, she will not attempt to justify it - "Oh, the Bible was talking about something else!" "Well, the Bible's mores are ancient and times have changed so we don't have to obey them anymore." - he will, at the very least, admit that his actions are sin according to the Bible, and that his lifestyle is not really radical Christian discipleship. That is if the Bible is any guide.

Specific to our case, she ought to admit that he is no longer a traditional Baptist. If she gets to the place where she admits that she is sinning, but plans to continue in that sin, then shouldn't she voluntarily stop making the false claim that she is a traditional, Bible believing, radical disciple American Baptist? And if he/she doesn't shouldn't our General Secretary tell him so?

Make A Choice

2005-07-09T14:26:00.000-07:00

The vote of the United Church of Christ to officially approve same sex marriage hurts the American Baptist churches in the USA in a significant way. While ABCUSA debates and flounders in a battle for the soul of our denomination over the issue of scriptural authority, the United Church of Christ delegates gave public and official notice that they do not believe the revelation of God in the Bible to be authoritative for Christian living. As one commentator put it, the United Church of Christ’s Independence Day vote “declared its independence from biblical morality and natural law.” This action would be of little consequence to ABCUSA except that a number of our churches have previously identified with the United Church of Christ by dual alignment, and some have probably already declared themselves as part of the Welcoming and Affirming movement. Intended or not, the United Church of Christ has intruded upon our debate. It would have been better for us if the United Church of Christ had called upon dually aligned churches to make a choice. Either throw in your lot with ABCUSA which has not yet “officially” repudiated the Bible’s teaching on same sex sexual behavior, or come with us (the United Church of Christ) and blaze new trails in the rejection of traditional Christian Bible religion. The lack of an invitation not withstanding the dually aligned churches should take such a choice seriously and act according to conscience.

Soul Liberty vs. the Bible? I don't think so.

2005-07-07T09:55:00.000-07:00

"Soul Liberty" was never intended to be used to deny the very words of scripture. Baptists have historically believed that all people are free to "interpret" the scriptures for themselves. As example note that while all Christians recognize the need for baptism as an expression of faith some use immersion, others sprinkling, others affusion (pouring). Each group recognizes the command of scripture to baptize, they do not reject those words of scripture, but do interpret the form (mode) of baptism in differing ways. When those calling themselves Baptist look at the text of the Bible and say, "The words do not mean what they say." or "We have the liberty to do the opposite." they have perverted the concept of "Soul Liberty," and are no longer following historic Baptist tradition. (July 7, 2005)