Question for you Southern Baptists out there...

Okay- I recognize that I tend to defend the Emerging Church a lot... as well as critique the status quo in American Evangelicalism. I do so for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that while flawed, the emerging church is important. It represents an important voice in the never-ending conversation of how we contextualize the Gospel and live faithfully as followers of Jesus in our day and age... questions which others, among them some prominent Southern Baptists seem to be actively resisting.

I maintain that in a more free-form movement like the emerging church, I can actively disagree with my fellow emerging brothers and sisters, not necessarily buy everything they say, and yet still claim a seat at the "emerging table."

It seems to me that when you talk about things like denominations or political parties, however, the freedom to do something like that is fairly restricted, if not absolutely gone.

In other words, how does one continue, day after day, week after week, year after year continue to belong to any group which stands for the opposite of what one stands for? For example, I ceased to be a Republican (I'm now a "no party affiliation) when I realized that "close-but-no-cigar" doesn't cut it when belonging to official groups with written out platforms, when those platforms and rules and regulations negate what you believe and stand for. Whether it's because of a lack of real, substantive concern for the poor or a lack of real substantive concern for the unborn, I can't in good conscience belong to any party right now...

So here's my somewhat confrontational (apologies!) questions for those of you out there who remain Southern Baptists.

How is it that you can belong to a Convention who wouldn't allow Jesus Himself into leadership?
And how long will you give it? When does that official party line mean that you can no longer belong to the "party"?

I ask in all seriousness... this would be a matter of conscience for me.

ht: joe carter

Comments

[josh]

i'll take the bait. but on the other side of the whole thing. i'm 26. i was 25 last march. and after working in southern baptist churches and being a "covenant member" (whatever that means) for 8+ years . . . i quit. it good conscience i couldn't continue to support the vision and values of a community that didn't support mine. i wasn't bitter. i wasn't angry. it just got to the point where outside of a small sphere of influence i had with students, everything else was the opposite of who i was. in counseling and discipling students or college aged students, i always felt like i was walking on thin ice. knowing that if i slipped up and said anything wrong, i would be nailed and probably fired. it just got tiring of having to have 2 perspectives. the one you really believed that you kept quiet. and the one that you verbally gave so as not to cause any problems. ultimately i couldn't reconcile the two and now i have no full time salary. no benefits. no retirement. did i mention that this all happened in my first 6 months of marriage?

i just think organizationally that when you get to big, things just start happening that minimize the important things and maximize the trivial things.

on a complete side note, my wife worked at the North American Mission Board in the president's office. which is a really large southern baptist organization. she came to the same conclusion which is why i'm one of the lucky ones having married such a discerning woman.

[Helen]

Wow - where do I start?

Bob, please don't misframe the SBC's rule against alcohol as "they wouldn't let Jesus in".

What it means is, they would invite Jesus to join and would explain that they have a no alcohol rule and why.

And then Jesus would choose. If he thought it was a good thing to join he'd have no hesitation giving up alcohol. He gave up his LIFE for sinners. Do you seriously think he would make a fuss over the right to drink alcohol??

No, he wouldn't. No way would Jesus would insist that they must let him join AND must let him drink alcohol.

You said it was a serious question. That's my serious answer.

I've taken the no alcohol pledge for a different Christian organization. I didn't even think twice about it, Bob. Why would I, if being part of that group could help me carry out Jesus' work on earth? Have you read Romans 14 lately?

Now look what you've made me do - I'm defending conservative Christians even though I'm almost-an-atheist.

[bob]

That's okay Helen... everyone deserves a fair defense, eh/

But make sure you hear my questionn and follow the link: How is it that you can belong to a Convention who wouldn't allow Jesus Himself into leadership?

The question is not "would they let Jesus in." The question is "Would they allow Jesus into leadership in the Convention- and according to their written rules, the answer is "no." Isn't it?

So my question is, why belong to such an organization??

[Helen]

Bob, with all due respect, I don't think the answer is 'no' because we have no record of Jesus being asked if he was willing to abstain from alcohol for a good reason.

If he had been asked and said 'yes' then he would have been allowed in.

And like I was saying, why would someone willing to die for sinners refuse to do some much smaller thing like give up alcohol, if there was a good reason to?

So I have every reason to think he'd have said yes and been allowed in if he had a reason to join. Which - imo - means we cannot accurately say he was not allowed in.

As to your question, why join - I don't see why not drinking alcohol is a reason not to join. Can you explain that to me? Is there something about your right to drink alcohol that you need to hold onto in order to be a Jesus-follower? Seriously.

[Helen]

Maybe this is the underlying issue for me: when I see someone give up something they don't have to give up, for the sake of some 'greater good' I think, "Wow, there's someone like Jesus".

The question I can't answer is 'what is the greater good of being a Southern Baptist' since I'm not one nor do I know much about them. But I'm sure Southern Baptists think there is a greater good about it - I hope some will come by and say what it is.

[bob]

The Jesus who publicly flouted the traditions of the pharisees? The Jesus who would not ask or force his disciples to ritually wash their hands before eating even though he knew it gave great offense to the pharisees who were observing him?

I don't think that Jesus would have submitted to the rule of modern day people who wanted to lay burdens on people any more than he would have the ancient versions.

I don't see this an an issue of "Would Jesus have given up a liberty for the saeke of others?" Clearly, he was willing to give up a lot.
But I do see this as an issue of "If Jesus had no problem with the practice, why restrict it?" Why make rules and regulations that would have barred both t the apostle Paul (for recommending wine) and Jesus himself from leadership? It's nothing but modern day versions of exactly what Jesus constantly railed against.

[Scott Bridwell]

Okay...I have from time to time taken the opportunity to (for lack of a better word) "defend" the SBC. That's because I have devoted several years of service with the SBC and I have several dear friends who continue to serve as Pastors, Professors, Seminary Presidents (which by the way is a little weird for me that i would consider Seminary President a friend)...but I digress.

To answer your question...I didn't continue...I Left and I don't know if I'll return. I didn't leave over one single issue but over a momentum that is steadily growing away from where I believe the focus of the SBC should be.

Nothing is meant to last forever and that's difficult to grasp at times but it is what is.

Hey...I work in Portland now...we should meet up?

[matt]

Helen, we don't have any record of Jesus being offered many situations. That doesn't mean we can be silent on how we believe he would respond. You can twist your logic until your head spins but Bob is dead on right. Its not a matter of whether Jesus would or not, its a matter of being so exclusive, that we exclude the one whom gives us our example and motive for mission. Specifics aside, that seems a little counter intuitive.

[David Wilson]

Why do I stay in a church at all? There's always going to be things I disagree with in any organization, and I do disagree with this one.

But your question and replies are rather shrill to my ears. Posing a hypothetical and then beating a denomination over the head with it just doesn't appeal to me. I can assure you that Southern Baptists are not excluding Jesus. We're seriously into expanding His kingdom.

I pastor an SBC church, and we stay affiliated to cooperate for missions. We are completely free to adopt our own policies concerning alcohol or anything else.

Enjoy reading your blog, but this is just a needless inflammatory waste of electrons that will only serve to divide the Body of Christ. Let those of us IN the SBC who disagree work for change without the histrionics. Please.

David

[steve]

Bob,
As someone who has been in and out of SBC churches for most of my life, and currently gets a paycheck from an SBC entity, I'll take a stab at it. Just know that I wear my ambivalence openly - including to those who are my "bosses." I agree with you on the alcohol thing - it's a silly, traditionalist, and legalistic thing. It's also a thing that, as Helen mentioned, isn't exclusive to the SBC. I'm quite certain that Jesus wouldn't be allowed into the leadership of MANY denominations. That said, the reason I stay is that one of the chief values of the SBC is the autonomy of the local church - autonomy is so important, in fact, that it's technically incorrect to even refer to the SBC as a denomination (I don't mean to split hairs over semantics here - I recognize that it looks, smells, and acts like a duck). That means that as a local SBC church member, I can differ with the SBC on things like alcohol, politics, and even doctrine, and still remain a "good" Baptist.

My primary reason for staying SBC, though, is because of the cooperative work that autonomous churches are able to get done when they come together. For example, in a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina, the first group to get a call from the government is the American Red Cross. The second call is to the Baptists, because they've developed amazing disaster response teams. Another example is missions - I've been in foreign countries interacting with missionaries, and believe me, Baptists are better trained, supported, and resourced than almost any other missionaries out there.

Sorry to write so much. Again, I'm plenty ruffled with a ton of what I see, and the question of whether to stay or go has regularly occupied space in my little brain, and will probably continue to do so. But you asked why, and this is my way of saying, "because."

Peace.

[brad brisco]

Bob

I too enjoy the blog and read often, but I have to agree with David's take here.

I have worked for a SBC entity for the past 7 years and when I "signed up" I knew the rules concerning alcohol and have since then abided by those rules. Do I think they are ridiculous? Yes, but every employer has policies and if you do not want to abide by the policies then you don't have to work there. Now having said that about SBC entities this policy is not dictated by individual churches. As you probably already know every SBC church is autonomous and as a community they decide what the criteria is for their leaders, not any other SBC entity. I find myself often frustrated by the direction of the denomination and the mindset of the leadership at some of the SBC entities, but at this point the strength of collective resources, partnerships and cooperation out weighs the frustration - at least today!

[Danny]

Hi, this largely seems to be an american problem. Here in europe, where there are also alcohol problems, this issue is not as hardly pressed as the SBC does. Instead of forbidding alcohol, can't we teach our people how to handle it correctly? There are more fat americans that die than drunk americans. How can american christianity be so blind in regards of discovering its real problems?

There are some christians out there that want to live holier than Jesus, it seems. That is, in my regards, very very dangerous.

[shae]

As one who....
1. grew up Baptist and was so, for 24 years
2. left the SBC 11 years ago and joined the Vineyard
3. is now planting a Vineyard church in a heavily Baptist area (25% of the population self-identifies as Baptist).

I have wondered this same question. Currently, I am wondering MANY questions along this path and I applaud Bob's interest in posting it with an honest question. I also applaud the readers who have posted their honest evaluations as well. I am glad to read some of the reasons some folks decide to stay in the SBC. For me, it has taken a very personal turn as I have recently been challenged, by a Baptist fellow, that perhaps I am not truly a Christian...simply because a "Christian doesn't drink." I was dumbfounded that we were having this discussion. Simply dumbfounded.

I really had no response other than to ask, in rhetoric, if they were ready to dismiss 90% (or more) of the historical and global church by such slim and ludicrous standards.

While this is a thread related to alcohol, I also understand that alcohol is not the real issue here...only the ancillary topic directly associated with the real issue: Where do we stand (or do we) when a church chooses to ignore the life and words of Jesus, who so poignantly taught us tha righteousness was far more than outward expressions and deep into the transformation of the inner-person? When we define ourselves by what we do or do not do, rather than who we are and who Christ is, then we are no better than the teachers of the law in Jesus' day, are we?

Before I even read this post, again based on my recent experience this week, I've had a certain verse stuck in my head and I wish it would go away...because I feel really guilty about it. I feel like it is, in itself, a judgment against people and organizations I care about....and I don't feel comfortable with it...but the verse is this:

Matthew 23:15, which says in the Message: 15"You're hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You go halfway around the world to make a convert, but once you get him you make him into a replica of yourselves, double-damned."

In the NIV, we're all more familiar with its language: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."

Now, don't jump all over me. I'm not quoting this at Baptists...really, I'm not. What I am wondering is how cognizant we all are of how easily this can be ourselves? I mean, most of us on here that I read are pastors, or teachers of some kind....and this is really closer to our backyard than anything else.

My recent encounters have given me caution to keep on guard against doing this myself.

[bob]

Wow- I was out running around, helping one of our evergreen people look at a vehicle and look at the cool conversation happening :)

I'm not trying to be shrill, but I will say this- I've noticed recently that many calls to question certain things in the church and the way things are done are met with "Let's just get along for the kingdom."

I really wish it were that simple....

yeah, there's a point where speaking out becomes divisiveness, but there's also a point where silence allows ridiculous and anti-kingdom things to take place.

I worked at a school once where I was forced to sign a no-movie pledge. Yeah- I was not allowed to enter a theater, under the assumption that this was a "bad witness" to all the non-christians out there who were morally opposed to movies and were intently watching my life to see whether or not I took in a Matinee of The Little Mermaid.

And while ALL the students were not forbidden to attend movies, those who wanted to participate in any sports or student leadership or other clubs were forbidden, under the guise that "those who were in leadership should be held to a higher standard."

1. Is it a BIG DEAL to not be allowed to go to movies? Of course not.

2. Did it harm or help those kids to "abstain"? I imagine it actually helped them. in the short term.

3. What were the long-term spiritual effects?

Devastating, I think.

The whole tiered-spirituality of different standards for those in leadership time and time again creates a mental and spiritual dissonnance that often results in either a pharisaical self-righteousness or a hidden life.

The Southern Baptists do a lot of things right- but recently they've been becoming more and more hard-line about things which, frankly Jesus demonstrated liberty on. They pride themselves on a literal interpretation of Scripture, and yet throw that out the window over the issue of alcohol.

My desire is for the SBs to continue to move beyond some dark places in their past and be the missional church fellowship that guys like Ed Stetzer and others are pushing it to be.

But as long as they are doing asinine things like forbidding those who speak in tongues from being missionaries, forbidding those who use alcohol from "serv[ing] as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention" they are simply going to become increasingly marginalized as more and more y Christ followers, young AND old, decide that the cost of trying to change things is too high, and the call of TRUE independence too attractive.

"But as long as they are doing asinine things like forbidding those who speak in tongues from being missionaries, forbidding those who use alcohol from "serv[ing] as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention" they are simply going to become increasingly marginalized as more and more y Christ followers, young AND old, decide that the cost of trying to change things is too high, and the call of TRUE independence too attractive."

Bob, if people who self-identify as Christians think not drinking alcohol is too high a cost, I think we've identified the problem with the church today, right there.

It could be worse. Once two people were told not to eat some fruit. Fruit isn't even bad for you like alcohol.

I wasn't aware the Christian life was about independence and minimising the cost. I don't think that's a Christian life Jesus would recognize.

life is full of asinine restrictions. Once two people were supposed to live under the asinine restriction of not eating fruit from one tree. They chose independence instead.

talk about asinine...one someone tried to put the asinine restriction on two people that they couldn't eat fruit from a particular tree.

[Helen]

[sorry, ignore the above - this is my properly edited and signed comment]

"But as long as they are doing asinine things like forbidding those who speak in tongues from being missionaries, forbidding those who use alcohol from "serv[ing] as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention" they are simply going

[Helen]

ok sorry, one more attempt to get this right...bob please delete the other 2?

"But as long as they are doing asinine things like forbidding those who speak in tongues from being missionaries, forbidding those who use alcohol from "serv[ing] as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention" they are simply going to become increasingly marginalized as more and more y Christ followers, young AND old, decide that the cost of trying to change things is too high, and the call of TRUE independence too attractive."

Bob, if people who self-identify as Christians think not drinking alcohol is too high a cost, I think we've identified the problem with the church today, right there.

It could be worse. Once two people were told not to eat some fruit. Fruit isn't even bad for you like alcohol.

I wasn't aware the Christian life was about independence and minimising the cost. I don't think that's a Christian life Jesus would recognize.

[bob]

Oh, come on...
that's an utterly unfounded comparison.

To compare a restriction on something that God specifically forbade with a restriction on something that JESUS SPECIFICALLY COMMENDED (Matt 11:18/ Luke 7:33-34, John 2:1-12) and which Paul specifically recommended (1 Tim 5:23) is silly.

Again, this issue is not about alcohol. It is about the layering of rules and the judging of one's fitness for leadership by the keeping of those rules. I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever when rules for being involved in leadership coincide with biblical commands. But when a position of authority becomes dependent on abstaining from something God specifically calls GOOD (Ps 104:14), I call that what it is- legalism.

[steve]

Not sure who posted that last comment about the restriction on the fruit . . . that's some pretty abstract, completely out of context stuff there - how does the Adam/Eve thing even remotely relate?

It isn't that abstaining from alcohol is "too high a cost" - it's not even about alcohol per se. Rather, it's about holding people to artificial standards that are clearly extra-bibilical. And as Bob notes, this is from a denomination made up primarily of people who believe in inerrancy.

Bob, I'd suggest a little nuance to your argument that SBC'ers are becoming more hard-line about some of these things. I'd suggest to you that there is increasing polarization - yes, indeed, many are digging in their heels about things like alcohol and tongues, but many of us who hold other positions are less willing to cave. I think it'll likely get worse before it gets better. It remains to be seen whether those of us who are "hanging by a thread" will still be here by the time the dust settles.

[Gary Davis]

I want to go to a staff meeing at our Church and have them read that article and ask the question: Do we still follow, love, and serve Jesus?

[bob]

That's a good point, Steve- I think I should say that it seems as though those in positions of power in the SBC are continuing a right-ward trend and it's moved beyond issues of inerrancy and doctrine and into issues of liberty like tongues and alcohol.
Does it seem like there's a concerted effort to "run some people out"? Sometimes it seems so- especially with the latest stuff on the emerging church, e.g. Roger Moran

[Helen]

Bob, actually, I think it's appropriate to judge leadership based on *willingness* to keep rules. It's about submission, dying to self, not insisting on one's own way and rights. It's about giving up what I want for the greater good.

Anyway aren't you being rather modernist about this? It seems like you think there is only one way. What's wrong with you doing it your way and the Southern Baptists doing it theirs?

[Makeesha]

Helen, I sense that maybe you're getting hung up on the particulars of the SBC, rule following, submission, etc. and perhaps missing the broader concern of shackling Christ followers with artificial man made hedges around the perceived laws of Scripture.

I agree with you - if people sign up to be leaders in the SBC then they certainly are aware of the rules they need to agree to. Fine, no biggie, whatever.

But Bob isn't asking that, he's asking how it is that leaders within an organization can continue to be leaders and condone the creation of man made laws that burden others in their own relationship with God and with others in the context of community. Does avoiding alcohol affect one's relationship with God? no, of course not, not inherently. But the ongoing building of of hedges around the law (love God, love people) generates shame in others and distances them from God.

Is this a matter of conscience in the SBC? no doubt it is. But that doesn't mean I can't challenge it.

true ecumenism is not about just accepting what everyone believes and saying "hey, what works for you is fine with me". Eccumenism and working to function as one body is about acknowledging the differences openly and allowing disagreement (even passionate disagreement) and then living in that place of tension.

I challenge the idea that women can't be elders in certain denominations. I'm not going to go into those denominations and demand that they change their edicts on my behalf, I'll just not join them. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to sit on my haunches and say "well hey, what's good for them is fine with me". No, I think it's an issue of justice. They're free to disagree with me just as I am free to disagree with them

Just because Bob is provocatively challenging a specific edict in the SBC doesn't mean he doesn't recognize the role they are playing in furthering God's Kingdom.

[bob]

Willingness? So, the rules really don't matter? It could be anything and you would defend the right of the SBC to restrict leadership?

How about if they said that "since Jesus and Paul weren't married and since Paul specifically commends the single state, we have decided that to be an SBC trustee, one must remain unmarried"? Or, all wear red shirts, or all root for the same team? I mean, if it's ONLY about submission, then the rules themselves really don't matter, right? Just our willingness to keep whatever arbitrary and even unscriptural prohibitions leadership wants to hand down?

If it were about principles actually found in God's Word, I could go along with "It's about submission, etc." As it is, it's about abstaining from things specifically recommednded in Scripture and so it's an entirely different matter.

There IS only one way, it's the way of the Gospel, the way of freedom in Christ.

There is no greater good being served in requiring anyone to abstain from something, be it marriage or alcohol or anything else, that God specifically created for our enjoyment and pleasure. All it serves is a spirit of pharisaism.

Paul spoke specifically about this exact kind of thing when he said: "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

20Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."

Now, when Paul says "Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? is he suggesting we submit to those rules or is he suggesting we resist?

[bob]

Well said, Makeesha. Thanks for putting succinctly what I have been struggling to say all morning! :)