Jewell's Perfidy Is Complete

Exactly when William Jewell College began to distance itself from Biblical faithfulness would be impossible to pinpoint. But as a graduate of this former Missouri Baptist institution, I experienced her embrace of neo-orthodoxy in countless ways.

Let me give, out of the starting gate, the obligatory nod to my alma mater. Jewell is an incredible institution and I am mostly grateful for my experiences there, both through formal education and informal relationships and interactions. I won’t tick down the good things I could say about William Jewell college, not because they aren’t in my soul, but because I don’t have much time for this post.

William Jewell gave me more than a very excellent liberal-liberal arts education. Chief and foremost, at Jewell I met my incredible friend Scott Weldon, who remains a consistent and encouraging colleague. He and his wife Cheryl (also a Jewell alum) minister faithful and selflessly in Missouri for our Lord’s glory.

There is no doubt the school abounds with brilliance, excellence and so many other characteristics that make for a great institution. But at the most recent board meeting, trustees completed their perfidious path from Biblical truth with the adoption of a new mission statement:

“William Jewell College promises students an outstanding liberal arts education that cultivates leadership, service, and spiritual growth within a community inspired by Christian ideals and committed to open, rigorous intellectual pursuits.”

Evidently, the new mission statement had the unanimous support of both the faculty and the Student Senate, both giving their endorsements through resolutions passed during the spring semester. WJC’s mission statement was last reworked in 1997. The former statement read:

“The mission of William Jewell College is to provide students a liberal arts education of superior quality; to serve communities beyond the campus educationally, culturally, and socially; and to be an institution loyal to the ideals of Christ, demonstrating a Christian philosophy for the whole of life, and expressing the Missouri Baptist Heritage which is the foundation of the college.”

Most Missouri Baptists know the story behind the rift between William Jewell College and the Missouri Baptist Convention. Jewell was the state convention’s first educational institution. But conservatives have long been uncomfortable with the college’s progressively liberal and unbiblical viewpoints and teachings.

Jewell exasperated the tensions in February, 2003, when Administration officials allowed the vile play “The Vagina Monologues” to be performed on campus (by the way, the VMs made their way back to Jewell this past March, according to this press release). After this fiasco, Jewell was riddled with a series of issues uncovering a pro-homosexual agenda on the Liberty campus which culminated in an attempt to add “sexual orientation” to the Student Bill of Rights. Tim Perkins, a former teenage church member of mine, was Student Senate President at the time. Tim is a remarkable and doctrinally sound Christian who vetoed the attempt to enshrine immorality in Jewell’s Student Bill of Rights.

In a December 13, 2002 letter to WJC President David Salle regarding the Student Senate amendment, I wrote:

“This amendment is also a disingenuous and misdirected attempt to relate properly to homosexuals. While in a politically correct cultural climate, adding “sexual orientation” to an anti-discrimination paragraph may seem proper, but the true Christian ethic would be to lovingly relate the truth to homosexual persons. The average heterosexual male in America dies at 75. The average homosexual male in America dies at 41. Something about their behavior is terribly wrong. It is wrong Scripturally, morally and scientifically. Rather than accommodating their wrong choices of sexual expression, William Jewell would serve homosexuals better by setting a standard of appropriate and Biblical sexuality.”

Well, by the end of the October 2003 annual meeting of the Missouri Baptist Convention, William Jewell College had been defunded. It took them just shy of 4 years to erase “the Missouri Baptist Heritage” pulling themselves further from “the foundation of the college.”

But the real sadness, and the point of this post is not to decry Jewell’s distance from the Missouri Baptist Convention, though it is somewhat related. The real sadness is that William Jewell College now openly acknowledges what Biblically astute graduates have known for several decades. Jewell is no longer “an institution loyal to the ideals of Christ.” Rather, Jewell is now simply “inspired by Christian ideals.” That is a huge shift, evidenced further by their change from “demonstrating a Christian philosophy for the whole of life” to being “committed to open, rigorous intellectual pursuits.”

I guess without $1 million a year from Missouri Baptists, WJC trustees have decided they no longer needed a smoke screen in their mission statement. Jewell’s perfidy is complete.

Just One Thought on the SBC Annual Meeting

Messenger registration for this year’s Southern Baptist Convention was dismal. Some 8,500 messengers registered, which was probably the lowest since the conservative resurgence began. I have an insight that might help us understand why.

The annual meeting has become a collage of preaching, music, information and business; with progressively less attention being given to business, which is after all, why “messengers” are there in the first place. “Attenders” can listen to the preaching and music, hear the reports, and watch the videos. They just can’t participate in the business of the convention.

In fact, only 55 minutes were allocated for “previously scheduled business” along with an equal amount of time (55 minutes) for disposition of resolutions. That alone should wake someone up. Resolutions are suppose to be “non-binding” and only express the mind of a particular gathered convention. Yet, convention leaders are scheduling as equal time for “business” and for “resolutions”. Excluding nominations and voting for officers and asking questions of entity heads, only 1 hour and 50 was scheduled for business during the approximately 16 hour meeting.

And no wonder. With all the “automatic referrals” and the “long-standing practice” messengers do virtually no business. The Wednesday evening agenda had “business” scheduled for 7:00-7:15 which wasn’t even used because there was no “business” to discuss. In fact, (someone help me with this since my memory is woefully short), wasn’t the Rick Garner BFM motion the ONLY motion that originated from the floor? And it in no way changed anything.

With the lock down of tight egalitarian control, we commoners can do very little to impact the direction of the SBC. So why bother trying? And if the convention isn’t about doing the business of the SBC but more about information and inspiration, most Southern Baptists will find cheaper and more alluring alternatives and will stop attending (as obviously they already are). We can attend preaching conferences of our choice, whether the preference is Founders or Emergent. And getting info about the institutions and agencies is usually a couple or key-clicks away. And CDs of the latest recording artist are a lot cheaper to purchase than plane tickets to the host city.

Many of the ruling intelligentsia may welcome the silence (or squashing) of the plebes. But it will come at a long-term price. This growing disconnect will translate into lower CP contributions over time. American colonists grew weary of shipping their taxes overseas and eventually embraced a “no taxation without representation” philosophy. It won’t be long before the SBC experiences the same.

I wish “the establishment” wouldn’t fear us so much. We’re not all of the Ben Cole type radicals, (though I’m not sure just how radical Ben really is). Last year, I presented two motions that would have allowed greater messenger participation (allowing a simple majority to override the Resolutions Committee or Committee on Order of Business rather than the current 2/3 majority). It is the only hope folks like Tom Ascol has for his resolution on church membership to be considered. The Resolutions Committee should allow it to be considered on the floor. For two years, they have refused to report it out. In my mind, this actually serves to benefit Tom’s position. It probably would have been voted down last year or even this year and the matter would have been put to rest (at least, to some degree); however, the committee’s refusal to allow a messenger from a cooperating church to have a moment of deliberative persuasion further alienates many from attending. And I can guarantee that 1/3 of the gathered messengers will always uphold a committee ruling anytime night or day—thwarting the will of the majority who have collectively paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to affect SBC life.

Anyway, convention leaders had better relax control and allow greater messenger participation or boost their exhibit hall budgets to give out more than just pens and mints; otherwise, they’ll soon be meeting in a church fellowship hall.


PS: The mints were stale and the pens were lousy. Thankfully, Olan Mills is still snapping free pictures...now that's worth the trip!

It's Better to Intervene

While I got on to a Missouri Baptist soapbox just a little bit last week in reacting to England’s Prime Minister’s comments from Sierra Leone, Tony Blair was quite the statesman with this insightful zinger:

"However ferocious the challenges are in this part of Africa, it's better to intervene and try to make a difference than stay out and try to cope with the consequences at a later time.”

The great enemy of change is apathy. Whether moral, political or spiritual—doing nothing is a great temptation to people who see things that need to be different. As God’s people, we are to engage our culture. Proverbs 3:27-28 says: “Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do so. Do not say to your neighbor, ‘Go, and come back, and tomorrow I will give it,’ when you have it with you.” Doing good and doing it immediately is a strong teaching of the Bible. It’s inherent in Jesus’ cultural mandate when He says “You are the salt of the earth…you are the light of world.”

The temptation is to sit things out. We've all got busy lives. But do we have noble engagments? If all my life is about working, mowing grass and making sure my kid is at baseball practice on time, am I not missing something essential.

Unbelief, homosexual marriage, cloning, biblical illiteracy, abortion, gambling, selfish ambition are just a bit on the issues facing us.
There are always ‘ferocious’ challenges. The sluggard of Proverbs 26 says he cannot go outside because “there is a lion in the street!” Many Christians have embraced this sluggardly spirit and don’t engage our world because they see the problems as “lion-sized”. I suppose that’s why the Alabama clergymen who wrote that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s attack on racism in their state was both “unwise and untimely.”

This is why I have great frustration with our convention (both national and state). On both levels, and Missouri in particular, we are engaging in a battle that is largely unnecessary. Something that should be a family squabble is becoming an all out war. We have lost sight of our common enemy. Our adversary continues to blind the hearts of unbelievers, taking them into eternal hell. He still deceives and entices both our policies and pleasures which too often reflect an antagonism towards godliness.

In a manner of speaking, this is not 1860, this is 1775. In 1860, America survived the carnage of the Civil War because we had no external enemy. But had those regional conflicts been primary during the mid-1770s (and they were present) we would never have defeated Great Britain and attained our independence.

Southern Baptists need to rediscover our enemy. He is not crushed and is far from defeated.

Tony Blair on the MBC Controversy

I find some interesting parallels from British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s statements yesterday to his countrymen regarding his farewell tour of Africa to our current MBC controversy. Speaking at Lungi airport in Sierra Leone, Prime Minister Blair said:

“What I would say to cynics about Africa is just get across the balanced picture. Five years ago this country was being taken over by a gang of gangsters who were killing innocent people, raping women, despoiling the country. But today we have a situation where in three months time we will have an election. I don't say that is perfection, but I say it's…better than it was before. All I'm saying to cynics back home is if we care it might make a difference and making a difference is what politics should be about.”

If Blair were President of the Missouri Baptist Convention instead of the chief politician of America’s greatest ally, he might say:

“What I would say to cynics about the MBC is just get across the balanced picture. Seven years ago, this convention was being run by liberals who were weakening the spiritual integrity and biblical resolve of the convention. But today we have a situation where we have reclaimed the lost ground of past decades. I don’t say that is perfection, but I say it’s much better than it was before. All I’m saying to cynics across the MBC is if we care it might make a difference and making a difference is what being a Christian is about.”

Our convention is hardly perfect. But we need the balanced picture. And the balanced picture is that Roger Moran and the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association is no threat to the Missouri Baptist Convention. These leaders have greatly aided our convention. In fact, without Moran’s leadership, the MBC would still be in the clutches of liberals who would have taken this convention even further away from the truth’s of God’s perfect Word.

Instead of respecting Moran’s commitment, some leaders have rudely castigated him, taking the moniker of a secular newspaper and calling him a “powerbroker”. While Moran is fallible and it is understandable that some Missouri Baptists may disagree with him, the current mantra coming from a few voices is far from the Bible’s admonition to “Give…honor to whom honor is due” (Romans 13:7).

It’s strange how a British politician’s words yesterday, uttered on the other side of the world, can have such a surreal application in my mind.

But I’m hopeful that Missouri Baptists will agree, while our convention isn’t perfect, it’s a lot better than it was. I’m hopeful that Missouri Baptists will see the “balanced picture” and rebuff the newest movement that unnecessarily pits brother against brother, supposedly over who gets to “serve” on a board or commission. There is a better way. Let's find it.

The “Good Ol’ Boy System” is a Reality

The newly formed “Save Our Convention” group within the Missouri Baptist Convention has some interesting behaviors that discredit their objectives. They are supposedly against any one group or person “controlling” the convention, but they are seeking to “control” the nomination process and the President’s privilege of appointments. They are supposedly against “power” and “powerbrokers” all the while organizing to gain power. They don’t like things kept “all in the family” even as they keep their campaign “all in the family”. And they decry ‘legalism’ and bemoan ‘narrow parameters’ even as they denied Missouri Baptist Convention President Mike Green the privilege of speaking at their recent meeting at First Baptist Church of Harvester. Sounds an awfully lot like Orwellian doublespeak to me.

Are we to believe this new group, if they succeed in seizing power—oops, strike that—if they are successful in attaining the convention’s delegated authority to enlist persons to influence and serve in various positions (yes, that’s much better), won’t be nominating their friends and compatriots for said positions?

I’d have only a small problem with this group if they’d be a bit more straightforward and say something like “we don’t like where we think the state convention is headed and feel the majority of our fellow Baptists currently serving should be replaced by others who share views closer to our own.” I could live with that a little better. This group has every right to band together to elect a President and nominate others who share their ideology and attempt to influence the direction of the Missouri Baptist Convention. But their current banter seems like a thinly veiled smoke screen and is incredibly disingenuous—“we hate powerbrokers, so we’re going to try to become the new powerbrokers.”

By the way, to speak of Roger Moran and the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association as “powerbrokers” is a bit of an overreach in my mind. Influencers, yes. Powerbrokers, no. These brothers ought to know better than to take their cues from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The bottom line is that if the “Save Our Convention” folks get enough Missouri Baptists to support them and their views, they’ll be putting “their people” into positions of influence. Missouri Baptists should know, we’ll only be trading one “political machine” for another. We will not be dismantling any “good ol’ boy” system. Nor should we.

That’s right, nor should we. The good-ole-boy system is simply someone recommending someone they know to a position of service. The alternative would be some type of Missouri Baptist lottery where someone draws a name out of the hat and recommends that person. Could you, reader, in good conscience recommend a stranger? We recommend our friends. People we trust and believe in. Colleagues we’ve worked with and developed relationships with. I can guarantee the “Save Our Convention” people will be recommending people they know and people who are committed to their same ideology, whatever it is.

I personally am a recipient of this system. I was a Missouri Baptist for 34 years and a Missouri Baptist pastor for 12 years before I was nominated to the commission I now serve. As the tent is broadened, and it has been broadened under Moran's influence, more Baptists are involved in convention decisions. I personally know of some life-long Missouri Baptists who are just now serving our state convention. They've taken no oath of loyalty to the MBLA and they aren't jihadists for a Moran crusade.

Consider blogging celebrities Wade Burleson and Ben Cole. Both are relentless critics of the SBC power structure. But when they were invited to a pow-wow with former president Jimmy Carter, who do you think they called up to tag along? (Hint: it wasn’t me and they didn’t flip through the pages of the SBC Annual for a random selection). That’s right, blogging buddy and partner in crime Marty Duren. Humm, could it be they have a little power group of their own? And wouldn’t it be more than a little irresponsible for them to have selected some stranger to accompany them? I can think of a couple of Republican goofballs who would have embarrassed them to no end.

The good-ole-boy system is a staple of American life. You can decry ‘politics’ all you want in Missouri Baptist life, but as long as we have elections there will be a political element. One of the reasons I hate the 2nd Vice-Presidential election at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention is because I rarely know the nominee or the nominating speaker. I could be voting for some scoundrel for all I know—which is why I don’t vote for someone I don’t know anything about.

I’m digressing a bit. The “Save Our Convention” needs to be genuine. I’m not buying them becoming political because they hate politics. And I can’t believe they really want us all to get along, even if we don’t agree perfectly when they refuse the convention President Mike Green the privilege of speaking at their rally ostensibly because he doesn’t agree totally with their agenda. No, there’s a clear agenda here, and I’m left wondering what it is. More about that later.

Pastor Jeff White’s Response to Pastor David McAlpin

[Some Missouri Baptists may be interested to read this response by Jeff White to David McAlpin's written objections that have been circulated throughout the convention and which McAlpin himself disseminated at the last Executive Board meeting. It was presented to the Ad-hoc Committe on Theological Review. I have edited it slightly.]


BACKGROUND:

At the request of committee Chairman, Michael Knight, and for the official record of this committee, this is a written response to a 4 page paper presented by David McAlpin in the Ad-Hoc Theological Study Committee on March 15, 2007. It is my intention here to explain my actions, and correct several inaccuracies in McAlpin’s paper. While I have to mention names, it is not my intention to attack any person, but to address the issues. At the risk of being misunderstood, I think it is important to state upfront that I have no ill-feelings or malicious intent toward David McAlpin or Gary Smalley. I wish both of them and their respective ministries the very best. I have visited face-to-face with Smalley, and the meeting was polite, friendly, cordial, and pleasant. I would have no problem at all saying he seems like a very nice individual, who is ostensibly good. I also have no problem with any local autonomous church choosing to have him in to conduct a conference, because as I see it, that would be an issue between that church’s leadership and the Lord Jesus Christ. There are, however, several concerns I have with Smalley’s teachings, which in my opinion do not make him the best choice for use by the Missouri Baptist Convention (MBC). Some of these concerns I have expressed in previous committee meetings, which prompted McAlpin to write a paper containing statements about me that I disagree with.

INACCURACIES AND OBSERVATIONS:

To begin with, McAlpin’s paper’s title is misleading. At no time have I accused Gary Smalley or the Smalley Relationship Center of “heresy”. I have repeatedly stated that we “might be” (those are my exact words) dealing with doctrine which is unbiblical. At no point in time have I categorically stated that we are absolutely dealing with false doctrine or heresy. Giving the benefit of a doubt to ministries we partner with in the MBC, is precisely why I asked for other godly people to serve on a committee to look into these issues. I did not want to make the call by myself, but wanted input from others. Further, the motion I made which resulted in the Ad-Hoc Theological Study Committee coming into existence at the annual meeting of the MBC on November 1, 2006, never mentioned Smalley or his ministry by name. This was deliberately done to avoid slandering him in any way, and to give him the benefit of a doubt. Counting myself, I believe there are at least 4 of our 5 committee members who will state I have not slandered anyone or accused anyone of heresy that they know of. I have questioned the theological accuracy of various statements in books that have been published and put into the public domain by various individuals. But, I have slandered no one, nor have I attacked anyone’s sincerity, character, or morality. If someone publishes material and places it in the public domain, they should fully expect to have their material read, studied, discussed, reviewed, analyzed, critiqued, evaluated, and assessed, etc, by various people from time to time. This is all I have done. For McAlpin to say and/or put in writing that I have falsely accused someone of something, when I have not, is to falsely accuse and slander me.

McAlpin alleges he offered “repeated requests” for copies of web pages I had from Smalley’s website. Actually, as I remember it, only once at the end of the committee meeting on March 1, 2007 did McAlpin ask for those items. As has been noted by committee Chairman Michael Knight, the committee never officially asked for those items. In response to McAlpin’s request, I agreed I would try to get those items to him in the future as I was able. Our next meeting was only two weeks away on March 15, 2007 the day McAlpin presented his paper against me. During that two week interval, since my ministry at my church comes before my convention work, and since I was incredibly busy with some family and personal issues, that period was not long enough for me to get the materials to McAlpin. At that point it was a matter of me being too busy, not one of me being unwilling to cooperate.

My concerns with Smalley “possibly” being a Universalist were not based on Smalley’s Statement of Faith, which McAlpin discusses. Although it is interesting to note that in Smalley’s Statement of Faith, in article #14, Smalley does not say what the “everlasting separation from God” is he believes in or where it is at.

McAlpin insists I did not make known to the committee the book’s title with which I was concerned. This is incorrect. In the first meeting the committee had, I specified it was Chapter 2 of Smalley’s work, The DNA of Relationships. Again, other committee members, besides McAlpin, should be able to verify this.

In a footnote at the bottom of page 1, McAlpin says the Smalley “event was reported on at each Executive Board meeting from the inception”. To the best of my recollection, I believe this is inaccurate. McAlpin has not served on the Executive Board as far as I know, but I had served on it for 5 years prior to this situation. I never remember the specifics of the Smalley event being discussed in the plenary sessions of the Executive Board, let alone at “each” meeting. I’m sure it is likely the Smalley event was discussed in detail in the [Family Ministries Workgroup], but since I’ve never been a part of that workgroup, I cannot speak authoritatively to that. If the Smalley event was discussed in the plenary sessions of the Executive Board, it was rare and brief at best, or may have occurred on a rare occasion when I was absent.

On page 2, McAlpin states, “White admitted that both Smalley and his pastor affirmed strongly. . . the certainty of damnation for those who reject Christ”. This is not totally correct. In the meeting with Smalley, he was asked if he believed in a “literal, burning hell, where people who have rejected Christ spend eternity?” His response, after an awkward inordinate pause, was “Well, I believe whatever the Bible says about it.” That response hardly qualifies as a strong doctrinal affirmation in my opinion.

Again on page 2, McAlpin tries to explain Smalley’s statements in The DNA of Relationships (chapter 2) by using Acts 17:28-29. It should be noted that it is McAlpin using Acts 17, not Smalley. Smalley actually uses very little Scripture in most of his writings. From this, two things should be noted: first, if what Smalley means is that God is our Creator, then he should have simply said that and used a different analogy than that of the father/child relationship. This is especially true in light of the potential confusion this could cause an unbeliever reading Smalley’s book. The Bible is abundantly clear that before salvation we are of our “Father the Devil” (John 8:44), and are “sons of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2) and “children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3), but not children of God. And, second of all, I don’t totally agree with McAlpin’s treatment of Acts 17:28-29. In that passage, which points out the utter absurdity of idolatry, all the Apostle Paul is doing is using the pantheistic Athenian philosophers’ own logic against them, which was expressed by the words of the pagan Greek poet Aratus. Paul is basically saying to them, that if they think they are “God’s offspring”, then that means God existed before them, and if God existed before them, then they cannot make a god after them in the form of an idol to worship and it be the true God. Paul stops short of taking this very limited analogy to the point of saying “God is their Father”.

Assuming Smalley is not a Universalist, which he may not be, does not automatically mean he is correct in all the rest of his teachings and should be used by the MBC. Over the course of his career, he has used in an affirming way psychological terms and concepts such as self-esteem, self-love, self-image, and right brain/left brain theory, etc. This mixing of psychological concepts with Bible verses when counseling others is in practice inconsistent with a sufficient view of Scripture. If Scripture is sufficient, then by definition, it does not need to be augmented. In an email from Smalley to me dated August 6, 2006 he writes, “I have also come to appreciate and respect the field of psychology as much as the field of cardiology and urology" (see the attached photocopy of this email). He goes on to say in that email he reveres Scripture more than psychology. All of us who are saved think it’s great he reveres the Bible. But, the difference between Smalley and the position I am advocating is this: I have no respect for psychology, since it is a man-made human philosophy and not a science, and I would not use any of it to counsel someone. I would use Scripture alone, since the Bible claims to be totally sufficient for counseling and for producing sanctification in the lives of God’s people (see Psalm 19:7-11; Luke 16:30-31; 2 Corinthians 9:8; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3-4). This is why I have repeatedly stated that Smalley is not the problem he is only a symptom of the problem. The real issue in the MBC is the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture. The Bible indicates we are to “esteem one another”, not ourselves (see Philippians 2:3). And, that we are to “love one another”, not ourselves (see Luke 14:25-27; 2 Timothy 3:1-5). The Bible assumes we love ourselves automatically by nature, because we are born sinful and total depraved (see Matthew 22:35-40; Ephesians 5:29). We are never commanded in Scripture to love ourselves. But, we are commanded in Colossians 2:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” And, we are also commanded to “deny” ourselves (Luke 9:23).

On Page 3, McAlpin gives a list of people who endorse Smalley’s ministry, as if those individuals are infallible. They are not. It does not prove anything substantial for someone to affirm another’s ministry. It only matters if God and His Word affirm someone. There are many popular speakers today who can draw huge crowds, people like Joel Osteen, T. D. Jakes, and Joyce Myers, just to mention a few. But I would not want the MBC to invite these individuals to speak either, or to use or promote any of their materials. Furthermore, there are other people in the Christian community who have had issues with Smalley. For example, Martin and Deidre Bobgan, as well as Albert Dager have all stated their various concerns, so I am not alone.

On Page 4, McAlpin suggests I didn’t follow Matthew 18 in dealing with this issue. This is incorrect. I went to the person in charge of the MBC/Smalley event, Joe Ulveling. I was assured by him that Jim Austin and David Clippard knew what was going on, and that he would report everything back to them. The impression I got from Joe was that Austin and Clippard were supporting Joe’s position and he was representing them. In an email, Joe encouraged me to contact Smalley, which I did via email. I was later invited by Smalley to a sit down visit with him. That meeting included Smalley, his Pastor, Pastor Justin Nelson (who is my Co-Pastor), and me. Initially, I approached Don Hinkle about running an article in the Pathway which would present some of my concerns with Smalley. Hinkle wisely encouraged me to talk to Joe Ulveling instead. After much thought, I decided that was the more biblical approach to take.

McAlpin alleges that I called into question Smalley’s salvation, but this is also incorrect. I have called into question whether or not Smalley relies exclusively on Scripture to provide counseling to people, but not his conversion. It is interesting to note, however, that in Article #1 of Smalley’s Statement of Faith, which covers his beliefs concerning the Bible, he does not use the words “sufficient” or “sufficiency”. I have raised this question because his quoting of psychologists, and his use of therapeutic language in most of his books, far out numbers his quotes of respected Bible teachers or actual Scriptures. Sometimes the problem is not with what someone says it is with what they do not say.

Despite McAlpin’s recollection of our first committee meeting, at no time have I berated Clippard, though I have asked him pointed and tough questions at times. Everyone besides McAlpin on the Ad-Hoc Theological Study Committee, I believe, will testify to this.

McAlpin has falsely accused me repeatedly of slander and character assassination, simply because I’ve attempted to hold people accountable. In my opinion, McAlpin has actually made this situation with Smalley worse through his personal attacks on me, which I have had to respond to, and which will not allow our committee to move off of this subject and on to other important issues. He has even circulated his paper against me around the state of Missouri and at a recent MBC Executive Board meeting (even to some non-Executive Board individuals), thus creating more negative publicity for Smalley. At the top of the paper he recently circulated at the Baptist Building, he wrote in hand-print at the top, “Ad-Hoc Theological Study Committee”, which gave a misleading impression to people that his paper was from the committee, instead of personally from him. It seems as though McAlpin wants to circumvent the work of this committee, and present his case in the court of public opinion.

CONCLUSION:
It has never been my intention for this committee to have an up-or-down vote on which of the para-church organizations we want to do business with. It has been my intention that this committee would look at the theology related to those ministries, and from that, come up with a policy statement which would serve as a guideline for our MBC staff to follow in the future. It is my desire that the MBC would be known as a state convention that is, above all else, committed to glorifying God through biblical and theological excellence. For this to happen, though, the standard of expectation must be raised to a new level from where it currently is. It is not enough for us to verbally affirm the inerrancy of the Bible; we must also practically affirm the sufficiency of it. This is precisely why this committee is needed. Unfortunately, it seems like McAlpin does not think so. It is perfectly fine for any committee member to disagree or offer a differing opinion, but it is not alright to try to undermine a convention process. From day one of our Ad-Hoc Theological Study Committee, rather than attacking the issues, McAlpin has tried to stop, subvert and sidetrack the entire work of this committee by attacks that are personal and political. One has to question who put him up to this, and also, whether it is ethically right for him to stay on a committee he obviously thinks does not have a need or right to exist. It would appear, in my opinion, McAlpin might not want to be a working part of this committee.

Blunt Signal Tax Money for Cloning Research

I agree with my state senator Chuck Graham on very little. Senator Graham is a committed liberal. He is not a fair weather politician. He is not the least bit accommodating of my values or viewpoints. That’s why I found his discontinuance of opposition against Dr. Bob Onder's nomination to the Life Sciences Research Board troubling. Onder is a board member of Missourians Against Human Cloning, a group founded by various pro-life organizations and leaders to oppose Amendment 2. Senator Graham has been tenacious in supporting Embryonic Stem Cell Rearch and Cloning in every way imaginable. His position of filibustering a MOHELA plan was not helped when MU representatives backed a compromise to get money with restrictions against life science research.

Senator Graham, after all, is part of Missouri’s minority party, and frankly was outgunned and outmaneuvered by Republican strong-handing. Republicans had signaled they would bypass MU and Columbia would lose money, Graham’s Columbia coalition wavered. My major beef with the MOHELA plan is that it uses public money to pave a foundation for cloning research. Senator Graham understood that as well, only he was on the other side of my viewpoint, wanting the money for cloning research. In March, he led a Democratic filibuster. In May, he signaled he would not oppose the plan, largely because Governor Matt Blunt was going to include funding for life science research in next year’s budget. Senator Graham was kind enough to supply me with a copy of Governor Blunt’s letter.

The Governor has signaled what pro-life leaders in Missouri have maintained throughout the Amendment 2 (pro-cloning) debate—that Missouri tax money would soon be used to fund this research that many Missourians consider immoral. The Governor has signaled he is ready to release the money. With Democratic zeal for it and Republican infatuation with the business leaders associated with it, pro-life Missourians have few protectors in Missouri government.

Jerry Falwell Dead

The death of Dr. Jerry Falwell marks the closure of a legacy. Liberty University’s Chancellor and Senior Pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church reportedly was found unconscious at his office and pronounced dead at Liberty General Hospital at 12:40 pm.

While I did not always agree with Dr. Falwell (only few Americans did) and thought someone of his stature should have more cultivated refinery, tact and skillful diplomacy, he was an amazing man and a good servant of our Lord.

On the downside, Dr. Falwell never met an issue he didn’t like. Some people think him opinionated. I think it was a lack of Biblical wisdom. One should never speak to every issue. Most recently, he referred to Calvinism as heresy, something even ardently strident Arminians refrain from doing. In secular politics, I remember him marching in lockstep with President Bush in supporting Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice which would have been a huge mistake. She was a liberal waiting to metamorphicize.

On the upside, Dr. Falwell was an incredible visionary. The Moral Majority and the sprawling empire of Liberty Mountain are two notable achievements. When I stepped down as president of Moral Majority in 1987, he said: “I shudder to think where the country would be right now if the religious right had not evolved.”

Dr. Richard Land, president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said:

“Our grief at our loss of his witness, energy and giftedness for the kingdom is mitigated by the fact that he is now with his Savior for eternity. Dr. Falwell’s home-going leaves an enormous gap in the leadership ranks of evangelical Christianity in America and around the world. He will be greatly missed. Our hearts and prayers go out to his church members and the entire Liberty family, including professors, alumni and students, as well as his immediate family. We pray for them in this time of loss, as well as our loss of this true giant of the faith.”

And now the warrior can rest.

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy

Maybe you’ve heard a bit from the first Republican Presidential Debate hosted by MSNBC at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

The most notable part of the debate was former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s answer regarding abortion. Here’s the first exchange:

Moderator: We now go to the next segment. We're going to talk about values. Let's go down the line on this just like they did with the Democrats last week on some of these trickier calls, but they do have clear answers. Starting with you, Governor, would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America.

Romney: Absolutely.

Moderator: Senator?

Brownback (?): It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom.

Moderator: Governor?

Gilmore (?): Yes, it was wrongly decided.

Moderator: Governor?

Huckabee (?): Most certainly.

Moderator: Congressman?

Hunter (?): Yes.

Moderator: Governor?

(Unknown): Yes.

Moderator: Senator?

A repeal.

Mayor?

Giuliani: It would be OK.

Moderator: OK to repeal?

Giuliani: It would be OK to repeal. It would be also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent and I think a judge has to make that decision.

Moderator: Would it be OK if they didn't repeal it?

Giuliani: I think the court has to make that decision and then the country can deal with it. We're a federalist system of government and states can make their own decisions.

Moderator: Congressman?

Tancredo (?): After 40 million dead because we have aborted them in this country, I would say that that would be the greatest day in this country's history when that, in fact, is overturned.

[end]

This might be a good time to remark that debate moderators (in this case MSNBC Hardball’s host Chris Matthews) often go beyond their role to moderate a debate and try to create a debate, or a least to help bolster ratings through controversial statements.

In any event, Giuliani was the most least-excited candidate on the prospects of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Matthews came back to Giuliani and few moments later:


Let me go back to Governor -- Mayor Giuliani, because I want to give you a chance on this. You became very well known for standing up against the use of public funds for what many people considered indecent exhibits at the Brooklyn museum and places like that.
Why do you support the use of public funds for abortion?

Giuliani: I don't. I support the Hyde amendment. I hate abortion. I wish people didn't have abortions.

Moderator: So you're not for funding at all?

Giuliani: I believe that the Hyde amendment should remain the law. States should make their decision. Some states decide to do it. Most states decide not to do it. And I think that's the appropriate way to have this decided.

Moderator: Should New York, when you were mayor of New York, should they have been paying for -- the state should have been paying for...

Giuliani: That's a decision New York made a long time ago. And New York...

Moderator: And where were you on that?

Giuliani: I supported it in New York, but I think, in other places, people can come to a different decision.

Moderator: Thank you.

[end]

Classic politician double-speak and flip-flop. As Mayor of New York, Giuliani supported public funding for abortions. As President candidate, Giuliani supports states deciding whether to support abortion with public money.

So, at the heart of the matter, Giuliani hasn’t really changed. He believed and still believes that public money can be used for abortion and that private citizens who have a conviction against the killing procedure will just have to live with it were their state to decide to fund it.

Thanks, but no thanks, Rudy.

Hybels Blasts Driscoll

I’m no defender of Mark Driscoll, but his public rebuke by Bill Hybels at last week’s National New Church Conference reveals just how weak and out of focus the modern church is.

According to Driscoll’s comments about this situation, he had been asked to speak at the conference but declined and organizers got him to submit a video instead.

I thought most of the video was pretty lame. It was high on style, short on content with Driscoll’s typical crass way of speaking of holy, eternal realities in the most base and earthly form imaginable…all in the name of ‘communication’ I suppose. The Mars Hill video team is obviously very skilled, but frankly, Driscoll didn’t say many deep or challenging things. But the one thing that did mean something—reaching young men and discipling them—was criticized by Hybels. After the video was over, Bill Hybels (being next on the program) was introduced and made this statement:

"After that video I would like to acknowledge that there are women in this room and they have spiritual gifts.”

Well, who’s gonna argue that? Driscoll wasn’t saying women don’t have gifts. He seemed to be saying that men are staying behind spiritually and that we need to reach them. Hybels seemed to be launching the modern debate of women and their place in ministry. He seemed to defend the egalitarian model (women and men are equal in that they have the same responsibilities and calling) which is very much rooted in worldliness. The complementarian model (women and men are equal in that they have separate and unique but God-given and God-called responsibilities) is a lot closer to Scripture.

Some 20 years ago, evangelical leaders gathered in Danvers, Massachusetts to discuss the Biblical perspective of manhood and womanhood. They drafted but became known as the Danvers Statement. The fourth affirmation they listed was:

The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1-7, 12, 16).

• In the home, the husband's loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife's intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.
• In the church, sin inclines men toward a worldly love of power or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclines women to resist limitations on their roles or to neglect the use of their gifts in appropriate ministries.

Bill Hybels ought to read this sermon by Ligon Duncan. Then he’d really have something to criticize.

For further information read the online version of Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth by Wayne Gruden.

I won’t even go into the issue of the conference organizers not passing out Driscoll’s video as they had previously planned. I hope they paid Mars Hill for the production time and DVD’s, but based on Driscoll’s blog, it seems they got stiffed.

Thought Crimes Legislation Sails Through the House

Yesterday, by a vote of 237-180, the US House of Representatives passed H.R. 1592, the so-called “hate crimes” bill.

The Missouri delegation was split right down the middle with Democrats Carnahan, Clay, Cleaver and Skelton voted for the bill and Republicans Akin, Blunt, Emerson and Hulshof voting against the bill. Republican Sam Graves (6th District) did not vote.

Everyone knows this bill isn’t about real crime. Existing laws already cover assaults and injuries to the persons and properties of homosexuals, as they well should. Violence against homosexuals is to be deplored. The FBI has reported a dramatic and significant drop in crimes against homosexuals in recent years. This, in spite of fabricated and exaggerated reporting like this case at Minnesota State-Moorhead.

Chuck Colson, in an article dealing with the loss of free speech reported an FBI statistic that in 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, only 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals—less than 0.03%.

Fortunately, the Bush Administration at long last broke its silence on the topic and issued this statement, part of which read: “If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”

Dr. Gene Scott

Have Missouri cloners been up to something? Dr. Gene Scott appears to be a mutation of Robert Tilton, Mark Driscoll and a wee bit of Charles Spurgeon. Watch at your own peril!

Missouri’s Casino Loss Limit May Be Removed

Unless pro-family voters get immediately active, Missouri’s gambling lobby may prevail this year in their 15 year assault on loss limits.

Most Missourians know the history. In 1992, paddleboats were going to saunter along the Missouri and Mississippi rivers for tranquil riverboat gambling cruises. But once the voters approved the measure, the paddleboats never moved, and the boats weren’t boats at all, but massive buildings that didn’t budge and the gamblers came, losing personal wealth that went pouring into the pockets of greedy out-of-state casino owners.

The one thing that remains from that original proposal is a $500 loss limit every two hours. It now has a giant bulls-eye painted on it in the form of SB 430. The bill bears the innocuous title “Smart Start Scholarship Program”. Hey, it worked before, why not now. Just tell Missourians money is going to schools and that their kids will get some scholarship dough. They’ll go for it.

Yet tucked away on page 9 of the 17 page bill is the little phrase: “..provided that the commission shall not establish any maximum loss limit…” Here are three reasons why you should encourage your senator to oppose SB 430.

1) On the principle of the matter. Missourians voted in the loss limit in the early 1990s and it is the only part of the original legislation that remains intact to protect Missouri families.

2) The loss limit serves as a great protection to families of problem gamblers and thus protects our state from expenses relating to gambling.

Many gamblers can easily lose $25,000 in a short time span. Could you imagine the devastation caused to the families of compulsive gamblers in our state if the loss limit is removed?

Mark Andrews, a tireless crusader opposing gambling’s further devastation of Missouri lives and head of Casino Watch, in a June 20, 2003 letter to the editor of the St. Louis Business Journal, Andrews wrote:

A 2001 study by two economists, Grinols and Mustard, from the Universities of Georgia and Illinois, suggest through their method of calculating the cost of casino gambling in the United States, that Missouri's annual cost may easily be $800 million. The costs they enumerate are crime, suicide, bankruptcy, courts, prosecution, etc. Even if casino taxes to state government were $300 million, the costs far outweigh the income. No business can operate with a negative bottom line, and government shouldn't either.

3) Also, the loss limit serves to deter criminals from money laundering. This is why Attorney General Jay Nixon opposes the removal of loss limits. You can read his letter here.

This past week, SB 430 was almost dead through another one of the principled filibusters of Matt Bartle (District 8—Lee’s Summit). But after a 9 hour filibuster that spanned Monday night and Tuesday morning, Republican floor leader and bill sponsor Charlie Shields (District 34—St. Joseph) said he would keep the Senate in session over the weekend if that was what was required to get his gambling friendly bill passed. With some strange maneuvering, the filibuster ended with another tax hike to the casinos; but the $500 loss limit repeal still firmly in place, with a squeaker of a vote--17 yes, 16 no.

Please contact your Senator on Monday (April 30) and politely, but firmly ask them to vote against SB 430. The bill still needs a “third reading” before it gets passed on to the House. Protect Missouri families. Call your senator and urge a NO on SB 430.


Frank Barnitz (573) 751-2108
Matt Bartle (573) 751-1464
Joan Bray (573) 751-2514
Victor Callahan (573) 751-3074
Norma Champion (573) 751-2583
Dan Clemens (573) 751-4008
Maida Coleman (573) 751-2606
Jason Crowell (573) 751-2459
Rita Heard Days (573) 751-4106
Kevin Engler (573) 751-3455
Michael Gibbons (573) 751-2853
Jack Goodman (573) 751-2234
Chuck Graham (573) 751-2162
Timothy P. Green (573) 751-2420
John Griesheimer (573) 751-3678
Chuck Gross (573) 751-8635
Jolie Justus (573) 751-2788
Harry Kennedy (573) 751-2126
Chris Koster (573) 751-1430
Brad Lager (573) 751-1415
John Loudon (573) 751-9763
Rob Mayer (573) 751-3859
Ryan McKenna (573) 751-1492
Gary Nodler (573) 751-2306
Chuck Purgason (573) 751-1882
Luann Ridgeway (573) 751-2547
Scott Rupp (573) 751-1282
Delbert Scott (573) 751-8793
Charlie Shields (573) 751-9476
Wes Shoemyer (573) 751-7852
Jeff Smith (573) 751-3599
Bill Stouffer (573) 751-1507
Carl Vogel (573) 751-2076
Yvonne Wilson (573) 751-9758


By the way, here’s how the votes went down on SB 430 this past week. Senator Maida Coleman was absent (illness). A "NO" vote was against the repeal of the loss limit.

NO -
1. Frank Barnitz
2. Matt Bartle
3. Joan Bray
4. Jason Crowell
5. Mike Gibbons
6. Jack Goodman
7. John Greisheimer
8. Chuck Gross
9. Harry Kennedy
10. Brad Lager
11. John Loudon
12. Rob Mayer
13. Chuck Purgason
14. Delbert Scott
15. Bill Stouffer
16. Yvonne Wilson


YES -
1. Victor Callahan
2. Norma Champion
3. Dan Clemens
4. Rita Days
5. Kevin Engler
6. Chuck Graham
7. Tim Green
8. Jolie Justice
9. Chris Koster
10. Ryan McKenna
11. Gary Noddler
12. Luanne Ridgeway
13. Scott Rupp
14. Charlie Shields
15. Wes Shoemyer
16. Jeff Smith
17. Carl Vogel

The Courage of Convictions

While Missouri Baptists struggle with whether to maintain their unique identity as non-drinkers or whether to conform to worldly standards of alcoholic consumption, Catholic leaders are showing no reluctance in distancing themselves from anyone who assaults the tenets of their faith.

Consider yesterday’s decision by St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke to resign as Chairman of the Board from the Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center Foundation. For several weeks and apparently months, the Archbishop has been waging a behind-the-scenes battle to have an invitation to pop music legend Sheryl Crow withdrawn. Crow was asked to perform for a benefit to raise money for the Bob Costas Cancer Center of Cardinal Glennon.

Crow, known recently for her eccentric call to limit Americans’ use of toilet paper to one square per sitting, is also a vociferous defender of abortion on demand, a practice that brutally dismembers and kills innocent, developing babies within the wombs of mothers. Crow, a Missouri native from the bootheel (Kennett), also campaigned for Amendment 2, a new Missouri law that makes cloning legal and commercializes the destruction of human embryos for the harvesting of stem cells.

It’s a no-brainer that Crow belongs nowhere near a Catholic institution. Sadly, Archbishop Raymond Burke is one of the few Catholic decision makers that got it right.

Kudos to the Archbishop for his courageous and self-denying decision to step down from a plush position to draw attention to the dichotomy. Maybe Catholics and other pro-life Missourians will follow his lead and boycott Saturday’s concert.

"It is so ordered."

With those stark and straightforward words concluding the majority opinion, the United States Supreme Court upheld yesterday in Gonzalez v. Carhart the constitutionality of Congress’ ban on partial birth abortion and delivered a major blow to America’s pro-abortion legions.

The court was divided on the issue by a 5-4 vote, reaffirming how essential the election of George W. Bush was to the Presidency. He nominated both the current Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Alito who both joined with Justices Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas for the majority.

The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) went ballistic, charging on their website:

“The Supreme Court has done the unthinkable and upheld the Federal Abortion Ban with no exception for a woman's health.”

“Today's decision shows Bush's appointees have moved the Court in a direction that could further undermine Roe v. Wade and protections for women's health. The Court has given anti-choice state lawmakers the green light to open the flood gates and launch additional attacks on safe, legal abortion, without any regard for women's health.”

I, for one, hope their prognostications are correct. What America needs now is a complete assault on the barbarous and heinous brutality of abortion. While partial birth abortion is especially troubling because of the baby’s late term development, it is no less brutal than all abortions which unnecessarily and viciously kill innocent and developing babies.

Justices Thomas and Scalia were willing to go further. Writing a concurring opinion, they stated "...the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights was even more fanatical in commenting on the ruling, saying: “This is a terrifying development…”

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said "It took just a year for this new Court to overturn three decades of established law. Today's ruling is a stunning assault on women's health and the expertise of doctors who care for them."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the minority, offered her own sagacious bantering: “In sum, the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational.”

Sure Madame Justice, protecting innocent babies from having their brains sucked out is not a legitimate governmental interest. Just who is being irrational?

Ginsburg continued:

“The Court’s defense of the statute provides no saving explanation. In candor, the Act, and the Court’s defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court—and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women’s lives.”

I hope we do more than “chip away” at abortion. This barbarity must be abolished from American culture.

Democratic National Committee Censors Jesus

Don Wildmon, with American Family Association, brought to my attention this latest quirck by Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

On March 30, he and DNC Vice Chair Susan Turnbull issued a press release entitled “DNC Offers Passover Greetings” which read:

"On Monday night, Jews around the world will begin celebrating Passover, a week-long holiday that commemorates the Israelites' freedom from persecution and slavery."

Good enough. The trouble came a few days later when the DNC issued its Easter Greetings

“Easter Sunday is a joyful celebration. The holiday represents peace, redemption and renewal, a theme which brings hope to people of all faiths. During this time Christians are called to remember who they are as people of faith, and that even the greatest of evils will not have the last word. It is also a time to reflect upon and be in solidarity with those who are persecuted and suffering among us. We should also use this time to honor those who continue to make incredible sacrifices for us, including our brave men and women in the armed forces serving overseas during this holiday. I would like to wish all those celebrating around the world this Sunday, a joyous Easter.”

Okay, class, can you say J-E-S-U-S? Easter isn’t a holiday for “people of all faiths.” It’s a uniquely Christian celebration of the resurrection of Jesus as the world’s Savior.

If you want to blow some steam, go here to send an email to DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

You can read one of the earliest commentaries on this issue here.

Falwell Declares Limited Atonement 'Heresy'

I would have hoped that when Ergun Caner went to teach theology at Liberty University and periodically launched his vitriol against Calvinism, he might have been tempered by the more seasoned and theologically mature Chancellor of Liberty and Senior Pastor of Thomas Road, Dr. Jerry Falwell. But, it seems, the opposite has occurred. This past Friday, Dr. Falwell, in a sermon to prospective students, said:

“We are not into particular love or limited atonement. As a matter of fact, we consider it heresy.”

Whoa! Liberty Mountain seems to have gone into full attack mode. Falwell just launched the H-bomb. Is it really heresy to believe that third point of Calvinism? Let’s see, that would mean the church has followed such ‘heretics’ as Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, William Carey, John Bunyan, Charles Spurgeon and Benjamin Warfield.

Tom Ascol has a great post on his blog [as usual]:

Does Jerry Falwell and Liberty University really judge John Piper to be a heretic? If we take his words seriously, as surely we ought if we are to honor him, then he believes that Al Mohler, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, D. James Kennedy, Ligon Duncan, Mark Dever, Tom Nettles, Wayne Grudem, Sinclair Ferguson, James White and Fred Malone teach heresy. That certainly is his and Liberty's right to believe. I simply regret that they believe it. I do not regard my universal redemptionist brothers to be heretics because of their views of general atonement. I think they are wrong and they think the same of me. But that does not mean that we have to accuse each other of being heretics.

Humm, this is a good case study in how we use our mouths. I’m particularly interested in this because there’s quite a bit of this same verbal attack on brothers going on in Missouri. It’s just, that in Missouri, it isn’t about Limited Atonement, but issues relating to our former Executive Director.

The author of Pilgrim’s Progress, John Bunyan (yep, another heretic according to the Falwellian Friday edict) wrote about 3 people who attacked a character he called Mr. Valiant-for-Truth, one of which was called ‘Wild-Head.’ Ernie Reisinger wrote a great little paper in which he says:

We have seen Wild-Head in operation many times. Sometimes with his pen in hand. Sometimes behind the pulpit. Sometimes in private conversations or debate. We have seen him rush at the character of some saint who was just not enlightened, whose understanding was not as good as his Christian experience. Will Wild-Head never learn that truth apart from the Spirit will not develop hristian character? Grace and truth must be together. Mercy and truth must be together as they are in Jesus.

In this awful, confused and divided Church today we need great care, wisdom and charity in applying the truth as we have come to see and love it. I mean applying it as to time, manner and method.

What is one safeguard at this point? Not putting asunder what God has joined together. Mercy and truth, Psalm 85:10, 86:15, 89:14; Proverbs 14:22, 16:6, 20:28. Kindness and truth, and truth and love, Ephesians 4:15--"speak the truth in love." Grace and truth, John 1:14, 17--"Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Yes, He was full of "grace and truth." One great safeguard, therefore, is not putting asunder what God has joined together.

We really do need a larger measure of grace these days. If we believe we’re right, can’t be find more graceful ways to say it?

I can think of no more fitting words to this situation than those written by the great-Reformer, Richard Baxter in his Reformed Pastor (caution: Baxter is a heretic according to Falwell’s schema because he, too, believed in Limited Atonement):

How tragic it is that there are those who tear their brothers apart as heretics before they made any effort to understand them. We must learn to understand the basic reasons for controversies, and then reduce them to the point where we see the differences between genuine differences instead of just seeing the prejudices. Then we will refrain from making the differences worse than they really are. Instead of quarreling with our brethren, let us rather cooperate against our real and common adversaries.

Ah, yes, “our real and common adversaries.” We’ve virtually forgotten about those. And while we “bite and devour one another” (Galatians 5:15), our enemies march on. The theological merits of Calvinism certainly warrant significant discussion, as do a host of other issues such as emerging churches and MBC policies. And they will, no doubt, limit fellowship within the fold. But “heresy” is just too strong.

P.S. I have tremendous respect for the work and ministry of Dr. Falwell.

P.S.S. I’m leaving to look for a mirror…I’ve got a little self-examination to do.

Good Friday -- Thank You Jesus For Your Blood

Titus 3:4-7

But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.


Romans 3:23-26

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


Romans 5:6-11

6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.


Ephesians 2:11-22

11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh--who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands-- 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. 19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

St. Patrick's Day Parade

Will some modern Baptists be marching in tomorrow’s St. Patrick’s Day parade? I ask (with no small degree of cynicism) because many of them have a fondess for beer. The day is too often marked by drunken revelry rather than a reflection upon the life of the wonderful Christian missionary, Patrick of Ireland.

Interestingly, the Chicago parade site has fewer beer links and/or brewing or beer selection suggestions than some church websites I’ve seen recently. Hummmmmmm….

A Breath of Fresh Air – Heretics Attack the Resurrection

I know it’s odd to consider liberal and heretical illogic that disparages Biblical faith in a good way. But that’s how I’m seeing it. It at least has unified the SBC blogging world from attacking their own.

The sarcasm being aside, though, the situation is rather irritating. In case you’ve missed it, Titanic director James Cameron is filming a ‘documentary’ on a 1980 archaelogical find of an ossuary box (casket). The bottom line is he believes the find contains the bones of Jesus. Yeah, right!

You can watch Dr. Al Mohler defend the orthodox position on Larry King here or read the complete transcript here.

And the best blog on the topic with helpful links is here.

Welcome to 21st century Corinth.

There is a strong movement, particularly within some younger pastors to indulge their carnality under a cloak of spirituality. Specifically, these churches host “Bible studies” or some type of community forum in bars, pubs, breweries or some other venue where alcoholic consumption isn’t just tolerated, it’s encouraged.

I understand some of these folks are genuinely trying to reach people with the gospel wherever they are (including bars). They are not the consideration of this post. However, many of these churches seem bent on getting as closely aligned with the world as they possibly can.

I’ve been contending for awhile, that if Southern Baptists weaken our position on alcohol abstinence, the next social issue will be gambling. Well, today a friend sent me a link to Damascus Road Church in Seattle, Washington. They are an Acts 29 church plant and have one of the most aggressive and offensive “Beer & Bible” promotions of all the pro-alcohol Acts 29 churches.

In what appears to be a promotional email for their men’s Bible study, Damascus Road Church says:

“In the Northwest, we consider coffee a meal and Beer liquid bread. AND we know from the Psalms, God has given us bread to strengthen man’s heart. (Psalm 104:15). So, join us from some hard words and strong brew as we gather like men to learn about what God expects of us as men.”

But the really offensive part is their promotion of “Men’s Poker Nights.” Yep, you read that correctly.

Damascus Road tells you:

It's not about poker, its about relaxing, enjoying the company of some men, making grunting noises, and laughing at Junior High humor. If you're a man, and you have 10 bucks, here's your chance to prove your poker skills or lack there of. Depending on the number of men who show, we will have several $5 games in before the night is through. Bring your favorite soothing beverage (barley pop, soda, water, etc.) and bring something fattening to eat! For the same price as a movie, you can enjoy some laughs and, if you're lucky, go home with a little extra. Invite your buddies!

I’ve been arguing that these new Libertines would soon be promoting gambling (after all, the Bible nowhere gives an outright prohibition!), equating it with money spent on some other form of entertainment.

Guys like me keep seeing this common thread in a lot of Acts 29 churches. And we’re wondering to what degree are our Southern Baptist churches being influenced by this kind of (un)Biblical application?

I have no doubt many, if not most, of these churches are orthodox in their doctrine. But I find the application of their doctrine (if in fact it is orthodox) woefully lacking.

Titus 3:5-6

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Black History Month, William Wilberforce and the SBC Alcohol Controversy

It is right and proper to acknowledge the role of William Wilberforce in his tireless effort to end the English slave trade. This year marks the 200th Anniversary of its abolishment and an upcoming movie, Amazing Grace, chronicles his story in this noble crusade.

I’ve been asking around for some feedback on the issue of slavery and its parallels to the alcohol controversy within the SBC. I haven’t gotten much from the few sources that I’ve queried. No one who adheres to a “moderate drinking” persuasion either in theory or practice has quieted my objections that the same thing that can be said of alcohol can be said of slavery. So, I’ll boldly publish these queries and see what wisdom the blogging world might shed on my thinking.

Of course, Southern Baptists have a dark history with this dark and evil institution. When our Baptist mission board refused to appoint slaveholders as missionaries, key leaders gathered in Augusta, Georgia in 1845 and formed the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Southern Baptists repented of their ties to slavery in a formal resolution adopted in 1995.

I suppose there remain a few racist SBCers lurking under a few rocks here and there. But our denomination has transcended the South and is now present in all 50 states and is America’s largest Protestant denomination. There are no voices crying for the return of slavery. Thankfully, we universally acknowledge the sin of slavery.

However, I’ve noticed a few parallels with a debate currently being waged on our most recent resolution, this one centering on alcohol.

Advocates of moderate drinking allege two major tenets to justify their position: 1) the Bible nowhere gives an outright prohibition of consuming alcohol; 2) the Bible sometimes portrays alcohol in a positive way. I will not here, at this time, delineate those arguments fully, since most have a good grasp on our controversy. Neither will I put forth the overwhelming textual evidence that portrays alcohol in a negative light. But, may I daringly say, those were the same arguments made by our Baptist forebears to justify slavery.

“Wine is sometimes portrayed positively in the Bible!” sounds mighty close to Richard Furman’s (pastor of the First Baptist Church of Charleston, South Carolina) pronouncement back in 1838: "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."

And factually, Furman wasn’t lying. There are Bible passages that portray slavery in a positive way, most notably Leviticus 25:44: “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.”

Regarding slavery we’d say, that isn’t the full counsel of God. So why can’t we say that regarding the consumption of alcoholic beverages?

“But Jesus turned water into wine!” Yes, and he also healed a Roman centurian’s slave (Matthew 8:5ff) with nary a word of rebuke against slavery. So, if we are to conclude that Jesus’ making of wine in the first century is an endorsement of 21st century distilled alcohol, then can we relax about the enslavement of people in our world today?

“But Paul told Timothy to drink wine!” Yes, for medicinal purposes. And he also told the runaway slave Onesimus to return to his Christian slave-holding master Philemon. If Paul was endorsing beer drinking, why wouldn’t we consistently argue he was endorsing slavery?

“But we drink in moderation, there is no abuse of alcohol!” Baptist pastor Basil Manly encouraged his slave holding colleagues with the same logic. In his 1836 “Lecture on Ants” to the Charleston Literary and Philosophical Society, he said: “It surely ought to comfort the abolitionists to know that although the ants do hold slaves, the masters are humane and gentle, and the slaves are contented, industrious, and happy.” Ah, yes, no abuses there.

No one within the SBC is arguing slavery or racial bigotry. Fortunately, the counsel of God has thunderously invaded our hearts and minds on this issue. In fact, I imagine this post will be highly offensive to many who hold to “moderate drinking.” But I believe the parallels are significant. I can only say that our pilgrimage to resist slavery and view it as ungodly and unbiblical was not based on any singular ‘smoking gun’ verse; but on the Holy Spirit implanting the mind of God in our hearts. We saw the whole counsel of God. Knowing Scripture never contradicts itself, we saw the “pro-slavery” passages in their proper view. I hope we will soon do the same regarding alcohol.

Black History Month

One of the darkest days of U.S. history occurred on April 4, 1968. On that day, a prominent preacher stepped onto the balcony outside the Motel Lorraine in Memphis, Tennessee, and was shot dead by an assassin’s bullet. The preacher’s name was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Had he lived, I believe America would be different today—and better. We may still have been struggling with pockets of racism, but this passionate follower of Jesus would have assailed (and conquered) the high places of racial prejudice. He certainly would have prevented the ‘takeover’ of the civil rights movement by proponents of ‘black power’ and the movement’s subsequent derailment from its true purpose.

But he would have done more, because the greatness of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was not exclusively in his attacks against racism. His greatness lied in his core belief—that the principles of Jesus Christ would give us a just and better society. And because of that essential belief, King is more than just a great black leader, he’s a great American. I’ve no doubt that Dr. King would have crusaded against pornography and abortion and a host of other evils that subjugate the human spirit. Dr. King was not a perfect man. He struggled with (and was too often overcome by) significant sin issues. But he was a clarion voice for the church to be engaged with its culture.

His “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” ranks, in my mind, as one of the greatest pieces of literature in American History. At one point King wrote:

“So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an arch-defender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.”

February is Black History month throughout our nation and it’s a good time to reflect on the contributions of some fantastic Americans who happened to have been black. Two of my favorite Americans were black (Dr. Martin Luther King and Frederick Douglas). Their writings have helped to significantly shape my thinking about the church and its role in society. If you’ll study them and their writings, they’ll teach you one of the greatest lessons you could learn—the church of Jesus cannot be silent or idle in the face of injustice and immorality.

In the days of slavery, the prominent American poet Henry David Thoreau once went to jail rather than pay his poll tax to a state that supported slavery. His good friend Ralph Waldo Emerson hurried to visit him in jail and, peering through the bars, exclaimed: “Why, Henry, what are you doing in there?” Thoreau replied, “No, Ralph, the question is, what are you doing out there?”

Long before Dr. King had a dream of racial equality, Jesus had a vision for His church and prayed “that they all may be one” (John 17:21). Paul wrote “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). And in one of our favorite worship songs we sing of the redeemed church from “every tribe, every tongue, every people, every land” (Revelation 5:9). I love to see people of color in our congregation. It gives us a better visual picture of heaven. I feel closer to God when I’m worshipping with other races and I long to see our church even more integrated.

But leaving philosophical and religious writing aside, consider some more practical examples like the refrigerator, the clothes dryer, the ironing board, the fire extinguisher and the lawn sprinkler. All of these were invented by black Americans. We need to confront our own biases and prejudices and we need to lead our nation to confront its prejudices and racism. Mostly, we need to be engaged in the great battles of our time and advance God’s cause of justice.

Worth Reading

Baptist Press published a brief article by Douglas Baker that is worth your reading time. Baker’s insights, entitled “Inerrancy Isn’t Enough” encapsulate one of the key issues facing the Southern Baptist denomination. Here's a sampling.

It is not enough to trot out the usual statements about the importance of inerrancy and expository preaching. While these are laudable expressions of orthodoxy and practice, the reality remains that the mere mention of these words now too easily evokes expected agreement and adulation (a good hearty “Amen” in Baptistspeak), but little application and practice in pulpits and Sunday School classrooms.

Read the entire article here.