The Gospel and the SBC
Nathan Finn asked the question over at SBC Witness:
“What are the most pressing issues facing the Southern Baptist Convention?“
I responded,
The most pressing issue facing the SBC in 2008 is the gospel.
The one thing that precludes cooperation is (unfortunately) the gospel.
Ergo, the biggest problem is also the biggest issue is also the leading cause for precluding cooperation, namely the gospel.
Now I know that may sound really simplistic, but we as Baptists have a way of complicating things and stressing peripherals and wandering from the center.
But more specifically, how the gospel relates to the way we evangelize, the way we preach, the way we structure our churches, the way we do mission work, why and with whom we cooperate, and on and on. Affinity-based cooperation that transcends denominational structures are growing because of the emphasis on the gospel, while the SBC is divided and disillusioned by controversy and “Baptist battles.”
If we are going to see a “Great Commission Resurgence” as Dr. Akin puts it, we must recover the gospel and its primacy in everything we do. It is the power of God unto salvation, and it ought to be the hub of the SBC wheel that moves us forward in this new century.
And the thing I fear the most is how easy it is to tip our hats to a sentimental appreciation of the gospel in a comment like this but not be willing to pay the price to go anywhere beyond that.
I mean,
I could talk about the $280+ million dollars fleeced each year in the SBC bureaucracy from the CP;
I could talk about the megachurches that have more “inactive members” than the entire population of most cities in the heartland;
I could talk about the arbitrary lines of “true convservatism” being promulgated around nonessentialism;
I could mention the fact that Southern Baptists are no different from the world in matters of divorce, materialism, infidelity, etc.;
I could provide for you 22+ pages of documentation of a conspiratorial, systematic assault on Reformed theology in the SBC over the past two decades (and needs to be updated still);
I could talk about the extremely small percentage of churches who participate in denominational life (as will be seen the the number of messengers this year in Indy compared to the 42,000 churches that make us SBC);
I could talk about the Southern Baptist blogs that annoy me because they would rather go tit-for-tat about lawsuits and denominational politics while won’t write a thing about the great need for our churches and pulpits needing to return to faithfulness to Christ;
I could continue this thread of one problem after another, but the truth is, we are more interested in this list than the first thing I said about the gospel–and therein lies the heart of the problem.
I love the SBC, but Iove the gospel more. There’s nothing I long to see in my lifetime than we present ourselves as a convention of churches before God in all humility and honesty that desires to take the mission and message of Christ seriously, leaving all else behind for the sake of His name. My hope is found nowhere else than this, and despite all the flaws, faults, and failures, I am ever hopeful because I believe the gospel will change and transform an undeserving sinner like me to live as a dying man with an everlasting message.
Agree or disagree?
Tags: Consensus, Cooperation, Gospel, SBC
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
April 14, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Absolutely wonderful Tim!
Agreed.
Grace and truth,
Steve
Col. 1:9-14
April 14, 2008 at 6:42 pm
You are dead on Tim. If we throw off our commitment to the gospel we are no different than any other social club with its political intrigue and woes. If we as a convention are to stand for anything is should be, The Gospel First and Foremost.
Martin
April 14, 2008 at 7:11 pm
BAM! Smack dab in the very center of the bullseye! Very well said and greatly appreciated.
April 14, 2008 at 7:54 pm
This is great timmy. I agree 100%. You said something that got me thinking:
“But more specifically, how the gospel relates to the way we evangelize, the way we preach, the way we structure our churches, the way we do mission work, why and with whom we cooperate, and on and on.”
It’s that “on and on” that we need to work to articulate better as well. I’m serving in a church and have gotten blank stares at times when I talk about the Gospel being the central in our everyday life , not just central in our beliefs that day we prayed that prayer during that revival way back when. Many see the gospel as a magic key or a golden ticket and not much more.
I am seeing that I need to do a better job of showing how the Gospel relates to more than our evangelism, church structure, cooperation, but going to the every day realities and showing how the cross and the Gospel intersects marriage and family, raising children, work, play, money, death, grief, job loss, cancer,…”and on and on.”
You are right. it is all those things plus the “on and on.” I just hope that we help to show the necessity of a Gospel resurgence in the small as well as the big issues.
Great post.
Ron
April 14, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Timmy - I don’t know how your comment was received by those over at the SBC Witness; however, I thank the Lord for your integrity in expressing the truth. God is raising up young men all over whose hearts the Lord is strengtening to speak with boldness and without fear. I can’t help thinking of Ezekiel–especially chapters 2 and 3. “Moreover, he said to me, “Son of man, all my words that I shall speak to you receive in your heart, and hear with your ears. And go to the exiles, to your people, and speak to them and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD,’ whether they hear or refuse to hear.” (Ezekiel 3:4-11 ESV)
I am encouraged!
April 14, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Not to be too redundant, but I absolutely agree. And might I add, how about Timmy Brister for president of the SBC? You could rent a bus and. . . oh, nevermind. Still, it’s definitely a message the SBC needs to return to in these last days.
April 15, 2008 at 12:21 am
D.R.,
Do we get to stand around patting each other on the back talking about how Timmy is “one of us?”
April 15, 2008 at 6:46 am
I will add another “Amen” from the choir.
However, how can we rally around the Gospel when many of our SBC brethren have serious disagreements with us as to what constitutes the Gospel?
April 15, 2008 at 7:23 am
I’ve never understood the preoccupation with minutiae that seems so prevalent in the SBC. As a guy in my seminary evangelism class said,
“The Southern Baptist Convention didn’t die on the cross for my sins.”
April 15, 2008 at 8:07 am
Great post. You hit the nail dead on the head. As one serving overseas with the IMB I see first hand the loss of focus on the gospel. We recently had trustees in town and we asked them “What is in the future of the IMB?” We expected a motivating charge to complete the task or so forth….the response “We’re hoping to add more trustees and form some new committees.” We’ve lost focus as a denomination. Thanks for ringing the alarm.
April 15, 2008 at 8:13 am
I could mention the fact that Southern Baptists are no different from the world in matters of divorce, materialism, infidelity, etc.;
Don’t listen to Barna so much. It seems that the problem is asking people if they’re born-again Christians vs asking if they live like it. People who actually attend church on a regular basis are not as prone to these things as those who say they’re Christians but never darken the door of a church.
As a matter of fact, Fox News has a timely article that relates — Study: Prayer No Guarantee Against Adultery
Beyond that, I think you’ve got something important to say here.
April 15, 2008 at 10:27 am
Timmy–
I certainly agree with the gist of your argument. Some might disagree with just how we are to go about recovering the gospel, but the ultimate goal is the same.
Also, regarding the list of things you ‘could talk about’, I’m sure we’d all agree that the gospel and its recovery lies at the foundation of these things. Recovering the gospel is the first and most vital step in addressing these things.
For this reason, however, I somewhat feel sorry for those who are attempting to address some of the things you mentioned, but are doing so without focusing on this gospel core. The building bridges conference was great, but anyone who believes that the popular SBC type quasi-arminian gospel is compatible and/or can be ‘recovered’ to the point of addressing these concerns is sorely ignorant. We can’t build bridges when we’re starting with different foundations. This is where we will lose friends and suffer for our stance. But this is also the only trench in which the battle can be truly won.
April 15, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I could mention the fact that Southern Baptists are no different from the world in matters of divorce, materialism, infidelity, etc.;
Part of this stems from how segmented we live our lives in the US. I currently live in a Muslim country and religion is interwoven into every aspect of life. Their lives aren’t segmented…they work with the same people they attend Mosque with….which are the same people they socialize with and play with. It’s ok to talk about religion..they believe man was made to have a religion. All of life connects underneath the umbrella of Islam.
This is part of the problem in the US, as I see it. We attend church with one group of people, play with another, work with another and live with another. We’re taught seperation of church and state and we practice it. Because of this the principles and truths we learn from our faith life rarely transfer over to the other areas. Just my 2 cents worth!
April 15, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Timmy,
As you observe, it is relatively “easy … to tip our hats to a sentimental appreciation of the gospel in a comment like this.” My guess is the vast majority of Southern Baptists would have a hard time disagreeing with your post, in the way you have worded it here. The catch comes when we begin specifying the ways in which we believe others are being less than totally faithful to the gospel.
Although I’ve followed your blog in a cursory manner for some time now, and I know you generally identify with the “reformed wing” of the SBC, I must confess that I have not read carefully enough to remember if, when you say the “gospel” here, you are precluding all “non-5-point” understandings of the gospel. And, although, I have a pretty good hunch you have already written extensively about this on previous posts, it would help me to evaluate better what you are saying here, if you could point out again some specific examples of how you think the gospel is being neglected or distorted in the SBC.
April 16, 2008 at 11:10 am
Excellent! Thank you. May Christ be magnified in his Gospel!
Bret Rogers
April 16, 2008 at 11:26 am
Hi David,
I can’t speak for Timmy and without going through referencing his posts on the Gospel I want to ask a question. On the side bar Timmy has the Two Ways to Live icon (as do I) which presents the Gospel.
The presentation is here: http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/2wtl/
Would you agree or disagree with this presentation?
My take is that the Gospel IS being watered down in that it’s not being presented clearly. For example, I’ve heard many times, to summarize, “Jesus loves you. Make a decision for Him.”
Beyond that there isn’t much discipleship which then helps people understand HOW to apply the Gospel to every aspect of their lives. If we can atleast start here we can they sort through our disagreements/agreements in how to apply the Gospel with Romans 14 in mind.
Blessings,
Mark
April 16, 2008 at 11:47 am
Mark,
I just looked through the Two Ways to Live presentation, and I agree that it is a good, solid presentation of the gospel message. As far as I can tell, I am in total agreement with what it says.
And, while, no doubt, there are those who are perhaps “sloppy” with their presentation of the gospel, as evidenced by your illustration (”Jesus loves you. Make a decision for Him”), I still ask how many Southern Baptists out there would really disagree with the explanation of the gospel given in Two Ways to Live?
Perhaps the problem is “sloppiness” in our approach to evangelism. But that is not necessarily the exact same thing as denying the gospel in and of itself. Also, we can always improve in our methods and materials for Christian discipleship. But, how many in Southern Baptist life are actually denying the gospel in their approach to discipleship. Perhaps there are a lot more than what I am aware. If that is the case, it would be helpful for me to hear some specific examples.
None of this is meant to imply that we are anywhere near perfect in our commitment to and living out of the gospel. Far from it. But, what I am wondering is do we really have a rampant problem of heretical teaching on something so basic as the gospel threatening to totally undermine all we are doing? Or do we just need to remind ourselves to do better and more consistently that what we, for the most part, are already in agreement we should be doing?
April 16, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I’m sorry to just “butt in” but this is such an important discussion and I try to somewhat keep up with Tim’s posts (in my blog-feeds). Just for background, I’m part of a southern baptist church in Kansas (small) and am also very concerned that loss of the true Gospel is really the main issue.
With regards to the matthias media presentation, I do have some serious problems with it. It’s well written and I would agree that there are definitely some good points in it. But for the sake of this discussion and trying to get at what are the essential issues of the Gospel, here are the problems I have with it:
On Page 4 it states: “The debt that we owed God, Jesus paid by dying in our place. He took the full force of God’s justice on himself, so that forgiveness and pardon might be available to us.” Also on Page 5 it states: “God accepted Jesus’ death as payment in full for our sins, and raised him from the dead.”
For this statement to be true it assumes a universal/unlimited atonement. OK, sounds a bit nit-picky but here’s why this is an important issue. People can read a statement like that and logically say: well, if Jesus paid for my sins then I must be going to Heaven. So why does it matter if I’m a Christian or not? The response might be “you have to accept him as your personal Savior.” But isn’t that just pelagianism re-wrapped in new clothes? God did His part now you must do yours!
On Page 6 it states: “but we face the dreadful prospect of an eternity of separation from him, without life or love or relationship”
This is more nit-picky and so I dont really hold it against the tract. But I would just point out that it’s not really an eternity of “separation” from God. It’s an eternity of suffering the wrath of God in His presence. Of course, this would not jive with the previous point that Christ has already atoned for everyone’s sin.
After “praying the prayer” we are told “2. Submit to Jesus - The second step is also fairly obvious. Having prayed the sort of prayer on the previous page, you will want to start putting it into practice — that is, actually submitting to Jesus”
This is really my biggest trouble with the tract. It presents a Gospel message (the facts of the Gospel) and then basically leaves it to you to pray a prayer if you don’t want to be separated from God for eternity. The “pray a prayer” mentality is so deeply rooted in the SBC that I think it is hard to see how thoroughly man/works oriented it is. It leaves salvation entirely within the moral ability of man. Maybe this is too harsh, but I believe that part of the tract is basically a Pelagian presentation of the application of the Gospel. It leads man into something they can do rather than pointing them to seek God for His grace. It assumes that if the prayer was prayed, you are now a Christian and so you should start living like it. Is the new birth something that can be triggered by just repeating a prayer and really meaning it? What if I really mean it simply because I don’t want to go to hell? What if I prayed it but was not truly broken over my sin (though I felt a degree of guilt)? What if I prayed it but deep down I really hate God but just am too blinded by my own selfish desires to see it? I think one reason why we have so many false professors that end up falling away is because we have made salvation something they can “do” or “cause” in their own ability. People must seek God but only God can bring them to the end of themselves and perform a true work of grace in the heart.
Ok, I’ll get off the soap box now. What do others think about this?
April 16, 2008 at 12:57 pm
David,
Those are some good points to think about and, especially, research to see if we have lost the Gospel. There could be a way in which our initial evangelism has the Gospel properly or even sloppily given with not much more being done. So we’ve possibly lost the Gospel in the sense that it is not just this one time thing and we move on. Which ties into my comments on discipleship.
A real life example. At a recent church meeting a non-member was present who had been recently visiting. I don’t know yet where she came from. This person wanted to learn more and wanted to know how we could help. The comment made was that after professing faith and being baptized she was just basically left to herself. She didn’t know what to do or where to turn for further instruction. Her specific question was about how new believers will be discipled.
I’ve sat in SS classes where everyone is silent when asked “what is the Gospel?” I met another young believer this week who struggled with explaining or even being sure what the Gospel is.
So again, while not answering for Timmy, that is my take. If the Gospel ends, so to speak, at the end of the aisle or in the baptismal then we’ve lost it, IMO.
Mark
April 16, 2008 at 6:56 pm
The author of the tract.. and most Sydney Anglican pastors (from which 2 Ways to Live originates) are avowed 4 point Calvinists… therefore there is no problem for them in affirming a universal substitutionary atonement.
Steve
April 16, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Aaron,
I realize you are not Timmy, and I did not address my original comment to you. But your reply here does kind of illustrate the point behind my comment. You seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, that a “gospel” of unlimited atonement is no gospel at all. If that is the criterion we are using when we think of pressing issues facing the SBC, I suggest it would be better that those who agree with your view (or at least the absolute necessity of limited atonement) form their own denomination.
Please understand, I am not arguing for one view or another of atonement here. What I am arguing for is a SBC that makes room for both views.
By the way, I totally agree that if we are teaching that just “praying a prayer” in and of itself is sufficient for salvation, we have serious problems. But, once again, I am not sure this is not just a caricature of what is actually being taught.
April 16, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Hi David,
I know your original comment was addressed to Timmy and I wasn’t meaning to answer for him by any means. Sorry for sort of stepping in un-invited. I guess my comments were more in response to your question: “I still ask how many Southern Baptists out there would really disagree with the explanation of the gospel given in Two Ways to Live?” I know some and would include myself though I’m not saying I disagree with everything in the tract.
“You seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, that a “gospel” of unlimited atonement is no gospel at all.”
Well, my main concerns with the tract are actually mostly with how it ends and points the reader to actions he or she can do in their own strength rather than pointing to their moral inability to do a single thing pleasing to God. The limited/unlimited atonement issue is tied in with that, though. I would say that for sure unlimited atonement taken to its logical end or extreme, basically, universalism, is definitely not the Gospel. However, I don’t believe that just because somebody says they hold to an “unlimited atonement” that they are really denying the Gospel. I think it really comes down to what they are meaning by it and what is driving their belief in it. If someone tells me they are a 4 point Calvinist (or 3 point or whatever), I don’t automatically assume they don’t believe in the Gospel. But I also don’t automatically assume they DO believe the Gospel. What matters is the underlying beliefs and what is driving them to those conclusions (and sometimes whether they really understand the position they claim to hold). I should say what matters most is whether or not they have the life of Christ in them, but looking to motives can be helpful in seeing this.
“But, once again, I am not sure this is not just a caricature of what is actually being taught.”
I don’t think it’s a caricature. I did read the whole tract and am trying not to be overly critical. But when I compare that tract and many others I’ve read to Scripture teaching that a person must be born again and that the new birth is entirely the work of God, it does not match up. Basically, if a person can intellectually agree with the statements of truth made in that tract and has even a small degree of guilt, then the tract gives them something to do and by the end of reading it, so long as they followed the instructions, they are supposedly saved and need to start living a Christian life. Then I read people like Martin Luther who said: “But he who is out of doubt that his destiny depends entirely on the will of God despairs entirely of himself, chooses nothing for himself, but waits for God to work in him; and such a man is very near to grace for his salvation.”
Do you think it’s important to get across that sinners are completely unable to be converted apart from God’s work of grace in the soul (the new birth)? Some have told me that if a person gets through a tract like that and agrees with it / feels guilty / prays to “receive Jesus” then God must be working. But I couldn’t disagree more. True, God MAY be working, but so far all that has been demonstrated is conviction that could easily be from selfish principles and an intellectual belief that’s within a person’s own natural ability.
-Aaron
April 16, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Aaron,
I did not mean to insinuate that I minded you giving your opinion related to my comment. No problem at all. I am indeed interested in what you have to say. I understand from Timmy’s most recent post that he intends to come back here and answer some of the comments soon. I would be interested to hear his response to all of this, as well.
I am not so interested personally in discussing the nuances of reformed vs. Arminian soteriology here. What I am interested in knowing is whether or not the different approaches to these questions currently present in the SBC are able to live and work together under the same roof.
I hear concern from many “reformed” folks that they are being squeezed out in the SBC. I understand that there has been some strong rhetoric voiced on these questions that might lead some to reach that conclusion. However, I hear other comments (though, admittedly, not so frequently) that seem to communicate that any view that is less than totally “reformed” (5-point) is not legitimate in the SBC. I understand you are not technically saying this. But, to tell you the truth, it comes across as something awfully close from my point of view.
I have an idea that Timmy is not saying this either. But I wanted to give him the chance to explain for himself as well.
April 17, 2008 at 1:10 am
David,
I see what you’re getting at, though I don’t think I can answer your question. I think most in the SBC would agree that in order to be united we must be in agreement on the essentials of the gospel. The thing that I don’t think is very well defined or agreed upon at all within the SBC is what those essentials are. To say something like the essentials are the 5 points isn’t that helpful to me because there are so many different views of what that means. It’s also true (and perhaps very common) that a person can adamantly believe the 5 points of Calvinism and yet have nothing more than an intellectual religion and not be a true disciple of Christ.
So from my perspective, in order to even be able to answer that question, we need to start having discussions / conversations / debates / whatever is needed aimed toward getting at the underlying issues. I suppose blogs could be a somewhat useful tool toward that end but might not get too far on a convention level. To be honest, (I might take some heat on this point though it’s not intended as a personal attack against anyone) I was fairly disappointed in the building bridges conference last year. The main focus seemed to be everyone trying to prove how evangelistic they are and how greatly opposed to hyper-calvinism they are. After listening to the talks posted on-line I came away with the impression that most of the people didn’t think the issues disagreed upon were really essential to the gospel. If that’s the case, then the 5 points really don’t matter that much and we should just stop making a big deal about them.
My contention is that it’s the issues surrounding or underlying the 5 points that define what is essential to the Gospel and not necessarily the 5 points themselves. That’s what we need to talk about. We need to talk about moral inability, what it means to be dead in sin and what the implications are for the Gospel. We need to talk about what it means for grace to be 100% the work of God and not even 0.00001% the work or will of man. We need to discuss just what it is that souls are being saved from and for. We need to look at what true conviction (compunction as they used to call it) and true brokenness of heart really is. We need to agree on the nature of conversion and that it is not simply intellectual assent to scriptural truths, and that it is not just some “decision” made for Christ long ago in a moment of conviction while music was stirring up the passions. These are some of the things I would consider essential to the gospel. I have a feeling there is substantial disagreement within the SBC even on the things listed above, though I would not know without talking to a person individually. Probably most everyone in the SBC agrees on the facts of the historical gospel “message” but to me that doesn’t really help much because the devil agrees with these same facts and doesn’t mind if they are taught so long as people are not converted.
April 21, 2008 at 9:36 pm
[...] Brister offers an incredibly insightful response. Here is an excerpt, read the entire comment at http://timmybrister.com/2008/04/14/the-gospel-and-the-sbc/#comments: The most pressing issue facing the SBC in 2008 is the [...]
April 23, 2008 at 12:21 pm
[...] and Reorientation: SBC in Decline A couple of weeks ago I shared with you my thoughts on the gospel and the SBC, and in light of those thoughts, I want to point you to what Ed Stetzer has just announced: the [...]
April 28, 2008 at 9:40 pm
[...] of the above insight Wells offers is today in the SBC, my own denomination. Timmy Brister recently pointed out in that we’ve essentially lost the Gospel. Ed Stetzer offers a report and some suggestions on [...]