Lineup for Pastors Conference Riles SBC Complementarians

2652 reads

There are 37 Comments

David R. Brumbelow's picture

I’ve been a preacher all these years – and just found out I’m really a “spoken word artist.”

David R. Brumbelow

Mark_Smith's picture

I attend a SBC church in my town because there is no reasonable fundamental church in my city. There are a couple of KJV only type churches but that is out of the question.

I have resisted planting a church because of several things not worth going into here, but the main thing is I have never been commissioned or ordained by anyone. So I feel like I would be a lone ranger to do that.

But I say weeping in my heart, that I am shocked at what is happening in the SBC. The leadership is all in on CRT as far as I can tell. They have also sold out to the Rachel Denhollander view of sexual assault WITHOUT looking into all the covering up over the years. There is all this focus on Paige Patterson but no concern over the deacons, elders, and pastors who for decades apparently covered up abuse. And those guys are still in their churches leading away! My friends how does a born again believer look at a youth pastor dating two 18 year old women at the same time, with a fiance on the side, take a trip to Las Vegas with one, and no one has any problems? That is just one case that I am sure repeated itself from church to church thousands of times over the decades. Yet no clean up from the "leadership." Anyway... 

Even my local church, full of people I care about, is wavering in many ways. One thing I have mentioned here at SI is the people rant about "white teeth preachers" on TV that take your money, yet we sing a bevy of Bethel Music songs! We sing songs by people seeking to promote and fund an "apostolic reformation". And no one is interested in any connection or concern...

Father help me and help us.

Bert Perry's picture

Mark, I really don't get how you're claiming that people aren't addressing the failure of "lesser lights" to report, as no less than J.D. Greear specifically named ten churches he felt were guilty of this, and commended the Houston Chronicle for their series naming a series of churches and church leaders who had failed in this regard.  Rachael Denhollander has dozens of tweets this week asking why church leaders implicated in a series of sexual assaults (for not reporting, covering up, etc..) are still holding their positions.  

This isn't about "critical race theory" or any such thing--most of those speaking up wouldn't be able to even define it--but rather about a couple of generations of people taking courage after people like Megan Lively and Jules Woodson spoke up and in effect saying "going public will hurt like anything, but I'm going public to reduce the likelihood some other young person will have to deal with this."

And Patterson?  Regarding "why not the ordinary deacons and elders?", the simple fact is that Patterson's a key to approaching those "lesser lights" to either bring them to repentance or show them the door.  Every time he's not invited or disinvited, someone else in a humbler position is going to take note and say "that's not the path I want to choose."

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

WallyMorris's picture

Further evidence of the SBC slide from what the Conservative Resurgence accomplished. What will be interesting is to see how Master's Seminary and BJU handle this.

Wally Morris

Charity Baptist Church

Huntington, IN

amomentofcharity.blogspot.com

Bert Perry's picture

If having a woman pastor singing (not preaching) is unacceptable for the SBC, what do we make of the singing group "Cantus" singing at BJU a few years back?  For reference, when I looked up their bios, many of the men in the group had husbands.

Just sayin'.  

Regarding Hosanna Wong in particular, I listened to a bit of her work and....let's just say it's not my style, or it's a taste I haven't acquired yet.  (David, if this is like you, maybe lighten up a bit?  j/k)

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

WallyMorris's picture

The problem is not necessarily her singing but that she is called "pastor", at a minimum an unwise label. And does anyone think that she won't do a little "preachin' " while she sings?

As far as Cantus: The President of BJU told me that was a communication problem, not being aware of their background. I'm sure there's more to the story than that.

Her musical style: Not any different than what you see in many SBC churches today.

The SBC has always been a mixture of different Baptist churches which are supposed to believe the Bible (to one degree or another). The problem is and always has been the specifics.

Wally Morris

Charity Baptist Church

Huntington, IN

amomentofcharity.blogspot.com

Joeb's picture

Wally I expect the New President of Masters and BJU to do just fine.  If some of the other people lacking in IQ in Evangelical America would follow their lead they might do better to.  BJU is not perfect but they are doing a heck of a lot better job then other Evangelical Christian Institutions of higher learning are doing.  One President of a Major Christian University allegedly pulled his own Paige Patterson act at a church he was Pastor of and another one pulled a Paige Patterson act and never was fired.   So these days Wally I'm confident BJU and their associates will do the right thing.   Amazing how things can be turned around when people use a little common sense that God have them. 
 

You know Common Sense something Bert Jim and others demonstrate here on SI very regularly.  

Mark_Smith's picture

Being in the SBC I know, unlike you, that most people don't even know who Rachel is, or Megan Lively, et al. I honestly don't care about any of them. I am talking about individual leaders, not blogs, or newspaper reports, or presidents. People. So called Christians. Rachel isn't even a SB for crying out loud!

WallyMorris's picture

Joeb: There's not any need to denigrate people who have concerns which you do not have. Yes, BJU is changing and surviving. BJU is now more open to many new ideas, such as Stiekes' acceptance of Redaction Criticism. Eventually we will see the cost for that.

Wally Morris

Charity Baptist Church

Huntington, IN

amomentofcharity.blogspot.com

Bert Perry's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

Being in the SBC I know, unlike you, that most people don't even know who Rachel is, or Megan Lively, et al. I honestly don't care about any of them. I am talking about individual leaders, not blogs, or newspaper reports, or presidents. People. So called Christians. Rachel isn't even a SB for crying out loud!

Yes, Mark, I'm sure most Southern Baptists live under a rock and haven't paid attention to anything about the Nassar case or the woman who got the ball rolling.  Certainly they haven't clued in to the fact that she's been profiled and honored by Time, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, the Detroit News, and a host of others. Apparently all those cheap shots by CNN and the Huffington Post are correct, and Southern Baptists cannot read and don't own a TV.   And by no means have most Southern Baptists noticed as she's played a leading role in getting Paige Patterson rightly put out to pasture, and by no means do any of them notice that she's among the leaders of the movement to keep him there, at least until he repents of his roles in keeping Darrell Gilyard in the pulpit and preventing rape victims at SEBTS and SWBTS from getting the justice they deserved.

Or perhaps, you're wrong and lashing out, and perhaps you would be better served by addressing the central question here.  If the prospect of a woman who preaches being invited to rap at a conference is worth furor, why isn't there a similar furor over the enabler of Darrell Gilyard being invited back into the pulpit without as much as a real apology for his behavior?

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

TylerR's picture

Editor

I have seen headlines and breathless Twitter teasers about all these things ... but I haven't actually read about any of them, because I don't care. You are conflating social media outrage with the real world. What Mark says has merit.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Bert Perry's picture

Tyler, precisely what part of "honored by Time, ESPN, etc.." doesn't qualify as real world?   Is the "Houston Chronicle" just "twitter', too?  Washington Post?  New York Times?  Sorry, but this ain't just social media outrage.  It's made it to the podium from none less than J.D. Greear at national SBC conferences.  

This is about as real as it gets, brother.

And you don't care?  Seriously?  You've got a guy who kept a serial rapist in the pulpit for years, who totally bobbled sexual assault cases at two schools he headed, and you don't care that he's re-assuming the pulpit without as much as a genuine "I'm sorry"?

Let's get some perspective, brother.  There are some people in Olympia who've seen the articles in Time, ESPN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Houston Chronicle.  They've got friends who've been in similar places to Mrs. Denhollander, and they care.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

TylerR's picture

Editor

None of that has anything to do with me:

  • Paige Patterson won't be preaching at my church, so I am safe.
  • I understand that sexual abuse must always be reported, and that CYA tendencies must be surpressed.
  • I understand that all people who work with children get background checks. We do this.
  • I am not SBC, so I sympathize with their problems but they are abstract.
  • I understand that pastoral candidates get nationwide criminal background checks.

This is why all this is an abstraction to me. The reports about the lineup for this pastor's conference are troubling, to me. But, they, too, are an abstraction to me. I'm a Regular Baptist. If Mike Hess strolls out at the annual conference in Sacremento this March to the tune of AC/DC's "Back in the Saddle," and invites a woman to preach, then I assure you I will be concerned and will invest appropriate levels of concern and energy at that time ...

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Joel Shaffer's picture

The leadership is all in on CRT as far as I can tell.

I don't know if you've had the chance, but I've been encouraging you to read Dr. Neil Shenvi when it comes to CRT and the SBC.  Dr. Shenvi is an apologist with a specialization in Secular Sociological theories and a member of an SBC church.  He has done more research and some of the best Biblical responses to CRT.  He rejects CRT as a system because it is incompatible with the Christian faith.  Yet here is what he says about Resolution #9.  

“So what’s the benefit of Resolution #9? Why did you recommend it?”

"To begin with, I again urge critics to re-read the text of the resolution. It’s worth asking what precisely you disagreed with. Given the legitimate distinctions made in the resolution between CRT/I as a tool versus CRT/I as a worldview, and given the elements of truth and utility that can be found in CRT/I (as a tool), which statements are actually false or misleading?

Almost none of the push-back I’ve received on social media identified particular statements with which people took issue. Rather, the concern was with the resolution’s implications, or tone, or context. People seemed to fear that the document itself was primarily an endorsement of CRT/I. Yet a careful examination of the document shows that this is not the case. The document makes nearly all the same arguments for the incompatibility of Christianity and CT that Pat and I do in our writing. Indeed, the similarities are so striking that I wonder why people who seem to appreciate our work on this subject disliked the resolution!

First, in our writing, we mention that CT is a comprehensive worldview and will therefore necessarily erode our Christian worldview. Resolution #9 talks about individuals who adopt CRT/I and who have “worldviews that are contrary to the Christian faith” and “contradict Scripture.” It then “repudiates” the “unbiblical ideology” that emerges from “CRT/I” when it is “absolutized as a worldview.”

Second, we mention in our writing that CT’s approach to identity is unbiblical because it insists that our identity is not primarily found in being God’s image-bearers or in being believers in Christ, but in our race, class, gender, etc… Likewise, Resolution #9 insists that “Humanity is primarily identified in Scripture as image bearers of God” and that “our common salvation in Christ [is] the source of our truest and ultimate identity.”

Third, we warn in our writing that the oppressed/oppressor categories introduced by CT will apply not just to race or gender, but also to sexuality and gender identity. Resolution #9 says: “we deny any philosophy or theology that fundamentally defines individuals using categories identified as sinful in Scripture.”

Fourth, we affirm that CT does affirm certain truths, which Christians should acknowledge. If anything, Resolution #9 is even more conservative in its assessment than we are. While it recognizes that CRT/I can aid the Church in addressing social ills, it never claims that knowledge of CRT/I is necessary for the Church to address social ills. Indeed, this possibility is ruled out by the explicit statement of Resolution #9 that “Scripture [is] the first, last, and sufficient authority with regard to how the Church seeks to address social ills.” The key word here is sufficient. If Scripture is sufficient to address social ills, then -by definition- CRT/I cannot be necessary to address social ills.

This last point provides a clear answer to those who are concerned that the document is primarily an endorsement of CRT/I. Nearly everyone who is worried about critical theory (myself included) is worried that its proponents are using it as a shield to avoid biblical scrutiny. Yet this resolution unequivocally takes that possibility off the table. If a fellow believer makes a statement that appears to be rooted in CRT/I, Resolution #9 makes the following response not only acceptable but requisite: “Where is this idea in Scripture? What verse/verses support it? You may not merely appeal to CRT/I scholarship to support this claim; you must appeal to the Bible.”

Finally, our main concern in all our writing on CT is that of epistemology: how do we know the truth? The worldview of CT is premised on the idea that oppressed groups have special access to truth and therefore do not have to subject their claims to the scrutiny of Scripture. In contrast, Resolution #9 repeatedly says: “No. The SBC demands and will always demand that the Bible be our ultimate authority, specifically with regard to the claims of Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality. All of our beliefs must be submitted to the bar of Scripture.” "

If you want the context for what Dr. Shenvi is saying, here is the entire article from Shenvi about Resolution #9.  https://shenviapologetics.com/thoughts-on-sbc19-resolution-9-on-critical...

How is this "all in when it comes to CRT?"  It's not even close. As I've mentioned many times here on SI, the folks at Founders, Masters, G3, and etc... are aiming their guns at the wrong targets.  If you want to see article after article filled with CRT, Intersectionality, and etc..., check out the Red Letter Christian website, specifically their blog articles (Race, LGBTQ+, Practical Justice). https://www.redletterchristians.org/.    The vast majority of blog articles (not all) are embedded in these blatantly false secular worldviews of CRT and Intersectionality.  

Mark_Smith's picture

I work at a secular university. Two to three times a semester I have to attend classes for faculty on diversity. Guess what? Its all intersectionality and critical theory. 100%. I don't need some internet blogger to tell me what intersectionality is, nor CT. If you want it, fine. But I'm not buying it. Come here and sit through one workshop then tell me how great it is.

I'm looking to help people, not divide them into classes. If you are looking for "oppressors", count me out. MLK Jr had a dream, and his descendants turned it into a nightmare.

RajeshG's picture

WallyMorris wrote:

BJU is now more open to many new ideas, such as Stiekes' acceptance of Redaction Criticism. Eventually we will see the cost for that.

What is your basis for saying that he accepts redaction criticism?

Joeb's picture

The Church that repented for mistreating Rachel DeHollander for being devisive was SBC.  From what I read the church that covered up DeHollander's abuse as a young child was a Baptist Church in Northern New York but I don't know what type.  If the church was in the SBC in Northern NY I'd think it would be safe to say she is Southern Baptist Mark or at least it gives her a position to be critical and have voice for what's going on since she was a victim.  

Mark_Smith's picture

Where Rachel now attends church (I don't stalk her btw) is a minor point to the argument. You look it up. I believe it is a Presbyterian church if I heard right. But I could be wrong... In the past, her family attended a Sovereign Grace church, which was tangentially associated with the SBC only because what's his name was connected with SBC. I do not think they were SBC primarily, if that makes sense.

1. This thread is about the Preacher's Conference

2. My main point is almost all SBs don't know who Rachel is... Yes, this is true. A casual survey of pastors and church leaders at a recent state convention meeting revealed most do not follow current news in the SBC. These hot plate discussions here at SI are irrelevant to them. Preaching the other Sunday night I asked before if anyone knew who Al Mohler was at my church. Out of 25 people there, NONE (yes NONE) knew who Al Mohler was! (Gasp)

WallyMorris's picture

RajeshG:

Stiekes wrote 2 articles for the BJU Seminary blogsite Theology in 3D in September 2018 where he advocated using Redaction Criticism methodology. Here are the links:

https://seminary.bju.edu/theology-in-3d/redaktionsgeschichte-in-the-gospels/

https://seminary.bju.edu/theology-in-3d/lukes-redaction-and-the-holy-spirit/

He gives the usual cautions but still advocates using Redaction Criticism. Note especially the comments by Layton Talbert at the end of the first article.

Horn allowed this to happen at the BJU Seminary, yet The Master's Seminary is well-known for its opposition to Redaction Criticism and similar methodologies. See the book The Jesus Crisis by Thomas and Farnell.

Wally Morris

Charity Baptist Church

Huntington, IN

amomentofcharity.blogspot.com

Bert Perry's picture

Tyler, I understand your perspective, but I think it's profoundly misguided.  Reality is that the world sees the word "Baptist" and assumes that we're more or less monolithic, so this kind of thing matters.  I may have a little influence or big influence, but I do the churches I love no favors if I just walk on by while others in the broader "movement" are stinking up the place.  That counts for churches that welcome men like Paige Patterson, and it goes for churches that sponsor divisive movements like KJVO and the like.  

Again, my comment may be as terse as "knock it off", or I might plead with those who adhere to these bad ideas to contemplate what they do, or whatever, but there's a point where you've got to stand up and say "what on earth are you guys doing?"

And Mark, it is my hope that you are dead wrong about the rank and file SBS not knowing about the work of the Denhollanders, and it should be your hope and prayer that I am right and you are wrong.  It does the SBC no favors if most members are living under a rock with regards to one of the biggest threats to the long term viability of churches, that of toleration of sexual abuse.

(and if you want to know a bit about their church history, read her book)

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

AndyE's picture

WallyMorris wrote:

RajeshG:

Stiekes wrote 2 articles for the BJU Seminary blogsite Theology in 3D in September 2018 where he advocated using Redaction Criticism methodology. Here are the links:

https://seminary.bju.edu/theology-in-3d/redaktionsgeschichte-in-the-gospels/

https://seminary.bju.edu/theology-in-3d/lukes-redaction-and-the-holy-spirit/

He gives the usual cautions but still advocates using Redaction Criticism. Note especially the comments by Layton Talbert at the end of the first article.

That is interesting.  I had the exact same reaction to the first article as Layton Talbert.  Seems like there is no good reason to bring in the Redaction Criticism terminology when it carries such negative liberal weight.  I am one that thinks it is important to find and teach the unique message of each gospel, and so I agree that it is important to study the differences and try to figure out the whys, but I would not personally call that Redaction Criticism. I also would not say that Mark's unique message is the protrayal of Jesus as a servant, but that is another matter...

Jay's picture

I expect to sway absolutely no one on this thread, but for the sake of truth...this line:

Rachel isn't even a SB for crying out loud!

Is wrong.  Not misunderstood, just flat out wrong.  They do attend an SBC church in KY and Jacob is pursuing a Ph.D at one of the SBC schools...don't recall which one. Rachael was a featured speaker at the ERLC Conference "Caring Well" last year for goodness' sake!

Nehemiah 6:8 comes to mind when I read some of this thread.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Mark_Smith's picture

First, declaring I am absolutely false is easy. Provide a link to one article saying where Rachel attends church... I haven't found one.

Being asked to attend a conference as a speaker MEANS NOTHING! Look at the Pastor's Conference this year that is causing so much internet chatter...

When she was abused she was at a Sovereign Grace church. That is not the same as a Southern Baptist church. I cannot find anything on the internet that says what church she attends at present. I recall hearing her say in a talk one time about a Presbyterian church in KY. I can easily be wrong but that is what I remember.

As for her husband, I have no idea if he is a PhD candidate anywhere, but attending an SBC seminary does not mean you are SBC.

Mark_Smith's picture

The point is NOT where Rachel goes to church! Talk about fixating on the minor. The point is the overall flow of the SBC.

I know you are not in the SBC, so stop acting like you are. I am. One other man here at SI is. Are you at local conferences, state conferences, regional conferences? Do you watch hours of the national conference? Do you read sbc.net, etc. I do. I know the pulse of the SBC right now.

That was my concern.

Bert Perry's picture

I could, I guess, demonstrate knowledge of where my heroes go to church and seminary, but at a more basic level, does it matter?   What are we trying to do if we respond to a complaint with "but you're not Southern Baptists!"?

The most obvious inference is that it's just an issue of "tribalism", where the implicit argument is "it's not your sandbox, so butt out!".  OK, fine, but again; does the world see us as IFBs, GARBCs, SBCs, and ABs, or does it see us as "Baptists"?  For that matter, does the world see us as Baptists, SGCs, Bible churches, etc., or does it see us as a more generic "evangelicals" or even "fundagelicals"?

I'd argue we're usually seen as "fundagelicals", even lumping us in with charismatics and pentacostals, and as such, we do have an interest in whether someone is, in effect, relieving himself in our "bigger sandbox".  

And again, if you are curious about the Denhollanders' spiritual journeys, you can buy her book , read her Twitter feed (or her husband Jacob's), visit her website, or attend events at which she's speaking.  I just plead with this forum not to ask this question with the intention of saying "well, she's not of our tribe, so we can just ignore her.".   That's a level of tribalism that will discredit a lot of us, so please; knock it off.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

TylerR's picture

Editor

Bert, I can assure you that nothing interests me less than reading about the Denhollander's spiritual journey. I can also assure you that I do not intended to allow Paige Patterson to speak at my church, or to hire a fellow elder who has been run out of his church for mishandling sexual abuse allegations, or who has been accused of sexual abuse himself.

So, it looks like I'm covered!

Meanwhile, the SBC is having a pastor's conference that looks troublesome. From an outsider's perspective, I wonder if the SBC will hold together in the next 10 years! I haven't the foggiest idea, but there seem to be major divisions.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Mark_Smith's picture

I am discussing the trend downward that I see first hand in the SBC. That is what I am commenting on. Paige Patterson is a blog battle. Most SBC members don't know him, or that he was president of SWBTS, or what is alleged to have happened. That is my point. I brought up being SBC because I live it, brother. It is not just a blog I read like in your case.

Same with Rachel. YES, I know her spiritual journey. So what?

I am just saddened by the drift to the weird middle that I see in the SBC.

Pages