Southern Baptists oust Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church for naming a female pastor

What is interesting is the number of SBC churches which support Warren. The issue is far from settled in the SBC, despite what the Faith and Message states. What also interests me is that BJU is using SBC speakers on campus.

I’m not that issue will ever stop being contentious, this side of the Second Coming.

Christianity Today has an article also….

Southern Baptist Convention Disfellowships Saddleback Church

BJU has had a rich history of bringing in speakers from various areas of Christendom. What does it matter if the speaker is from the SBC or not? What are the speaker credentials for the topic that they are discussing and if they are preaching, what are their doctrinal stances. I am not aware of BJU having an SBC speaker that does not hold to the same doctrinal stances as the school. Which when reading the school's creed are actually quite broad. I attend an SBC church which is is significantly more conservative in theology than many "BJU" fundamentalist churches that I have been a part of.

Some of us have been around long enough to remember when BJU had frequent speakers who were SBC, as well as board members who were SBC, etc. In those days, (1960's and early 1970's), SBC pastors and church members were mostly conservative, but the seminaries and other denominational organizations were controlled by liberals. Eventually, BJU decided to "separate" from anyone affiliated with the SBC. It was a subjective decision. Some thought it was overdue. Others that it was premature. Few expected to see the SBC recover from the growing influence of liberals. But it did, and conservatives took control of the machinery. The result was that several SBC sponsored universities severed ties with the SBC . (One could say they "separated" from the SBC.) They didn't want conservatives controlling their schools.

As a result, the SBC became much more conservative in the 1980's and 1990's (and thereafter) than it was in the 60's and 70's, but the BJU policy of separation from all things SBC remained unchanged. Does anyone see the irony of this? When the SBC became more conservative, BJU continued to separate, even though the SBC had been more liberal in the 60's and 70's before BJU decided to separate. My point is not to second guess BJU about these difficult decisions. The point is to demonstrate the largely subjective nature of when one ought to separate, and for what reasons. When the gospel itself is compromised, separation becomes necessary. For other issues, the decision is more difficult. In my opinion, it would be more valid to have SBC speakers today than, say, in 1971, as long as they are solid in the gospel. These are decisions that each one must make for himself. I'm willing to give others a bit of leeway in how they handle such matters.

For the record, I remain independent, and have no plans to join the SBC. It has more problems than I care to wrestle with. If I don't belong, my responsibility to address SBC problems is less necessary. But I'm not sure I find a lot of comfort in being identified as an Independent Baptist either. Our tribe has plenty of problems as well. Our problems may be different, but genuine problems none the less. Those who do not understand the "Independent" landscape may wonder how I can associate with Independent Baptists. When people ask, I usually say, "Yes, we are independent, but we prefer to identify as Reformed Baptists." That helps, but for those who know, there are problems with some Reformed Baptists too. Help! Let's make the person and work of Christ central, and not get too worked up to try to achieve perfect purity by exercising endless degrees of separation. It's an impossible quest.