Lineup for Pastors Conference Riles SBC Complementarians

Thornton at SBC Voices also has some thoughts on it (he’s not for boycotting).

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

David R. Brumbelow

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.

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.”

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.

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)

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.

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!

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.

Al Mohler now has a video labeled “A Word To Southern Baptists: Part One”. Interesting to see what he has in mind. https://albertmohler.com/2020/02/13/a-word-to-southern-baptists-part-1

[Mark_Smith]

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?

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, 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.

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 …

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-critica…

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.