Dr. Mike Licona resigned from his position as the Apologetics guru of the Southern Baptist Convention at The North American Mission Board. In a recent Baptist Press article Dr. Licona said; “Historical research, Licona said, must work on a case-by-case basis.” According to Dr. Licona’s own words, he believes the Scriptures are to be approached with a question in the back of the reader’s mind concerning the historical accuracy of the text. Friends, this is not inerrancy. Any approach to the text with a question concerning the historical accuracy of the text negates the basis of the text being without error. It is like two Baptists, one a Frewill Baptist and another a Confessional Baptist singing the song, “when we all get to heaven”. The confessional Baptist sings it with a statement of fact in his voice. While the Freewill Baptist sings it verbally, but in his mind changes the words to; “if” we all get to heaven.
Well it looks as if the “scholarly” community, as expressed by SEBTS’s professor Dr. Evans, desires to be “the appropriate places for such a discussion to occur“. This scholarly community is saying, in essence, “these dumb preachers are just trying to jump on a band wagon.” Well, let’s look at who is leading the “band wagon.” Read more
When growing up we had this joke that would be told at our family reunions. The joke concerned our family name and how everyone used to be a Rogers until they started getting so sorry, then we made them change their names to Evans, Hunt, Smith, Johnson, etc. etc. etc. Thus, our joke was we were the good folks and others were the sorry ones.
In the previous post I expressed how church planting is being used as a pretense to change the name of the convention when there really is no statistical basis for a name change. After reading many of the pro-name change advocates and even those that desire to remain neutral, one thing is becoming very clear. The name change is based on various personal principles, this writer believes, is false at best and at the least includes an argument that is culturally discriminatory.
One of the main arguments being used centers around the word “Southern”. This argument implicates racism on a convention that was birthed during a dark day in the nations history that embodied a culture of slavery. This cultural dark period became even more accentuated during the civil rights movement.
Lest I be misunderstood, these two points would be well taken in the 1800′s and the 1950′s and 1960′s, but this argument in 2011 just does not have any statistical validity. When one moves within churches throughout the south one is hard pressed to find any serious person that holds to such views. Are there still pockets of racism within the more “family chapel” churches in the south? One would be a fool to believe racism in some form doesn’t exist. But there is also racism found, but not spoken openly about in all churches. Why would I say this? If it didn’t exist then where are the staff members of color in the mega churches promoting racial equality? The race argument of the
Southern Baptist Convention The Great Commission Baptistic Network is the egalitarian argument for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. In the CBF one finds a promotion of women as pastors but one has to look hard to find CBF churches practicing their doctrinal position. It is the same among those who are pushing for a name change in the SBC and using “race” as a reason.
Does one find people that jokingly point to various cultural negatives? Certainly, just like North Carolinian’s call all the people that are purchasing the land in the mountains “half-backs”. Read more