“Trustees approved guidelines for NAMB church planters in relationship to other church planting networks.”

After contacting the Vice President of the Communications Group with NAMB, Mike Ebert, and being caught up in the voice mail network and finally leaving a message I still cannot find a copy of the guidelines.  To be fair it maybe Ebert is traveling and will not be in the office until Monday. NAMB is within their rights to make this decision. The problem exists that we are now partnering with other church planting networks and no one I can find has any idea what those guidelines are that we operate within.

Let me make this as clear as I know how.  NAMB is an autonomous entity and they constantly scream that we need to trust them in their appointments and those that are funded.  I say, fine I want to trust you.  However, with the trustees recently removing the 2006 Presidential restrictions and now announcing “guidelines for NAMB church planters in relationship with other church planting networks” without producing such guidelines it seems something is not above board. If we are asked to trust someone then that someone should produce the openness and transparency needed for us to support.

According to William Thornton the Partnership Guidelines are five statements.  You can see them here.

Dr. Bart Barber, in his post, explains the sinner’s prayer from the perspective of the wedding vows.  Dave Miller, at SBC Voices, responded in his usual way by posting his “two cents” which in turn reveals nothing but riding the fence between the two positions. Peter Lumpkins picked up these two videos and responded using the very words of Dr. Platt and Dr. Gaines. Trevin Wax tries to calm the waters with a post about this controversy.  However, his post really is no more than Dave Miller’s expounded into a more articulate fence straddling position. Dr. JD Greerar has now posted on his blog the position he takes as he has written a book and deals with this very issue in a not yet released manuscript.  Dr. Greear positions himself with Dr. Platt, but uses less abrasive words to do so.  However, Dr. Greear tries to position himself with Dr. Gaines and Dr. Platt in his position but really devolves to a position of fence straddling also.

With these various positions of others one has to ask a very simple question; Why the controversy?  For me the answer lies, not in what is being said, but in what people are not saying.  While these mentioned above are articulating their positions on the subject, they are not really speaking to the issue of the controversy.

The issue is we have a leading pastor that is promoted within the SBC Leadership by heading up prime conferences throughout the SBC that said the Sinner’s Prayer is a superstitious recitation.  The problem is not being dealt with at all.  The reason this controversy is continuing is the mere reason that this leading pastor is being defended by people that will not take a position in support of his position.  Instead Wax, Miller, Greear, and others who are talking about this issue are not in support of Dr. Platt’s position.  Instead they are trying to tell us what Dr. Platt means by the words he uses.  NEWS FLASH–When someone uses words then they either own them or explain them.  Dr. Platt has preached the message and no one has heard anything from him.  He has not so much as belched since he made this statement.

What step(s) should be made to bridge this divide?  There is only one.  Dr. Platt needs to speak clearly what he means when he called the Sinner’s prayer a “superstitious” prayer used to fool people into thinking they were saved and that it was being used in “damning” people instead of bringing them into a right relationship with God.

This being an election year gives evidence of what I mean.  Between now and November one will begin to observe survey results daily.  There will be surveys that tell the position of people from every demographic one can imagine.  If one desires to find out what people ages 18 and above think about anything just look at the survey results.  Each survey, however, words the statements differently depending on the outcome one desires to report.  For example, if one wants to present our President as being a foreign policy leader the poll will be weighted heavily with statements concerning an individual’s feelings concerning  the demise of Osama Bin Ladin.

The wording of the statements are very important.  Survey statements can be worded in such a way as to make those taking the survey to think everyone believes a certain way. For example, in the recent LifeWay survey there were statements addressed to Baptists that only identified two different theological positions.  As a Baptist by conviction, it certainly seemed something was severely lacking.  However, the only way to answer the statements accurately as a Baptist was to disagree with both statements.  But, due to the trust we have afforded our entities those taking the survey would see the statements and feel they were reformed for the simple reason no Southern Baptist I know of would admit to being an Arminian. Also, we trust our entities to clearly present the issues before the people instead of presenting surveys with loaded statements that is blatantly weighted in one theological position.

From the points already made there seems to be a question that must be answered.  Are surveys used in a loquacious manner in order to hear the heart of the people or do we implement the surveys in order to get certain issues passed that we desire? I believe it is the latter.  It seems that surveys are now being used in order to justify doing something the Baptist in the pew does not desire.

Notice the survey provided by LifeWay Research for the name change committee.  In September 2011 LifeWay Research performed a survey that was presented to the name change committee.  This survey indicated that 15% of the population in the Northeast and 13% of the population in the West are not familiar with Southern Baptists.  However, as one delves into the survey results one finds the methodology a very big issue.  According to the statements by LifeWay Research this survey was conducted among “online panel representing the Adult population of the US…” Which brings us to the question of how we are doing evangelism?  Do we promote evangelism by stating; “We are Southern Baptists come and be part of us”? No, No, a thousand times no!!! However, it is this survey that was used to influence the committee that a “nickname’ was the least that we should do.  We found in the question and answer session following the Executive Committee vote, the only new information the name change committee had was a legal opinion and a survey. The legal opinion affirmed all of the past legal opinions had not changed and the committee announced they would not recommend a name change but they were recommending a “nickname”. Therefore the committee used a survey to influence their recommendation and the Executive Committee followed the name change committee’s lead with a positive vote to officially/unofficially change our name.

Next, please note the push in our LifeWay surveys toward a Calvinistic soteriology among Southern Baptist.  We have had survey after survey concerning Calvinism.  After the 2006 survey that presented 10% of pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention indicated they were Calvinists, another follow-up survey, concerning the graduates of the seminaries, revealed a significant increase in Calvinistic identity.  In this survey we were told that many Southern Baptist seminary graduates were Calvinists, but this was the first survey where the descriptor from Calvinist to reformed was noted. With this change it appears a shift in the identifier wording of “reformed” was synonymous with Calvinist.

Conclusion

I have a prediction that may or may not come to be.  With the latest survey received and reported here and here, it seems that the timing is ripe for an article on the results.  If the results of this poll are revealed before the convention my point is proven–the convention is being manipulated and controlled by surveys fashioned in ways to strengthen someone’s personal agenda.

The church is doing ministry projects in the community and also mission trips as they took three trips in 2011.  I am certainly praying for them along with their pastor Rev. Tom Ravan and his family.  They are a precious family whose heart’s desire is to glorify our Lord.  Pray as Pastor Tom leads Oak Grove.

I also had a chance to met with an old professor who attends Oak Grove.  Rev. Julian Motley retired at Gorman Baptist Church in Durham, NC and was given the title Pastor Emiritus by the church upon his retirement.  Brother Motley, upon his retirement, was asked by Dr. Paige Patterson, then president of SEBTS, to come and teach the students about pastoral care and how to be a pastor to the people.  Brother Motley has a heart’s burden that we are falling short in training young pastors for small churches in the convention.  It seems that many young pastors are not being trained in working with a single staff church.

Brother Motley also honored me in a very special way while I was at lunch with him.  He gave me a signed copy of his book, How Then Should We Think–In pursuit of the Mind of Christ.  Just a few of the endorsements:

Julian Morris Motley is a man whose life stands behind ever chapter, which is as rare as the reflection itself. How Then Should We Think is a book every pastor needs to read.–Dr. Paige Patterson

Having known him for almost twenty years, I have remained a student of Julian Motley. He not only illustrates our faith; he illuminates it by his life.–Dr. Ergun Caner

Few if any books I have read cover the scope of the Christian experience like this. Read it for your pleasure and your edification.–Dr. Jimmy Draper

As His disciples, we are called to ‘have this mind in us,’ the mind of Christ. When this transformation happens, we will follow him in all ways. My friend Julian gets it right.–Dr. Morris H. Chapman

Julian Motley places before the reader a thoroughly Scripture based practical declaration of who we are in Christ.–Dr. Jimmy E. Jackson

It is a wonderful work that I believe will edify and encourage many.–Dr. Daniel Akin

It was a great week and if you are in the Wake Forest, NC area and searching for a great Bible believing, honoring, and living church I would encourage you to attend Oak Grove.  Also if you would like to view the revival service messages you can go here.

I only have one question to ask; “What is our leaders thinking?” Do they not remember when the Alliance of Baptists formed?  Have they forgotten how much chaos that caused within the convention? Do they not remember the competing Pastors Conferences?  Do they not remember the constant fussing and fighting that marked the convention during those days?  The amazing thing that has caught my attention is the reason being placed before us in favor of a name change new nickname-because we have a past of fussing and fighting.  This  move to officially/unofficially change our name add a nickname certainly has not diminished the fussing and fighting history, but exacerbated it.

When it is all said and done there are some things our leaders seem to have forgotten?  There are a number of smaller churches that may leave the convention or cut back to a minimum gift in order to benefit from the mere relationship of being a Southern Baptist.  When a small church votes to move in a direction that vote never comes back before the congregation.  Pastors all across the convention sit in Finance Committee meetings once a year and fight, fuss, and argue with committee members in order to maintain a level of Cooperative Program giving.  If that pastor stops fighting for that level, it will be decreased.  Once that decrease is in place, it will never rise to the level it was before.  It is hard enough to get Baptists to accept the Biblical idea of tithing on their gross income. However, it is nigh to impossible to convince people the church should have a missions budget of, at a minimum, 10% of undesignated funds and the majority of that 10% should be Cooperative Program giving.

However, this issue of a “nickname” that is unofficially going to be an “official” name for others to use, effectively creates a convention of churches within a convention of churches.  If our leaders will just think back to 1991 it will not be hard to remember the divisions within our convention between the churches.  There was a different pastors conference, the press room was divided, and we constantly heard shouts of “division of the house” when every motion came to a question.

What is the issue at hand? Some point to the need to clearly identify who we are as a convention of churches.  The reason they point to is the word “southern” limits the mind of those who know nothing about us and they believe we are regional.  We are told this “nickname” is not going to change who we are as a convention as it will only add to express the clear concept of our identity–The Great Commission.

Piggy-backing on this argument is the racial argument concerning the beginning nature of the SBC.  The racial argument, I believe, is not so much the beginning of the convention, as it is the silence of the SBC during the civil rights movement. Yes, we did begin because slave owners in the south were not being appointed missionaries by the Trienial Convention because they would take their slaves with them to the mission field.  But, in 1995 there was a resolution that overwhelmingly passed the convention and we stated clearly that

“we lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest”

and we also stated,

“we apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously (Psalm 19:13) or unconsciously (Leviticus 4:27).“

Therefore, we should be forgiven concerning the beginning of the SBC and that should not be the issue.

However, racism is noted as an issue in the SBC.  I believe it is not hinged on how we began but how we react.  As we look at the time of the civil rights movement we are direct descendents of that movement where we missed an opportunity to take the stands needed.  While some white pastors lost their pulpits because of their stands for inclusion during the civil rights movement the SBC as a whole only used rhetoric to address this movement as a convention. (We can find resolutions on racial tensions and our desire to treat all people equally dating throughout civil unrest of our nation. 1939, 1940, 1946, 1961, and 1965.) We find in 1969 a resolution calling on the Baptist Hospital in New Orleans to provide treatment to all races in conjunction with their stated purpose. Thus, our words in the previous resolutions, spanning two decades, were merely hollow rhetoric.

This, I believe is the elephant in the room no one desires to address. I am not African-American so I do not presume to speak on the basis of an African-American.  But what I find is African-Americans look back to 1861-1865 through the lens of 1950-1975, while we Caucasians look back to 1861-1865 through different lens. When we see the “stars and bars” we think good ole boys, sweet tea, cool breezes, and skinny dipping in the pond.  When, African-Americans see the “stars and bars” they see lynchings, churches being bombed, dogs being released, riots police with water cannons etc. etc. Thus, I believe, for us as a convention to reach out to our brothers and sisters of color we need to speak about the racism that existed less than five decades in our churches.  This racism is not dead and in some churches within the SBC it is still prevalent today. I also submit to you that if it is racism that is affecting our convention that stems from the beginning of the SBC then money should not be an excuse to change our name.  If racism is not the issue of the beginning then we need to deal with the racism that is prevalent. Until we effectively address this racism we will continually add new name changes nicknames to our convention.

However, as we return to the integrity of changing our name one only needs to travel back to 1998 when we prepared to move into another century.  This particular entity was led by the current chairman of the official/unofficial committee, Dr. Jimmy Draper.  Notice what he, as reported by Baptist Press, assured Southern Baptists about changing the name of the Baptist Sunday School Board at the 1998 convention:

He corrected the conception by some that the name change is an indication that the agency is leaving Southern Baptists. “We are the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist convention. We will be LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention, if you approve this proposal. “

Now we are fourteen years out and it is clear that Lifeway is no longer listening to the will of the Baptists in the pew.  Can you say 2011 NIV Resolution? Can you say The Shack? Can you say Real Marriage? (A book that gives sexually explicit details with no warning given by the store)

Why is the name change nickname addition really warranted? May we get real in the answer to this question?  Certainly there are some that disagree with this move.  Many who may favor the move disagree for the mere way it was presented.  Let’s look at past name changes.  Does one remember the The Covenant for a New Century? This did not come about as a whim of a president that wanted to leave a legacy.  This came about by Dr. Morris Chapman after 2 years of being elected by the SBC as the new President and Executive Director of the Executive Committee led the EC to put together a Program and Structure Study Committee. It was this committee that made the recommendation to the Executive Committee and then the Executive Committee recommended it to the convention.  Could Dr. Chapman have placed this committee together on his own?  Probably so, but he didn’t because he knew the polity of Southern Baptists. The results of this committee’s recommendation really would not be considered a success if one looked at the position of the North American Mission Board in 2006.  However, we only had ourselves to blame for that because the entire convention was in this process from the start.

If this name change nickname addition passes and does not succeed in doing what we are told it should do for our convention we will hear blame being bantered about. This blame will be focused toward the current president and those serving on the presidential task force.  However, if this recommendation would have come from the floor of the convention and the messengers approved it within the proper channels no blame would be established.  Why?  The messengers were the ones implementing it and the messengers would accept full responsibility for it.  As it is now, the recommendation will not enjoy an overwhelming majority and that will cause the splintering even further within the convention.

Only time will tell if this name change nickname addition will be the catalyst for a new convention. I pray it is not the case and I pray that we can enjoy unity even though someone doesn’t desire to use the name “Southern Baptist Convention”.  However, it seems that if we are going to allow an “official” nickname to be used it should not take the vote of the convention to make it happen. It certainly didn’t take the vote of the convention to begin receiving funds from the Virginia conservatives, and neither did it take a vote to receive the funds from the Texas conservatives.  So, my question is a simple one.  Why are we voting to receive funds from a group of people that may desire to call themselves “Great Commission Baptists”?

Polling data is something that I find interesting but it is not something I always place a dependence on.  If you will notice the election polls mentioned earlier, you will find that CNN commissions the polls they report and Fox commissions separate polls for their reports.  If the polls do not come back affirming their position it is never released.  However, most polling experts agree they can predict how the polls will be returned based on the questions asked.  Not only can they determine the data results but they can do so simply because of the way the questions are worded.  These polling experts study how they are not supposed to word questions because of a “leading” quality in the question.  However, it is that discipline used in forming the poll that can be misused in order to bring about desired results.  Which brings me to my title questions; Why another poll?  How does it help?

Why another poll?

The Lifeway SBC Pastor Survey 2012 covers a gambit of issues.  It begins with leading questions about the upcoming recommendation to the convention concerning the addition of a nickname.  It ends with statements concerning the percentages of Cooperative Program (CP) giving.  When I say leading I mean the survey presupposes a nickname is a foregone conclusion. There were three questions asked about the nickname with two questions being presented with statements of fact before the question.  Notice the first “statement of fact” that is given.

In February the task force appointed to consider a possible name change for the Southern Baptist Convention recommended that its legal name remain the Southern Baptist Convention.

What makes this statement of “fact” a “non-fact” is not what it says but what it doesn’t say.  It doesn’t say “the task force” was not an official task force of the convention.  With “the task force” recommending a legal name remain the foregone conclusion is simply, yes this name should remain.  There is no room for disagreement because we have “the task force” studying this issue.

The one question asked that is not preceded by a statement presents this issue as something that has already taken place.

Does your church intend to use the name Great Commission Baptists in some or all of your communication about your church?

Thus, we see the poll is presenting an unsaid reality that is neither a reality nor is stated in the cover letter that came with the survey.  The reason I asked the question about the purpose of another poll, though, does not cover the issues of the official/unofficial name recommendation. I present this question due to two things.  First the stated purpose.  Second the theological section of the survey.

The stated purpose in the survey is a very open, generic statement.

This survey is a joint effort of several entities of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Questions have been included specifically to help the International Mission Board, North American Mission Board, Southern Baptist Foundation, the Cooperative Program, and LifeWay.

Notice the cover letter has the Cooperative Program listed as an entity of the SBC.  There is no place in the SBC that lists the CP as an entity. Maybe they mean the Executive Committee.  However, this is a huge mea culpa if the President of LifeWay Research doesn’t understand that the Cooperative Program is not an entity.  However, look closer at the statement.  It does not give any purpose. The statement expresses that the IMB, NAMB, SBF, and LifeWay need help and it seems there are questions that are specific to those entities.  However, the new name and whether the theology of a church is reformed should not concern these entities.

Second, the theology section is one that draws interest to me.  The same questions in this survey were included in a survey in January 2011 that has never been reported.  The closest I can find of a report made on the 2011 survey is found here. (Link to download the ppt. survey is found in the fourth paragraph below the video) I did not find (that does not mean it isn’t out there someplace) an analysis that Dr. Stetzer is so famous for concerning this survey.  It seems this survey reveals, in the world of the SBC, the same thing a Barna survey revealed in the world of Evangelicalism–Calvinism has not grown significantly.  If that is the case, then why all the push by our leaders concerning a Calvinist soteriology?

How does this new poll help?

This seems to be the burning question.  If this poll is to about informing various entities the thoughts of Southern Baptist, then one question needs to be answered.  Why do we need the Trustee System?  It is the Trustee System that Southern Baptists inform the entities not polls.  It seems that even those using surveys do not trust the surveys.  Why?  Well, no one has said anything about this 2011 survey other than a blip in a v-blog by the President of LifeWay Research.  You can’t even say he gave a “shout-out” concerning the 2011 survey. Yet, in the theological section of the 2012 survey he makes use of all the 2011 questions, except four.  Does LifeWay Research operate from the premise that if you keep asking the same questions eventually the people will believe there is a rise in Calvinism and begin to affirm that soteriological position? I do not know, but allow me to reveal to you the results of a few questions in the 2011 survey.

It diminishes God’s sovereignty to invite all persons to repent and believe.

The results revealed that 12% either “strongly agreed” or “somewhat agreed” with this statement.

God predestines some people to salvation before the foundation of the world, and predestines some to damnation.

This statement garnered 13% that either “somewhat agreed” or “strongly agreed.”

Christ died only for the elect, not for everyone in the world.

The survey revealed that 7% either “somewhat agreed” or “strongly agreed” with this statement.

God loves only the elect, not everyone in the world.

This survey statement was interesting.  I joked with Dr. Derek Thomas, when I met him, about my soteriological position being framed with a “smile face” and his being framed with a “frowny face”.  Within the ranks of those surveyed we find that 1% “somewhat agreed” with this statement and 0% strongly agreed.  Thus it seems that Calvinists do not really believe in the destruction of mankind bringing about the glory of God.

I am a five-point Calvinist.

This is the the one statement that separates the Calvinists from the Non-Calvinists.  However, with such a clear statement concerning Calvinism we see a revelation that remains true since the 2006 survey, 10% either “somewhat agreed” or “strongly agreed.” Thus, it seems that Barna’s research remains stable in that Calvinism is not increasing as some would have us believe differently.

Therefore, it seems clear the same amount of Southern Baptist that are Calvinists has not changed since 2006.  Which brings me back to my original questions, Why another survey?  How will it help the entities listed?  It does not appear there is an adequate answer available as none of the entities addressed need any information concerning theology to fulfill their mission statement.  What do I care that the Baptist Foundation has a bunch of Arminians who believe that one can lose his/her salvation?  As long as they invest the convention money in sound investments the theology of the person heading it up doesn’t matter.  What does the IMB or NAMB need to know about the theology of the convention that has not already been addressed a thousand times over?

This survey seems to be much to do about nothing as it is not accurate in its stated purpose.  The 2012 survey also reveals something the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force fought hard to stop–needless spending of monies.  Why are we spending money on another survey that in just a little over a year ago we had the exact same questions answered?  I wonder if our SBC Leaders believe that “bloated bureaucracy” only exists in state conventions and associations.

You do not want us to debate the Calvinist/Non-Calvinist debate any longer.  It seems the day has come when the Calvinist are in control of the major part of the convention so there is no reason to keep debating this.  However, in 2006 it was a huge reason to debated this because Founders was telling everyone there was a movement on to rid the SBC of Calvinists.  So, all the Young Restless & Reformed (YR&R) came out with both barrels blazing shouting they wanted a seat at the table.  Now within 6 years the YR&R not only has a seat at the table they own the table and are placing their orders. As a result, we have you a YR&R person now informing us that we need to stop the debate because there are at least 10 things more important than this Calvinist/Non-Calvinist debate.

Allow me to dissect these 10 items along with your thesis for each one.

1.) World-wide Sex Trade; “Our constant bickering in the face of the multi-billion dollar sex trade is appalling.”  Amen and Amen! What are we going to do about it?  Certainly there is a “world-wide Sex Trade” but when a leading evangelical pastors promotes vulgar and base sexual acts as something of intimacy within the confines of marriage we have no moral leg to stand on that “sex” is something we should be telling others they have not business engaging.  The sex trade is nothing more that the advocation of men getting the jollies just as is promoted in the latest craze about pastors promoting the endorphin release that a man “needs”.

2.) Racial Partnerships; “If Fred Luter is elected as president of the SBC this June that will be a good step, but, largely symbolic.” If a white man is a racist for voting against someone just because he/she is black, then anyone (red, yellow, black, or white) is a racist for promoting someone just because they are black.  The very argument of promoting Fred Luter because he would be the first black president of the SBC is racist at its core. Also, we have a huge discrepancy in the promotion of an African American for president and the Calvinist theology. Everyone points to our founders of the SBC and their Calvinist soteriology.  The SBC apologized in 1998 concerning our beginnings being those of slavery.  What we have not addressed is the theology that brought about that position.  Wonder if we will repent of the Calvinism that drove slavery?

3.) The homosexuality/gay debate; “We can think of no convincing argument as to how debating the finer points of soteriology is more important than this.” If the fall created within the nature of an individual this tendency, it should be noted that only the chosen can repent of this sin.  According to Calvinists theology we are to present the Gospel only to those who are responsive.  So those who will not respond are not chosen.  What difference does it make whether we are convincing to the gay community or not?

4.) Loss of civil liberties and looming civil disobedience; “The erosion of the rights guaranteed to Americans under the constitution is happening at an unprecedented pace.” Have you ever heard of Nero?  Did you read Romans?  What about 2 Timothy?  I am a Christian, first!!! My civil liberties are not mine they are given to me by God and if God so chooses to take them from me, then I still follow him.  Civil Disobedience means nothing if you do not stand for the things of Scripture.

5.) Social Injustice; “It is a shame when so much addressing of injustice is done by secular organizations. They are “trying to make the world a better place,” while we argue over how the gospel is to be defined rather than being defined by it.”  While I am all for addressing the injustices of this world, I am not going to make it a priority.  I will stand and address the issues, but please show me something in Scripture.  Can you show me where Paul told Philemon to give Onesimus his freedom?  Show me where Jesus condemned the slave owners and told them to set their slaves free.  Do I believe in slavery?  No, I do not.  I am appalled by the practice of it and will stand against it.  But, lets be very honest here.  God did not tell us to make this a “better place to live”.  He didn’t tell us to “give back to our community”.  He told us to expand the kingdom of God. Your point here borders on Liberation Theology.

6.) Southern Baptist Disaster Relief; “Nowhere is the gospel more readily seen than when Southern Baptists take vacation, don yellow shirts and hats, and, for days at a time, serve food, provide care, assist with communications, remove debris, chainsaw trees, and, yes, share the message of Christ.” Let me ask a question here.  Why do we have to wait until a disaster hits to “share the message of Christ”?

7.) Idolatry of the SBC; “There is little more self-centered, and, thus, idolatrous, than co-opting the biblical imagery of heaven (“Mt. Zion”) to use for a denomination. We aren’t all that. We never were.”  This is only semantics and you know it.  You have over-emphasized something used as a term of endearment.  But, I will say one thing.  If the SBC is so full of idolatry why are you still in it?  You know the old Delta jingle is as true today as it was 20 years ago.  If you do not like this place then “Delta is ready when you are.”

8.) World-wide abuse of women; “Where is the Southern Baptist voice against Middle Eastern countries like Yemen where women are purposefully withheld from educational opportunities, resulting in overwhelming illiteracy rates?”  Let’s see.  We don’t want to see women abused in Yemen, but we promote a pastor who admonishes women when they challenge him on something?  I agree we need to stand up against the abuse of women.  But you do realize your example is centered on a country that is Islamic.  The atrocities in Yemen is not about women being abused it is about Christ being absent.

9.) Unbelievers; “They are saved by faith in Christ and the power of the gospel or they are not saved at all.”  You promote an end to the soteriological debate but you place that statement out here?  Why did you not place a period behind “Christ”?  Because you are so tied to your soteriology that you can’t.  But you call on us to stop debating it. Right!!

10.) Lack of credibility in the public square; “However, we have a limited moral authority due to our very public stumbles.” If this is your position the Federal Government has no business existing today.  Do you really believe their credibility is all that good?  Yet, they are still in existence today.  I will tell you that God does not need the SBC.  However, the SBC does exist because of God. Our credibility in the public square is based on God and God alone. Yes we can stumble and hurt that credibility, but God always has a remnant.

Are we as a convention perfect and do we have everything together?  No, No, No, a thousand times NO!! De we need changes?  You better believe we do!  However, I am not willing to give up a scriptural position that Jesus Died for the World just to appease someone that believes Jesus died for a certain few.  That is the basis of the Gospel.  For whom did Jesus die?

Well, it doesn’t take rocket scientists observing questions to realize the desired outcome of the Research team at Lifeway. Over the next couple of posts I will observe the questions and see if you agree.  Therefore in this opening article I want to look at two statements to help you see the theological bend the Research Team seems to desire.

1. My church is theologically reformed or Calvinist
2. My church is theologically Arminian or Wesleyan

The statements above represents the theological positions one my choose from.  From the look of things it is a clear straight forward statement that defines what one believes.  But, this is a Southern Baptist survey and the survey is designed to find the theological beliefs of those pastors in the convention.  That being said there seems to be one question.  Where is the position for Baptist theology?  Are we seriously giving credence that there is no such position as a baptist theology? One other thing about the statements.  They are designed to cause a certain response. What person in a Southern Baptist Church is going to say their church is “Arminian or Wesleyan”?  Therefore a pastor has only to choose between “reformed or Calvinist”.  Is there really a secret as to what we will find from the surveys with these statements? I am not an Arminian, and neither am I a Wesleyan.  These theological positions places one in the uncomfortable position of arguing one is not saved forever.  Thus, we must choose “reformed or Calvinist”. Why?  Because “reformed or Calvinist” is the only theological position to choose from that affirms Salvation is forever.  But, I am neither reformed nor Calvinist.

I presented this to a friend of mine that holds a PhD in theology.  Here was his reply:

This is pitiful. The vast majority of SBC churches are neither Reformed or Arminian. They are something of a hybrid of the two known as “Baptist.”

To which I must say; AMEN!!

However, after years of waiting and my pinching myself this morning after seeing the advertisement, it looks as if this is real.  Dr. Patterson’s dream of producing this commentary has become a reality.  I am on the mailing list to receive the commentaries as they come out and so I will look forward with expectancy for this one.  What a great addition this will make to my library.

If you are not on the current list to receive these, you can go to Amazon to pre-order your copy when it is released in September, 2012.  I wonder if Dr. Patterson provides charts with this copy?