Where I play at now...

You can read these old posts if you like, but if you want to see where I blog at now, click on this link www.pastorleap.wordpress.com and come over and see my current thoughts...

Flag burning and Christian liberty...

Upon reading my title, someone might wonder just what the two issues have in common, but upon closer examination, I think some of the parallels are compelling.

Many thinking Christians are wrestling with the issue of Christian liberty because of the move of the SB convention to call for an absolute opposition to all alcohol consumption and production at the 2006 meeting. What one thinks about moderated, social drinking has become the test case for an understanding of Christian liberty. When I preached on this last Sunday in our church (not by design, but rather because I am preaching THROUGH I Corinthians, and I had come to chapter 8, which begins 3 chapters of discussion of liberty/ license by Paul), you would have thought that denied the resurrection! Most Christians have so little understanding of the real issue of grace versus law!

I for one, do not drink socially or at all for that matter. I believe it is in the Christians BEST interest to NOT imbibe. That being said though, because the Bible offers no strict prohibition against an occasional drink (what the Bible explicitly and consistently condemns is drunkenness), I find myself unwilling and unable biblically to make much of a case about a Christian who might enjoy an occasional drink. Is it wise? NO. Do I recommend it? NO. Can I call a man's salvation into question over it...NO!

Now, what does this have to do with the recent congressional hoopla over flag burning? I for one would never burn the American flag! I see nothing constructive about it, and I might even punch in the nose someone doing it in front of my house. However, that being said, it is nice to know that I live in a land where I have liberty and freedom to do so! An act which I choose not to participate in, I still have the freedom to engage in...now there's a noble concept. In other parts of the world today, where there is no liberty, people are decapitated and beaten by angry mobs for dissent. Here in America, the greatest country in the world, we give folks the right to dissent without having to worry about execution. Likewise, things like SouthPark, explicit art, and the Dixie Chicks may not be to my liking, and I can choose to ignore them and not support their craft, but true liberty comes with a price, and that price is the understanding that not everyone in a free culture is going to agree with your every view.

What is America going to look like if there are laws against EVERY activity against which we object or even question? It will probably begin to look as narrow and legalistic as many fundamentalist baptists who label anyone else "anti-nomian" that disagrees with them. Who will be the ones to decide what behaviors are objectionable? There are those things which are clearly and morally wrong which our law-makers won't deal with (i.e. abortion, homosexual marriage, social injustice at the highest levels, etc...) so why should they have to legislate petty things like flag-burning? Likewise, many Christians (esp. SBs, who I know better than the rest), who are unwilling to deal with serious issues like unregenerate church membership, lack of church discipline, immorality among pastors, deception by institution heads, nepotism on the boards, etc... want to bend over backwards to impose upon believers standards that the Bible does NOT demand concerning an issue that really is not that relevant to most churches! Yes, alcohol is destructive on our culture, but is it really that big of a problem FOR MOST REGENERATE CHRISTIANS?!?!?!?

I was astounded recently to hear an "evangelist" claim that something like 48% of SB members drink, and 16% of Southern Baptist church members are struggling alcoholics. That is ridiculous, and until I see verification, I reject these claims. In 10 years of ministry involving 4 different churches, I have never even had to deal with the issue of social drinking, much less a membership full of alcoholics! If this is to be at all believed, it is probably because of the 66% (or so) of unregenerate members we keep on our roles with no ministry of discipline in our churches! Perhaps the 50-66% of unregenerate members are drunks? Who knows what they are doing?!?! In most churches, they haven't been seen or heard from in years, which would reveal that the bigger problem is our ECCLESIOLOGY, which, ironically, the SBC refused to deal with by voting down a resolution that would have begun addressing a slipping ecclesiology. But I digress.... Back to my discussion of liberty...

This is where I make the parallel between flag-burning and liberty in the Christian life. With liberty in Christ, there comes responsibility. Where the Bible does not speak to certain issues (i.e. whether or not to listen to contemporary Christian music or southern gospel, whether or not women must wear a dress to church, whether or not to play cards or go to the movies, etc...), we must accept that the leadership of the Spirit and the guidance of the Word is sufficient, and NOT be tempted to legislate Christianity into a set of rules and regulations that the Bible does not lay out! Southern Baptists are seeking to say "thus saith the Lord" on an issue where the Lord has not spoken!

But more commonly, everyday Christians seek to do the same thing. Christianity is not a set of rules to be kept. It is a message of reconciliation in the cross of Christ. The Word of God speaks clearly and sufficiently to us about what behaviors are acceptable and not acceptable for Christians (hence, we are NOT anti-nomians). Furthermore, the scriptures provide principles for guidance in the questionably silent areas! But let us not be guilty of trying to define and regulate what is and is not Christian if the Bible is silent on such issues.

The Galatians did this, and Paul had a harsh response.

May Christian liberty be understood and enjoyed by Christians. And may America remain a truly free land...one of the only countries in the world where a flag can be burned and our soldiers will defend their right to do so. If you don't like burning flags, don't do it. If you despise Michael Moore and his ludicrous, accusatory fiction, then don't watch (or read) it. If South Park offends you, don't watch it and block out that channel on your cable, even boycott the advertisers if you wish. But when we get to the point of wanting to silence, jail or persecute every voice that expresses an opinion different than ours, we are dangerously close to becoming just like the regimes we are fighting to overthrow at this very hour in Iraq.

I do not fear being hunted down and decapitated for publishing these views. Thanks America! However, I fear that if some have their way in the SBC, my refusal to goose-step along with their fundamentalist ways will eventually lead to my being isolated, and perhaps pushed out of the SBC along with many of the greatest young minds and passionate hearts of our generation.

Church Discipline issue involves SO MUCH MORE...

I for one am pleased that so many are now finally talking about the issue of church discipline and what it means, and what it looks like in the church today. I would suggest though, that many are missing the more practical issues here involved. Most blogs and most individuals are merely discussing the practice from the perspective of the "lost people on the role" mentality. It certainly is a sad but true reality that this occurs, and that when it does, it is a pastor's responsibility to pursue those members of his flock who have not attended in 10 years and confront them about their need for repentance and/or removal from the church roster. Enough others have already commented on this angle, but there is really SO MUCH MORE to the "bloated roles" issue.

Take my church role for instance. The church that I pastor has, by all accounts, somewhere between 700-800 members "on the role" with about 200 people (members and non-members alike) in church on Sunday. We have just recently begun what I call "responsible role maintenance" and we are making some interesting discoveries. Thus far, I have a spreadsheet to work from (thanks to a diligent deacon/ administrator in our church!) that shows the membership figures ONLY SINCE 1985. There are many more prior to that, but this is what we have to start working with. On this list, there are just shy of 500 names, but here is what I am discovering in just one, 30-minute look-over of the list:

1. Already, there are at least 7 "members" that we are sure are deceased, and at least 20 or so more that we suspect are deceased. That is, we are going by someone's memory of that person dying (or at least they think so). Once we confirm the deaths of these others, we will probably remove at least 30 deceased members from the role.

2. We discovered the names of 4 pastors who either previously attended and/or pastored our church, all of whom are now, with their families, actively serving other churches where their membership lies. They are still on our "role." This crowd numbered 12.

3. There are at least 5 or 6 individuals who are on the list twice (one is on it 3x) as members. This is because they were "saved" once (in say...1987) and added to the role, and then "saved again" (in say...1993) and baptized again, and hence, added to the role again. Fixing this would eliminate 5 or 6 "members."

4. Still there are others whom we are sure have long since joined another church of a non-baptist persuasion (Methodist, Christian church, etc...) which did not "send for their letter." These individuals have not been in our church for years, but are rather faithful to their "new" church. I would guess there are at least 30 or so like this (30 is a very conservative guess, there are probably many more than this).

If all of these individuals (except the obviously deceased ones) are also being reported by other churches, then we have an issue of double-counting which results in "cooked numbers."

Now, all of this came from a quick, 30-minute reading of the list, without any phone-calls, deacon meetings, or church votes. There are just in the above mentioned list, almost 80 individuals who we continually represent in our ACP count as "members" who are clearly NOT. This issue is not only about I Cor. 5 discipline of members who do not evidence salvation, it is also about common-sense integrity in reporting numbers. This is an issue of both integrity and laziness. One meeting per year between the church clerk, pastor, and a knowledgable member could probably help introduce some good maintenance measures to our role maintenance. Until we do this, we are merely being lazy and dishonest in the way we represent our churches to the world.

There are other issues to deal with, such as "why discipline is a healthy practice to have in place to deal with attending members who are living openly sinful lives," but that will be addressed later. For now, I hope that I have made my point that this issue of "integrity in reporting numbers" is not merely a "Calvinist thing," nor is it merely about "young reformed guys wanting to 'church' unfaithful members." At the end of the day, it is also an issue of basic administrative integrity in the way we maintain and represent our membership to the outside world.

Highlights so far...

Highlights of the day (Tuesday): AM- Great breakfast, Dr. Dever did a fantastic job, everyone should get the tape. It should be abundantly clear from his message that reformed-thinking Baptists are VERY clear in their affirmation of evangelism.
Got to finally meet Tom in person. Nice.
In Morning motions session: - One msgr. makes a motion that a committee be formed to study the impact of Calvinism on our denomination and churches (paraphrase). This one really stunned me.
- When Dr. Vines spoke against an amendment resolution and then had someone call a "point of order" (which Welch ruled against), some knucklehead sitting just left of me yells "Just because your name is Jerry Vines doesn't mean you get special treatment!" I respect Jerry Vines ALOT, but seriously, You would've thought someone cursed the pope's mother! The crowd gasped and everyone turned to see who it was. I didn't see...and it WAS definitely a cheap shot, but the drama gave me something to remember in years to come. I joked to a friend that there may be a gallows set up after lunch...
- Morris Chapman's embarrassingly bad debacle. In what was supposed to be his "Executive Committee" report, MC took the opportunity to "set things straight" among SBs by first scolding Calvinists, telling us that "our Calvinistic theology was fine for discussion in the seminaries, but it needed to stay there, and stay out of the churches where it will only create division." (Paraphrase). I thought this was the most ridiculous comment of the day. Actually laughable. Why don't we just keep ALL divisive theology out of our churches...that will mend our troubles! Wait...isn't that why we are suffering with pitifully weak churches now? Haven't we (SBs) been keeping serious theology out of our churches long enough? And BTW... isn't this the same posture our Roman Catholic friends take about "deep theological issues."
- He went on to pontificate about the error of plural eldership, saying the trend needed to stop because it was already ripping churches apart (again, paraphrased)
I had never had any reason to be critical of Dr. Chapman. In fact, I always respected him and enjoyed most of what he wrote. AFter today, I felt that he demonstrated a great deal of hubris standing before pastors of autonomous churches that hold the same statement of faith as he and rebuking them and telling them what to stay away from and what to "stop preaching."
I wasn't surprised to see DR. Page win... the convention air was thick all day with the energy of a CP pep-ralley. My friends and I did the math and figured out mathematically that he only carried the majority (literally 50.4%) by 22 votes! Without 22 votes, he would've sank below 50% and there would have been a run-off. My opinion, bottom line, he won because he was CP strong AND an outsider, and LOTS of the young guys (reformed or not) are sick and tired of the "good ole boy" nepotism and elitism of the convention. Incidentally, I ate lunch at a restaurant where one of the "BIG GUYS" (pastor of a southern state mega-church, former high-ranking officer, etc...) was eating. It was almost comical to watch all the "little people" coming up to him and introducing themselves and wanting to talk shop and pick his brain. Everyone in my group was commenting about how much like "celebrity worship" it has become. How sad. Many after the Mohler/ Patterson discussion were rushing the stage to get their Bibles autographed and their photos made with the celebrities.
The general tone of the day seemed to be "CP Missions and cooperation at ALL costs." It seems to me that more and more folks are leaning toward this "theology doesn't matter so much" mentality, as long as there is CP support (incidentally, at a recommended 10% "tithe.") Everyone seems to agree that is, except those who feel that "Calvinism" is the source of all SB problems. They apparently just want the Calvinists "investigated" and thrown out. I want to see just how they go about this without shredding our own confessional documents.
HIGH POINTS: Wade Burleson's motion for investigation; well recieved, very courageous; NO PROTESTERS THAT I COULD SEE ANYWHERE (if they were there, I missed them!)
LOW POINTS: DR. Chapman's tirade, bonehead calling out Dr. Vines, the scorched coffee that I payed $2 for during Chapman's ordeal.

Multiple Choice for calvinistic fear-mongers...

I am so sick of recent attempts by enemies of Calvinistic theology to label (through the re-defining and misconstruing of terms) historic evangelistic calvinism as "HYPER-CALVINISM." I just have one simple question for those who engage in such slander. Which of the following makes me a "HYPER-CALVINIST" (keep in mind, I am a full-blown 5-pointer!)

A) The tireless work that I just put in at my church's week-long VBS, where we had over 200 kids coming in and hearing about the gospel (most on busses, NOT church kids), and over 270 parents/ children on "family night," ALL of whom heard the gospel and were called to repent of their sins and trust Christ...

B) The DOOR-TO-DOOR evangelistic campaigns of those in our church who have canvassed our community, handing out literature and inviting sinners to come to Christ, a campaign which has resulted in dozens of new "bus-folks" that are being picked up regularly...

C) The missions trips that I have participated in over the years (and will be taking at the end of the month) where I travel thousands of miles to work for the growth of the Kingdom in far-away places, preaching Christ and strengthening existing believers...

D) The expository preaching of the WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD each week, where every text of scripture is addressed from a Christo-centric interpretation and sinners are told to repent and believe on Christ...

E) My personal discipleship of 4-5 young men every week in an accountability/ discipleship group, in which they are taught (evangelistic calvinistic) theology and encouraged to confess their sins, catechize their children, and be leaders in their church...

F) My weekly "home-worship" in which my own children are catechized and taught the scriptures and Christian living...

G) My consistent prayers for the lost all around the world, as well as my fervent support of missions and church-planting (our church planted a new church last year!) and my support of the suffering/ persecuted church worldwide for over 7 years now...

H) My present meeting with a group of 5 children ages 7-10 who want to know about how to be saved. I am meeting with them (and their parents) over a course of many weeks to insure that they FULLY UNDERSTAND the gospel and the commitment it entails...

I) My application for PhD. work in EVANGELISM AND CHURCH-GROWTH, a commitment which (if accepted) will involve intense study, discipline, and self-denial over the course of the next 4 years of my life!

OR...

J) My rejection of the man-centered, Arminian-leaning, decision-based, shallow, pleading that takes place in most churches under the banner of "evangelism" and the invitation system.

I suspect that for most in the "calvinism is dangerous" camp, they will only read "J" and assume that my kind of approach to ministry is "HYPER-CALVINISTIC" and must be stopped before it is allowed to pollute any more churches! Let's get real folks...I'll allow my track-record in ministry to speak for itself. I have never been about "decisions" or "numbers," but always about faithful sowing of the seed. I suspect that many who are so-called "free-willers" who are SUPPOSED to believe in man's goodness and ability to "choose Jesus", seldom engage in much outreach, thus making themselves more "HYPER-CALVINISTIC" (practically speaking) than many of my Calvinistic brethren, who devote their lives and their ministries to laboring for the cause of Christ's elect! (II Tim. 2:10, Titus 1:1)!

Let's quit clouding the issues by misrepresenting the positions of evangelistic calvinists and instead begin judging their ministry by whether or not they faithfully preach the gospel and call sinners to repentance. If they are so doing, then the cries of "HYPER CALVINIST" can be no more than intentional misrepresentation, which in my world is just fancy-talk for "lies."

Caners continue mis-characterization knowingly...

(pic at right- me on missions trip teaching First Nations children (Dene, South Slavey) of NWT Canada about Jesus in Ft. Providence, 2004. What a shame that "hyper-calvinists" like me don't believe in preaching the gospel!?!?!?)

Dr. Ergun Caner recently published an article attempting to further pontificate on why he views "hyper-calvinism" as the greatest threat to Evangelical (SB) church-life today. Check it out at http://www.falwell.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1

I wish the Caners and other fundamentalist-type detractors of the Doctrines of Grace would at least be intellectually honest about the issues at hand. They are too smart to continue to pretend that they don't know the difference between historic reformed evangelicalism/ evangelical calvinism, and true "hyper-calvinism."

I pastor in one of the unique areas of our country (Eastern KY, Appalachia) where TRUE HYPER-CALVINISM still exists, and I battle it daily. It is NOT however, among Southern Baptist brethren, but rather in rural Appalachian "Holler-churches" known as either "Old Regulars" or "Enterprise Baptist Churches". They have little to no influence, except over small handfuls of faithful elderly folks and their children, and they are dying out by and large because of their refusal to evangelize or cooperate with other churches. One particular group in my area travels each Sunday to one of four different "church buildings", all of which USED to be independent churches, but which now do not have crowds even big enough to open the doors. Their leaders are EXTREMELY anti-intellectual, uneducated, and think that "liberal" Southern Baptists like me (tongue in cheek...Im a 1689, Abstract, and 2000 BFM supporter) are the scourge of the earth.

I recently was asked to speak at a funeral for a man whose son is a member of my church. I had visited him in the hospital before death, and the family honored me by asking me to read scripture, share the obituary, and pray at the beginning of the service. I gladly obliged. The lions-share of the service though, including the "preaching" was done by one of these "hardshell" preachers. On the night before the funeral, while calling on the family and viewing the deceased, I was verbally accosted by this preacher who wanted to set me straight for having a visitation and outreach program and for supporting missions. He mocked me and spoke in very perjorative terms about SBC missions life.

The next day during the "sermon" (he preached for 45 minutes on Romans 8:28-30), instead of preaching Christ and offering hope, he decided to set straight the crowd (and presumably me) by giving the TRUE ordo salutis of salvation. He actually stated (pay close attention sports fans...) that "faith in the heart of the elect precedes either the preaching or the hearing of the gospel!" I know this because I wrote it down. It shocked me that much. To be fair, he was at least logically consistent with his hardshell beliefs. Because he believes faith is supernaturally just "there" in the heart of the elect at birth, he sees no reason for the preaching of the gospel to the lost.

This is true hyper-calvinism. I deal with it every day in Eastern KY. I abhor it. I also resent the fact that Ergun and Emir (and others) continually mischaracterize my beliefs by using the term "hyper-calvinist." They are being intellectually dishonest when they do so, and I believe that they know this. They are steadily achieving their goal however, which is (through slander) to create a ripple of fear throughout the ranks of mis-informed SB preachers so that they will cringe at the very sound of words like "sovereign grace," "Calvinist," or "election."

What they continue to do is dishonest and unethical, and it should be called such. Hyper-calvinism still exists, but not among Southern Baptists. They know this. They and others in their ranks should be honest about it. I am open to fair and honest debate about the doctrines of Grace. I am even willing to call a brother one who does not fully agree with me on these doctrines.

What is unacceptable however, is attempting to create a new vernacular and completely redefine well established theological terminology in order to curry favor with the misinformed masses.

By the way...has anyone been able to find the "article" that Ergun referenced as having seen in a recent paper that lamented "another church splits over Calvinism!"??? I would really like to see this article documented. If it cannot be, one must question whether or not such an article exists and if it does not, then a whole different set of issues arises.

I thought these were both great pics of me...one getting ready to go into the field with my huntin buddy (my son Ethan), and one of me, Fat and happy, at work in my home study. What a handsome fellow indeed. Ethan that is.