Shepherds Walk

2008-08-04T17:19:00.006-05:00

The Best New ain't Jenny Craig

I normally do not pay a lot of attention to commercials. Praise God for direct dish TV where four or five presses of the 30-second advance button gets me past all the nonsense and back to the History Channel or FOX News! I wish there was such a devise on my car radio because I would certainly use it. A recent radio advertisement has me all in a snit. It’s for a Jenny Craig weight loss clinic that has opened in Jefferson City. Now, I’ve got nothing against Jenny Craig, and I’ve certainly got nothing against weight loss. I have found myself, however, mildly chaffing over their commercial. They announce that the clinic’s arrival in our state capitol " ... is the best news to hit Jefferson City in a long time." Now then, just think about that from a Christian perspective. A weight loss clinic is the best news that the citizens of the City of Jefferson have heard in a long time? Personally, I can think of a lot of other news items that would qualify over-and-above a new weight loss clinic in Jefferson City.

I immediately began to wonder about the dozens of churches in Jefferson City that faithfully preach the gospel of Christ week in and week out. In case you’ve forgotten, the word Gospel – euangelion in the Greek – literally means "good new". In the New Testament it refers to the good news preached by Jesus that the Kingdom of God is at hand (Mark 1:15) and the good news of what God has done on behalf of humanity in Jesus (Rom. 1:3-5). The background for the noun is found in the Old Testament where the verbal form means ‘to bring good news’ or ‘to announce good news’.

OK, I understand that commercials are all about hyperbole. I’m not suggesting that the they proclaim that this is "mundane" news or "insignificant" news. After all, they want to draw clients to their services. But the best news? There are thousands of citizens of our capitol who are blissfully unaware of the best news ever to come to Jefferson City. That good news, of course, is that God came to this world in the flesh, lived life as we do – except without sin – died on a cross to atone for the sins of His people, and rose again on the third day. Sadly, even a lot of professing believers treat this best of news as though it were mundane or insignificant.

I’m sure that many mid-Missourians are excited that Jenny Craig has come to Jefferson City. Jesus has been there a lot longer in the preaching and ministry of churches that have remained faithful to the Gospel of Christ. Now that really is the best news to hit Jefferson City.

2008-03-22T14:35:00.006-05:00

Come and See
by David Krueger

"I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time brings dead people back to life." That blunt assessment comes from John Dominic Crossan, a leading figure in the Jesus Seminar, and one of the most influential authors on religion in post-Christian America. Any time you see a special on T.V. about the life of Christ, Crossan is one of the theological talking-heads you’ll see and hear. Thomas Sheehan, another fellow of the Seminar, put it even more directly: "Jesus, regardless of where his corpse ended up, is dead and remains dead."

The claim that Jesus actually rose from the dead on the third day is perhaps the greatest scandal of authentic Christianity in the face of modern secularism. Intellectual sophisticates and pseudo-Christian scholars cluck their tongues and wag their heads at those of us just silly enough to believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ. “How,” they ask, “can right-thinking moderns believe in such ancient myths and stories? After all, anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that dead person simply do not rise from the dead.”

Such theological drivel is not new.

During the period of history known at The Enlightenment, spiritual darkness began to spread throughout western Europe, England, and even America. One result of this spiritual darkness was the philosophy of Deism, the belief that God is an unconcerned creator, and that the miraculous events of the Bible cannot be true since they are neither scientifically or rationally verifiable. With the rise of historical criticism, the resurrection and the miraculous world of the New Testament were simply out of date. Some biblical scholars began to distinguish between the “Christ of faith,” and the “Jesus of history” and assumed that the Jesus of history was more myth than reality.

In England, two of the most brilliant men of their day had both become deists. They were both professors at Oxford University. Their names were Gilbert West and Lord Lyttleton. The two men were determined to silence the defenders of the supernatural in the Bible. They conferred together and decided that each would write a book. One would attack the alleged resurrection of Jesus from the dead, while the other would attempt to disprove the alleged conversion of Saul of Tarsus. Lyttleton undertook to disprove that Saul of Tarsus was ever converted, as is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles -- that his conversion was nothing more than a myth. Gilbert West would turn his attention to disproving the resurrection of Christ from the dead. West said to Lyttleton, “I shall have to depend upon you for my facts, for I am somewhat rusty on the Bible.” To which Lyttleton replied that he was counting upon West, for he too was somewhat rusty on the Bible. Their conclusion was, “If we are to be honest in the matter, we ought at least to study the evidence.” Each began his own study of the Scriptural evidence.

They had numerous conferences together while they were preparing their works. In one of these conferences West said to Lyttleton that there had been something on his mind for some time that he thought he ought to speak to him about, that as he had been studying the evidence, he was beginning to feel that there was something to it. Lyttleton replied that he was glad to hear him say so, for he himself had been somewhat shaken as he had studied the evidence of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. Finally, when the books were finished, the two men met. West said to Lyttleton, “Have you written your book?” He replied that he had, but he said, “West, as I have been studying the evidence and weighing it according to the recognized laws of legal evidence, I have become satisfied that Saul of Tarsus was converted as is stated in the Acts of the Apostles, and that Christianity is true and I have written my book on that side.” His book can still be found in most large libraries. “Have you written your book?” asked Lyttleton. “Yes, but as I have studied the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and have weighed it according to the acknowledged laws of evidence, I have become satisfied that Jesus really rose from the dead as recorded in the gospels, and have written my book on that side.” West's book can also be found in our libraries to-day.

Similar stories can be found in our own day. Frank Morison, author of “Who Moved the Stone?,” and Lee Strobel, author of “The Case for Christ,” both were unbelieving lawyers who set out to prove the nonsense of the resurrection. Both investigated the resurrection accounts and both were converted to faith in Christ. When the gospel story is carefully and dispassionately studied, it will invariably lead men to only one conclusion: Jesus rose bodily form the dead.

The Scriptures simply leave no room for negotiation on this matter. The Apostle Paul writes: “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain,” (I Cor. 15:13-14). Christianity stands or falls on the historical validity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The bodily resurrection of our Lord is absolutely fundamental to biblical Christianity – and the gospel we preach and believe. To abandon this core belief would mean the end of Christianity as revealed in the New Testament.

Many years ago when Linda and I were in England we had the opportunity to visit Westminster Cathedral in London. It's the Cathedral where English royalty is wed and Kings and Queens coronated. It is also a place where many famous people are buried. On each tomb can be seen the words, "Here lieth the body of ... " Then the name of some general, artist, scholar, politician or clergyman. How different it is at the tomb of Jesus. There you will not find a tombstone with the inscription, "Here lieth the body of Jesus of Nazereth." Instead we hear the words of the angel on Easter morning as our Lord's epitaph, "He is not here: for he is risen. Come see the place where the Lord did lay." To me, this is the most explosive verse in the entire Bible. Because the tomb is empty, we can sing with great assurance that old gospel hymn ...

I serve a risen Savior, He’s in the world today;
I know that He is living, whatever men may say;
I see His hand of mercy, I hear His voice of cheer,
And just the time I need Him, He’s always near.

He lives, He lives, Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks with me along life’s narrow way.
He lives, He lives, salvation to impart!You ask me how I know He lives:

He lives within my heart.

2007-12-18T17:45:00.000-06:00

Acts 29 Network: A Casualty of ‘the perfect theological storm’
by David Krueger

On Monday, December 10 the Missouri Baptist Convention’s Executive Board took the unprecedented action of barring any state convention relationship with or support of the Acts 29 Network. Missouri Baptist staff can no longer use the Acts 29 Network as a resource in their various ministries. The move most dramatically affects those few mission churches in Missouri who are receiving Cooperative Program monies as part of their support, and who also are affiliated with the Acts 29 Network. As of January 1, those missions will no longer be financially supported by the MBC. The move does not affect autonomous Missouri Baptist Churches that are affiliated with Acts 29, not does it preclude them from supporting missions that are.

The move has both its ardent supporters and it ardent detractors. In a matter of hours after the Monday vote, the event took on a life of its own as word began to spread through internet discussion lists and blogs. Discussion of the issue has been fervent to say the least, arousing passions on both sides of the issue. The long-range fallout from this decision is unclear.

Acts 29 Network
The Acts 29 Network is just that -- a non-denominational network of pastors, lay leaders and churches that are devoted to helping qualified leaders “plant new churches and replant declining churches.” They do that through assessment, coaching, training, funding, and by connecting them with like minded Christians. The Acts 29 Network is clearly Reformed in its soteriology – i.e. they are Calvinists.

Pastors who qualify as Acts 29 church planters must go through a lengthy interview and vetting process, be willing to adhere to a strict covenant, and attend a Planter’s Boot Camp event. Currently, Missouri has more Acts 29 affiliated congregations than any other state in the mid-west with nine. Only the states of California (with 10) and Washington (with 19) have more Acts 29 affiliated congregations.

The Acts 29 Network uses the word “missional” to define the church’s relationship to the culture. Their web site states:

We believe that our local churches must be faithful to the content of unchanging Biblical doctrine (Jude 3).
We believe that our local churches must be faithful to the continually changing context of the culture(s) in which they minister (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).
We believe that our mission is to bring people into church so that they can be trained to go out into their culture as effective missionaries.

The Acts 29 Network takes no official position on alcohol other than that “people should have their conscience captive to the word of God, submit to the leadership of their church or denomination, and do everything for God's glory.” The Acts 29 Network permits diversity on what they consider a secondary issue and chooses to pursue unity only on what they consider primary theological issues. They respect the right of Christians, organizations, and denominations to arrive at differing conclusions on this matter.

This “no position policy” has led some critics to assume that Acts 29 is, at the least, “soft on beverage alcohol consumption,” or at the worst, “promotes consumption.” Some view the Acts 29 Network as nothing more than a new generation of theological moderates who are compromising the Gospel by tapping into a secular culture and using non-traditional forms of evangelism that many traditional Baptists find offensive. This includes outreach ministries located in establishments that serve alcoholic beverages. This has become a particular point of contention in the Missouri Baptist Convention were two member congregations participate in what have come to be known as “brew and view” ministries. For some Missouri Baptists, the fact that these congregations are affiliated with the Acts 29 Network, makes the entire network suspect.

Colliding fronts
The move against the Acts 29 Network appears to coalesce around several fronts – the ‘perfect theological storm’ if you will.

The first front is the on-going debate within the Southern Baptist Convention at large and the Missouri Baptist Convention in particular over the use of beverage alcohol. At the Southern Baptist Convention’s 2006 annual meeting in Greenville, South Carolina, a resolution entitled simply On Alcohol Use in America was overwhelmingly adopted by messengers. Supporters of the resolution argued the action was needed because “some religious leaders” believe they may drink based on a “misinterpretation” of the believer’s “freedom in Christ.” Several prominent Southern Baptists known for their Reformed soteriology, vigorously opposed the resolution. Not because they were pro-alcohol, but because they were opposed to: 1) a resolution that intimated that the only Scriptural position on beverage alcohol is one of absolute abstinence. They argued that a total abstinence position is based on Baptist tradition, and not the Scriptures, which describes the use of wine in both the Old and New Testaments, and 2) because the resolution had the characteristics of a motion urging that no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that is a user of alcoholic beverages. Resolutions in Southern Baptist life are non-binding statements. At least that’s how it’s historically been.

This strict abstinence position was front and center at the 2007 annual meeting of Missouri Southern Baptists. Rev. David Tolliver addressed ‘the alcohol issue’ in his Executive Director’s sermon, as did Rev. Mike Green in his President’s address, as did Rev. Rodney Albert who preached the convention’s annual sermon. All three clearly advocated that the Scriptures mandate a position of absolute abstinence from beverage alcohol, including low-alcohol-content beverages such as beer, wine, and wine coolers. During the convention’s last business session, messengers adopted a resolution on the consumption of beverage alcohol. It was exactly the same resolution that was passed at the SBC annual meeting in 2006, (only substituting ‘Missouri Baptist’ wherever the phrase ‘Southern Baptist’ appeared). The resolution passed with a clear – but not overwhelming – majority.

Six weeks after the annual meeting, the resolution became the motivation for the adoption of a new policy by the MBC nominating committee that gives teeth to the resolution by barring any Missouri Baptist who uses beverage alcohol from serving on convention boards, agencies or commissions. Nominees will now have to indicate whether-or-not they abstain from beverage alcohol. The decision has raised the hackles of a number of Missouri Baptists – including mine.

The second front involves the report of the Ad Hoc Theological Review Committee. The committee was appointed by MBC President, Mike Green, in December of 2006. It was the result of a motion brought at the 2006 MBC annual meeting:

That at the December 2006 Executive Board meeting of the Missouri Baptist Convention, that the President of the Executive Board appoint a committee of at least five people to study the theological soundness of all relationships the Missouri Baptist Convention has with non-political para-church organizations; and that they use as a guide the Bible, the 2000 version of the Baptist Faith and Message, and any applicable resolutions passed by the Missouri Baptist Convention or the Southern Baptist Convention; and that the committee report its findings to the Executive Board and its President for possible action, no later than its July 2007 Executive Board meeting. (Motion by pastor and messenger Jeff White).

The committee presented its report at the Executive Board’s October 2007 meeting held in conjunction with the MBC annual meeting. Much of the report documented the committee’s research and findings in regard to the emerging church movement. Due to time constraints, the full presentation of the report and its adoption was postponed until the December Executive Board meeting. At that meeting the committee’s policy statements at the end of the report were adopted, but the report itself was merely ‘received’. The report lists thirty-five ‘findings’ a number of which were pertinent to the subsequent executive board decision to terminate any relationship with the Acts 29 Network and de-fund those missions that are affiliated with the network.

Finding #1 states:
1. There are three segments of what is called the emerging church movement — the emergents, the emerging church, and the Acts 29 network. They differ at some points in theology, but they often share much in common related to methodology and missiology. The research of some would point to these segments or divisions within the emerging church movement as the revisionists, the reconstructionists, and the relevants. These could possibly be referred to as the left wing, the moderates and the right wing of the emerging church movement — but they are nevertheless still firmly within the movement itself. There is a networking and a connectedness of relationships and a sharing of resources among the leadership of the different levels of the emerging church movement, (speakers, conferences, workshops, books, research, websites, etc.) One could argue that there is an incestuous relationship of perspectives, theology, and worldviews among these three groups of the emerging church movement. What ought to be of interest to the Southern Baptist churches in Missouri is that there seems to be evidence pointing to a relationship of involvement and support of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the emerging church movement.

Regardless of where emerging church groups/leaders lie along the continuum from thoroughly liberal in their theology (Brian McLaren) to thoroughly conservative in their theology, (Acts 29 Network), the study committee reported that the relationship between the three branches of the emerging church movement is simply too cozy. This becomes obvious in other findings.

Findings #12 through19 state:

12. There is currently no official relationship in the Missouri Baptist Convention with the emerging church movement — including the Acts 29 network.
13. There is a lack of clarity at this time in Southern Baptist Convention denominational life regarding the emerging church movement -- - including the Acts 29 network.
14. The Acts 29 network is a part of the emerging church movement.
15. The Acts 29 network should not be an organization with which the Missouri Baptist Convention networks by means of our Cooperative Program money, missions emphases and church planting.
16. A commitment to the planting of indigenous churches in Missouri is not a commitment to cultural compromise.
17. The ad hoc committee has great difficulty with the notion or philosophy that a church can be theologically conservative and yet methodologically liberal. There is an inherent connection between biblical theology and missions methodology.
18. The ad hoc committee recognizes the diversity of opinion in American evangelicalism when it comes to alcoholic beverages. This does not negate the historic and ongoing affirmations of the resolutions at 62 annual meetings of the Southern Baptist Convention (as well as at least 36 resolutions at the annual meetings of the Missouri Baptist Convention since 1881) regarding abstinence as the Baptist position on the sale and use of alcoholic beverages.
19. The ad hoc committee recognizes that there are vast theological extremes and a profound depth of doctrinal diversity within the emerging church movement with which we are greatly uncomfortable.

Clearly, the Theological Study Committee includes the Acts 29 Network within the ‘emergent movement’ camp. And clearly they are uncomfortable with the reported ‘liberal methodology’ used by some Missouri Baptist Churches that are affiliated with the Acts 29 Network.

The third front revolves around the on-going controversy surrounding two congregations associated with the Missouri Baptist Convention. One is The Journey, an autonomous Missouri Baptist Church located in South St. Louis County, and Karis Community Church, a new church plant in Columbia, Missouri. Both are affiliated with the Acts 29 Network, and both are involved in ministries that are perceived by many Missouri Baptists as inappropriate and controversial. Both host outreach ministries in establishments that serve alcoholic beverages. The Journey hosts “Theology at the Bottleworks,” a monthly discussion group that meets at the Schlafly Bottleworks in Maplewood, MO. Every month, dozens show up at the brewpub to drink beer and talk about issues ranging from racism in St. Louis to modern-art controversies to the debate about embryonic stem cell research. First-timers are invited to check out the church on Sunday. The church has made national news headlines including a segment on NBC’s Today Show. At issue is a $200,000 loan that was made to The Journey from the Missouri Baptist Convention that was used as part of the congregation’s down payment on a church building. When the loan was made, Executive Board members were unaware of the controversial outreach ministry. Had they been, it is likely that the executive board would not have approved the loan.

Karis Community Church in Columbia has a similar outreach ministry. It’s called “Theology at the Forge” and meets at the Forge and Vine, a restaurant similar to the Applebees chain of restaurants. Karis Community Church continues to receive financial support from the North American Mission Board, the Missouri Baptist Convention, and several sponsoring churches. When MBC church planters covenant with the state convention, they must sign an agreement that the church planter will personally abstain from use of beverage alcohol, and shall teach the strong biblical warnings against alcohol use to the congregation. Kevin Larson, pastor of the church, insists that he has abided by that covenant agreement.

Critics of these “brew and view” ministries argue that there is usually little theology discussed in such meetings, and that the reported use of alcoholic beverages by some members of the two congregations during the meetings compromises the Gospel and simply goes too far in attempting to be culturally relevant. At the December board meeting, David Tolliver, interim Executive Director of the Missouri Baptist Convention stated that the convention would not give financial support to churches that participate in “sinful outreach ministries.”
These three fronts all collided at the December 10 MBC Executive Board meeting. The result was the perfect theological storm with Acts 29 Network caught in the middle. The result is that the MBC Executive Board has nixed any state convention relationship with or support of the Acts 29 Network or churches associated with it.

Thoughts and analysis
The debate over beverage alcohol consumption is a continuing debate in Southern Baptist life. We need to come to a consensus statement on the issue. However, I don’t look for such a consensus to be hammered out any time soon.

Baptists in general, and Southern Baptists in particular, have championed alcohol abstinence since the late 1800s, but a growing number of Southern Baptists believe it is time to reexamine the issue. Is absolute and total abstinence mandated by the Scriptures, or does our abstinence position have more to do with our own Baptist traditions? In an interview in Christianity Today Magazine earlier this year, Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School, said, "There is growing discontent, people saying that we shouldn't be mandating things that aren't spoken clearly about in Scripture. It's hard to argue that the Bible requires total abstinence."

Some of us believe that to take a position of absolute and total abstinence strikes at the heart of the sufficiency of the Scriptures themselves. While there are clear biblical warnings against the use of “strong drink” and while drunkenness is thoroughly condemned by the Scriptures, we should not, we must not attempt to make the Scriptures say what they do not say. The question is not, "Should we abstain?" I am of the opinion that we should. It’s the wisest choice. It’s the mature choice. It’s the Christian-brother-honoring choice. It’s even the most God-glorifying choice. But I say again: The question is not "Should we abstain?" The question is, "Is it Scriptural to maintain that the occasional consumption of a low-alcoholic-content drink such as wine or beer or a wine cooler is, always has been, and always will be sinful?" There are those brothers among us – such as myself – who believe that it is not always necessarily sinful to do so, even though we would never, ever choose to do so ourselves. This is a matter of interpretation that puts me squarely at odds with the resolution that was passed (or at least several statements contained therein), and with some men whom I deeply respect and consider close brothers in Christ.

While I respect and appreciate the work of the Theological Study Committee, and supported the adoption of the policies they recommended to the convention, I disagree with their conclusions regarding the Acts 29 Network. To include Acts 29 with the emerging church movement, is simply painting with too broad a brush. Acts 29 leaders believe that each individual church affiliated with the Acts 29 Network must determine for themselves their polity, mission works, vision, and ministries. The Network neither encourages ministries such as the ones used by The Journey and Karis Community Church, nor does it discourage them. The Acts 29 position is spelled out on their web site:

We believe that our local churches must be faithful to the content of unchanging Biblical doctrine (Jude 3).
We believe that our local churches must be faithful to the continually changing context of the culture(s) in which they minister (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).
We are not liberals who embrace culture without discernment and compromise the distinctives of the gospel, but rather Christians who believe the truths of the Bible are eternal and therefore fitting for every time, place, and people.
We are not fundamentalists who retreat from cultural involvement and transformation, but rather missionaries faithful both to the content of Scripture and context of ministry.

It’s hard for me to see how these statements can be interpreted as an endorsement of alcoholic beverages or a whole-sale license to drink.
Scott Thomas, director of the Acts 29 Network recently blogged about the MBC executive board decision: “Acts 29 does not promote alcohol, nor do we decry the personal decision of each church planter to decide what the Scriptures teach about alcohol. We strongly believe drunkenness and/or being controlled by or addicted by alcohol is a sin.” He further writes that to cut off every church affiliated with the Acts 29 Network based on the ministries of two churches, is “guilt by association.” In this he is correct. The MBC executive board simply acted in haste. When executive board moderator, Gerald Davidson, asked board members how many of them had personally studied Acts 29 for themselves, only a smattering of hands was raised, and yet the board ultimately voted by a 3-1 margin to disenfranchise any church plant affiliated with the Acts 29 Network. Granted, we’re talking about only a handful of congregations in Missouri, but as the saying goes, “It’s the principle of the thing.” To condemn the Acts 29 Network because of the objectionable practices of two churches is akin to branding all Southern Baptists as racists because a few actually are.

The debate is as old as Christendom, i.e. how far does the church go to become culturally relevant to the age it finds itself in? The debate rages on in Southern Baptist life between those who would “engage the culture” verses those who believe we need to “challenge the culture.” Jeff White summed it up well in an email on the MoBaptist Discussion List, “ … what makes these issues so difficult for me is that I have people I respect on both sides of the issues.”

Certainly, there needs to be some liberty in regard to those congregations who would seek to engage the culture in such ways. Darren Patrick, pastor of The Journey contends: "Theology at the Bottleworks was started to reach people who are actively opposed to Christianity, by discussing contemporary cultural issues in a neutral environment.” Is this philosophy fundamentally different from those who would plant “Cowboy Churches” or “Biker Churches” because they believe there is a sub-culture within the broader culture that is not being reached through traditional evangelistic methods or by traditional churches?

On the other hand, those congregations that would engage in non-traditional forms of outreach need to do so with wisdom and discernment, and with the larger body of Christ in mind. David Tollier speaks to this when he says: "We need to engage the culture, but without compromising our biblical, traditional Baptist values. For me, that includes abstinence from alcohol."

If I have a criticism of The Journey and Karis Community Church, it’s that I don’t believe that they had the whole Body of Christ – in this case fellow Missouri Baptist congregations – in mind when they made their decision to begin the outreach ministries that have proved so controversial. Or if they did, they greatly miscalculated the protest that has resulted. The Apostle Paul encouraged the believers of Galatia to be "eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Ephesians 4:3, ESV). Our eagerness to reach the lost must also be tempered by our eagerness to maintain the unity of the Spirit within the Body of Christ.

My solution is a relatively simply, but surely controversial, one: State conventions need to get out of the church planting business. For most of our history, establishing new congregations was the purview of the local church. In recent years, however, both the state convention and our North American Mission Board have increasingly taken on the responsibility of beginning new congregations. The problem is that these church plants essentially become responsible to the whole convention of churches and must conform their practices to the lest common denominator of theological conviction. If congregations like Karis Community Church were solely responsible to their ‘mother church’ we simply would not be having this discussion in Missouri Baptist life. But because they receive Cooperative Program monies, every church in the convention that gives to the CP has a right to have a ‘say-so’ in what the congregation does. In this case, their “Theology at the Forge” has ticked a lot of Missouri Baptists off and the result has been that a helpful, biblically-centered ministry (Acts 29) has been caught up in the swirl of controversy and suffered the consequences of the perfect theological storm.

2007-11-28T14:58:00.000-06:00

Crossan in the middle?
by David Krueger

John Dominic Crossan has a brilliant mind. He is an Irish-American religious scholar best-known for co-founding the controversial ‘Jesus Seminar’. He is professor emeritus of religious studies at DePaul University in Chicago and has authored more than 20 books about the historical Jesus. He has become one of the ‘go-to’ scholars for any television production about Jesus or the Bible, and is especially influential in the field of Historical Jesus studies.

Crossan is, shall we say, less than orthodox in his views concerning Jesus. His books maintain that Jesus was nothing more than an itinerant Jewish wise man who did not die as a substitute for sinners or rise from the dead, but instead became a follower of John the Baptist, and preached a social gospel of inclusiveness, tolerance, and liberation through his parables. Ultimately he was crucified by the Romans as a nuisance. There was nothing divine or supernatural about him, whatsoever.

Crossan maintains that the Gospels were never intended to be taken literally by their authors. They are not historically reliable documents that relate the ministry and message of Jesus, but early Christian propaganda written to compete with the rival Mystery Religions of he day. None of the miracles can be taken literally, and most of what the Gospels record Jesus saying really was not said by Jesus at all. He believes that miracles like the virgin birth, and resurrection of Jesus are "insurmountable obstacles" to modern people as they encounter the New Testament.

What I find so interesting about Crossan is that he now considers himself squarely "in the theological middle" regarding his views of Jesus and the Gospels. Crossan recently wrote: " ... we ended the last century with two visions of Jesus. One vision was of the literal Jesus – the figure obtained from a harmony of the four New Testament Gospels. The other vision was the historical Jesus – the figure reconstructed through those and other (non-canonical) gospels, behind those and other gospels, before those and other gospels." Because – according to liberal scholarship – the four Gospels of the New Testament are not to be relied upon as historically accurate accounts of the life of Christ, Crossan believes that the historical Jesus – the real Jesus – must be "reconstructed" using these and other gospels which the church long ago rejected such as The Gospel of Thomas, The Secret Gospel of Mark, The Apocryphon of James, and many others. The result, Crossan believes, is that the "literal Jesus" of the New Testament masquerades as the "historical Jesus" of twentieth-century scholarship.

According to Crossan, there is now a third vision of Jesus beginning to emerge that is to the theological left of his own liberal views. This vision, he writes, is of a "fictional Jesus" – the figure married in a novel (The Da Vinci Code), crucified in a film (Mel Gibsons’ The Passion), and buried in a documentary (The Lost Tomb of Jesus, aired on the Discovery Channel). Crossan writes: "There is even a growing far-left wing proposing that Jesus never existed and that it was all an early Christian conspiratorial fabrication. So now there are three divergent base-versions of Jesus – the literal, the historical and the fictional. Crossan describes himself as "bemused" and "satisfied" that he would now find himself in the middle of theological scholarship concerning the life and nature of Jesus and New Testament studies.

But is Crossan truly in the "middle" of scholastic opinion concerning Jesus? Regardless of his self-proclaimed middle-ground in biblical scholarship, Crossan remains squarely on the far-left theologically. For Crossan to look at those who are patently absurd in there views of Jesus, and then proclaim, "See, I’m not at wack-o as they are," is not a good measure of orthodoxy. Heresy is heresy after all whether one is just academically left or outlandishly wack-o far-left. Crossan does not deny that Jesus actually lived. He does deny everything divine or supernatural associated with our Savior’s life. Crossan’s "historical Jesus" bears little, if any, resemblance to the "literal Jesus" of the Scriptures. Traditional, orthodox faith, however – backed up by solid historical, and textual evidence – reveal that the literal Jesus of the Gospels is, in fact, the actual historical Jesus. There is no difference between the two.

It is because of men like John Domini Crossan that the Apostle Jude wrote: "Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." (Jude 3-4, NIV). Crossan is representative of many legitimate bible scholars who openly deny most of the foundational truths of the Bible and 2000 years of church orthodoxy. They represent men who have crept in unnoticed who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Crossan in the middle? I think not!

2007-11-01T20:09:00.000-05:00

The Quake at the Lake that didn’t materialize
by David Krueger

On Tuesday evening of this week, a moderate-sized earthquake struck the San Francisco Bay area. It broke windows , flipped over store shelves and rattled residents, but did relatively little damage. In the weeks preceding the annual meeting of the Missouri Baptist Convention, some were predicting a convention-wide, mega-magnitude ecclesiastical quake that threatened to split the convention wide open and send waves of repercussions crashing onto the shores of associations and local churches. Thankfully, that event did not take place. The forecasted, and much feared, Quake at the Lake simply never materialized. Missouri Baptists left Tan-Tar-A much relieved, and more united than many thought we were.

The emphasis on prayer in the weeks before the convention, and during the annual meeting itself, I’m convinced, played a major role in easing the fault-line of tension that has existed in our state convention. Though I was unable to attend any of the scheduled prayer meetings, I did commit myself to prayer, and repeatedly asked the Spirit of the living God to reveal in me any spirit of bitterness or feelings of animosity that I might possibly be harboring toward a fellow Missouri Baptist. It is impossible to hate a brother or sister in Christ when you are praying for them. I arrived at Tan-Tar-A with a cleansed heart, and a fresh desire for unity of spirit.

When it comes to denominational life, I have attempted to live by several principles.

First, I am willing to fellowship with anyone. The tie that binds is dependent upon our relationship with Jesus, who is the Christ. It is our relationship with Him that puts us in relationship and fellowship with each other. The Apostle John wrote: "that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ." (1 John 1:3, ESV). Here is the biblical basis for our fellowship. It’s a fellowship that is not – and should not be – dependent upon a similarity of political agendas within convention life.

As Baptists, we will always have disparate views on something, i.e. speaking in tongues, worship styles, evangelistic methodologies, etc. We should never have disparate views, however, on what binds us together; a mutual love for Jesus, that translates into a mutual love for each other. The Scriptures teach that we are to forgive one another, and encourage one another, and comfort one another, and pray for one another, and to bear one another’s burdens, and to accept one another, and even to submit to one another. To fellowship in love through the spirit in Christ does not mean laying aside our convictions concerning issues that face us as a convention. It does mean that the issues do not preclude a genuine love for and desire to fellowship with brothers and sisters in Christ. I have always believed and consistently preached that men of good conscience can passionately disagree on the issues facing our convention, and still come together at the end of the day in genuine Christian fellowship.

I had the opportunity to share for a few moments with Bruce McCoy during the HLG reception on Tuesday evening. I shared with him something he already knew – that I had been vocally and editorially opposed to Save Our Convention’s agenda. That’s never been any secret. But I also had an opportunity to share with him that I consider him a brother in Christ, whom I am not in any way embarrassed by or fearful of being seen with. I met for the first time at this convention Darren Casper, and Tim Cowen; brothers with whom I have had passionate debates on the MoBaptist List. It’s always a joy to put faces to the names of brothers I regularly converse with and to discover a commonality and comradery that simply cannot be communicated via email. I have also discovered a kindred heart in Micah Fries. We first met in San Antonio this summer during the Southern Baptist Convention. I had an absolutely delightful time with Micah and his wife, Tracy during dinner on Monday evening.

In this eclectic group of Christian brothers I include men like Don Hinkle, Kent Cochren, Kerry Messer, and Rodney Albert. These are men with whom I have a deep theological affinity , and similar views concerning most of the issues facing the Missouri Baptist Convention. But the tie that binds me to Kent Cochren, is exactly the same tie that binds me to Jim Shaver or Micah Fries – the Lord, Jesus, and that is a tie that supercedes anything that takes place in the Missouri Baptist Convention.

Indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Second, I thoroughly believe in the foundational principle of Baptist polity: One Baptist with one vote, voting their conscience under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, with the majority ruling and the minority choosing to cooperate with the will of the majority.

Many years ago while pastoring a church on the West side of Missouri, I learned a valuable lesson from Esther Catron. Esther was an energetic seventy-five-year old who led the children’s department of our Sunday School. She ran her own business, and took care of an invalid husband. She was passionate about discipleship training and was often my ‘go-to’ person when, as a young pastor who had not grown up Baptist, I needed guidance on Baptist practice. One year the church was deciding on whether-or-not to begin a ministry that was going to involve considerable time and money. Esther was ‘agin it. She spoke against it in the Church Council meeting, but was out-voted. She spoke against it, and voted against it at the subsequent business meeting where the church approved proceeding with the event. The next week a sizable check was received from Esther for the ministry that she had so thoroughly opposed. When I mentioned it to her, she responded. "I was against it, and I voted my conscience, but my church voted to do it, so I’m going to support it." Through that action, Esther taught me one of the most important lessons about Baptist life. You vote your conscience at every level of Baptist life, whether it’s the local church, or the local association, or the state convention, or even the national convention, and if you do not prevail in that vote, you choose to cooperate any way.

I have been critical of Save Our Convention’s agenda. As I said earlier, this is no secret. I fully supported the nominations of Mike Green, Jay Scribner, Roger Moran, and Jerry Williams, and voted for each one of them, believing that they were the best choices to guide the Missouri Baptist Convention this coming year. That was my conviction. Not one of them was elected. I still choose to cooperate with the Missouri Baptist Convention and will pray for each of the four men who were elected. We must not act like the kid who owns the bat and ball, and threatens to take them and leave the game if the other kids don’t agree to play by his rules.

We all know the adage that The majority is not always right. But as Baptists, who come together as believers, born of the Spirit, we must believe that God is providentially at work in the life of each messenger, and that He guides them in their decisions. In this manner He moves and works his will in the life of our convention as a whole. It is God who began a good work in each one of us and who will bring his work to completion in us.

I repeatedly told people in the days leading up to the convention that I trust Missouri Baptists. I trust them because I fully believe in the providence of God to accomplish His will in and through us – sometimes in spite of us. As the Spirit of God moved over the face of the deep to bring order out of chaos during the days of creation, so I believe that God’s Spirit still hovers over the chaos of our lives, or our churches, and even our state convention and seeks to bring order out of chaos, thus bringing glory to Himself.

Lastly, we are going to have to agree to disagree at times. When the CBF-supporting moderates were in control of the MBC, this was often onerous to many of us, and yet we did it. We disagreed with what was taking place in our state convention, but we cooperated any way. We supported the Cooperative Program, and we gave to the mission offerings. We came to the convention year-afer-year and voted our conscience and usually got voted down. Rarely, if ever, did the conservative nominee for a convention office win election. Moderates controlled the nominating committee, and allowed only a token number of conservatives onto the various boards and commissions. And still we chose to cooperate.

Now the conservative resurgence in firmly in place, conservatives are in control, and still we have some disagreements. That’s because we’re Baptists and thoroughly committed to being guided by the authority of the Scriptures. The problem, as we all know, is that on some issues we can have honest differences of interpretation. This is one of the burdens that come with fellowship among Baptists. We each have the tendency to believe that our position on a matter is the only proper position to take, and we don’t understand why the other guy can’t see it our way. The question is: "Will we, as theological conservatives, allow these issues to hinder our fellowship and cooperation to the point of disunity and separation, or will we agree to disagree on some issues and cooperate for the sake of Kingdom growth?" Nowhere is this question more obvious than on the issue of abstinence form beverage alcohol.

We heard much this last week on the "alcohol issue." David Tolliver addressed it in his sermon, as did Mike Green and Rodney Albert. During the last business session, messengers declined to support the Resolution Committee’s counsel not to do so, and instead voted to bring to the floor for consideration a resolution on the consumption of beverage alcohol. It was the exact same resolution that was passed at the SBC annual meeting two years ago. It was clear that the majority of the messengers and all the speakers who addressed the issue believe that the Scriptures mandate a position on this issue that not all of us believe that the Scriptures mandate. Some of us believe that to take such a position strikes at the sufficiency of the Scriptures themselves. We have here, a clear difference of interpretation. The question is not, "Should we abstain?" I am of the opinion that we should. It’s the wisest choice. It’s the mature choice. It’s the Christian-brother-honoring choice. It’s even the most God-glorifying choice. But I say again: The question is not "Should we abstain?" The question is, "Is it Scriptural to maintain that the occasional consumption of a low-alcoholic-content drink such as wine or beer or a wine cooler is, always has been and always will be sinful?" There are those brothers among us – such as myself – who believe that it is not always necessarily sinful to do so, even though we would never, ever choose to do so. This is a matter of interpretation that puts me squarely at odds with the resolution that was passed (or at least several statements contained therein), and with some men whom I deeply respect and consider close brothers in Christ.

Bearing with one another is sometimes hard work, but it’s always worth the effort. Example: Over the last year, Kent Cochern has become a dear brother in Christ to me. I enjoy his fellowship and his friendship, and he mine. But Kent thinks I’m wrong about this "drinking stuff." (Although there are many, many aspects about the issue in which we are in total agreement). Kent loves me anyway. I may never convince Kent that my interpretation is the correct stance, but I love him anyway. Our friendship is worth the effort of bearing with one another on this issue.

I end with this thought for our convention: "Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, 21to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen." (Ephesians 3:20-21, ESV)

2007-10-26T10:34:00.000-05:00

An Interview with Mike Green
Nominee for a second term as MBC President
Mike is the Director of Missions for the Twin Rivers Baptist Association

1. Why do you feel led to allow your name to be place in nomination for an MBC office?
First, let me say that I never sought the office. Others have sought me out, and asked me to serve, initially as 1st Vice President, and then as President. I’ve agreed to run for the constitutionally-allowed second term because there are big changes coming in Missouri Baptist life, and I believe that we need some continuity in the midst of that change.

2. Please tell me about your conversion experience and a little about your spiritual journey.
I became a believer when I was nine years old. I was saved at the Bates Creek Church Camp in Jefferson Baptist Association, and made my commitment to Christ public at the 1st Baptist Church of Desoto, MO. I was baptized into the church by Rev. Milton Elmore who was one of my heroes when I was growing up.

3. What is your vision for the future of the Missouri Baptist Convention?
My primary vision for the Missouri Baptist Convention is simple – that we fulfill our Lord’s Great Commission. Secondly, that we move forward and stay on course with the conservative resurgence.

4. Please tell me a little about your family.
I am married to Cathy. We met in school through the local BSU. Cathy is a High School music teacher and also teaches private voice and piano lessons. Our son Matthew is the “brains” of the family. He is getting ready to attend Washington University and will major in medicine. Elise, our daughter, has a degree in Entertainment Management and works for Silver Dollar City.

5. What do you believe are the major issues confronting the Missouri Baptist Convention?
One of our top priorities right now is finding God’s man and a god-led man to be our next Execute Director. Another priority needs to be planting biblically solid church plants, that believe in orthodoxy as well as othro-practice. I fully agree with our interim Executive Director, Dr. David Tolliver, that we need a major emphasis on growing healthy churches. A healthy church will be a church that fulfills the Great Commission and the Great Commandment.

6. What do you believe are the major issues confronting the local Baptist Church?
Perhaps the most important issue facing our local churches, is staying faithful to Scripture in a post-modern world. Developing strong biblical leadership among both clergy and laity in our local churches is also of utmost importance. It’s one of the reasons I chose the theme that I did for this year’s annual meeting -- Building Kingdom Focused Churches based on Acts 1:8. As a new Director of Missions, I have also discovered that we have a great number of pastors and staff members in our churches who are disillusioned and hurting. They need ministry and encouragement.

7. Do you believe the MBC should continue its legal case against the five former convention agencies who’s trustee boards voted to go self-perpetuating?
In a word – Yes!

8. Save Our Convention argues that a small cadre of Missouri Baptists are controlling the state convention from behind the scenes. How do you respond to that?
My friendships and relationships in the MBC cross many lines. I do not like the controversy. No one does. But I also believe that we must continue the conservative resurgence. I can also say, that as MBC president, I was not controlled by any cadre of people.

9. What is your opinion of The Pathway?
I believe that The Pathway is one of the finest state newspapers in the SBC. This is not just my opinion. I’ve heard many others express that view from other states including other editors. As with any newsjournal, there are probably ways to improve the paper.

10. Why should local churches continue to support the Missouri Baptist Convention?
For the same reason that we’ve always supported the work of the convention: It is a solid organization that links us together to support, missions, evangelism and other ministries in the state of Missouri.

11. Is there anything else that you would like to say to Missouri Baptists?
Thank you Missouri Baptists for giving me the priviledge this last year to serve as your president. I thank you for your prayers, your kind letters and emails, and I would ask that you pray for me as I moderate the convention in Tan-Tar-A this year. Also pray for me as a believer and a new director of missions, that I would always honor my lord and Savior, Jesus Christ in all that I do and say.

2007-10-22T10:00:00.000-05:00

An Interview with Roger Moran
Nominee for MBC 2nd Vice President
Roger is a layman who owns his own business and is a member of the FBC, Troy, MO

1. Please tell me about your conversion experience and a little about your spiritual journey.
At the age of 13, I made a profession of faith in Christ. But in my late teens and early twenties, I had wondered off to the far country of rebellion and bad behavior. However, on May 1st, 1982, at the age of 25, the Lord did an amazing thing in my life. Through a series of events and circumstances, He brought me to the point of repentance and changed my desires in a significant way so that for the first time in a long, long time, I wanted Christ and realized that I needed Him desperately. God changed me from one type of person to a completely different one. I still had lots of faulty thinking and bad behavior to deal with, but I was on a new path. I had never really read the Bible before, and was an extremely poor reader. But I remember well moving back in with my grandmother, and for the next three years was completely consumed with reading the Scriptures. I’d sit behind her old wood stove in the winter with the door of my bedroom cracked so the light would shine on the pages of the black Bible she gave me and there I would read late into the night, always amazed at what I was reading. There are no words that can express how grateful and thankful I am for what Christ did in my life. In those days, I literally drove a stake in the ground that I might remember that I had chosen to put my hands to the plow and that by the grace of God, I would never look back.

2. Please tell me a little about your family.
My wife, Ronna and I have nine children ranging from age two to 19. Our eldest, Kristina, attends Hannibal LaGrange College. Michelle, 16, is considering Pensacola Christian College. Yulia, 15, is our adopted daughter from Russia. Daniel, 14, has spent most of the last year recovering from a serious horse riding accident. Rachel is 11 and loves people. Rebekah and Elizabeth are nine year old identical twins. Jonathan is a handful at five. David is two and will be attending his first convention this year. We live on a 160 acre farm about 25 miles from Troy, MO, where we attend church. Ronna, is finishing her bachelor’s degree while home schooling our children.

3. What do you believe are the major issues confronting the local church?
At the 2006 SBC annual meeting in Greensboro, NC, I made a motion requesting that LifeWay Research investigate the growing body of research regarding two specific issues that should greatly concern every SBC/MBC church. First is the research showing that the vast majority of those who call themselves evangelical Christians (which includes Southern Baptists) do not hold to a clearly defined biblical worldview. Second is the growing body of research stating that 88 to to 92 percent of the children from evangelical homes are leaving the church as they are entering young adulthood. (The SBC Counsel on the Family cited the 88 percent figure) Thus, I have come to view the underlying causes of these issues as the major issues confronting the local church. If, as Southern Baptists, our quest for biblical truth fails to translate into a biblical worldview and if our passion for evangelism fails to reach and sustain our own children, then we are in grave danger of becoming a people committed to nothing more than religious rhetoric.

4. What do you believe are the major issues confronting the Missouri Baptist Convention?
The book of Amos asks the rhetorical question: “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” As Missouri Baptists, we are increasingly finding ourselves in need of self-definition as a growing number of SBC/MBC voices are telling us that we should not be divided over “secondary issues.” But we were never told what those “secondary issues” were. Now we have discovered that the “secondary issues” include the use of alcohol in church ministries, cursing pastors, men’s poker night, men’s Bible and brew night, “film night” ministries where secular R-rated movies are shown, churches hosting secular rock concerts for underage kids, church services in breweries, and other such activities that characterize the Acts 29 Church Planting Network, which we are now being asked to embrace because they claim to be “theologically conservative.” However, issues and “ministries” such as these will indeed continue to divide Missouri Baptists because they do not represent the vast majority of Missouri Baptists. Ultimately, this is what this year’s MBC annual meeting will be about. Four years after Project 1000 and the battle for theological conservatism, Missouri Baptists will now decide if we will embrace the “cultural liberalism” of the emerging church movement.

One of my greatest current concerns has been the formation of the new political group called SOC (Save Our Convention), whose message has been that the convention needs to be “saved” from its current leadership, which they refer to as a group of “legalistic Pharisees” bent on destroying the MBC and its agencies. Yet, within the SOC group there is strong support for the Acts 29/emerging church movement. Even among SOC leaders that are clearly opposed to the use of alcohol, there are issues and inconsistencies that should cause serious concern among Missouri Baptists, especially in light of their stated desire to become the elected leaders of the MBC. Such concerns would include John Marshall’s support and involvement with the pro-alcohol/pro-emergent, Core Fellowship Church in Springfield, whose pastor has stated that he “wouldn’t be surprised one bit if Jesus chose never to show up in church on Sunday, or had a beer at a frat party, or frequented a gay bookstore” (read the full text of the statement I made before the SBC Executive Committee and my letter to the editor regarding this church plant); David McAlpin’s support and involvement with The Refuge Church in St. Charles, an Acts 29 church and mission of the Journey in St. Louis (also an Acts 29 church), which, like the Journey, has a bar-room ministry in a brewery; Jim Breeden, DOM of the St. Louis Metro Association, which strongly supports the Acts 29 group, and whose associate DOM, Darrin Casper is a member of the Journey.

At some point, Missouri Baptists need to ask some hard questions: Has McAlpin’s ongoing conflict with the Theological Study Committee been at least in part because that committee is exposing what McAlpin has been involved in (Acts 29)? Or, could it be that Gerald Davidson (SOC’s candidate for MBC president) launched his unprovoked public attacks against the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association at least in part because his son-in-law is an Acts 29 church planter?

The SOC attitude of “tolerance” and their broad tent of undefined “inclusiveness” will likely continue in a significant way if Missouri Baptists elect Davidson and other SOC leaders in Tan-Tar-A. An example might be one of our larger churches in the Southwest part of the state that recently participated in a “U2Charist,” where various faith groups partake of the Lord’s Supper to the music of the rock band U2. This event, which has swept the United States, is co-sponsored by the One Campaign, a liberal group whose sponsors include such far-left groups as Emergent Village (led by Brian McLaren); Sojourners (led by Jim Wallis, well known as a pro-Marxist, religious left leader whose board chair is Brian McLaren); the Unitarian Universalist Association (a predominately atheistic denomination); etc. The pastor of this large MBC church will nominate John Marshall for MBC Second Vice President. My concern is not a lack of commitment to “sound doctrine,” but the serious lack of discernment and judgment among the SOC leaders that will certainly influence the course of the MBC.

5. What is your vision for the future of the Missouri Baptist Convention?

Our vision for the future is often shaped by our understanding our past. The recent political battle we fought called Project 1000 recognized that Missouri Baptists were being led in the direction of theological liberalism with the clear objective of moving us away from the more conservative SBC and toward embracing the more liberal Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. The battle was clearly over biblical truth and sound doctrine. However, sound doctrine alone was never intended to be the final destination, but rather the starting point from which Missouri Baptists would recognize the absolute necessity of pursuing with passion the pathway of holiness, purity, obedience and faithfulness. Because the demons of hell believe and tremble, we understand that right believing is never a guarantee of right living or of godly character.

My vision for Missouri Baptists has never changed. The “main thing” for every born again believer is the passionate pursuit of holiness, seeking first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, at which time we, as Missouri Baptists, have every right to expect God’s divine intervention in the lives of our people and our churches. It is from this vantage point, I believe, that our commitment to missions, ministry and evangelism becomes increasingly significant because it is God who draws, God who convicts and God who regenerates, just as it is the Spirit of God who leads us into all truth and gives us a clear understanding of the seriousness of sin – the very thing for which Christ died. And it is only from this vantage point that we will ever see an authentic transformation of our people and our churches, which I believe is the highest honor we can pay to our Lord and our Savior Jesus Christ. It is from a position of holiness, purity, obedience and faithfulness that Missouri Baptists will receive power from on high to carry out the great commission. But there are those who measure our success only by the number of people we draw with the latest religious fads and gimmicks; the number of baptisms, despite their absentee membership; and the number of dollars we give to the Cooperative Program. Such thinking has failed to measure the things that matter most. I believe it’s time to look once again at transformed lives, godly attitudes, character, integrity, honesty and biblical fidelity. These are also important evidences of where we are in Christ.

6. Save Our Convention (SOC) argues that a small cadre of Missouri Baptists are controlling the state convention from behind the scenes. How do you respond to that?

First, I would argue that the SOC group is made up predominately of pastors from some of our largest churches who are angry over the firing of David Clippard. I would further argue that the SOC group could be divided into two specific groups. The first group is angry because their close relationship with David Clippard gave them direct access to the “oval office” of the MBC as they influenced the course of the convention in a significant way. When Clippard was fired, the degree of access and influence they enjoyed ended immediately.

The second group is angry because Clippard was their primary advocate for the emerging church movement within the MBC -- specifically Acts 29. Clippard’s identification of the Journey as a church plant model and its pastor as a modern-day Caleb (2006 MBC annual meeting) came nearly a year after his push for a $200,000 loan to the Journey to “help facilitate a church planting center in St. Louis.” There was no question where our former Executive Director was leading the MBC in regard to this issue and certainly, the Journey’s bar-room ministry was no secret. Thus, SOC leader Kenny Qualls was absolutely wrong when he stated at the SOC meeting at Harvester that the formation of SOC was not about alcohol, the emerging church or the firing of David Clippard. The issue of alcohol cannot be divorced from Acts 29 and Acts 29 cannot be divorce from the former Clippard administration.

With all this being said, I would agree that there was a small cadre of Missouri Baptists influencing the course of the MBC from behind the scenes. But it wasn’t the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association, Project 1000, the nominating committee or a group within the MBC Executive Board, for Clippard had come to view these as his political enemies. Those who were attempting to control the convention from behind the scenes were the SOC leaders, who by using the powers of the Executive Director’s office in the day to day operations of the convention, were attempting to advance their own agenda. I would further argue that because their agenda was out of step with most Missouri Baptists, their efforts had to be from behind the scenes. This also explains, at least to some degree, the conflict between Clippard and numerous members of the Executive Board, who felt that Clippard was getting his “marching orders” from people other than his convention elected authority – the Executive Board.

Now that the predominantly large church pastors that make up the SOC group have made it clear that they will not rest until they seize control of the MBC, one important question needs to be asked: How far to the left is David Sheppard and his fellow SOC leaders willing to go to build a political coalition to “move the MBC back to the center?” Another important question that needs to be asked is this: When SOC leaders said that the current leadership of the MBC has moved the convention too far to the right, what exactly do they mean? I find this extremely deceitful, especially considering the number of SOC leaders and people from their churches that serve at both the MBC and SBC level.

Since January 2007 (this calendar year), members from the 11 SOC churches serving on MBC and SBC positions include: Five members on the MBC Executive Board; two members on the MBC Nominating Committee; Three members on HLG; three members on SBU; two members on MBU; one member on the Children’s Home; two members on the MBC Foundation; two members on the Baptist Home; one member on the Executive Director Search Committee; one member on the Theological Study Committee; one member on the Credentials Committee; and one member on the Local Arrangements Committee. At the SBC level: one member at Southeastern Seminary; one member at Southwestern Seminary; two members at IMB; two members on the Committee on Nominations; and two members on the Committee on Committees (which selects the committee on nominations). This gives a total of 32 positions held by people from the 11 SOC churches.

Equally deceitful is the SOC accusation that good Missouri Baptists are being excluded from service in the MBC. If this is true, it certainly isn’t the 11 SOC churches that are being excluded. It also needs to be noted that because there is a limited number of positions of service available each year, there will always be “good people” who are “excluded” from service. But it is also true that the people currently serving within the MBC are “good people,” and SOC’s reference to current MBC elected leadership as “legalistic Pharisees” was nothing more than divisive political rhetoric designed for their own political gain.

7. What is your opinion of Pathway?
It has been my observation that Missouri Baptists have one of the finest news journals in all of the SBC, as well as one of the finest editors. I have the utmost confidence in Don Hinkle and his staff. Don has performed his responsibilities remarkably well, especially in light of the political turmoil the convention has experienced the last couple years. I would contend that Hinkle is to be commended for his faithfulness to Missouri Baptists and to the cause that brought Bible-believing Missouri Baptists to the helm of leadership within our convention. I know of few men who could have endured what our state editor has had to endure in recent months. I believe we owe him our prayers and a debt of gratitude.

8. Why should local churches continue to support the Missouri Baptist Convention?
Like any other institution, the Missouri Baptist Convention must earn the support of every MBC church. Yet at the same time, the convention cannot be “all things to all people” for it is bound by the decisions and directives of the messengers meeting in annual session. I still believe Missouri Baptists are overwhelmingly conservative and have a passion for the things that matter most to God. Nevertheless, if we begin to elect MBC leaders that dilute or downplay our long standing opposition to the kind of bad behavior flowing from the emerging church movement, the same Bible-believing Missouri Baptists that rose up and took back the MBC will either rise up again, or wearied by fighting and foolishness, will gradually reconsider the legitimacy of such a religious institution.

Thus far, all we know about the SOC group and their political agenda is what they say they don’t like about the current leadership of the MBC (the vast majority of which is based on false and extremely misleading statements). But what they are not saying publicly is what they are for -- and what they want the MBC to look like when they’re done. I would submit that thus far, their actions are speaking louder than their words.

9. Is there anything else you would like to say to Missouri Baptists?
There are a number of things Missouri Baptists need to know about the current political environment within the MBC . Since the formation of the SOC group, I had opted to allow their rhetoric and accusations to largely go unchallenged, hoping that some degree of sanity would return to the convention. By early September, I thought that maybe that time had arrived. At the recommendation of MBC president Mike Green and interim Executive Director David Tolliver, I agreed to meet with SOC leader John Marshall the day after Labor Day in St. Peters. This private meeting was at his request to discuss convention issues. At the end of the meeting, Marshall stated that it was his intention to “shut down” the SOC group. Marshall called David Tolliver and announced to him the same thing. The next day, Marshall called again and asked if I would be willing to meet with Kenny Qualls and Tom Willoughby (both SOC leaders) as I had with Marshall. However, three weeks later (October 3rd) when the second meeting took place, it was clear that there was no intention of shutting down the SOC group, but rather, it became evident that the SOC group had planned their own meeting for that same day. The following day I was informed (not by Marshall or SOC leaders) that far from shutting down SOC, they had endorsed a full slate of SOC candidates for MBC officers.

Other concerns I have about the SOC group would include their first meeting at FBC Harvester in May, when David Sheppard went into great detail about how it “grated” on him that a front page story in the St. Louis Post Dispatch identified me as “the most powerful Baptist in Missouri,” an editorial comment based on a statement from a CBF pastor. However, Sheppard never quoted the full title of the article: “Missouri’s most powerful Baptist takes on the ‘emerging church,’” which was the focus of the article. Even more revealing is that Sheppard never mentioned another front page article in the Sunday edition of the Post Dispatch titled: “Beer and the Bible: It works for one growing church. But it’s got Missouri Baptists hopping mad.” This was in reference to the Journey in St. Louis which was the recipient of a $200,000 loan from Missouri Baptist. That apparently didn’t “grate” on Sheppard, even though the emerging church article was in response to the “Beer and the Bible” article.

I find it equally disturbing that SOC leaders accused MBLA at the Harvester meeting of being “powerbrokers” in part because Kerry Messer, MBLA president and Richard Stone, an MBLA board member served on the SBC Committee on Nominations in 1998 and 2000 respectively. But they failed to note that since 2004, numerous SOC leaders have served on both the SBC Committee on Nominations and the SBC Committee on Committee (which appoints the SBC Committee on Nominations): For current year 2007, SOC leader David Sheppard is serving on the SBC Committee on Committees and SOC leader Dewight Blankship will serve on the Committee on Nominations; In 2006, James Barnhart (associate pastor under SOC leader Mitch Jackson) served on the Committee on Committees and SOC leader Tom Willoughby served on the Committee on Nominations; In 2004, SOC leader Mitch Jackson served on the Committee on Committees and James Montgomery (from John Marshall’s church) served on the Committee on Nominations. (It should also be noted that in 1998, when Kerry Messer served on the SBC Committee on Nominations, Project 1000 had not yet won their first MBC presidential election.)

10. Do you believe the MBC should continue its legal case against the five former convention agencies whose trustee boards voted to go self-perpetuating?
Yes. There is no question that the trustees of these agencies wrongfully “stole” these entities from Missouri Baptists. The absolute wretched behavior of these former MBC leaders is most clearly seen in the fact that they have used every possible tactic to delay our “cause” from coming before a judge for a simple ruling as to whether or not the trustees had the right to do what they did. The only thing Missouri Baptists have ever asked for was a simple ruling on the merits of the case. And we still are waiting on that simple ruling while those who plundered the convention are attempting to spend us into submission. I would also argue that while we may certainly forgive a thief, especially if he repents, we also have a Biblical responsibility to hold a thief responsible for his wrongful behavior – especially if the thief professes the name of Christ.

11. Why do you feel led to allow your name to be placed in nomination for an MBC office?
I entered the political fray of MBC life in 1989 over the issue of pornography and the SBC endorsed boycott against Holiday Inn. It was at that time that I discovered that the MBC had been funding Americans United for Separation of Church and State for over 30 years. From that battle, we moved to the CBF and ultimately Project 1000. Today, Missouri Baptists are facing a significantly different kind of issue only in that we have theological conservatives opposed to theological conservatives. Nevertheless, the underlying issues we now face still have serious ramifications.

Men like Mike Green, Jay Scribner, Jerry Williams (and I need to include myself since I’m on the slate of officers I am recommending), have never stammered, stuttered or wavered in our commitment Biblical Truth or issues of holiness. Peace and unity are always one of our highest priorities, but not at any price.

I have chosen to add my name to a slate of men that I have the utmost respect for and who will continue to move Missouri Baptists in the same direction and on the same course that we (and several of the SOC leaders) charted way back in 1998. I think it is clear what we will stand for and what we will stand against. In the meantime, we will continue to pray that God will use what has happened in the MBC to move us on to a deeper level of maturity and a greater passion for the things that matter most to God.

2007-10-20T10:38:00.000-05:00

An Interview with Jay Scribner
Nominee for MBC 1st Vice President
Jay is the former pastor of First Baptist Church, Branson now retired

1. Why do you feel led to allow your name to be place in nomination for an MBC office?
I agreed to have my name placed in nomination for first vice president because I love the Missouri Baptist Convention where I have served for 30 years. I am pleased that we engaged ourselves in the conservative resurgence and saw God’s favor regarding biblical inerrancy and the exposure of a lack of theological integrity among the moderates/liberals. We need to continue the course which we have been on for the last 8 years. We have undergone some difficult decisions within the MBC during the last several months. I feel that I can be of benefit in helping to bring about healing and stability among the conservatives of our fine convention.

2. Please tell me about your conversion experience and a little about your spiritual journey.
I accepted Christ in college in 1969. I am a graduate of Hannibal LaGrange College, Oklahoma Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Seminary. I served on a multi-staff ministry at a church in inner city Ft. Worth for five years during my seminary experience. After graduation from seminary, I was called to pastor First Baptist Church of Branson. I pastored this great church for 28 years. We are grateful for God’s favor in our ministry. Our church underwent a debt-free relocation process. We consistently ranked high in Cooperative Program support among MBC churches. We developed an aggressive missions ministry, both domestic and international. We enjoyed consistent baptism statistics. I have had the privilege of taking numerous international mission trips and have been privileged to serve a number of years on the Executive Board of the MBC under Dr. Reuben South, Dr. Don Wideman, Dr. Jim Hill, and Dr. David Clippard.

3. What is your vision for the future of the Missouri Baptist Convention?
The Missouri Baptist Convention needs to continue its course toward healing. We need to maintain strong evangelism and mission development. We need to establish an aggressive focus upon prayer, exalt Jesus Christ, and stop “fighting in the barracks!”

4. Please tell me a little about your family.
I’ve been married to my wife, Kay for 40 years. We have two sons, Paul and his wife Jill, as well as Mark and his wife Jaime. We also have 4 wonderful grandchildren, Jonathan, Molly, Andy, and Sophie.

5. What do you believe are the major issues confronting the Missouri Baptist Convention?
Unity and harmony, ending the legal battles, strengthening the Cooperative Program, assisting churches to become healthy through bible-based discipleship.

6. What do you believe are the major issues confronting the local Baptist Church?
Preaching the relevant gospel with doctrinal soundness, A call to uncompromised holiness, a return to biblical basics.

7. Do you believe the MBC should continue its legal case against the five former convention agencies who’s trustee boards voted to go self-perpetuating?
I definitely feel that the MBC should continue its legal case against the five former agencies. We need to put pressure on these irresponsible trustees to make honorable decisions and to stop the exorbitant waste of funds being expended on legal maneuvering. We need to withdraw any and all support, communication, and acknowledgement of these agencies until there is a repentance on the part of their leadership and their trustees. We have wasted a massive amount of money, as well as a tremendous amount of time as they have set about to splinter the MBC. There is no way that God can be honored through this gross display of disunity, disrespect for our history and heritage, and the reprehensible use of God’s resources.

8. Save Our Convention argues that a small cadre of Missouri Baptists are controlling the state convention from behind the scenes. How do you respond to that?
The bible says that it is foolish for a man to answer a matter before he hears it. They obviously have not done their homework, or are ignoring the facts. As a result of the conservative resurgence, more Baptists (from more Baptist churches) are being included in the overall involvement of Missouri Baptist life through the appointment and election process which has been in place for decades. The arguments of Save Our Convention are weak and ill founded, selfishly motivated, and disunifying to the positive direction that we should be moving under the guidance and direction of God’s Holy Spirit.

9. What is your opinion of The Pathway?
It is refreshing to have a newsjournal that is uncompromisingly conservative and to have an editor who is willing to take on any issue pertaining to the life of the MBC. The Pathway is becoming increasingly broad in its focus upon missions and its coverage of individual churches and ministries. We have a first-class news journal which is remarkable because of its extremely young life span.

10. Why should local churches continue to support the Missouri Baptist Convention?
Our theological conservatism, our emphasis on missions, our focus on evangelism, and our desire to help strengthen the churches of the MBC, along with the genius and heritage of the Cooperative Program, blend together to encourage us to “stay the course” as we work to expand God’s Kingdom throughout the state of Missouri and to the uttermost part of the world.

11. Is there anything else that you would like to say to Missouri Baptists?
Lift up Jesus!

2007-10-17T20:09:00.000-05:00

An Interview with Jerry Williams
Nominee for MBC Recording Secretary
Jerry is the Director of Missions for the Barry Baptist Association

1. Why do you feel led to allow your name to be place in nomination for an MBC office?
I have been ask by a friend to be nominated for the position of recording secretary, and a number of years ago I prayed about serving Missouri Baptists and I felt lead at that time to serve anyway that I could when I was ask. I still feel that this is what the Lord would have me do. I leave it in His hands.

2. Please tell me about your conversion experience and a little about your spiritual journey.
I was saved at the age of 7 on my knees by my bedside in October of 1954. Followed my Lord in baptism two weeks later in the FBC of Webb City, MO. Church has always been a part of my life, I was born along with a twin brother into a wonderful Christian home. My mother and father were both Sunday School teachers. At the age of 12 at Baptist Hill, Mt. Vernon, MO during camp, I felt the call into special service, not knowing at that time what the Lord wanted me to do. By the time I had reached 17 the Lord had made it clear to me that he wanted me to preach His Word and so on a Sunday night in November of 1964 I answered that call. After graduation from High School, my twin brother and I started the fall semester of 1965 at SWBC (now SBU). My first pastorate was Harwood Baptist Church, Nevada, Association. I did not choose a profession, I answered a call. I am still preaching and serving my Lord, I am now 60 years of age and I am not sorry that I answered His call on my life so many years ago. Truly it has been a wonderful journey, with many mountains and many valley's but He has never left me.

3. What is your vision for the future of the Missouri Baptist Convention?
My vision for Missouri Baptists is to see us all in harmony working together to bring people to Jesus. We must see people as our Lord sees them. We need to continue with our partnership ministries. I believe with all my heart that more people can be reached with the Gospel with all of us working together and giving of ourselves, our resources and our time, than we can by ourselves.

4. Please tell me a little about your family.
I met my wife, Clara, while in college at SWBC (SBU) we married on August 27, 1967 and just celebrated our 40th anniversary this past August. We have three children: Cindy Lou Lacy, Rebekah Lynn Stults, and Daniel Jason Williams. (Daniel just returned recently from the Persian Gulf, he is in the U.S. Navy). We have been blessed with 6 wonderful grandchildren.

5. What do you believe are the major issues confronting the Missouri Baptist Convention?
I believe the major issue confronting Missouri Baptists is the division that we now see among us. Also the support of the Cooperative Program, the break away agencies, and the selling of the Baptist Building. We need to get the building we now have sold and relocate to a newer building that will be cost feasible for us.

6. What do you believe are the major issues confronting the local Baptist Church?
Issues confronting the local Missouri Baptist Church, I believe, is the nearest lost soul. Lost souls are all around us, we must have a burden for lost souls. It bothers me as I visit in the churches, that there does not seem to be a burden for lost souls, or a burden over sin. Our altars are empty, there seems to be no tears shed over the souls of men. I see a lot of programs and activities, but I wonder if we have lost the main purpose of that which we have been called to do. Matthew 28:19-20.

7. Do you believe the MBC should continue its legal case against the five former convention agencies who’s trustee boards voted to go self-perpetuating?
Definitely. We should stay the course in getting our former agencies back. We should not give up in this matter.

8. Save Our Convention argues that a small cadre of Missouri Baptists are controlling the state convention from behind the scenes. How do you respond to that?
I do not believe that to be the case. No one was controlling me when I have been at the convention and voted. I voted as I felt lead. No one controlled me when I was chairman of the state nominating committee. We received nominations from individuals, and prayerfully went over the nominations and chose those that we felt the Lord had laid on our hearts for the nomination. I do not understand the thinking of the SOC group therefore I cannot agree with them on this.

9. What is your opinion of The Pathway?
I am so grateful for the Pathway and Don Hinkle. I appreciate the Pathway and the information that is provided us through it each time it comes. I find it to be most informative of what is going on in our convention and throughout the state. Our churches in Barry County are most appreciative and I have heard nothing but good remarks about it from our people.

10. Why should local churches continue to support the Missouri Baptist Convention?
We should continue to support the MBC because it is ours, it is a work of the Lord as we His people join hand in hand in furthering His Kingdom with the on-going work of the: Children's Home, Hannibal LaGrange College, SBU and as our state workers make themselves available to help our churches in Sunday School work, evangelism, College work through the BSU's, missions (local, state and foreign). Why would we not want to support it, we have worked together over the years and have invested ourselves together for the purpose of spreading the good news of Christ our Lord. We are family.

11. Is there anything else that you would like to say to Missouri Baptists?
Yes, be in prayer for the convention for one another. May the Lord's will be done and may He continue to use us all for His glory.

2007-08-29T10:36:00.000-05:00

Abortion advocates: Morally Schizophrenic
by David Krueger

Schizophrenia is a mental disease characterized by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic personalities in the same individual. The word is derived from two Greek words that literally means "split mind." It’s a disease that is marked by impairments in the perception or expression of reality. This describes the current state of mind of most pro-abortion advocates in America today. They are morally schizophrenic.

On Monday of this week in Kansas City a 20-year-old-women delivered her premature baby boy in a McDonald’s restaurant restroom and tried to flush him down the stool. The mother, who worked at the McDonald’s, reportedly appeared to be in pain and said she needed to use the restroom. When she had not returned in 15 minutes, another employee checked on her and asked what was wrong. Fearing that the woman was having a miscarriage, the co-worker called 911.

When the Paramedics arrived, and talked to the woman she told them that she had "flushed three times but that it would not go down." A Paramedic asked her to stand and then saw a baby face down in the water. The 32-week-old baby was rescued and resuscitated, and is doing well at a local Kansas City hospital.
We all recoil at such stories. We are shocked and horrified. What would induce a woman to attempt such a reprobate act?

All of us can sympathize with a young woman who has an unwanted pregnancy. The various difficulties associated with an unwanted pregnancy can create enormous pressures for a young woman. When an unwanted pregnancy does occur, the church ought to be a place where a woman can find encouragement, support, and ministry – not ostracism.

Sympathy ends, however, at attempted infanticide.

But consider this: If the day before her bathroom delivery this same young woman had visited the local Kansas City Planned Parenthood – a.k.a. abortion clinic – and aborted her baby, our culture would not have given this baby boy’s death a second thought. The same pro-abortion advocates who recoil at this botched infanticide, turn around and triumphantly defend her right to abort the very same baby.

Is there something wrong with this scenario or is it just me? Is it not morally schizophrenic to decry a mother’s attempted murder of her baby moments after its delivery, but champion her right to abort the same child just days before its birth? Such thinking, in my opinion, is characterized by a disparate train of thought in the pro-abortion advocate: It’s a ‘lump of tissue’ on the day of the abortion, but a "child" only after it’s birth. Nope, I just don’t understand that kind of thinking.

2007-08-04T12:19:00.000-05:00

The Word of God needs no “confirming”
By David Krueger

My guess is that most of you are not familiar with the name “Nebo-Sarsekim” from reading the Old Testament. Thanks, however, to a recent discovery at the British Museum it’s a name worth knowing. Early this week, British Museum officials announced the discovery of a two-inch-wide 2,500-year-old cuneiform tablet that contains details of a financial transaction by a “Nabu-sharrussu-ukin,” who is called in the tablet the “chief eunuch” of Babylon King Nebuchadnezzr.

That's the same person mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3 -- although spelled differently in different translations -- as the chief officer of Nebuchadnezzar who was in Jerusalem when the Babylonians overtook the city around 587 B.C.

Conservative biblical scholars say it's another affirmation that the Bible is true -- even in the smallest of details, such as names.

Babylonian names notoriously are difficult to translate. The Holman Christian Standard and the New King James Version call him "Sarsechim." The New International Version calls him "Nebo-Sarsekim"

The small tablet is one of more than 100,000 inscribed tablets housed at the British Museum, and which were acquired in 1920. It was unearthed about a mile from modern-day Baghdad, Iraq. But because of the painstaking effort to translate them and often to piece them together, it wasn't seen as having a biblical connection until recently. Michael Jursa, a professor from the University of Vienna, made the connection.

"This is a fantastic discovery, a world-class find," according to the British Museum's Irving Finkel. "If Nebo-Sarsekim existed, which other lesser figures in the Old Testament existed? A throwaway detail in the Old Testament turns out to be accurate and true. I think that it means that the whole of the narrative [of Jeremiah] takes on a new kind of power."

The New International Version of the Bible translates Jeremiah 39:3 thusly: "Then all the officials of the king of Babylon came and took seats in the Middle Gate: Nergal-Sharezer of Samgar, Nebo-Sarsekim a chief officer, Nergal-Sharezer a high official and all the other officials of the king of Babylon.”

While I always get excited about such finds, the discovery begs the question: “Does the Bible need secular “affirmation” that it is true?” For those, like myself, who believe in the inerrancy, infallibility and reliability of the Biblical record, no such archeological confirmation is needed.

A.W. Pink (1886-1952), a pastor, theologian and prolific author, in his commentary on Genesis, helps us gain perspective on biblical archeology and such finds as the
Nebo-Sarsekim tablet: Pink writes:

The faith of the Christian rests upon the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture, and we need nothing more. Too often have Christian apologists deserted their proper ground. For instance one of the ancient tablets of Assyria is deciphered, and then it is triumphantly announced that some statements found in the historical portions of the Old Testament have been confirmed. But that is only a turning of things upside down again. The Word of God needs no “confirming.” If the writing upon an Assyrian tablet agrees with what is recorded in Scripture, that confirms the historical accuracy of the Assyrian tablet; if it disagrees, that is proof positive that the Assyrian writer was at fault … The man of the world, and the pseudoscientist may sneer at our logic, but that only demonstrates the truth of God’s Word, which declares, “but the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14).

I love Pink’s logic!

I don’t mean to infer that we should completely discount such archeological finds. They do, after all, reveal the reliability of the Scriptures to a skeptical world. If the authors of the Bible got these kinds of minor details correct, critical scholars, and biblical minimalists may have to rethink their attitudes about the reliability of Old Testament history in general. For the believer, this ought to be just one more nail in the coffin of liberal biblical academia!

2007-05-31T15:53:00.000-05:00

“Save Our Convention’s” Message: Resign Don Hinkle, Resign!
David Krueger

I have already blogged about the Save Our Convention meeting that took place at the Harvester, 1st Baptist Church on May 15. In this sequel blog, I'd like to comment on what I thought was the most outrageous comment of that day’s meeting. It was made by Jim Breeden, Assoc. Director of Missions for the St. Louis Metro Baptist Association and one of the conveners of Save Our Convention. His statement concerned The Pathway, the official Newsjournal of the Missouri Baptist Convention. Here is what he said:

"There is a loss of trust in The Pathway newspaper. A large number of Missouri Baptists believe The Pathway has fueled the current conflict by focusing on controversy, reporting events in a very biased manner and writing with inflammatory tone. The vast majority across the state believe The Pathway should work with, and not against, MBC staff. It is a sad day when Missouri Baptists trust secular papers and the Word & Way more than the official state paper."

Breeden’s accusation is as subjective as is Save Our Convention’s accusations that Roger Moran and the MBLA are "running" the Missouri Baptist Convention. Their "facts" have been interpreted to substantiate their personal bias. Breeden accuses, but he offers no substantial facts to prove his case. Talk about an inflammatory!

Perspective invariably colors opinion. I readily admit that I have a vested interest in and a biased opinion about The Pathway and its editor. Don Hinkle is a personal friend. I was the original Webmaster when the Newsjournal began, and cannot help but feel a sense of pride in my small part in The Pathway’s humble beginnings. Even so, I hope to provide my readers with substantial "proof" for my defense of Hinkle and The Pathway in a moment. What Save Our Convention organizers have not admitted to is their biased opinion against Don Hinkle and The Pathway. In their view, Don Hinkle is a co-conspirator with Roger Moran and the MBLA. In their opinion, he is as equally to blame for David Clippard’s termination as is Moran and the MBLA. Knowing that doesn’t make Breeden’s comments about The Pathway any more true, but it does put his comments in perspective.

So then, lets consider some of the accusations:

First, is The Pathway biased – yea, even very biased – in its reporting? You bet it is. Don, and his staff writers (Allen Palmeri and Brian Koonce) are all solidly Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-SBC, Pro-MBC, Anti-Homosexual Agenda, Anit-Gambling Agenda. If the editor and staff of a state Baptist newspaper are going to be biased, this is the kind of bias I want. What Save Our Convention refers to as "bias" I see as a "Biblical World View." These ‘biases’ repeatedly come across in Hinkle’s opinion pieces and staff-writer stories. And I am glad for it.

Second, is The Pathway too political? Though not mentioned in Breeden’s statement, it is an accusation I’ve repeatedly heard from Pathway detractors. The Pathway does indeed regularly report on events taking place in the Missouri legislator. But their coverage has always been on issues of moral concern to Missouri Baptists. The Pathway has never spoken on issues that have not already been spoken to by Southern Baptists through resolution or motion. This is easily verified by logging onto The Pathway’s website and perusing the archives. Indeed, Don Hinkle has helped Missouri Baptists be Salt and Light in the rarefied atmosphere of the Missouri Capitol building.

Third, has The Pathway "fueled the conflict" in Missouri Baptist life by focusing on controversy? Again, such statements are subjective. What one reader perceives as "inflammatory," another reader will perceive as "factual reporting." Consider the accusation that The Pathway has fueled conflict in the MBC. Sometimes it takes just one word to bias a question or a statement. Inflammatory words include words in the following list. They are words that management analysis and development consultants encourage companies to avoid. Here is the list:

allege
allude
arbitrary
blame
claim
demand
error
failure
fault
ignore
ill-advised
ill-informed
incompetence
ineptness
insist
just
maintain
misinformed
must
neglected
one-sided
overreact
peremptory
purport
questionable
rejection
rigid
so-called
unfortunately
unilateral
unreasonable

So how many times are any of these words found in Pathway articles? In the hundreds of articles that have appeared in The Pathway since its inception there are exactly 26 uses of words from the aforementioned vocabulary. The word that yielded the highest number of "hits" on The Pathway website was the word "must." In virtually every circumstance the word occurred in a title. Examples included: Draper: young leaders must preach the word, State Evangelism Conference must be covered in prayer, MBC leadership: We must defend the human embryo, etc., etc., etc. I found exactly two examples where any of the above words might be construed in an inflammatory way.

Let’s also consider the second statement that The Pathway has focused on controversy. Consider the following review of articles that appeared in The Pathway between January and April of this year ... the height of the "Clippard controversey."

January 16

Legislative prayer service settles in as January tradition
El Salvador trip kicks off partnership
MBC seeks injunction against Jester, others
Court-ordered mediation completed; no agreement
McCoy helps lead staff toward tranquility
Scroll scholar to speak at Midwestern Seminary – Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls Workshop
SBC prez brings evangelist’s heart to confab
Blunt pushing for education reforms
Gott enjoys serving Lord as a businessman
Missionaries to Philippines keep sharing
IMB missionary urges MBC to think missiologically
Blackaby, Lowry headline bi-vo ministry conference
Governor’s Prayer Breakfast puts spotlight on absolute truth
HLG holds first December graduation
Olford Center preaching classes big on-line hit with Missourians
MBC worship staff produces new podcasts
TOTAL - 12 ministry and CP related stories ... 5 convention issue or government issue stories.

January 30

An ice-cold catastrophe
Showdown coming with Planned Parenthood
MBC annual baptism number dips below 13,000
MBC case assigned to Callahan
State Evangelism Conference offers mosaic of motivation
McCune prepares to leave MBC staff position
First Baptist makes donations to Braggadocio Baptist
Bogey Hills enjoys Romanian partnership
Soccer ball kicks up evangelism stir
Memorial children’s ministry bridges gap
Baptist workers come to aid of people in crisis
Disaster relief help arrives through Bobcat of St. Louis
Page gets conference rolling by lifting up name of Jesus
Sergeant presents church with gift
Former minister gets 20 years for sex crimes
MBTS to host Scrolls scholar for workshop
Hannibal-LaGrange College springs into new year
TOTAL 16 news and CP stories - even the bad news is valid ... Only 1 story about the lawsuit.

February 13

El Salvador partnership accelerates
HLG embarks on ambitious $30 million capital campaign
Memory of Disaster Relief worker honored
MBC theological panel begins work
BGCM, Missouri CBF join in liberal event
Political intrigue surrounds MOHELA bill; MBC concerned about trusting the courts
MBC staffer McMillan honored to receive Casebolt music award
Clippard names Taylor state evangelism director
SBU may soon work with Russian university
Willis challenges MBC staff to bear much fruit
Southridge reaches out to poor in El Salvador
MAHC lobbying day set for March 7 at Capitol
TOTAL 10 CP and Ministry related stories ... 2 related to MBC controversy.

March 6

Resolutions show support for state exec; some leaders say action inappropriate
Debate intensifies concerning Emerging Church in SBC
MBC seeks to achieve $2 million goal in giving
Church plant grows out of disaster relief
Missouri women touch Puerto Rico
WMU training set for March 24
Dead Sea Scrolls create buzz
Gambling loss limit targeted
Lawmakers keep trying to clean up billboards
Threat to church daycare autonomy may materialize
Pro-life bills poised to advance in Senate
Southwest Baptist plans first Christian Summer Music Camp
HLG moves to add two new sports
Norman brings passion for theology to SBU
VBS theme creates opening for Sports Crusaders’ ministry
Springfield remains in need of Disaster Relief volunteers
Education Expo offers options in learning
TOTAL 15 CP or ministry stories ... 1 controversy related.

March 20

Pro-life rally at Capitol generates hope
Mark Dever to headline Pastors’ Confab
MBC churches catch vision for ministry to El Salvador
McCoy actively pursues qualified nominees
MBC theological committee work proceeds
Theological meeting turns political, personal
Disaster Relief boss offers thanks
Virginia volunteers help after Mo. ice storm
Christian at Missouri State stands her ground
A farmer who is salt and light
SBU earns award for student missions work
Missouri Baptist Youth Choir plans summer tour
SEMO Baptists reach out to international students
McKenzies reaching deaf for Christ
Feeding sheep is Founders’ focus
Ascol to encourage more church planting
Union Hill growing, meeting needs
MBTS to host evangelism workshop on Mormons
Colorado draws Missouri missions effort
Romanian Baptists cherish freedom of worship
Soccer ball helps reach Ghana for Jesus Christ
Buckhorn Baptist watches Lord grow Filipino church
Hall concert blesses Jefferson City
Sheriff White keeps walking by faith - What a great testimony...
TOTAL 22 stories about CP and ministry ... 3 about the controversy.

April 3

Investigation committee to report April 10
God spares family in crash
Jim Austin the choice for exec dir. in S. Carolina
Theological review committee begins policy phase
The CEF challenge: Evangelizing in schools
House eyes vaccines for sexually-transmitted virus
Conference aims to shake Missouri for Jesus
Bearden seeks to clarify religious freedoms
Old Bethel rebuilding project nears completion
Discipleship confab blesses hearts in Slater
Providence enjoys rich history
Pilate between a rock, a hard place
TOTAL 12 stories on CP and ministry ... 2 on the controversy.

April 24

Questions and Answers about the Executive Board meeting, April 10, 2007
Report of the MBC Investigative Committee
Missouri board dismisses Clippard as exec
MBC Executive Board issues official statement
Board elevates Tolliver to interim executive director
Board passes alcohol policy tied to funding
MBC Executive Board issues official statement
Continuing Review affirms one item, rejects four
MBC asks court for expedited trial setting
Springfield BSC turns 50 with great energy
Cloning ban pops out of committee
Senate considers rare move to aid pro-life bill
Ozark church plant rejoices in rapid growth CP giving at work
Florissant church intentionally seeks diversity
Dakdok exposes error of Islam at Baptist Building event
Making Bibles delights Missouri Baptists
Discipleship trainer creates awareness
Young Christians Weekend touches many Baptists
She’s more than a mom
TOTAL 13 stories on CP and ministry ... 7 on the controversy (due to coverage of the April 12 Executive Board meeting where Dr. Clippard was terminated as Executive Director)
(My appreciation to Brian Baker who initially pulled most of this information together)

Can anyone, with an ounce of objectivity, look at the above list of stories and not conclude that The Pathway prints far-and-away more stories about missions and ministry and the local church than the controversial issues facing the MBC? Are the controversial issues article stories that Missouri Baptists need to be kept abreast of? Of course. The Pathway, after all, is a Newsjournal. As a Missouri Baptist, I want to know the good, the bad and yes, even the ugly, that transpires in convention life.

Forth, does The Pathway work against the MBC staff? This begs the question: "What does Jim Breeden mean when he asserts that The Pathway works against the MBC staff?" Has The Pathway been critical of Program leadership? Has The Pathway been critical of ministries, or programs initiated by various program leaders? Has The Pathway been unsupportive of missions offerings and the Cooperative Program? In an unflattering email that appeared on the MoBaptistList (an online discussion forum for Missouri Baptists) Norm Howell openly criticized Don Hinkle for a number of things. He does, however, grudgingly compliment Don for being supportive of partnership missions. Howell writes: "Has Pathway neglected "Partnership Missions?" NO!"

Lastly, are secular newspapers like the St. Louis Post Dispatch and the Word&Way more trustworthy sources of information for Missouri Baptists than The Pathway? I suppose Save Our Convention leaders are entitled to their opinion, but I find the notion so laughable that it’s simply not worth responding to.

For Save Our Convention leaders to make such broad accusations against The Pathway – and essentially against Don Hinkle – on only anecdotal evidence, hearsay, and personal bias, is at the least irresponsible, and at the worst, slanderous. To coin an old TV commercial: "Mr. Breeden: Where’s the beef?" Where is your evidence that backs up your outlandish claims? Inquiring minds would like to know.

2007-05-18T15:46:00.000-05:00

“Save Our Convention’s” Message: Die MBLA, die
by David Krueger

It was my hope and prayer that after the termination of David Clippard as the Executive Director of the Missouri Baptist convention things would begin to settle down. The Executive Board’s vote of 44-7 for termination revealed a strong consensus among board members that Dr. Clippard’s leadership had become disquieting and troubling. I assumed that most Missouri Baptists would look at that consensus vote and conclude that – as painful as it was for the convention, and for many board members personally – that the Executive Board made the correct decision. I assumed that with the closing of this painful chapter in our convention’s history, Missouri Baptists would take a deep breath, and rally behind David Tolliver as he sought to bring some healing and some unity to the Executive Board staff and the convention. Alas, I assumed incorrectly.

The latest saga in Missouri Baptist life has been the formation of “Save Our Convention” -- a group led by mostly large church pastors who believe: 1) That the conservative resurgence in the Missouri Baptist convention has gone too far to the right, and 2) That convention life is being manipulated by a “political power broker machine” that will eventually “lead to the destruction of the Missouri Baptist Convention.”

Just what we need, right?

Some Background
The leaders of “Save Our Convention” (SOC) include:

John Marshall, 2nd BC, Springfield
Mitch Jackson, Miner BC
Jim Breeden, DOM, St. Louis Metro
Dwight Blandenship, Parkway BC, St. Louis
Kenny Qualls, FBC Arnold
Wes Hammond, FBC Paris
Tom Willoughby, FBC Eldorado Springs
David McAlpin, FBC Harvester
David Sheppard, FBC St. Charles
Wayne Isgriggs, FBC Lincoln
Lee Sanders, FBC O'Fallon

They believe that a small cabal of influential Missouri Baptist Layman – headed by Roger Moran -- are pulling the strings behind the scenes in an attempt to control the agenda of the state convention. This cabal is specifically accused of “micro-managing” the executive board staff. SOC leaders clearly believe that this cabal is directly responsible for most of the recent turmoil in Missouri Baptist life, and the forced termination of David Clippard.

The express purpose of SOC, as stated at their May 15 meeting at FBC, Harvester is to:

To break the power-hold that a small group has on the Missouri Baptist Convention.
To halt the spread of a legalistic spirit and allow for diversity of opinion on non-essentials.
To include all those who want to work together with the Baptist, Faith and Message as our guide.
(See Save Our Convention addendum at the end of this article)

How do the plan on accomplishing this?
Elect a new slate of MBC Convention officers including President 1st and 2nd Vice President Recording Secretary
Reject the MBC Nominating Committee Report if it is not reflective of people who represent the MBC as a whole and adopt a substitute minority report.
Reject the MBC President’s nominations to the Nominating Committee if those nominations are power brokers and do not reflect the MBC as a whole.
(See Save Our Convention addendum at the end of this article)

Some Observations
As a long-time Missouri Baptist, let me share some personal observations and perceptions that I’ve gleaned from watching convention life over the last several years. Granted, these are my observations and perceptions, and I’m sure others will radically disagree with them. However, the rhetoric I heard at the “Save Our Convention” rally deserves a response.

Observation #1: The turmoil that has become part-‘n-parcel of Missouri Baptist life can be directly traced to the failed leadership of the past two Executive Directors – Dr. Jim Hill and Dr. David Clippard – not a cabal of power-hungry lay-leaders seeking to impose their agenda upon the convention.

Dr. Hill failed utterly in his responsibility to protect the interests of Missouri Baptists when he refused to inform the convention of pending decisions by various trustee boards whom he knew to be contemplating votes to become self-perpetuating. His actions revealed that if the theological-moderates could not control the convention, they would simply take as much of it as they could with them when they left. The result of his negligence has been a seven-year legal quagmire in the MBC’s attempt to re-assert control over the five boards in question. The length of the lawsuit and the differences of biblical opinion even among conservatives over “taking a brother to court” has been like an un-healing sore in Missouri Baptist life.

Dr. Clippard’s failure is addressed in the Ad Hoc Investigating Committee’s report. His failure essentially revolves around unwise, ill-advised and unethical decisions as well as an autocratic, overbearing leadership style. The IC’s report clearly stated that employee morale at the Baptist Building was low because of David Clippard. This seems to be a nice way of saying that Dr. Clippard had poor people skills when it came to relating to and managing those who worked under him. The IC report also found that Dr. Clippard has not always been sufficiently forthright when confronted on various issues. Again, this seem to be a nice way of saying that Dr. Clippard regularly lied to Executive Board members on any number of occasions concerning any number of issues. Dr. Clippard also acted improperly when he settled the 2004 lawsuit brought by Carol Kaylor and then purposely misled Executive Board leaders about the details of the case. These reasons, and -- due to legal restraints -- other non-reportable incidents, all add up to a failure of leadership that can only be attributed to one person -- David Clippard. No one ended David Clippard’s career as MBC Executive Director but David Clippard.

Observation #2: The MBC Executive Board is not a group of mind-numbed robots blindly following the leadership of Roger Moran. If I were a member of the MBC Executive Board, I think I would be offended at the assumption of SOC leaders – three of whom are MBC Executive Board members. That assumption is that the fifty-plus members of the Executive Board, as well as David Tolliver – MBC Interim Executive Director -- are unwitting pawns in the hands of Roger Moran and his cabal of lieutenants and that Executive Board members, as well as David Tolliver, are just too stupid to realize it.

The men and women, laymen and ministers who serve on the MBC Executive Board are Missouri Baptists attempting to do what – in recent years – has become a thankless job. They are devoted to the Lord, and His Kingdom work, to their local church and to the work of the convention. To imply that they are merely puppets in the hands of a master-manipulator is to dishonor their service and impugn their integrity.

Observation #3: SOC leaders are obsessed with Roger Moran and the MBLA. According to them, they’re the Boogiemen in our midst and the sooner stakes are driven through their hearts the better.

SOC leaders told the Harvester crowd that their concerns are “… not even about the recent firing of Dr. Clippard, though we each have our own opinions of those events. However, that is over and done. It is the past.” This is analogous to the person who demurs “It’s not about the money.” When we hear someone say that, you can be sure that it’s really all about the money. It’s no secret that most of these men personally blame Roger Moran for David Clippard’s downfall and eventual termination. This was made clear by Gerald Davidson’s accusation at the 2006 annual meeting of the MBC. Gerald told the messengers during the annual sermon: “My dear friends I want to say to you this morning Missouri Baptists do not need a political organization to dictate and to build kings and tear down leadership." This was a clear reference to Roger Moran and the MBLA.

To be sure, Roger is a passionate Missouri Baptist, and one of the things he is passionate about is the MBC. But to consider him “the most powerful Baptist in Missouri” just because the St. Louis Post Dispatch says so, is to give the devil more due than he deserves. Is Roger an influential Missouri Baptist? Yes. Should we lay the blame for David Clippard’s failures as a leader at Roger’s feet? No.

Observation #4: SOC leaders have elected themselves the ethical watchdogs of the MBC. There central message? “Die, MBLA, Die!

In their effort to break the “power-hold that a small group has on the Missouri Baptist Convention” (aka – the MBLA) they have adopted a three-pronged plan: 1) Elect a new slate of MBC officers – President, 1st and 2nd Vice President, and Recording Secretary. In their opinion, the MBLA shouldn’t be in the business of “approving” a slate of convention officers. This is, after all, “king-making.” Instead, Missouri Baptists need to support SOC’s approved slate of officers – whoever they may wind up being (see the list of eleven). Isn’t this an illustration of the pot calling the kettle ‘black’? 2) They plan to reject the Nominating Committee Report if it is not reflective of people who represent the MBC as a whole. If it is not, they plan to move the adoption of a substitute minority report. Who is to say whether-or-not the Nominating Committee’s Report is or is not reflective of people who represent the MBC as a whole? (see the list of eleven). 3) They plan to reject the President’s nominations to the Nominating Committee if those nominations are “power brokers and do not reflect the MBC as a whole.” Again, who is to say whether-or-not Mike Green’s nominations to next year’s nominating committee are “power brokers” and do not reflect the MBC as a whole? (see the list of eleven).

Observation #5: SOC leaders are unwilling to allow the various committees of the convention to work the process of convention life. Admittedly that process can sometimes be slow and ponderous. We’re Baptists and we believe in congregational polity. That means involving a lot of people in the decision-making process. It means committee meetings, deliberation and a business meeting or two. It can drive people with A-type personalities nuts, but it’s the Baptist way, and I’m glad for it. The Ad Hoc Investigating Committee made several recommendations concerning the Nominating Committee that would effectively address most of the concerns SOC leaders have. Those recommendations have been turned over to the MBC Committee on Continuing Review which will soon be meeting to discuss them, and then give a report to the messengers of the 2007 annual meeting at Tan-tar-a. Instead of waiting for the CCR report, SOC leaders are politicalizing the convention even further, which will only continue to further divide the convention.

Some Concerns

Concern #1: Is this an attempt by large-church pastors to exert dominance over the life of the MBC? The foundation of Missouri Baptist life is the small church. Not one of the SOC leaders reflect the typical Missouri Baptist congregation. I.e. very small and very rural. Consider:

John Marshall, 2nd BC, Springfield – 5,517 members
Mitch Jackson, Miner BC – 1,431 members
Jim Breeden, DOM, St. Louis Metro – 52,124 (total church membership)
Dwight Blandenship, Parkway BC, St. Louis – 1,050 members
Kenny Qualls, FBC Arnold – 5,061 members
Wes Hammond, FBC Paris – 531 members
Tom Willoughby, FBC Eldorado Springs – 845 members
David McAlpin, FBC Harvester – 3,839 members
David Sheppard, FBC St. Charles – 2,689 members
Wayne Isgriggs, FBC Lincoln – 553 members
Lee Sanders, FBC O'Fallon – 3,728 members
(these statistics are taken from the 2005 Book of Reports)

Will their nominations for MBC officers at the 2007 annual meeting reflect Missouri Baptists as a whole? I do not wish to see a return to the day when a few large church pastors and their congregations dominated MBC life as when the moderates were firmly in control.

Concern #2: The character assignation of fellow Missouri Baptists. Named in their indictment of Missouri Baptists who they consider “political power brokers” are Roger Moran, Kerry Messer, Cindy Province, Richard Stone and Ron Turnbull. Considerable time was spent during the Harvester meeting maligning these individuals as co-conspirators who are bent on a coup d’etat of the convention. They were accused of being malicious gossipers, power mongers, and legalists. They were blamed for the lose of quality MBC staff members. They were blamed for a loss of confidence in the MBC Executive Board and current leadership. The potential loss of churches who might abandon the MBC was blamed on them. Finally, the potential destruction of our remaining MBC institution – even the convention itself – was blamed on them. That’s a lot of blame to heap upon five people.

Concern #3: The potential affect on the convention’s legal suit against the five institutions who’s trustee boards voted to become self-perpetuating. One of the arguments advanced by the five renegade trustee boards is that they made their decision to help insulate their respective institution from the politics of convention life. Save Our Convention plays right into the hands of defense lawyers who are looking for every opportunity to take advantage of internal conflicts within the MBC in an attempt to pit potential witnesses against each other. Save Our Convention is asserting that recent MBC woes are not a result of standing on principles of right and wrong, but that our woes are merely a result of convention politics. I can’t help but believe that, while their efforts will not ultimately lose the legal case for the MBC, neither are their efforts helpful.

Concern #5: The ever-increasing polarization of Missouri Baptists.

In Conclusion
I have no doubt that each of these eleven men love the Lord. I have no doubt that each has the best interests of the MBC in mind. I’m terribly concerned, however, that their efforts will increasingly polarize and factionalize our convention. Their efforts will not save the MBC, but more-than-likely, hasten its demise.

I'm not so naive as to believe that we do not have real problems in the MBC. Some of those problems will go away when the legal suit against the five agencies is over and done with. As for the spirit of devisiveness that has taken hold of Missouri Baptists, I'm not sure I have any real answers (other than a firm belief in prayer and the providence of God). I don't believe, however, that "Save Our Convention" is the right way to address those problems. Their agenda is reactionary: They blame Roger Moran and the MBLA for David Clippard's forced termination and now somebody has got to pay.

Essentially, I trust Baptist polity. Missouri Baptists are not stupid. They know when a course correction is needed in Baptist life. They know when things have gone "too far" in one direction or another and they will correct it in due course.

I am comforted by one thought: The Missouri Baptist Convention is bigger than five individual Baptists. It’s bigger than the Executive Board. The Missouri Baptist Convention is not about what takes place at 400 E. High Street in Jefferson City. The Missouri Baptist Convention is about 1,900 autonomous Baptist congregations, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, scattered in cities, towns, villages and open country across the state of Missouri. The heart of Kingdom work is the local church. If we remember that, we remember the most important thing about the Missouri Baptist Convention.

Aaddendum

SAVE OUR CONVENTION

I. Who We Are?
John Marshall, 2nd BC, Springfield – 5,517
Mitch Jackson, Miner BC – 1,431
Jim Breeden, DOM, St. Louis Metro – 52,124
Dwight Blandenship, Parkway BC, St. Louis – 1,050
Kenny Qualls, FBC Arnold – 5,061
Wes Hammond, FBC Paris -- 531
Tom Willoughby, FBC Eldorado Springs -- 845
David McAlpin, FBC Harvester – 3,839
David Sheppard, FBC St. Charles – 2,689
Wayne Isgriggs, FBC Lincoln -- 553
Lee Sanders, FBC O'Fallon – 3,728
We are all Biblical conservatives and endorsed the initial objective of Project 1,000

II. Why We Are Here?
1. We initially met on Wednesday, April 25 to share mutual concerns about the recent events and the future direction of the Missouri Baptist Convention. Several expressed that they and others they knew were considering walking away from the Missouri Baptist Convention. After lengthy discussions and mutual encouragement it was determined that this was not the right course of action.
2. A course of action was determined and a second meeting was set for late May. Because of a schedule conflict this meeting was moved forward to Tuesday, May 16. Each person present was encouraged to enlist 10 others to attend that meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to share our concerns for the Missouri Baptist Convention and to chart a course of action to address those concerns.
3. There have been no secret meetings and we are committed to openness and honesty. The president of the convention was informed of this meeting on Tuesday, May 1 and was invited to attend. We are sharing our concerns and course of action publicly so there can be open discussion and clarity.

III. What Are Our Concerns?
1. This is not about
• Calvinism
• Alcohol
• Emerging Church
2. It is not even about the recent firing of Dr. Clippard, though we each have our own opinions of those events. However, that is over and done. It is the past. We are concerned about the future.
3. Our concerns are two-fold
• The continued power control of certain project 1,000 leaders and the Missouri Baptist Laymen's Association that has led to micro management of the Missouri Baptist Convention staff and the exclusion of many fine Missouri Baptists.
• We are concerned about the spirit of legalism that refuses to cooperate with those who are not in total agreement and sets parameters that exceed the Baptist Faith and Message.
We are concerned that these two forces - A political power broker machine and a spirit of legalism - will lead to the destruction of the Missouri Baptist Convention and more specifically Southwest Baptist University and Hannibal LaGrange College.

IV. What is Our Purpose?
1. To break the power-hold that a small group has on the Missouri Baptist Convention.
2. To halt the spread of a legalistic spirit and allow for diversity of opinion on non-essentials.
3. To include all those who want to work together with the Baptist, Faith and Message as our guide.

Gerald Davidson - Annual Sermon 2006 Convention
"Project 1,000 has done its job and we say thank you and praise God for it. But hear me. It's time that Project 1,000 retired. Now I've been told that Project 1,000 ceased to exist after the year 2003. But now, the parent organization called The Missouri Baptist Layman's Association has risen up to take its place. My dear friends I want to say to you this morning Missouri Baptists do not need a political organization to dictate and to build kings and tear down leadership. "

V. What is the Evidence for These Concerns?
1. St. Louis Post Dispatch - April 2,2007
"For Roger Moran, the most powerful Baptist in Missouri, the past represents victory and personal grace."
St. Louis Post Dispatch - April 15,2007
"WANTED: Experienced Baptist to lead the Missouri arm of the nation's largest Protestant denomination. Position open due to firing of previous director last week. Looking for a fast learner who will recognize immediately that he must conform to the ideology of power broker who brought Missouri Baptists in line with conservative National Southern Baptist Convention."

2. Influence of Missouri Baptist Layman's Association - MBLA
Members
• Roger Moran
• Kerry Messer
• Cindy Province
• Richard Stone - Roger Moran's foreman
• Ron Turnbull - Roger Moran's first cousin Positions Held
• Roger Moran
SBC Executive Committee - term expires 2007
MBC Nominating Committee - Served as chairman in 2006 - term expires 2007
Missouri Baptist University Trustee Board
• Kerry Messer
SBC Committee on Nominations 1998 - that committee's report included Roger Moran's nomination to the SBC Executive Committee Recording Secretary of MBC, 1998
MBC Nominating Committee
MBC Executive Board
MBC Christian Life Commission 1996-2002
• Cindy Province
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Board
MBC Executive Board - term to expire 2007 but resigned from the board in
March
MBC Christian Life Commission.
• Richard Stone SBC Foundation
SBC Committee on Nominations 2000-2001 MBC Recording Secretary -1999 Christian Life Commission - 2000-2006
• Ron Turnbull
MBC Nominating Committee - 2000-2003
MBC Executive Board - Nominated by the Nominating Committee chaired by
Roger Moran and included member Kerry Messer
• Jason Rogers is not listed as a member of the MBLA but is a 6th person in this power group.
Roger Moran's brother-in-law
Elected as Recording Secretary for the MBC in 2005
MBC Executive Board - also nominated by the committee chaired by Roger
Moran and including Kerry Messer.
Note - Four members of this group have served together on the MBC Executive Board this past year - Kerry Messer, Cindy Province, Ron Turnbull, Jason Rogers.

3. Testimonies:
• David McAlpin - Ad Hoc Theological Investigation Committee (see 4-page report, plus Addendum)
• Wes Hammond - Executive Board
• Tom Willoughby - Nominating Committee
• Bruce McCoy - Investigative Committee
• Jim Breeden - Associational Concerns

VI. Why Must This Power / Control Stranglehold Be Broken?
1. Not Biblical for such power / control to exist.
Matt 20:25, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so -with you. Instead whosoever wants to become great among you must be your servant. "
3 John 9-10, "I wrote to the church, but Diotrophes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. So if I come, I will call attention to what he's doing, gossiping maliciously about us."
2. Pendulum has swung too far - From liberalism to legalism
3. Narrowness - Now excluding those who have always been conservative
4. Losing quality key staff
5. Churches considering abandoning the Convention
6. Institutions could be devastated and destroyed by legalistic boards.
7. Loss of confidence in Executive Board and current leadership

VII. What to Do?
1. Give Nominations to Nominating Committee (Bruce McCoy)
• Strong CP giving
• Conservative but not legalistic
2. Goals for Missouri Baptist Convention
• Elect new slate of officers President 1st and 2nd Vice President Recording Secretary
• Reject Nominating Committee Report if it is not reflective of people who represent the MBC as a whole and adopt a substitute minority report.
• Reject Presidents Nominations for the Nominating Committee if those nominations are power brokers and do not reflect the MBC as a whole.

"The Nominating Committee shall consist of twenty-four members, serving terms of three year's each, eight of'whom shall be nominated by the president in consultation with other convention officers and elected by the Convention at each annual meeting. " (Article X-Committees Section 2, MBC Constitution)

VIII. Organization
1. 11x10x10 = 1100 Attending the Convention
2. Work with the Missouri DOM Fellowship
3. Enlist churches to send a maximum number of messengers 20 churches x 15 = 300
20 churches x 10 = 200 20 churches x 5 = 100 150 churches x 2 = 300 200 churches x 1 = 200 1100

"Any Southern Baptist Church singly aligned with the Convention and desiring to cooperate with the Convention in her program of single alignment with the Southern Baptist Convention and any Baptist church meeting the qualifications sated in Section 2 shall be entitled to one messenger for every one hundred members or fraction thereof, provided no church shall be entitled to have more than fifteen messengers." (Article IV - Membership, Section 1. Constitution of the MBC.)

2007-04-20T14:25:00.000-05:00

Dysfunctional, Disenfranchised Desensitized, Demon Possessed or Just Depraved?
By David Krueger

Text: Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” KJV

Early this week a young, Cho Seung-Hui an Asian college student went on a killing rampage. It was America’s worst mass-murder spree – 30 students and 1 faculty member dead. By the evening of the shooting, talking heads on all the news outlets were already asking the question: “What turned the soul of this young man into poison?” The potential culprits will, I’m sure, be legion.

Some will attribute his rampage to a dysfunctional home. We don’t know much about his home life at this point, but you can bet “there was something wrong in the home” that would produce such a monster. While a dysfunctional home life may have contributed to his actions, a dysfunctional home does not answer the question: “What turned the soul of this young man into poison?”

Some will attribute his rampage to disenfranchisement by rich American white kids that he rails against in the rambling video he sent to NBC. Sorry, but disenfranchisement does not answer the question: “What turned the soul of this young man into poison?”

Some will attribute his rampage to the desensitizing affects of violence-filled TV shows, movies, music and video games, hate-filled websites and a toxic culture. While this may have contributed to his frame of mind, a violence-glorifying entertainment culture does not answer the question: “What turned the soul of this young man into poison?”

Some will attribute his rampage to out-right demon possession. For some in our society, Satan is the easiest way to resolve the issue. While I believe that Satan is the Prince of the Power of the Air, demon possession is unlikely and so does not answer the question: “What turned the soul of this young man into poison?”

The real answer to the question: “What turned the soul of this young man into poison?” is more chilling. He did what all people are capable of doing. He acted like he did because it was in his very nature to do so. He did what his fallen nature coerced him to do.

The Virginia Polytechnic massacre Reminds Us That Man’s Problem Is a Heart Problem.
Psalm 53:1-3 “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. God looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. Everyone has turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.” NIV
and
Ecclesiastes 9:3 “This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of men, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead.” NIV

Why is the human heart in such appalling condition? Because of something called sin. Sin has affected every part of man’s personality. When the bible speaks of our heart it is not referring to the muscle that pumps our blood. When the bible speaks of our heart it is referring to the whole man, with all his attributes — physical, intellectual, psychological, and spiritual. It is the heart which makes a man what he is, and governs all his actions.

Proverbs 4:23 “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.” NIV

When the Bible says that our hearts are full of evil and madness it means that our character, our personality, our will, and our mind are all affected by sin and reveal the true nature of the human character – it is depraved. Depravity is a doctrine we don’t like to talk about much these days. It’s a doctrine that teaches that, outside of a relationship with Jesus Christ, man has no moral compass or spiritual guidance. Man, by nature, is a fallen creature.

Romans 3:23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” NIV. This is not just some verse we quote to lost people when we are sharing God’s plan of salvation with them. This verse reminds us of a fundamental flaw in human nature — we sin because we are sinners. And we are sinners by choice. And because we have sinned, we can never, ever measure up to God’s standard of holiness and righteousness on our own initiative. We are all born with a decided bias toward evil, and with an utter hatred of God.

Romans 8:7-8 “When people’s thinking is controlled by the sinful self, they are against God, because they refuse to obey God’s law and really are not even able to obey God’s law. Those people who are ruled by their sinful selves cannot please God.” NCV

Our spiritual depravity does not mean that every man is as sinful as he possibly could be. But our spiritual depravity means that every man is completely affected by sin.
• The Bible says that we are slaves to sin.
• The Bible says that no one seeks after God.
• The Bible says that we cannot understand spiritual truth.
• The Bible says that we are subject to God’s wrath.

Any person who knows the history of mankind, especially the history of the past one hundred years, and thinks that man is evolving upward, is deceiving themselves. Man has increased in scientific, medical, historical, educational, psychological, and technological knowledge to an astounding degree. But he has not changed his own basic nature and he has not improved society. Man’s knowledge has greatly improved, but his morals have progressively degenerated. The Bible says that man was created a little lower than the angels. One thing is clear today — he's been getting a little lower ever since.

Man is infected with the deadly virus of sin, which has no cure aprat from God. Some scientists have proposed that by surgery or careful electronic stimulation of the brain, a person’s bad impulses can be eradicated, leaving only the better part of his nature. Others propose that the ideal, crime-free, problem-free person will be developed through genetic engineering. But every part of every man is corrupt — he has no inherent good traits that can be isolated from the bad. Albert Einstine once said, Evil is the real problem in the hearts and minds of men. It is not a problem of physics but of ethics. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.

Man’s Heart Is So Thoroughly Corrupt That Nothing Can Solve Our Problem Except a Heart Transplant

Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” KJV. Our character is deceitful.

The word deceitful is the root word from which we get the Old Testament name Jacob. The Bible is saying that we’re all like Jacob in character. If you remember, Jacob was a schemer and a conniver who would do about anything to advance himself or his agenda. He was double-faced and double-tongued, tricking his brother and lying to his own father. Our character is desperately wicked. The word desperately in this verse literally mean incurable, Our character is not just desperately wicked, it is incurably wicked, Paul speaks to this in his letter to the Christians at Rome:

Romans 1:29-32 “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” KJV

Our character is unknowable. The prophet Jeremiah looks at the human heart and sees it as so wicked and so depraved that he wonders out loud, who can know it? Some men, who by all accounts are good men, will sometimes commit unthinkably horrible acts that leave the rest of us wondering, “How could they have done that?”

“What turned the soul of this young man into poison?” The answer is that his soul was dead. Ephesians 2:1-3 “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” KJV

What does it mean to be dead in trespasses and sins? It means that his lost nature was totally in control of his life. If all lost people are dead in trespasses and sin then why don’t all lost people commit the kind of evil acts that Cho Seung-Hui did? It’s a wonder that they don’t. It’s clear that when man feeds the darker side of his character, he becomes more prone to commit evil.

Dysfunctional families can feed man’s evil spirit.
Being disenfranchised in one’s school or culture can feed man’s evil spirit,
The desensitization that results from a culture saturated in violence can feed man’s evil spirit.
And the demonic forces that influence lost men to commit unspeakable acts cannot be underestimated.
But none of these in and of themselves reveal the reason why Cho Seung-Hui went on his rampage – only the Biblical doctrine of depravity gives us the real answer.

Finally, the Virginia Polytechnic Massacre Reminds Us That Tomorrow Has No Guarantees
James 4:13-15 “Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: 14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. 15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.” KJV

This is the fundamental reason why a commitment to Christ cannot be put off.

2007-04-20T14:23:00.000-05:00

2007-04-16T12:04:00.000-05:00

Sad chapter in Missouri Baptist life ends
serves as reminder of how Baptists work
by David Krueger

A two-year saga came to an end on Tuesday of last week with the firing of the Missouri Baptist Convention’s Executive Director, David Clippard. The April 10th, vote to dismiss was 44-7. Over the last two years, Dr. Clippard leadership style had become the focus of ever-increasing division between Missouri Baptist Convention (MBC) Executive Board members.

The process that led to Clippard’s dismissal began when Wesley Hammond, pastor of First Baptist Church, Paris, presented a motion at the December 2006 board meeting calling for the formation of a committee to investigate the sources and veracity of allegations regarding leaders within the convention. Hammond’s motion passed 29-19, with three abstentions. The committee presented its report in a two-hour closed-door meeting to the MBC Executive Board at last week's meeting. The investigating committee made a finding of a “lack of confidence” in the continued leadership of David Clippard as MBC Executive Director and recommended the termination of his employments effective immediately.

Because the investigative committee’s report included some legally sensitive matters, the board appointed Michael Whitehead, MBC’s legal counsel, as spokesman for the MBC on the matter. Mr Whitehead has yet to release the report’s findings that led to David Clippard’s termination so I cannot comment with certainty at this time as to the specifics of the findings that led to his firing.

David Tolliver, one of the MBC’s associate directors, was elected to serve as interim Executive Director.

The events of recent days serve as a reminder of the importance of Baptist polity. Dr. Clippard’s termination reminds us that authority in Baptist life flows from the churches to the convention, not from the convention to the churches. In many denominations, such a termination would have been impossible.

Southern Baptist congregations are autonomous New Testament Churches. Their Head is none other than the Lord, Jesus Christ who guides His church through the Holy Spirit who indwells believers and guides them through the Scriptures which we believe are all-sufficient for faith and practice. As autonomous congregations, Baptist Churches make their own decisions about missions giving, ministerial calling and staffing, budgets, doctrinal positions, and their degree of cooperation with other churches and para-church organizations. There is no higher ecclesiastical authority in Baptist life than the local church. I think that denominational workers sometimes forget that.

Baptists, however, also believe in cooperation. We recognize that there are some missions that the local church cannot accomplish by itself and so most Southern Baptist churches voluntarily choose to cooperate on a number of levels. This includes local, state and national Baptist bodies. On the local level, we cooperate with other Baptist churches within our county or perhaps several surrounding counties. This is called the Association. As the name implies, this is a loose association of Baptist Churches cooperating together to do missions and ministry locally.

The next level of cooperation is the State Convention. In Missouri there are almost 2,000 Southern Baptist Churches with 600,000 members. We cooperate with these churches to accomplish missions and ministry on a state-wide level. This includes such institutions as two Baptist Colleges and the Missouri Baptist Children’s home as well as all of the ministries that the Executive Board staff is responsible for.

Finally, we cooperate on a national level through the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC is composed of sum 45,000 congregations across the country. Through the cooperation of so many, the SBC is able to field one of the largest mission forces of any denomination in the world. Through our North American Mission Board and International Mission Board, over 10,000 Southern Baptist missionaries serve throughout the world.

Every level of Southern Baptist ministry is guided by the local church which sends Messengers to the annual meetings of the Association, State Convention, and National Convention. Even the use of the term “Messenger” carries with it the core concept of Baptist polity. These men and women who represent their local church bring “a message” from their congregation as to what they want to see the association or convention accomplish and how they are to accomplish it.

These messengers vote on budgets and other business that comes before these bodies. In between annual meetings, each level of Baptist ministry is guided by an executive committee – men and women, laymen and pastors – who are, again, approved by the messengers from local, autonomous Baptist congregations voting at annual meeting. These executive committees have the responsibility of overseeing the work of the association or convention between annual meetings. The employees of the association, the state convention, and the national convention take directions from the local church. All three of these Para-church entities exist to help the local church accomplish its mission.

The temptation at every level of Baptist life is assuming the local church exists so that some higher level of ecclesiastical authority can accomplish its mission, ministry or agenda. NO! NO! NO! We must zealously guard against and resist this kind of thinking in Baptist life. The local church does not exist to help some higher level of ecclesiastical authority can accomplish its mission, ministry or agenda. They exist to help the local church accomplish its mission, ministry and agendas as mandated by our Lord’s Great Commission. The paraphrase a banner that hung in then candadate Bill Clinton's campaign headquarters: "It's about the local church, stupid!"

As of right now, I do not know why our Executive Director was terminated. It is always a sad day in church life when something like this takes place. We need to pray for David Clippard and his family. At the same time, however, this chapter in Missouri Baptist life serves as a reminder that it is the local church, and those who represent us, who have the final say in all levels of Baptist life.

Think about it!

2007-03-14T12:50:00.000-05:00

Here we go again!
"The Lost Tomb of Jesus" a made-for-television flight of fancy
by David Krueger

Around the world, news headlines blared, "The Tomb of Jesus Found!" Startling news to say the least. Could it be true? And if so, what would be the ramification for the world’s largest faith family? Some newsmen were purporting the death of Christianity as we know it. "If the discovery proves true," writes Ariella Ringel-Hoffman "it could shake up the Christian world as one of the most significant archeological finds in history." Aside from the sensationalism of such stories, newsmen like Ringel-Hoffman are correct. In 1 Corinthians 15:14-15 the apostle Paul says, “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ.”

The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the central pillar of proof put forward by the New Testament authors to substantiate Jesus’ claims to deity and the forgiveness of sins offered to humanity through Jesus shed blood on the cross. The Apostle Paul argues that If Jesus didn’t bodily rise from the dead then Christianity is a FALSE religion and should not be followed or observed.
The important question that needs to be answered is “Did Cameron and Simcha indeed find Jesus’ remains, or is their case as ‘unsinkable’ as the Titanic?” (Cameron, if you remember, is the producer of the Hollywood block-buster movie, 'Titanic').

The documentary titled "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," aired the evening of March 4th on the Discovery Channel. The show sought to present archaeological, statistical and genetic science evidence that demonstrate a tomb unearthed in 1980 contains the remains of Jesus and his family -- including his wife, Mary Magdalene, and their son Judah.

The story begins in 1980 just south of Jerusalem, with the discovery of a 2,000 year old burial cave containing ten coffins (ossuaries). Six of the ten coffins were carved with inscriptions reading the names: Jesua son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Matthew, Jofa (Joseph, identified as Jesus’ brother in the documentary), Judah son of Jesua (Jesus’ son according to the film makers).

The findings in the cave, including the decipherment of the inscriptions, were first revealed about ten years ago by Israeli archeologist Professor Amos Kloner. Since their discovery, the caskets were kept in the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) archive in Beit Shemesh. Although the cave was discovered twenty-six years ago and the casket inscriptions decoded ten years ago, the filmmakers claim to be the first to contend that the cave is actually the burial site of Jesus and his family.Executive producer James Cameron and director Simcha Jacobovici tell viewers that the DNA evidence from the tomb makes a compelling case that the ossuaries contained the remains of Jesus and his family.
Cameron and Jacobovici also used statistical analysis to prove their case. They say the statistical improbability of having Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Judah, “Jesus’ son,” in the same tomb, give significant credibility to the documentary’s thesis. Jacobovici said the documentary aims “to report the news and not to engage in theology” and argues that DNA technology not available in 1980 has helped to identify the tomb’s occupants.

Why concern ourselves with what have become traditional holy-season attacks of one kind or another on the Christian faith? Why not just ignore “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” as the bunkum it is? Because the Apostle Jude reminds us "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." (Jude 3, NASB95). As Christians, we must passionately defend the truth of the Christian faith.

While it is impossible to go into great length to show the fallacies of the show's claims let me offer a few rebuttals.

Regarding a Jesus family tomb found in Jerusalem. If Jesus had indeed been wealthy enough to afford a rock-cut tomb, it most likely would have been in Nazareth, not Jerusalem. Nazareth is where the family was from. It seems unlikely that Jesus’ family would have had the wealth necessary to afford such an extravagance. The Scriptures indicate that Jesus had no residence he could truly call home (Matt. 8:20). When he died, he was placed in a borrowed tomb, not a family tomb (Matt 27:57-60).
Regarding the "Christian tradition" that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was buried in Jerusalem. First, the biblical accounts provide no information whatsoever about the end of Mary's life or the place of her burial. All we have is church tradition. Cameron and Jacobovici assertion that this is the Jesus family tomb depends partly upon the tradition that Mary was buried in Jerusalem. This tradition is an early tradition (2nd or 3rd century), and firmly believed by many. What Cameron and Jacobovici fail to tell viewers is that there is another, equally strong tradition, that Mary died in Ephesus and is buried there. This tradition comes from the 4th and 5th century). This second tradition is based on the assumption that Mary spent the last years of her earthly pilgrimage in the company of the Apostle John -- to whom she was entrusted by Jesus at his crucifixion (John 19:26-27) – and that she spent that time in Ephesus where John pastored. Neither tradition can be historically verified.
Regarding the names found in the tomb. All the names found inscribed on the tomb's ossuaries were common in 1st-century Palestine. Yeshua, Joseph, Maria, Mariamene, Matia, Judah, and Jose – are extremely frequent Jewish names for that time and place, and thus most scholars consider this merely coincidental. Over the years at least three ossuaries have turned up in and around Jerusalem with the inscription "Jesus, son of Joseph." In the first half of the first century, one in four women were named "Mary." Dr. Charles L. Quarles, Chair of Christian Studies, Louisiana University estimates that in 1st-centuary Palestine approximately 1 out of every 442 families had a Jesus, son of Joseph combination. When you consider that one-quarter of the women in that day were named Mary, it would not be unusual to find a tomb with those combination of names.
Regarding the ossuary containing the supposed remains of Mary Magdalene. The ossuary in question contains the names Mariamene and Mara (short for Martha). Cameron and Jacobovici, in a convoluted logic, deduce that these duel names must refer to Mary Magdalene. They assert that Mariamene refers is a proper name and interpret the other name appearing on the ossuary – Mara – as meaning “master.” Thus the two names taken together, they believe, refers to “Mary the master” and must obviously mean Mary from Magdala or Mary Magdalene. That this combination of names must refer to the Mary Magdalene of the New Testament is a dubious association to say the least. Mary Magdalene is never referred to in the bible as Mariamene.
Regarding the DNA testing. Cameron and Jacobovici did not have the actual bones from the ossuaries. By Israeli law, the bones were removed and reburied by Orthodox Jews. What were found in the ossuaries were very small bone fragments. Even the Canadian laboratory that performed the tests admitted that the DNA was very difficult (their word) to extract and very fragmented (their words). What did the DNA testing prove? That bone fragments in the supposed ossuary of Mary Magdalene, and the bone fragments in the suppose ossuary of Jesus were not maternally related. From this bit of non-evidence, Cameron and Jacobovici conclude that the occupants of these two ossuaries must have been married! The program does not report on other possible relationships that DNA cannot establish such as, father and daughter, paternal cousins, half brother and sister (sharing the same father) or simply unrelated individuals. The DNA tests prove nothing.

Taken at face value Simcha and Cameron seem to have built a rock solid case against Christianity. However, if you spend even a little time critically analyzing their claims -- as I've tried to do -- then you realize that Cameron and Simcha have done nothing more than – in the words of Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary -- build a Da Vinci Code like house of cards that crumbles as soon as you blow on it.

When you consider their “facts” you’re left with only one conclusion: There is more truth in Dan Brown’s fiction than in James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovichi’s fact.

2007-03-02T11:11:00.000-06:00

Authority in the Believer's Life
by David Krueger

Perhaps you've heard the story of the ship's captain who was sailing late at night and he saw a distant light on a collision course with his ship. He told the signal officer to send the message, "Alter your course ten degrees south." The message came back, "Alter your course ten degrees north." The captain became angry with the impertinence and signaled back, "Alter your course ten degrees south; I'm a commander." The response was, "Alter your course ten degrees north; I'm a seaman third-class." By then the captain was furious, and signaled back, "Alter your course; I'm a battleship." The response was, "Alter your course; I'm a lighthouse."

God's authority is like that lighthouse it doesn't move. No matter how much authority we have in life, God's authority trumps our authority. Either we alter our course, getting our lives in line with God's authority, or we crash onto the rocks of life. This means that no government, no family member, no nation, no court, and no church can trump God's authority.

Now please understand we all have to live under proper authority in our lives. Children need to respect their parents. Citizens need to respect the law of their land. Athletes need to respect referees. Employees need to respect bosses, and so forth. Authority is an important part of our lives, and without it total anarchy would break out in our communities. But our ultimate allegiance is always to God first.

Sometimes we're faced with circumstances where a person in authority over us demands that we do something that goes against God's authority in our lives. Not too long ago, my brother-in-law was asked to use some "creative accounting" with the books he had oversight of. As a Christian man, he made the decision that it was something he could not and would not do, and he quit that position. He still has a job with the same company, but he is making significantly less money then he was making previously. God's authority in his life was more precious to him than man's authority. His decision to remain faithful to Godly principles of honesty was not a difficult decision for him, but it was a costly -- in worldly terms -- for him.

Have your placed yourself under God's authority in your life?

2006-12-04T10:03:00.000-06:00

Remembering a life of courage and sacrifice
by David Krueger

One of the realities of our day is a growing absence of “denominational loyalty” among church goers. There was a time in American life when, if your grandparents were Presbyterian, it was understood that you would also be Presbyterian and so too your children. Generations of families often grew up in the same church. Times have changed. For a whole host of reasons I’ll not go into here, many Americans no longer feel obligated to remain in the same faith group as did their parents or grandparents. One of the results of this influx of other faith traditions into our churches is that many congregants in Southern Baptist churches have no knowledge of our history or traditions. Consequently, when I refer to Lottie Moon, and our annual Christmas Offering for International Missions, a growing number of worshipers have no idea who I’m referring to. It’s actually a wonderful opportunity to re-tell the story of a remarkable woman.

No one would think twice in today’s culture of Lottie Moon doing what she did. But in mid-nineteenth century America , her decision and her accomplishments were truly extraordinary.

Lottie was born on December 12, 1840. She was educated at Virginia Female Seminary (later known as Hollins) and at Albermarle Female Institute, Charlottesville . Lottie rebelled against Christianity until she was in college. She was converted in the spring of 1859 in a meeting by John Albert Broadus, then pastor at Charlottesville . She taught at Danville , Ky. , and Cartersville , Ga.

She volunteered for missionary service in Feb., 1873, in response to a sermon on the text, "Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest," and she was appointed to China, July 7, 1873, by the Foreign Mission Board, Southern Baptist Convention. Lottie served 39 years as a missionary, mostly in China ’s Shantung province. She taught in a girls’ school and often made trips into China ’s interior to share the good news with women and girls. She was passionate about sharing Christ with the Chinese. In one letter home she wrote: “How many million more souls are to pass into eternity without having heard the name of Jesus?” That question compelled her to flee the safety of the Baptist missionary compound in order to live among those “heathen” to whom she felt called. In middle age, it gave her the strength to place her 4-foot-3-inch body in the path of an anti-Christian mob intent on harming believers and saying, “You will have to kill me first.” As an older woman, it compelled her to give away her food so others might live and have one more opportunity to find Jesus.

Lottie frequently wrote letters to the United States , detailing Chinese culture, missionary life and the great physical and spiritual needs of the Chinese people. Additionally, she challenged Southern Baptists to go to China or give so that others could go. By 1888, Southern Baptist women had organized and helped collect $3,315 to send workers needed in China . That first Christmas offering provided three additional missionaries. Lottie spent 14 years in China before taking her first regular furlough.

Toward the end of her days, she suffered with her Chinese people in the terrible famine. She gave away all she had. In the time of deepest trials she wrote, "I hope no missionary will be as lonely as I have been." Literally starving, she grew steadily weaker. Just before Christmas, 1912, Cynthia Miller, Lottie’s faithful nurse, started back to America with Lottie Moon. Death came to the frail missionary on Christmas Eve while her ship was at harbor in Kobe , Japan . The present Christmas offering for foreign missions, sponsored by the W.M.U., is named for Lottie Moon.

But her legacy lives on. And today, when gifts aren’t growing as quickly as the number of workers God is calling to the field, her call for sacrificial giving rings with more urgency than ever. Let me leave you with the following quote from Lottie herself:

“Why should we not … instead of the paltry offerings we make, do something that will prove that we are really in earnest in claiming to be followers of him who, though he was rich, for our sake became poor?”

— Lottie Moon
Tungchow , China
Sept. 15, 1887

2006-11-18T12:24:00.001-06:00

A silent Protest
by David Krueger

On Wednesday (November 1) of the MBC annual meeting at Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Senator Jim Talent spoke to messengers. When Senator Talent walked to the podium, I silently slipped out of my seat and went to the vendor display area. It was my way of protesting the Senator's presence at the annual meeting.

The Senator spoke for about four minutes and then quickly left. When he left, I came back into the meeting. News accounts report that the Senator thanked the convention for its stand against Amendment 2, and for supporting the ‘Marriage Amendment’ that appeared on the 2004 state ballot. He also called on the messengers to resist "activist" judges who are openly trying to change the Constitution through the courts. The Senator received several standing ovations and numerous "Amen's" from messengers.

At the time of his address to the convention, Senator Talent was in an extremely close race with Clair McCaskill.

What was I protesting? It was not Senator Talent per-say. I had every intention of voting him, and on November 7th proudly cast my ballot for the Senator. What I was protesting was the increasing tendency of our convention to be ‘Republican friendly.’ I simply can not recall the last time a Democrat was invited to address the messengers at an MBC annual meeting -- and I've been attending the MBC annual meeting for nearly thirty years. There are approximately 600,000 Southern Baptists in Missouri. My guess is a significant number of them are Democrats. My protest – as silent and unobtrusive as it was – was on their behalf. If I were a dyed-in-the-wool Missouri Democrat, I would feel increasingly disenfranchised by my own state convention. It’s hard to believe that the invitation by convention leadership to Senator Talent to appear ever-so-briefly before the messengers was not intended to be a wink-and-a-nod toward his candidacy. Considering the closeness of the annual meeting to the election, it would have been appropriate to also invite Clair McCaskill to address the messengers as well.

Annual meetings must not become Republican Rallies – even if for only four minutes. The mere appearance of supporting one candidate over another ought to be avoided, if the convention is to maintain its prophetic voice at the state capitol.

While I believe that resurgent Evangelical interest in politics is to be welcomed and commended, I also fear that our involvement may eventually become as politically misguided as was the activism of liberal Christianity in the early 20th century. As I stated in my last article, "The price a nation pays when Godly people don’t vote," Christians need to exercise their civil stewardship by being involved in the political process. When Christian men and women do not vote, they allow history to be shaped by silence. The result is that wickedness flourishes. But conventions, like churches, ought to avoid the appearance of partisanship. History also demonstrates that the marriage of Christianity to partisan politics almost always produces discord and disillusionment among believers and frequently dishonors the name of God. Christ commanded His followers to be ‘salt and light’ in this world. In other words, Christians are to have a positive affect upon the culture in which they reside. I believe this command gives us a mandate for using every moral and ethical means available – including the political process – for influencing the culture for good. However, we should never be so naive as to think that the ballot box alone is the answer to the real problem – sin that is deeply rooted in the lives of citizens. The real answer, as all Baptists should know, is a life changed by the gospel of Jesus Christ.

2006-11-06T15:24:00.000-06:00

The Price a nation pays when Godly people don't vote
By David Krueger

"When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices, and when the wicked perish there are shouts of gladness. By the blessing of the upright a city is exalted, but by the mouth of the wicked it is overthrown." (Proverbs 11:10-11, ESV)

In his commentary on this passage, John Phillips in Exploring Proverbs writes:

In this passage, Solomon lays down two fundamental principles for strengthening a society. First: Extol the righteous and you extol society: When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices, and when the wicked perish there are shouts of gladness. Second, Exalt the righteous and you exalt society: By the blessing of the upright a city is exalted, but by the mouth of the wicked it is overthrown.

The health of a community is linked inevitably to the way in which those in power treat upright, law-abiding, God-fearing citizens and the way in which those in power treat the lewd, immoral, and criminal element. A wise government extols and exalts the righteous and vigorously suppresses and punishes criminals, immoral persons, and subversives. Such a government makes laws that protect the righteous and define and punish unacceptable behavior.

A nation often deserves the government it gets. President James Garfield understood this when he wrote:

Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . . If the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.

All too frequently I've heard Christian men and women proclaim their intentions to boycott the ballot booth. Their reasoning often goes like this, "How I vote doesn't make any difference." Yes it does! In the 2004 election, of the 94 freshmen elected to the House, 61 were pro-life, pro-faith, and pro-family (i.e., about two-thirds of the new members). Similarly, of the 19 freshmen elected to the Senate at that time, 15 were pro-life, pro-faith, and pro-family (about 79 percent of new members). These new Senators provided the margin of victory needed to confirm the appointment of two new strict-constructionist pro-life Justices to the Supreme Court; and the Court has already begun to change, including this year's decision reversing a pro-abortion policy implemented twenty-five years ago in 1981. In addition to these two Justices, those Senators have confirmed dozens of other strict-construction judges to the federal Courts of Appeal. When God's people elect godly, bible-believing, pro-life, pro-faith, pro-family congressmen, the righteous are extoled and exalted.

The "enterprise" Garfield spoke of is America. Those who represent that enterprise are the voters. If we, i.e. Christians, do not exercise our responsibility in representing the enterprise, then we deserve the government we get. It was Edmund Burke, a British member of Parliament who said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." When Christian men and women do not vote, they allow history to be shaped by silence. The result is that wickedness flourishes.

As America becomes increasingly secularized, the biblical principles our founding fathers built into our controlling documents are being abandoned. No longer are the righteous extolled and exalted. They are increasingly ridiculed and marginalized. Some even see the righteous within society as the source of the nation’s problems rather than as a blessing to the nation. They are considered intolerant and even irrational.

There was a time in America when godly, bible-believing, church-going, Christ-honoring men and women were seen as the backbone of this nation, and the guaranteers of God’s blessings. Today, however, the Michael Moore crowd derisively refers to that great swath of middle America where the great majority of godly, bible-believing, church-going, Christ-honoring men and women live as "Jesus Land" and see us as the great enemies of the state. Nowhere is that animosity more clearly seen than in John Sperling’s book, "The Great Divide: Retro vs. Metro." In it, he presents Christian believers – Evangelical ones that is – as unintelligent, uninformed, unsophisticated, hate-filled, backward, and yes – dangerous! He writes sarcastically that we’re "God, Family, and Flag folks." Well, if godliness, filial loyalty, and patriotism make me hazardous to my county – just call me "Dangerous Dave!" The condescension in Sperling’s book is almost unbelievable. Yet he speaks for a great majority of the nation’s left-wing intelligentsia.

Sperling reminds us that our nation is divide by a huge clash of worldviews. One is thoroughly secular, guided by humanist philosophy, and seeks to remove all mention of God from the public square. The other is thoroughly biblical, guided by Scriptural principles, and seeks to restore the nation to the Christian worldview held by the vast majority of our Founding Fathers.

Our nation was founded by men and women who understood Solomon’s principles and sought to build a nation based on those ideals. They wrote those ideals into the nation’s first great document – The Mayflower Compact. Later, these principles would find their way into the Declaration and our Constitution. Both voice the nation’s dependence upon God. Johnson continues:

They built their educational institutions on the Bible. They exalted righteousness and put curbs on wickedness. And they built a great country on freedom, equity, and justice. The society they built was essentially religious. The righteous fared well and the nation partook of the blessings of God. The wicked were punished.

Though America still retains a veneer of the Judeo/Christian faith, this is not our forefather’s nation. Secular humanism has penetrated all levels of society. Schools and universities, the media, the courts, and the halls of Congress have all been deeply affected by this godless philosophy. Prayer and Bible reading have been forbidden in the classroom. The cross and the Ten Commandments have been banished from the public square. Bible-based standards of morality and decency are sneered at. The consequences of forty-plus years of moral erosion is abortion-on-demand that has resulted in the deaths of thirty million babies, Pornography is protected free speech, sodomy has been legalized, hard work is penalized through confiscatory tax system while laziness is rewarded through abundant entitlement programs.

Solomon was correct, and we need to heed his wisdom. Happy is the nation whose God is the Lord and whose legislators believe the Bible, reward goodness, and punish evil. Woe to the nation that turns its back on the Word of God.

2006-10-19T11:14:00.000-05:00

Calvin Akbar!

Since 9/11 Americans have become all too familiar with the shout Allah Akbar!. It is Arabic for “God is great,” and is often uttered shortly before an Islamic terrorist crashes an airplane into a building or pulls the fuse on a bomb-vest killing himself and dozens of innocent victims. While the phrase is regularly uttered during a faithful Muslim’s daily prayers, the exclamation of praise to their god has taken on an evil infamy. Sadly, most Westerners have only become familiar with the term as a battle-cry of Muslim terrorists.

According to Ergun Caner, however, there are some new and more terrifying Jihadists among us. Their battle-cry is Calvin Akbar – “Calvin is great!” Ergun, President of Liberty Theological Seminary, and himself a former Muslim who converted to Christianity at the age of 13, has recently engaged in a war-of-words with James White over the Doctrines of Grace, more commonly known as Calvinism. James White is the founder of Alpha and Omega Ministries and a Christian apologist. The two, including Ergun’s brother Emil and Tom Ascol, Executive Director of the Founder’s Ministry (a ministry devoted to teaching and promoting the Doctrines of Grace among Southern Baptists), were scheduled to deliberate the topic on October 16, 2006 at Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg , VA. in a long-anticipated and what was sure to be a closely-watched debate. The debate never took place. Rather than go into all the reasons here, I’ll leave it to the reader to Google for answers and drawn their own conclusions.

In response to the ‘great debate that wasn’t’ Caner wrote on his blog that “Calvinists are worse than Muslims,” and referred to Southern Baptist Calvinists as “Calvinist Jihadists.” In the on-gong debate concerning Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Caner has now – very openly and very publicly -- accused the Calvinists within the convention of spiritual terrorism. This kind of vitriolic diatribe is uncalled for does little to foster honest intellectual and theological debate among Southern Baptists. Frankly, I resent such outlandish accusations!

Convention leaders need to just as openly and just as publicly distance themselves from Dr. Caner’s remarks.

Does Ergun really mean to imply that pastors and laymen in the Southern Baptist Convention would actually resort to a violent take-over of the SBC? Isn’t that what Jihadists do? Does he really mean to imply that our loyalty is to our theology and not our Theos? I can only hope that Dr. Caner is being his typical bombastic self when he makes these kinds of statements.