Morris Chapman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the SBC Executive Committee, is saying some very interesting, helpful and hopeful things these days. Let’s review a few of them:
“. . . dare we as biblical conservatives to speak of the love of our Lord Jesus Christ and let the world see our love? Do we dare to let the world see that while we have strong convictions, we will be less judgmental so people can see Christ in us?
Are you willing to take the risk of trusting your fellow Southern Baptists and being worthy of their trust? (SBC Life, April, 2007)
[The] common commitment to missions is the primary reason the Baptist Faith and Message focuses only on core beliefs of Southern Baptists. If we insist that every doctrinal nuance debated among Southern Baptists is a core belief, sooner of later, our missionary force will be depleted and the unsaved will be abandoned.
In answer to the question, “What is your perspective on the emergent church?” [it should be “emerging” but never mind] Morris responded:
We need to remember that all emerging churches are not the same. In fact, all younger, emergent, and emerging pastors are not to be considered one and the same. . . . The Southern Baptist Convention has many fine younger pastors who lead their churches differently than we did in earlier generations and yet they are strongly committed to the inerrancy of God’s Word and have a spirit of love and loyalty to our Lord Jesus Christ and the Southern Baptist Convention.
We should become knowledgeable about the emergent church and reserve judgment for those whose actions and words prove them to be heretical in their faith and practice. We should be careful not to speak falsely against those who are honestly trying to find God-honoring methods more suitable for reaching this generation of unsaved for Christ. And we certainly must be careful about condemning a younger pastor simply because his methods are innovative. My prayer is that God will give the people and their pastors spiritual wisdom in the application of their enormous creativity.
Some younger Southern Baptist pastors are insisting that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is not prohibited in the Bible. While the Bible never says that a drink of wine is a sin, it is filled with principles for living a pure life as a testimony to what Christ did for us on the Cross. . . . Rather than argue the finer points of biblical interpretation, why would we not pray, “Dear Lord Jesus, there are some things I will not do, though there be not biblical injunction per se against them, because they are perceived to be an integral part of the world.” (SBC Life, May 2007)[Link to the entire interview here].”
Wow!! What a different tone and substance we encounter here compared to the sweeping judgments some are prepared to make with regard to the emerging church movement! Notice how carefully Chapman chooses his words. Where the Baptist Faith and Message is concerned, our fellowship as Southern Baptists is at stake. But where alcohol is the subject, respectful, scripture-informed conversation between brothers and sisters—no pontificating; no patronizing; recognition that some matters are core and others are very, very important, but not core. The appeal for patience and caution when dealing with young leaders committed to biblical inerrancy, biblical authority, evangelism, and church planting is most welcome.
My reading is that the tone and conviction present here parallels the tone and conviction at the IMB, NAMB, and Lifeway much more closely than do some of the calls for sweeping denunciation of theologically conservative streams within the emerging church that we encounter in some quarters. I strongly and enthusiastically identify with those, like Chapman, calling for a default posture of openness, trust, patience, and respectful conversation where solidly evangelical Southern Baptist leaders and churches are concerned.
I believe a rush-to-judgment response to the emerging church movement could seriously damage the SBC’s effectiveness in evangelism and church-planting at this critical historical juncture in which the center of gravity of God’s converting activity is moving to the Southern Hemisphere [See Philip Jenkins’ extraordinary treatment in The Next Christendom]. One of the very few bright spots in the West and North America is precisely among those conservative, evangelical, doctrine-friendly churches associated with the emerging church and missional Christianity. Lovers of the SBC such as myself should be very careful whom they choose to alienate.
7 responses so far ↓
Gregory Pittman // May 5, 2007 at 10:41 am
Dr. DeVine,
I very much appreciate your spirit as you discuss this topic. I have introduced my readers to your blog, and some of them remember your name from when you pastored at Sycamore Baptist Church (one of my readers brought that to my attention several weeks ago).
Thank you for your humility and wisdom and thank you for sharing your thoughts.
/gregory pittman/
Dr. Mark DeVine // May 6, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Thanks Gregory
Every year or so, through all of our moves to Louisville, Indiana, Kansas City, Bangkok, and back to KC, my wife Jackie periodically asks the question, “Why did we ever leave Charleston? What were we thinking?” Charleston; truly a special place. Enjoy.
Andrew Walker // May 10, 2007 at 6:24 am
Dr. DeVine,
I read your blog regularly at the request of one of your students I know. I’m a student at Southwest Baptist University and I find your posts relevant to what is happening at my college. With that said, your engagement with the emerging church is humble, open, biblical, and multi-perspectival, and for that, I am greatful. It is wonderful that leadership in the SBC such as Morris Chapman are willing to lead a less-reactionary judgment upon the ECM where it does not requiren so.
P.S. I am reading your Bonhoeffer book, too.
Cyle Clayton // May 12, 2007 at 7:02 am
I’m probably in reactionary mode right now, but I’ve just had a conversation with two leaders of one of the most prominent quasi-organizations in the Emergent movement. I am also walking through a situation with a parishioner whose 16 year old son has just been seduced by a homosexual. I realize that Emergent churches are very diverse, but if these leaders are indicative of others in the movement, we do not have an open-minded conversation with them. They told me that the concept of absolute truth is bogus, that truth is what you discover. They told me that any corporal punishment of children is child-abuse. They told me that gay couples are perfectly fine with God. And they signed off saying they would introduce me to some wonderfully happy gay couples.
Dr. Mark DeVine // May 12, 2007 at 7:26 am
Cyle
It is not difficult to discover within the emerging movement, understood in broadest terms, voices like the ones you cite and others who share your concern exactly. Realizing this is a great first step toward comprehension of what the movement is and is not about.
jason powell // Jul 2, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Dr. Divine,
I post infrequently but I felt I’d like to make a comment or two and then ask a question. It seems interesting to me the SBC’ers are happy with emergent types as long as it doesn’t become a theological discussion. To me that seems like trying to jump on a fad. This is especially true when the core of people deeply committed to emergent would defend the fact that Emergent is in fact more about theology than about trends in “how to be culturally relevent
In the end I guess I’m curious (and no sarcasm here is intended)….who gets to call who a heretic? Only SBC’ers? The Lutherans? Honestly I know people in Churches of Christ who swear you all are heretical and vice versa and yet I’m pretty sure their both “in the Kingdom” so to speak. And…just how heretical do you have to be to be “out”? I attend Fuller Seminary and I’m thrilled that the word “innerant” never enters the conversation when discussing scripture since the word is completely meaningless without addmiting you can only come to that conclusion (or any language based conclusion) with a preconcieved hermenuetic already in place. I’m not attempting to be vitriolic in any way…but really who gets to call who a heretic?
Thanks
Dr. Mark DeVine // Jul 11, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Jason
The SBC is very large. SBCers are at drastically different levels in their interest, understanding or even awareness of the emerging church. Those who do have opinions are all over the map. So no quick and dirty conclusion regarding the SBC and emerging phenomenon can do justice to the complex reality.
Emerging and Theology: My sense is that Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger (right there at Fuller), Scot McKnight; and Ed Stetzer are among the keenest observers of the emerging/emergent phenomenon and I doubt any of them would share the notion that the movement is more about theology than about concern for the interface between church and culture. Certainly my own research does not square with your assertion. I do find real concern for theology in the ACTS29 but, if they belong to the emerging church movement (I think that they do; Gibbs Bolger say no), it is not their concern for theology, per se, that puts them there but their interest in that interface between church and culture.
Heresy: Who gets to say who is a heretic? Well, ultimately God. But in the time between the times in which we live, that burden falls to the churches in their various associations, conventions, denominations, and local settings. And of course that task is a messy business and can only be done in a proximate and provisional sense but it must be done, albeit with fear and trembling by those who share the protectiveness of the gospel that the apostle Paul articulated so forcefully in his letter to the Galatians.
Leave a Comment