Silencing the "Nay-Sayers"!

The church selects Leaders on the basis of character, competence, and a Biblical profile for leadership.

Each church must break the cycle of appointing men as leaders based merely on their willingness to serve and availability.  Since the Scriptures specify that leaders have certain specific character traits, it is important to select leaders that meet the biblical criteria.  With a leadership development process in place, a collection of trained, qualified, equipped, and willing leaders will be available for selection.

This paragraph is from the 14 Effectiveness Criteria applied in the IgniteUS Leadership Development Process. Research has shown that the second leading cause of decline in the evangelical church is “Control Issues”.

This is defined as a group of people, with or without portfolio, that exercise veto power of any and all ministry initiatives. Any attempt to prevent the exercise of their collective will results in some sort of ‘punishment’. That action ranges from firing a pastor to withholding financial support.

The existence of this kind of ‘power block’ in a local church is the responsibility of the Pastor. He may or may not be the causal factor for their existence.  However, he is responsible to effectively transform this scenario so that the Word of God under the direction of the Holy Spirit is the controlling factor in ministry.

Accomplishing the removal of such factors requires much prayer, wisdom and what I call Emotional Intelligence. Here is a helpful profile that I often share with Pastors. Assume 100 people. 20 support everything no matter what. 20 oppose everything no matter what. The 60 in the middle are watching which way the wind is blowing.

Of the 20 who oppose there are usually only 5-6 that are vocal, the others hide behind those who speak but they will never stand alone for anything. Of the 5-6 only 2 or 3 are willing to stand and declare their position. Almost always they lack solid exegetical biblical rationale for what they propose. They are not “for” ministry, they are simply opposed.

Here is a time tested and extremely effective means of exposing their screed. When they speak, graciously thank them for expressing the perspective they have. Then, ask them to provide sound biblical support for what they are proposing. Require them to shoe from Scripture why and how what they propose is supported by the Word of God. Give them a week or two, whatever is reasonable to prepare their case (they rarely have one). When there is no biblical basis for their resistance they have effectively shown themselves to be merely ‘Nay-Sayers’. That group of 20 that are for everything and the majority of the 60 will now support a sound biblical direction for a ministry initiative. Some of the 20 who formerly opposed will also join this group. The 2 or 3 ‘spokespersons’ will be neutralized and silenced, or, they will depart. Either way, you have provided gracious biblical leadership and ministry is the better for your leadership.

Call me if you would like to discuss this process further. God’s best as you LEAD! (803 776 5282)

Seriously Flawed Logic

On his BLOG - The Reason For Hope, Wes Kenny posted a Book Review of David Dockery's title Southern Baptist Identity (http://weskenney.net/book-review-southern-baptist-identity#more-907). In that review he cites a comment made by Paige Patterson; copied below.

In an article first written at my request for another blog, and recently republished in Baptist Press, Paige Patterson addressed the relationship between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention by pointing to the split that occurred between the General and Particular Baptists in eighteenth century England, and the disastrous results for both camps. The General Baptists lost their doctrinal emphasis and headed into universalism, while the Particular Baptists became anti-missionary hyper-Calvinists. The emphasis of each group balanced the other, and without each other, both became irrelevant in fairly short order.

If a Ph.D. student applied the logic in course work at SWBTS that Mr. Patterson applies in this quote, I am quite certain that they will be soundly criticized and rightly so. It is ludicrous to suggest that godly scholars remained true to their convictions (Particular Baptist) about the doctrine of Soteriology because they were 'balanced by another doctrinal perspective' (General Baptist). These leaders remained true to their convictions because that is what Scripture teaches. To claim that they became 'hyper-Calvinist' because they had separated from those who were General Baptist is the epitome of flawed logic. To assign causality in this manner is beyond academic credibility.

The two groups cited by Mr. Patterson became irrelevant because they abandoned the clear teaching of the Holy Spirit as recorded in the text and drawn out by precise, irenic and compassionate exegesis with accountability through life in community. William Carey did not go to India because he was balanced by the General Baptist. He went to India in obedience to the Great Commission. May his tribe increase!

The issue of Soteriology is an Essential, not a Distinctive in theological considerations. The Law of Non-Contradiction applies. God is not schizophrenic. His Word does not say one thing here and contradict that in another portion of Scripture. There is a definite substantive difference between understanding salvation as a monergistic rather than a synergistic work.

It is true that the portrait of history displays different perspectives on this question. Both cannot be true. As I stated in my response to the BLOG post cited above, the SBC claims to embrace Regenerate Church Membership but our precipitous decline tells the TRUTH. We have churches whose rolls are filled with unregenerate people. The nature of redeemed people is to gather together to praise and worship our great God. We claim to have 16 million members. 60% of this number never appear on the Lord's Day.

We need a good dose of valid logic. That logic says we have serious issues in River City and pretending this is not so will only serve to exacerbate the problem. Mr. Patterson gets an F- in logic. The jury is out on what the SBC will do on this issue but the prospects are dim if we continue to sing Kum-by-ya with our head in the sand thinking that the presence of one group is what preserves doctrinal fidelity in the other. It is not balance per se that we need. We need humble submission to Special Revelation with grace upon grace (Isa. 66:1-2).

Let The Discussion Continue - Comments Closed

Recently on his BLOG (http://www.jerryvines.com/blog/) Dr. Jerry Vines invited readers of his BLOG to engage or participate in a 'conversation'. He refers to what he labeled "The Elephant in The Room". He is of course referring to "New Calvinism" (his label not mine) in the SBC.

I write this post because of the absolute duplicity and disingenuous nature of this invitation. Taking Dr. Vines at his word, I wrote a substantive, irenic and issue-focused response to the post in his BLOG. When I attempted to post my entry I received the message "COMMENTS CLOSED"!


God granted my wife and I the utter joy of rearing three (3) God-fearing and Christ-following children. In that parenting journey we quickly learned the importance of MODELING, living what we say we believe. Practicing what we preach. Walk the talk. You get the picture. One of the quickest ways to rear rebellious and disobedient children is to ignore this principle. It is the epitome of hypocrisy to expect your children to do what you say but not what you do.

I want to be very CLEAR at this juncture. I am addressing Dr. Vines action in inviting a conversation and then closing that post to comments. That is pure and simple hypocrisy. I have never met Dr. Vines. I know only what I have heard and read about him, most of that very admirable and positive. However, this instance is egregious and unacceptable conduct for a man who claims to represent Christ. It is, as I have stated, Hypocrisy. Further, it is in direct violation of numerous principles found in Scripture about a biblical protocol of communication. Finally, it serves only to exacerbate rather than ameliorate the destructive tensions that surround this issue. It divides rather than heals.

If you wish to join the conversation do so with a gracious, irenic and well-informed posture. Make a contribution that is value-add. Build up others with your words. Bring substance that challenges and equips. Move the issue to resolution. DO NOT lob a post that invites participation and then turn tail and run. Just sayin!

"Isms", Fighting & Exegesis

My focus in this post is to encourage accurate, irenic and precise exegesis. I have been motivated to address this topic by the frequency with which I have seen this endeavor characterized as 'fighting'. To do so is both inaccurate and demeaning of a noble and biblical endeavor. Discovering the correct meaning of any given portion of God's word is commanded by the Apostle Paul in the Pastoral Epistles.

1 Timothy 1:3  As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,

1 Timothy 4:6  If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed.

1 Timothy 6:3-5  If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness,  4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions,  5 and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, . . . .

Titus 1:9  He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. 

Titus 2:1  But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. 

First, the "Isms" that I referred to. This would be Arminian-ism, Calvin-ism, and Traditional-ism. Those that use the term 'fighting' when blogging about any of the three begin with a very flawed premise. While church history is replete with expressions from all three, none of the three enjoy the highest level of authority in theological discourse. This is reserved for the text of Scripture accurately opened up by irenic, compassionate and precise exegesis. It matters most whether my posture or yours on any given issue agrees with what the text says, not what any other exegete or system may claim the text says or whether we agree with one another. We are not the final arbiters, Scripture is. Most who read in this blogosphere claim to embrace the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Yet, one encounters some very sloppy and inaccurate pronouncements issuing from a failure in this very realm. These inaccuracies are almost always the result of bad hermeneutical and exegetical practices which are in and of themselves a denial of the Authority of Scripture. Often the exegete does not even require proficiency in the original languages. They simply need to apply some basic rules of interpretation and grammar; context, pronouns require an antecedent noun, etc.

Second, the 'Fighting' as it is often labeled. My observation is that this terminology is applied when there is a disagreement on the meaning of a given text of Scripture. This is unfortunately an accurate designation for what often flows from those disagreements. However, there is a logical reason for this. The resolutions sought, the methodology applied in seeking resolution is Polemics, not exegesis. This reduces the meaning of a given portion of God's Word to the mere opinion of the exegete, not of what the text actually says. The loudest verbosity wins the day. SAD!

Let me offer what is most assuredly one of the most frequent and egregious examples - John 3:16. 

There is no such word in the text of John 3:16 as 'whosoever'. This interpretation comes from the language of the KJV but it does not appear in the most reliable manuscripts. This passage does not declare 'how much' God loved the world. The first word in the text is 'outos, an adverb of manner. God loved the world in this manner. What manner? This adverb points the reader back to John 3:14-15. As Moses lifted up the serpent  . . . In this manner God loved the world, He lifted up His Son.

There is a principle in both the natural and spiritual realms called the Law of Non-Contradiction; A cannot be non-A etc. God is not schizophrenic. Scripture does not posit contradictory postulates; say one thing in one verse and then contradict that in another. Assuredly there are apparent contradictions but no real ones. This means that the each portion of God's Word has one correct interpretation. This is the challenge we all face in doing accurate exegesis - - discovering the correct meaning.

Third, Exegesis. I have long appealed for a format in which those with differing interpretations of Scripture post the passage on the screen in two columns in the original languages. Each interpreter takes 15 minutes and offers his interpretation applying grammar, context, history, culture, etc. etc. Only one can be correct. Both may be incorrect. One correct and the other incorrect. But they cannot claim the Scripture means two distinctly different things and both be correct. This is vastly different than Polemics. The text we all claim to honor and abide by will in fact resolve our difference when we submit ourselves to the rigors requisite in doing irenic, compassionate and accurate exegesis. 

There are Essentials (The Deity of Christ, The Inspiration of Scripture) and there are Distinctives (A-Mill, Pre-Mill, etc.). I believe the Doctrine of Soteriology, Salvation is an Essential. God and man cannot be co-sovereigns. In the "Statement" floated just before the Convention this issue was brought front and center. Some who signed the statement claimed it was/is not semi-pelagian. By all historical theology and exegesis it most assuredly is. Calling a dog a cat will never make him meow! Claiming that statement is not semi-pelagian does not make that a "True Truth" as our friend Francis Schaeffer would say. It is what it is.

At the recent SBC Convention in New Orleans Pastor David Platt quoted 2 Peter 3:9, God is not willing that any should perish. He did so in the manner in which it is most frequently cited. I offer this link which provides a counter-understanding of what David said and what is grammatically and exegetically correct. If this is not so, please provide an irenic, accurate and sound exegetical  refutation of this meaning.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIPabz-01lY

Because we are all (myself included, perhaps first on this list) sinners we labor in our endeavor to know what God's Word says with this limiting factor. I will always want to believe that the interpretation I have reached is the correct one. I have dedicated my life to this effort. My wife and children sacrificed so that I could acquire the skills to do so. This is precisely why God gives us the one-another commands. We are to be accountable in life and in exegesis. We need one another as brothers whose chief end is to glorify God. This protects me from the ugly tincture of pride and arrogance. With all this being true, there is still the very real factor that we must face head on. It is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of Kings to search it out (Prov. 25:2).

The majority of issues CAN BE RESOLVED by humble submission to what the text says. I pray that we abandon the hostile polemics and engage some systematic and persistent exegesis that leads out into the open (cf. John 1:18) what God's word says. We must address the text. We must not engage in character assassination and ugly name-calling. Take the high road. Be true and honorable pastor/scholars. We simply must not ever reduce ourselves to the groveling "can't we all just get along", "go along to get along" theology that some claim is where we should be headed. LORD make us all men of honor, dignity and precision in the way we handle Your word. There may be 'two streams' in SBC life but there is only one correct meaning for each portion of God's Word. LORD give us grace to discover this together with humility and an accuracy that honors Your Holy Name! 

This link is an interview by R.C. Sproul of D.A. Carson on Principles of Sound Exegesis. Excellent!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlZV40mBNDs