The picture in this post is a list of signatures on the document that set in motion the North American Baptist Covenant, which will culminate in a convocation next year in Atlanta. Probably, if you’re reading this blog, you’ve heard about it. Here are some links to what some others are saying about this convocation:
And, you can click here to learn about why former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who was scheduled to speak, has decided to decline that invitation.
According to a column by James L. Evans, titled Stepping Outside the “Southern Baptist” Umbrella, one of the signatories, Mercer University President Bill Underwood, said, “North America desperately needs a true Baptist witness.” [emphasis mine] If you read the article, you’ll see that Underwood went on to say that while none of the individual groups represented had a large enough voice, that together they would have a large enough voice. Large enough for what? In my opinion, large enough so that when press accounts are written, the membership number cited will be greater than 16 million.
It is pretty clear to me, based on this statement and based on the list of those who signed this document, that this gathering is largely about belittling the work of the Southern Baptist Convention, and that to a greater extent than it is about anything else.
Apparently, when it comes to true Baptist witnesses, there can only be one. It’s a shame that more of the folks associated with this event don’t seem to feel that way about the way of salvation.
on May 22nd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Wes,
You’re not walking lockstep with the new Baptist Reformation. Better watch out or someone will accuse you of not being an irenic Southern Baptist.
Shame on you.
Les
on May 22nd, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Les,
Once you become a fundamentalist, the desire for peace just melts away…
on May 22nd, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Brother Wes,
What really concerns me is that we have been given three tiers of doctrinal cooperation. This organization was formed with the statement that they wanted to present Christ to the world. The leaders in this effort are clearly in violation of tier one and no one seems concerned. When you and others speak out about it you are painted as one that is an alarmist.
Blessings,
Tim
on May 22nd, 2007 at 7:53 pm
This is not about the SBC. It is pretty arrogant of the SBC to think that everything is about them. Many of the groups involved are as conservative if not more conservative than the average Southern Baptist. And many of the groups involved have never been a part of the SBC internal conflict and thus have no vested interest in replacing the SBC. Southern Baptists are invited to attend. I hope that you will consider it, and at least pray for your Baptist brothers and sisters in Christ.
on May 22nd, 2007 at 8:01 pm
I wonder why you recommend some blogs on your list that are so brutal? Crucifying people seems to be the joy of the day. None for me Thank you.
on May 22nd, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Kaylor,
If you will, explain the presence of Kirby Godsey as one of the “founders” of the New Covenant? I will not call Dr. Godsey a heretic. At least with heretics there was a point that one could have called them a believer. One of the foundational truths of soul competency and the Priesthood of the Believer is the necessity of being a believer in the life, death, and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. One cannot be a priest without first being a believer in the Christ of the gospels (see Philippians 2:5-11) – right? After all, the ingenious work of “When We Talk About God – Let’s Be Honest” pretty much lays out Dr. Godsey’s view of the exclusivity of Christ, His atoning death, and His resurrection from the dead does it not? (I’m sorry, I cannot help the sarcasm, but use it if only in the attempt to connect us all to Truth).
In case there are those who believe that Dr. Godsey has changed his stripes, here is a quote from his latest work:
“Our life together must reach for a wider embrace. Let us remember. God is not a Christian. God is not a Muslim. And God is not a Jew. God is above all our little gods. God is with us. God is in us all. God is for us all” – Kirby Godsey, “Lessons from 911”
This is not evangelical inclusivism ala Clark Pinnock. This is pantheistic Hinduism ala John Hick. Is this truly part of the “Baptist diversity” that you are encouraging us all to embrace?
There was a time in which there were some honest moderates who called Godsey an embarrassment, who did not want to be associated with him or any of his views. This was particularly true after the finding of the Georgia Baptist Special Committee. Now it seems he has rehabilitated himself, at least enough to get his name on the founding documents of the New Covenant.
Kaylor, I do not doubt your sincerity to the gospel of Jesus Christ. What I do doubt (as I have doubted about many in the conservative/moderate camp) is the ability to distinguish those who truly have been alloted the name of “Christian” from those who do not. Dr Godsey has proven from his own lips and writings on which side of the divide he stands upon.
As to the Convocation itself. This is no political meeting. I agree. This Convocation is an attempt to find common ground among believers who call themselves “Baptists.” Yet the inclusion of Dr. Godsey pretty much wraps this one up for me, as it should in the hearts and minds of all believers in Jesus Christ. I find it hard to find common ground with fellow believers when an admittedly pagan follower is among the founders of the meeting. Count me as an admirer of the John the Beloved Disciple, who according to his disciple Polycarp, refused to enter the public bath when an admitted heretic who denied the divinity of Christ and His Resurrection was inside.
I will pray for my fellow believers and Baptists – that the Lord will use the Convocation for His glory – and that my beloved brothers and sisters at the very least will find some discernment between the difference of those who are with us, and those who are not – the sheep and the goats.
Rob
on May 22nd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Kaylor,
Your statement that this is “not about the SBC” is difficult to take at face value. If Mr. Underwood, in the article I quoted above, had said “North America needs another strong Baptist witness,” or “North America needs a Baptist witness with an emphasis on social justice issues,” or anything like that, I could take your word for it.
But he said, “North America desperately needs a true Baptist witness,” which, given the propensity of so many who have signed to take public shots at the SBC, it seems that one would have to admit at least some element of anti-SBC motivation here.
Debbie,
I think your rhetoric may be a bit too strong in your comment. No one is being crucified; ideas are being challenged. I believe it to be unfair for you to use such inflammatory language regarding these challenges.
I linked in this post to blogs that agree with my view on this issue. But if you’ll take a look at the column of links under the heading “Blogs I Read,” you’ll see that I link to many different blogs from many different perspectives. I happen to believe that the challenging of one’s ideas is a good thing.
Thank you for your comment.
on May 22nd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
It seems that some bloggers have implied rejection of the New Baptist Covenant is failure to help the poor, sick and needy. But there are varieties of ways that we can help others. In addition to the NewBaptCov, there are Baptist organizations that present a more specific Baptist identity , secular organizations that have no theological identity, our local churches, and we can also personally help others.
I prefer all of those routes to working with a liberal Baptist organization and participation might suggest I believe that all versions of Baptists equally perserve Biblical truth and the Baptist identity. If this is not about about Baptist identity, then why not invite others to participate? They have invited only self-identified Baptists, as far as I can tell.
Wes, you wrote, “Large enough for what? In my opinion, large enough so that when press accounts are written, the membership number cited will be greater than 16 million.”
I wrote on Bart’s blog: …it seems to me that the original meeting of “18 Baptist leaders representing more than 20 million Baptists across North America” was more likely 18 leaders representing themselves who were FROM BODIES representing more than 20 million Baptists across North America. Anybody know?
on May 22nd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Respectfully,
The word “crucify” carries a very negative meaning. Where did I crucify the person or demean the character of the people mentioned? I issued a challenge to an idea. There is an old saying that even a cat may look upon a king. Is not a fellow Baptist allowed to question the wisdom of a brother’s actions? It seems to me to be very unfair for you to use such inflammatory language regarding these challenges and questions about this issue. Such language does not promote the discussion but rather inhibits the free flow of ideas.
on May 23rd, 2007 at 12:16 am
Wes: I find it difficult to understand how grown Christian men who are ministers can speak the language and what I consider rhetoric on these comments and write the awful posts I have read. I would say the word crucifying fits rather well. May be hard to hear, but I do not think I am off the mark. As a former fundamentalist myself, who grew up in a fundamentalist home, your comment on fundamentalists is not off the mark. It’s sad to me. I have no problem with disagreeing, I do have problems with slicing into ribbons as some of the comments and posts you have on your post have done. I believe the word I have chosen to unfortunately be more true than rhetoric which is too easy of a word to use and dismiss my concerns.
on May 23rd, 2007 at 12:21 am
BTW: I may have the word troublemaker now as a banner to wear, as much as I hate that label I will wear it in hopes of stopping much of the beating up of people and getting back to showing grace to people. I see no grace shown on these blogs. If humiliating or attempting to humiliate someone is the way the SBC choses to go, I say that I pray for those in the SBC to realize who they were before God saved them and where they would be if he hadn’t. That’s the meaning of grace. Thank you for allowing me to comment although my view is obviously the dissenting one.
on May 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 am
Quinn: Of course one has the right to question and even disagree. That is a given when it comes to things SBC. Churches are autonomous, or at least they were, and there is going to be questioning and disagreement. I have been doing it since the age of 5 according to my mother.
My above comments explain where I am having a problem A very big disturbing to me problem.
on May 23rd, 2007 at 12:35 am
no Debbie…the word ‘crucify’ does not fit very well my sister. For you to use that term for fellow believers in Jesus Christ who are simply stating their opinion concerning what they feel is a wrong course of action to take, is a very poor choice of words. Debbie, it was our Lord who was CRUCIFIED. It was ROME who consented to him being CRUCIFIED. It was my sin and your sin which caused his CRUCIFIXION. To use the term ‘crucify’ is irresponsible at best and simply mean and hurtful at the worse. More importantly I do not believe it represents your true spirit which I found to be very gracious when we spoke briefly at the Holy Spirit Conference. In this case You seem to show very little charity to dissenting views, especially when they are in opposition to your pastor. I have commended you for your love and support of him but to use such a pejorative and loaded term reeks of a partisan spirit that refuses to see the forest for the trees.
Blessings
Jack
on May 23rd, 2007 at 1:43 am
Jack: This would be one area that you and I will have to disagree. BTW: Crucified is not a Biblical word that is sacred. The definition fits in my opinion. You have not convinced me otherwise. In reading of these blogs crucified is most fitting of words to use.
on May 23rd, 2007 at 8:08 am
debbie,
in all honesty, you appear to be the one who is “crucifying” all the ones who disagree with you and wade. you are the one saying some very harsh things here, and in other blogs about the ones who disagree with the nbc.
i believe there’s something in the bible about a log and a splinter…
david….volfan007
on May 23rd, 2007 at 8:15 am
Debbie
We must agree to disagree then but I must say I am extremely disapointed in you. It is you who have in this case taken the low road. I challenge to find one instance where Wes has ever used such a pejorative term to misrepresnt the actions of another. I am waiting.
Blessings
Jack
on May 23rd, 2007 at 11:33 am
Wes,
I also have a response to the Convocation on my own website at fearfulteacher. You might go on over there at your leisure and give me some feedback. I would greatly appreciate it.
Rob
on May 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 am
Debbie,
I will gladly stand with and for the gospel of Jesus Christ even if my stand causes you to object. I have no desire to be in conflict with you, but I will not compromise the gospel to avoid conflict with you.
on May 23rd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Neither will I Bart.
on May 23rd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Wes,
With the risk of being labeled a “bubba”, good observations. Anyone who has been in the trenches knows that those who signed are attempting to build a coalition of power and influence so that the media will turn to them as the “true Baptist voice.”
TBH
on May 23rd, 2007 at 7:30 pm
R.L. Vaughn,
To answer your question, those who signed the Covenant represent their organizations well. I know (through my father or through my own involvement in Baptist Life) many of the names on the list. No organization that I know of has pulled out. So, unless you can point to a certain individual, I think it’s safe to say that the folks that signed the Covenant do a good job of representing their group.
on May 23rd, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Kirby was there as a representative of Mercer University (since Underwood was not yet President). On matters of theology, many moderates have criticized Kirby for years. What Kirby truly believes, I have no idea. His statements (writings) have not always been consistent. Nonetheless, as the President of Mercer – many moderates have great respect for Kirby Godsey. While other colleges in the Georgia Baptist Convention have sunk and suffered (both academically and financially) – Mercer University developed into a great Baptist University under his 17-year? leadership. But, I don’t think Kirby’s signature lends credibility to any theological issue. Kirby has been affirmed – as a successful Baptist President. His theology has not been affirmed.
Sure, Kirby will be there – so will a handful of liberals, quite a few moderates and conservatives, and even some fundamentalists. It seems as if you (and others) are suggesting that there are a bunch of closeted universalists hiding out in organizations participating in the NBC? Who regards Kirby as a “star” ? Outside of Mercer University and academic life, Kirby’s influence is minimal (I’m being generous here). He was never involved in SBC Life nor a CBF leader. Last summer, I spent a couple of hours in the presence of Kirby. On the topic of Baptist Higher Education, Kirby Godsey is an expert. I hope to hear him speak again…just not on theology. As a Georgian, I know Kirby doesn’t make a habit of pretending to be a theologian in public.
Thanks for allowing me to stop by. Been a reader, just first time commenting.
on May 23rd, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Wes,
Apologize for my last comment.
That was a response to Rob Ayers which I meant to post on his blog. Got the Mozilla tabs mixed up. Sorry.
on May 23rd, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Aaron, I think you have a good point. My point was more of an “at that point of time” issue — that they were there on their own accord rather than having been officially chosen by their respective bodies. That probably doesn’t really matter at this time for, as you point out, none of them have been reprimanded and their bodies are participating in the event.
on May 24th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
I need lessons on blogging setup from you. From a fellow bloggers whose sins did crucify Jesus!
on May 25th, 2007 at 12:15 am
I’m not really sure what the New Baptist Covenant is aiming at. I don’t think Dr. Underwood’s statement about it being a “true” Baptist witness is all that far off the mark. Baptists, as a denominational family, rather than a single organization, have always been very diverse theologically, philosophically, and in just about every other way, all across the spectrun. I don’t particularly think this is a jab aimed at the SBC, since Southern Baptists were invited to be part of it.
What I don’t understand is why some Southern Baptists feel the need to rip it apart, and asassinate the character of some of the organizers. It doesn’t appear that Carter’s theology or beliefs regarding the gospel are going to be canonized into the official doctrinal statement. It appears that cooperation despite doctrinal differences appears to be the point. Perhaps there are those in the SBC who just don’t feel they can cooperate across the kind of theological differences they perceive. That’s fine. So why is it necessary to try to interfere and prevent other independent, autonomous Baptists from doing so, especially in such a negative, hostile way? While I find myself very comfortable with what I consider to be mainstream Southern Baptist theology, I find myself very uncomfortable with those who approach disagreement with a superior attitude and a “we’ve got all the answers, we’re right and anyone who disagrees with us is flat out wrong,” mentality. I just don’t get that.
Trumpeting about the SBC’s “16 million members,” when 8 million of them are just numbers on a chart, and when only 5.5 million of them are in the pews on any given Sunday should create at least a little more humility than I’ve seen.
on May 25th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Wes,
I’ve finally posted my thoughts, as well.
I find that I could not, in good consience, take part in a covenantal relationship with the participants of this “New Covenant.”
Geoff