The Plowman

Let’s see. Where do I start?

1. SBC blogs are just like the soaps: No matter how long you stay away, when you pick it back up, nothing really has changed. There may be a few different names, but the same old story line is still there, chugging away, right where you left it.
2. When I read the posts of most fundamentalists, these lines about chickens always come to mind:
   And intellectually, they’re plumb light headed.
   They’re not confused by the facts.
   That’s why there’s no seeing-eye chickens, guard chickens,
   Or trained chicken acts (or cogent thoughts).
3. I’m also reminded of the old Arab saying “death by a thousand cuts” when I see a sane Christian trying to set above fundamentalists straight in the comments.

So I’m not even going to go there. The only criticism I have is: Dr. Finn, you never should have revised your post. You didn’t say anything offensive. I know you are not Jesus, but look what he said to the Pharisees in Matthew 23. At the very least you should have left your “simplistic” history intact. And don’t forget about sufficiency; it is important.

Now, I’m going to watch a movie with my wife.

I caught myself ranting and raving (screaming, actually) at a co-worker yesterday over the generally sloppy Southern-Baptist brand Christianity for nearly ten minutes. He plays in the praise band of a Southern-Baptist church east of Tulsa, and he is continually expressing his infatuation with the quality, style, atmosphere, etc. of the music, to the near-total exclusion of lyrical content. I’ll ask him something like “Do you know How Firm a Foundation?“, to which he will reply “Can you hum the tune for me?” Aaarrrggg. A recent article in Modern Reformation on this very subject by Michael Horton begins with ” The average Christian will learn more from hymns than from any systematic theology.” With my buddy’s approach to church music, he is practically illiterate, theologically. That’s what I’m screaming, and yet you very seldom read anything from the Baptist bloggers, from any segment of the spectrum, on this pervasive problem. Obviously there are those in the anti-thinking fundamentalist camp who see no problem at all, but I refer to those young families who are looking for more substance in worship. If you fall in that camp, Horton’s article is a must read.  He continues:

The number of 19th century hymns that talk about the objective truth of Scripture, and that which God has done outside of my personal experience, is overwhelmed by the number of hymns that focus on my personal experience. It is my heart, not God and his saving work, that receives top billing.

What to do? First, when you go to worship this next Sunday, do an informal survey and assess which kind of hymn/song/chorus dominates your service. In the mean time, go read the article by Michael Horton, Are Your Hymns Too Spiritual? and see what you think, if you go to the trouble of that sort of thing. Then talk to your music man at church and ask him how he chooses the hymns, and make suggestions of hymns you would love to hear from time to time.

Just some thoughts. Or you can just do nothing and stay stupid.

Yes, I know that blog news has the shelf life of a ripe banana, but other things have pressed me hard the past few weeks, so get over it.

The one and only possibly legitimate concern expressed by Wade Burleson a few weeks back in his post concerning the possible election of Dr. Albert Mohler as president of the SBC, is one of conflict of interest. As I understand it, the convention president appoints the nominating committee, which in turn submits a list of people to be voted on at next convention to serve as trustees of the various SBC entities. The conflict would possibly arise because Dr. Mohler happens to be president of one of those entities, namely, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

In his post Pastor Burleson points out just such a scenario and draws a comparison between the possible election of Dr. Mohler later this spring and the election of Dr. Paige Patterson ten years ago.

But take a look at this Baptist Press article announcing Dr. Mohler’s upcoming nomination:

Three former Southern Seminary presidents also were elected to the
office of SBC president — James P. Boyce (1872-1879), E.Y. Mullins
(1921-1923) and John R. Sampey (1936-1938). Other former SBC presidents
who were elected to the office while serving as president of a seminary
were Paige Patterson (1998-2000) while at Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary, W. W. Hamilton (1941-1942) while at Baptist Bible
Institute, the forerunner to New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
and L. R. Scarborough (1939-1940) while at Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary. While there is precedent for a seminary president
to be SBC president, Mohler agreed that most SBC presidents have been
pastors.

“This is healthy as the norm, and one of my hopes is
to encourage more pastors to be deeply involved in the life of our
denomination so that they can help to lead Southern Baptists in this
new era,” he told the TEXAN. “Given the indirect nature of the trustee
appointment process, I believe that Southern Baptists have adequate
protections against any conflict of interest. Above this, however, I
would pledge to lead in every dimension — appointments included –
that would make Southern Baptists proud.”

I find it a bit dishonest that Pastor Burleson would mention only the one example, while there were in fact six. And oh, the example he gives. It is no secret that Pastor Burleson has no special fondness for Dr. Patterson, and maybe for good reason, but come on. Give me a break. Comparing these two is like making a close comparison between Jack Armstrong and Jack the Ripper, simply because they both have the same first name. And on the use of terms, do you think that Dr. Mohler could be described as a sycophant (a person who acts obsequiously toward someone in order to gain advantage; a servile flatterer)? First he’s unelectable because he’s a Calvinist, then later in the same post he shouldn’t be elected because he’s a sycophant.

And my word, you would never guess we’re talking about the Southern Baptist Convention. I would be concerned too, if we were talking about a scenario involving the executives of Enron, or maybe the bosses over at the United Auto Workers Union. How much trouble can a seminary president cause in one year? If he missteps, don’t vote him a second term. Remember, we’re talking about someone “presiding” over a group of autonomous churches. Like Dr. Page has said numerous times in his public addresses “Presiding over the SBC is like trying to herd a bunch of cats.”

This reminds me of a dog who would chase me out of its yard simply because someone else in a brown uniform kicked it five years ago. It never occurred to it that maybe I wasn’t the same guy, and maybe I didn’t make it a habit of kicking dogs, and just maybe its master might want me there to deliver the goods he has ordered. I think Pastor Burleson is having a hard time distinguishing between a few misguided, uninformed leaders and at least one good - the right man for the right job - one.

[01/15/08 Editor's note: It has been brought to my attention that the video is not showing up in some of your browsers. I have since added links to the source pages in hopes that you will be able to view the clips there. If you still cannot view the video, perhaps you should switch to Firefox.]

A good bit of the negative vibrations in certain circles concerning Dr. Albert Mohler revolves around a couple of events at last year’s convention in San Antonio. Here are a couple of video clips from San Antonio - SBC Convention ‘07. Watch them and you be the judge.

The Garner BFM2000 Motion

“The Baptist Faith and Message is not a creed, or a complete statement of our faith, nor final or infallible; nevertheless we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention.”

The Debate over the Garner Motion
(If your browser does not play nicely with my site and you are unable to view the video clip below, go here.)

The SBTS report
(Again, if your browser does not play nicely with my site and you are unable to view the video clip below, go here.)

The second high-profile evangelical leader in as many weeks has shown himself to be unsuitable to lead the largest protestant denomination in America, due in large part to his fundamentalist position on birth control. Late last week Scoop Burleson broke the first story, remarkably similar in content to this second story. In Burleson’s post, dated January 5, unacceptably fundamentalist views on birth control, held by recently-declared SBC presidential candidate Dr. Albert Mohler, were uncovered. The Burleson article went on to predict that a Mohler presidency in 2008 would most assuredly lead to an abuse of power similar to that of another convention head who also simultaneously held a seminary presidency.

Dateline Seattle

Lightening has struck again, this time in the evangelical wasteland of Seattle, Washington. During his January 6 message to faithful thousands, Mark Driscoll, the multi-campus mega-pastor of Mars Hill Church, concluded services by praying for the repentance of those who “have a negative view of children”, and those who “don’t want children for selfish reasons”. “I know that this is incredibly unpopular.” Driscoll stated at one point near the end of his 77-minute tirade. Many leaving one campus were overheard to say “Boy, am I glad we’re not in the SBC. Driscoll would impose his narrow, fundamentalist views on the whole convention if we were.” Driscoll as much as admitted that his message would jeopardize any chances for a bid for the head SBC position when he stated “I’m gonna get into a lot of trouble for this. It’s trouble I’m willing to get into.”

Although you could not possibly get Paige Patterson and Mark Driscoll in the same room together, with a little massaging of the facts, they could be made to look like two peas in a pod. That, however, is another post for another day. As to whether or not I know of a mystery man to step up to the plate at the last minute this spring in Indianapolis, I am real good at dropping names, so what could be better than dropping an un-name to arouse interest and intrigue leading up all the way to the 2008 convention in Indianapolis.

Closing Notes on this Parody/Spoof

I did not intend to write this post quite the way it turned out. I had intended to write a serious “part two”, addressing the several negative points that Wade Burleson brought up in his post. It just didn’t turn out that way. That is what a trip from Tulsa to Joplin and back between midnight and five will do to you if you’re listening to Mars Hill Audio on the way. Just blame it on Uncle Buster.

Clearly this post won’t make much sense if you don’t listen to the sermon (another link to the audio and video) by Driscoll. OK, so the comments by the congregants were made up, but Driscoll’s message on birth control this last Sunday was real, as well as the cited quotes by him. The convergent aspect of Providence gets real spooky sometimes.

Whether or not you have thought about birth control as a Christian, you really should listen to this message. It was well thought out and respectfully done, for Driscoll, that is. Dr. Mohler may not necessarily agree with the method or the mode of Driscoll’s sermon, but I will bet you he would heartily agree with the overall message of it. If Mohler is a Fundamentalist, then so is Driscoll, and so am I for that matter, and am proud to be among such company. Here’s a concluding paragraph from an article by Dr. Mohler on the subject of birth control. He doesn’t sound like a fundamentalist/legalist on the topic to me. You be the judge:

“Therefore, Christians may make careful and discriminating use of proper technologies, but must never buy into the contraceptive mentality. We can never see children as problems to be avoided, but always as gifts to be welcomed and received.”

My main reason for this post and the one before it is that I just don’t care to have a good, honest man mischaracterized  for, as yet, undisclosed reasons. In addition to the positive reasons for a Mohler presidency, as stated in my previous post, I think Mohler should be honored with the presidency so that he can preside in Louisville in 2009 to commemorate the one-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of the founding of Southern Seminary. Mohler has played a noble role in the conservative resurgence, far more noble than another man we won’t bother to name, who has been similarly honored  Yes, there are negatives. Every candidacy will have them. This will be like every other decision we make in life, weighing our options carefully and prayerfully. I know that some would like to see a candidate emerge at the last minute “similar to a Frank Page.” As for me, it sure would be nice to have someone representing several million Southern Baptists who had a strong, biblical stance on the family and the erudition not to call a woman half his age “honey child” from the speaker’s podium at this year’s convention.

I hadn’t really planned to endorse Dr. Albert Mohler when he announced last week his much-expected bid for the SBC presidency later this spring, as if my backing had any measurable weight to begin with. But when I read a post by Wade Burleson a few days ago, something didn’t look right. I’m not sure yet what it is, but I just have a hunch from the way things look at first glance that I intend to put my “sizable” weight behind Dr. Mohler.

The Endorsement

Why should we want Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, as the next president of the Southern Baptist Convention? Well, let’s start a list:

1. Dr. Mohler is smarter than a tree full of owls. I have never met Dr. Mohler. My experience of this man is through his week-day radio program, The Albert Mohler Radio Show, his daily articles on his web log, his On Faith articles in the Washington Post, and his frequent preachings in chapel at Southern.  As I read and listen to him on a regular basis, I don’t know of a man in the SBC better informed or more widely read on today’s cultural issues. The only area Dr. Mohler is deficient in is sports, to which I say “finally!” It is refreshing to see a man of God who is confident in his manhood and doesn’t have to be a “jock.”
2. As Brother Burleson himself pointed out in his post “Al is well known in the evangelical world, serving on the board of Focus on the Family, appearing often on secular television shows, and weighing in regularly on the political and social issues of our day. Al is ubiquitous, but…” To the non-SBC and non-Christian public, Dr. Mohler is the face of the SBC. The above quote is actually an understatement of Dr. Mohler’s face time on major secular television shows such. Here is just a small bit of Dr. Mohler’s bio:
   

   Widely sought as a columnist and commentator, Dr. Mohler has been quoted in the nation’s leading newspapers, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Atlanta Journal/Constitution and The Dallas Morning News. He has also appeared on such national news programs as CNN’s “Larry King Live,” NBC’s “Today Show” and “Dateline NBC,” ABC’s “Good Morning America,” “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” on PBS, MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country” and Fox’s “The O’Reilly Factor.”

3. Dr. Mohler is a godly man, above reproach. No scandal has touched his personal or public life. He is well spoken of and well liked by most. He is a strong family man, taking an active role in the raising and educating of his two children. I realize that this last point is an observation from a distance, but again, from his words both spoken and in print, I have detected a family life, in spite of a hectic public life, that is real and vibrant.

The Next Post: Looking at the “Negatives”

I’m all out of time for now, so I will have to save for a day or two a look at what Pastor Burleson views as negatives.

I wanted to follow up on the issue over anti-Calvinism in the Arbuckle Baptist Association. After digging a bit, I discovered that Terry Mott was not, as far as I can tell, the author of this motion. Being the DOM in the association, Terry was just doing his job. I realize that says nothing positive or negative concerning his position on the matter. I appears that Pastor Joe Elam of FBC, Pauls Valley brought the motion to the floor of the associations annual meeting last month. I know nothing about this brother. I found this out at 2 Worlds Collide, which went on to say that there were no questions from the floor, and the motion passed. I can’t help think that there is more to this than appears at first glance. Wes Kenney has also shed recent light on the subject. Some of my initial frustrations at where this “story” was headed have subsided, for now. If you will look at the comments on Founder’s Blog, you will see that Tom Ascol is doing an adequate job of keeping rampant assumptions at bay. This was one of the blogs that gave me that here-we-go-again feeling and first caused me to write on this issue. I should have had more faith in Pastor Ascol, remembering his adept way of keeping the Calvinistas under control in the comments section during the Caner-debate posts some time back.

I may have left the impression in my previous post on this subject that I am against conferences seeking unity. I am not. I believe that they can bring about great good, if they are seen as a place to begin, a tool to get the ball rolling. I was delighted to see that Nathan Finn was going to be there to deliver an address. Posessing a calm, sweet Christian spirit, among the new SBC historians, there is no brighter rising star than he. I have never met him nor heard him speak, but if he speaks like he writes, Finn is singularly worth the price of admission.

What often disturbs me about these conferences, however, is that they turn out to be one more reflection of a program-driven mentality that is so unalterably woven into the fabric of SBC life. First you start with a Ridgecrest, Glorieta, or Falls Creek setting. After one, three, or five days of creating a glowing mountain-top experience, everybody gathers around in a circle, holding hands to sing “Cum Ba Ya.” You look around and everybody is just like you, with a few four-pointers sprinkled in to lend the feeling of diversity. There are no one-pointers to be found, because they would not come if you put a gun to their head. Honestly, can you blame them. Everybody goes home and everything remains pretty much the same.

My question to all of you - those of you who go, and those who stay at home - is this: What are you going to do? Shrug your shoulders like a Frenchman and say something like “Oh, that’s really sad.”? Or maybe you might cross your arms resolutely and say something like “We just need to realize that they’re different and move on.”? What are you going to do? I am reminded of the simple chorus to an old bluegrass song:

I didn’t hear nobody pray dear brother.
I didn’t hear nobody pray.
I heard the crash on the highway,
But I didn’t hear nobody pray.

Where are the tears? How many of you grieve and pray over these situations? Sometimes I think, like James and John, we do not know what spirit we are of. Do any of us sincerely pray for peace when these situations arise? So many are ready and willing to die for a cause, to climb into the ring at the next ding of the bell, but who’s praying earnestly for peace?

This picture is from the movie Gods and Generals. Blue and Gray meet in mid stream to exchange a tin cup of hot coffee for a pipe full of tobacco; two men stepping out into the stream to regain their humanity, to reclaim their imago Dei. How many of you are willing to risk ambush by laying down your weapons and going across town to that brother who doesn’t see it your way? How many of you are willing to say “Brother, I have been a pompous fool. Will you forgive me? Can we get together and talk about what we both agree on in order to advance the kingdom of God in this town?”

So, which do you think takes more courage; climbing into the ring, or stepping out into the stream? Meanwhile, millions are dying and going to hell. Do you think it matters very much to them whether you are a Calvinist or an Arminian? We bemoan what harm to the gospel the tele-evangelists are causing, but do we ever stop and consider what kind of harm we cause, and that without the aid of radio or tv?

“When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.”
C.S. Lewis, Mere Chistianity

“Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”
2 Timothy 2:23-26 (ESV)

It was after church last night at Arby’s when my pastor tossed the papers across the table at me. “You’ll find this interesting reading.” he said. With a wry grin he continued: “The first page is a letter sent to me last week, and behind that is the response I fired back the very next day.” The front sheet was a photocopy of a form letter sent to Dear Board of Directors Member, and was from the Arbuckle Baptist Association. What took my breath away was the signature at the bottom: Terry Mott, DOM. Thirty-two years ago he was best man at my wedding. The whole thing suddenly became strangely surreal by the fact that my pastor was not aware of our relationship, and that the letter had been sent to him by mistake, as he had rotated off the board just last year. “No mistake.” He said, “Providence.” What else could a Calvinist say?

The Arbuckle Baptist Association is a sleepy little band of thirty-one SBC churches located in two rural counties in south-central Oklahoma. The counties of Garvin and Murray contain about 40,000 souls between them, and the largest towns in them have populations of about 6,500 and 5,000 respectively. This last month, in their associational meeting, those present and voting at the ABA decided to draft a motion, and send it on to the upcoming (this week) BGCO state convention. The intention of that motion was to “take a public stand against reformed theology.”

As I was gleaning information, Brother Google made it plain to me that there was the beginnings of a feeding frenzy in Bloggsylvania. To be sure, it looks like a juicy story, on the surface. The quick facts I dug up, as you can see, however, clearly show that this isn’t some metro-mega association. And I can assure you Brother Mott does not have horns, one eye in the middle of his head, or even pointed ears. It saddens me to see people imply that someone is not a Christian because he does not hold to the doctrines of Grace, and yet nothing more is known about him, save what is contained in a brief bit of associational business.

I know the man, however. We came to Christ in the same church, in the same way: by means of an altar call. God saves those who are his. It doesn’t really matter whether or not they realize the correct order that regeneration took place in their lives. Although I have not seen or spoken Terry in over two decades, I can confidently say that today he is trusting in the same Blood and Righteousness as I. Never forget that God can draw a straight line in the dirt with a mighty crooked stick.

Shortly after my marriage, Terry and I took very different paths. Terry finished his bachelor’s at Oklahoma Baptist University, and became a cog in the SBC machine. My wife and I, frustrated with the shallow SBC-church life in a state-college town, joined a small, rural, independent, reformed-baptist church, some fifty miles away. For the next quarter-century we quietly raised a family, and grew in grace. The children are all grown and married now, and we have found ourselves, strangely for the last seven years, back in a SBC church. Don’t ask. It’s a long story.

The previous paragraph was so that I could say that I have been to both sides now. My pendulum has done busted out both sides of the clock, so to speak. Right now I am somewhere in the middle. I don’t care how many points you hold to. I just want to know if you love the Lord Jesus Christ, and if you yearn to live like it makes a difference. Yes, the SBC drives me nuts; makes me want to bite nails and spit. Grandchildren and their parents struggling to find God-honoring, Christ-centered churches will make you that way. But I have found enough “Calvinists” who are more interested in expositing the petals of a TULIP than leading men to Christ, that I can partially understand why some men might want to draft an anti-Calvinism motion and send it on up the line.

Let me ask you brothers of the Reformation, when do you cross over and become so much a Calvinist that you cease to be Christian? Though you be a strident five pointer, and have not love, what have ye? Brother Mott is certainly mistaken in his intent, but he is still a brother in Christ. Maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to blog about these things. Maybe we should be much quicker to pray to God seeking grace and charity, and strive to find real ways to build bridges, instead of going to another of our party’s confabs with snappy titles like “Building Bridges.” Someone took the time to build a real one to me.

So what about the letter stapled to this mis-sent letter? What did Pastor say? I didn’t get permission to tell. I can tell you that after my pastor made his position plain, he concluded with, not a clenched fist, but an open hand extended out.

ht: Tom Ascoll, Tony Kummer

On this day in 1517, in Wittenberg, Germany, an Augustinian monk nailed a piece of paper to the front door of the church. That paper contained ninety-five statements intended for disputation among his colleagues. Martin Luther’s students, however, swiftly copied the arguments written in Latin and translated them into the vernacular German. Thanks to the newly-invented printing press, within a very short time, Luther’s ninety-five theses were all the buzz in every hamlet in Germany. And thus the fuse was lit that eventually exploded into the Protestant reformation.

Many have cried for a new reformation in our day. Many have stated that the need is greater today than it was five centuries ago. In light of the 490th anniversary of the nailing of Luther’s 95 theses, I propose A New 95, aimed at reformation from within and not without, if at all possible possible. It proved impossible in the sixteenth century. Let us pray God’s mercy upon us, that by his spirit it may be possible. I am going to post only a few a week, as I think of them, and how to articulate them. I welcome your suggestions in the comments section. Any serious thesis submitted by you will be considered for future postings. In a few days I will create a static page called A New 95 in which I will add subsequent theses in the future as they are posted.

1. Let us not merely raise hands of praise during the singing on Sunday. Let us faithfully and lovingly raise the hands of our hearts in praise daily to our God, by how we live among a lost, perishing, and longing people. 1 Samuel 15:22; Hosea 6:6; Matthew 12:7
2. In worship let us learn to sing with our minds as well as our hearts so that the one may inform the other. 1 Corinthians 14:15; Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 10:5
3. As we sing a wide variety of music in our worship services, let us refrain from referring to one style of music as “praise and worship,” as this implies that all other music styles employed in church somehow do not involve praise and worship.
4. Protracted church meetings employing a special preacher and music minister do not a revival make. We should be careful not to presume that God’s spirit will blow among us just because we post it on the sign out front. John 3:8; Daniel 4:35
5. Numbers can be a mighty tool in the hand of the devil. Which is better, a whole barrel of half-rotten apples, or a half barrel of whole apples? Revelation 3:17
6. Your church’s youth minister is not responsible for the souls of your children; you are. Ephesians 6:4, Deuteronomy 6:7
7. Is there any reason to believe that a man is a Christian when he never drives like one? Matthew 7:16
8. When a woman, whether she claims to be a Christian or not, dresses like prostitute she should be considered as such. Proverbs 7:10

I wanted to get back to this topic one last time, for quite some time, but other matters have prevented me. Right after I posted my third piece on our TMABC annual meeting, I was made aware of a question-and-answer session with Dr. Frank Page, that took place the day after the TMABC annual meeting. I was unable to attend, but the remarks of Dr. Page were recorded and have been made available in mp3 format on the Internet by Art Rogers. To be fair I wanted to listen to that session and see if there was anything said by Dr. Page that might change my view as stated in the three previous posts on this subject. I have since listened to that thirty-odd-minute piece of audio, and would like to make just a few further observations and comments.

To begin with, I have no doubt that Dr. Page is genuinely as he has been described: sincere, humble, and kind. I discover this to be more so each time I hear him speak. I also am convinced that Dr. Page has, and will continue to be, on the whole, a good and influence on the SBC. I believe Dr. Page to be a sincere, committed Christian who knows Christ. I was very impressed with his boldness as he described toward the end of the audio of his recent opportunities to witness to presidential candidates. As Dr. Page concluded his Q & A he shared how presidential candidates, both Republican and Democrat, have desired an audience with him, obviously seeking endorsement. He would begin each interview by stating flatly “I know what you have come for, and I can’t give that to you or any candidate, but let me tell you about Jesus.” And to that I say God’s blessings be upon him and all like him. Praise be to God there are men like him not afraid to name the name of Jesus among those aspiring to the highest office in the land.

I am also encouraged somewhat by Dr. Page’s opening comments concerning his plans to unveil a strategy of evangelism at next year’s convention, intended to aid churches. He was careful to emphasize that this was not to be another program, it was going to be a strategy. I understand the carefulness, in light of much reaction to the plague of program-o-mania the SBC has been infected with since Moby Dick was a minnow. That all said, I am still concerned, not having heard any strategy details. I am afraid that this is just a distinction without a difference. It is hard to break old habits. I hope this turns out to be just such a break; a break from method to message.

So to summarize, I have a great admiration for Dr. Frank Page, and yet I cannot take back any thing I said in the previous posts on this subject. I am cautiously optimistic that good will come out of his two-year term as the president of the Southern Baptist Convention. But for lasting good, from top to bottom, we all need to learn how to turn to God, seeking his good pleasure, resting in his ways and not ours. There is much I have not said, mostly because I feel this is not the post to say it. I will leave that for another post, another day.