David Rogers Prays with Women Pastors

[David Rogers]

[Blake]

[Tim Bonney]

Blake, I agree with what you are saying about ecumenical cooperation. And yes, we could certainly work together in many areas including fellowshipping together at the Lord's Table. United Methodists believe in open communion and everyone is welcome.

But what I was wondering about from David is cooperation and fellowship within a denomination. It seems to me that if a church is disfellowshipped from an association that it certainy isn't in either fellowship or cooperation with those churches who are in their very own denomination.

As I move out of Baptist life I realize more all the time that Baptists are in a unique situation that often makes things more contentious. Churches in the UMC don't get kicked out. We are connectional and local churches don't have a membership in the denomination, they are part of the denomination just like my thumb doesn't have to join my hand. It is a part of the hand and a part of the whole. It is similarly true for local churches in the PCUSA, the Episcopal Church, and the ECUSA. Even the Disciples of Christ with polity similar to Baptists don't kick churches out of regional groups. So Baptists deal with a unique problem.

[Tom Parker]

Timothy:

Several years ago I was trying to come up with what SBC actually means after the FUNDAMENTALIST takeover. I honestly believe it accurately stands for SOLELY BOYS CLUB, at least as far as any true leadership positions.

Now, I do know that women can be a part of the SBC, just not leadership positions.

Many want to take it back to the Garden of Eden, but I have a question could not Adam have refused Eve's offer of the apple?

The 2000 BF&M limited pastorship to solely men but that has been used to limit the leadership of women in almost any way.

Just as the SBC repented of its long support of slavery, maybe one day some will repent of the current view of wishing women would only teach women, and by all means be silent in the church if the Bible is to be followed literally.

[Tom Parker]

David Rogers:

You said:"For those of you long-term SBCers whose sentiments are more with the more moderate wing of Baptist life, my suggestion is to pour your efforts into the positive things CBF, ABC-USA, or other groups may be involved in for the advance of the Kingdom of God, and not waste precious time crying over spilled milk."

For many of us long-term SBCers it is much more than just spilled milk for us!!

[Blake]

[David Rogers]

[David Rogers]

[David Rogers]

Timothy,

One more thing. I think there is also an important difference between biblical unity/fellowship and much "ecumenical cooperation."

True biblical unity, as I understand it, is based on a common relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is gospel-centered. This implies some doctrinal parameters, but only at the level of essential gospel doctrine, those types of doctrines that divide between authentic members of the Body of Christ and those who are not.

However, much of what has happened in the Ecumenical Movement, assoicated with the WCC and related organizations, is centered on common opinions on political and social issues, and membership in certain organizations, even, sometimes, at the expense of essential gospel doctrine.

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[Gene Scarborough]

Timothy---

I have never before heard such a clear explaination of the UMC approach to life. I now know why I identified more with my Methodist cohorts in every town I served! I saw it again in insurance as I visited with the UMC annual conference at Fayetteville, NC. There I found a group of clergy who had no real axes to grind. They were helping one another as they discussed the next assignment with the minister serving previously.

With Baptist compatriots, I was constantly lied to by my predecessor to cover his hardships and "failures." One told me--looking right into my eyes--that "they were a normal congregation with few quirks." Not just "no they weren't," but HELL NO!! They were a group of serious preacher killers and he only survived as long as he did because he had an invalid son and putting him on the street would have looked too awful + he was a fellow Mason! He should have told me to "run before they get you too!"

[David Rogers]

Timothy,

I don't think that individual local congregations are the only biblical expression of church. My understanding of biblical ecclesiology is a little too complex to explain here. But the following post will help you to understand better where I am coming from, in case you are interested:

[Tim Bonney]

Gene,

It sounds like you've had some bad experiences with Baptist ministry and with how the system of pastoral call works in Baptist life. I've been there and know what you are talking about. No system is perfect. But I have a lot of problems with the way the call system works. You've just expressed one of the abuses, not being told really what a church is like before you accept a call there.

[Gene Scarborough]

You are totally right, Timothy.

When I was lied to by both Pulpit Committees in the last 2 large churches, I decided honoring my children with a stable place to live during the high school years was far more important than putting my life and financial support in the hands of another Baptist church.

That decision also gave me a fredom of honesty as I still dealt with denominational Baptists and part time churches. If I preached the truth and talked it in educational sessions, I could not be threatened with dismissal if I didn't tell them what they wanted to hear.

That is a freedom given in the UMC. As I stated before, they were helping one another as new assignments were made at the Annual Conference in Fayetteville, NC. It was such a joy to see a group of clergy not constantly fighting and fussing to gain an upper hand in the big church market!

[Jim]

There is this strange dichotomy about the “call.” Exactly how does that work? The preacher says he’s “called” of God to a specific church or other activity only to discover that he’s in it up to his ears shortly after he arrives. Did God make a mistake and “call” him to a nest of vipers…or did the preacher sort of “call” himself into that mess? Or…was the church a fine place only to discover it had “called” a snake when it meant to “call” a pastor? Or…were church and/or preacher wrong in not discovering that either had been “called” to get its/his/her act together? I found the “call” to be a mysterious thing when I spent ten years working in churches. For instance, I was asked at least once by a preacher to recommend him to the church in which I had grown up, when actually I didn’t know him from Adam. I was asked another time by a church seeking a pastor for the rundown on a pastor on whose staff I had worked as they considered…what…the “call,” and if so, what “call.” I honored neither request. I imagine every preacher in this forum is quite conversant with my remarking the nature of “call” as it relates to how churches change pastors and how pastors are sometimes “called,” “un-called,” or, heaven forbid, miss the “call.” Some ministers are even “called” to change denominations, though, in fairness, they are sometimes forced to it either by denominational hierarchical fiat or simply their inability to get along with either the church or the denomination. Personal failure is generally not in the picture because, after all, the “call” is a sacred thing…or at least congregations have been led to believe that, and in most cases probably try to operate on that conviction, not knowing that the “good ole boy” networks are also dealing in the various “calls.”

There may have been a time when ministry was considered a “calling.” Now, it seems to be more of a profession, complete with all the trappings of small business/large business. Nothing wrong with that! But, honesty regarding the “call” may sometimes be in short supply. One wonders if God might look at the scene in wonderment and conclude that “well, I gave them the freedom to be smart, ambitious, greedy, crafty, disingenuous, straight-up, devious…or spiritual. Likewise for the churches! With my obvious cynicism based on experience, do I believe that the “call” is still administered and given response in the spirit of the “call” of God? Yes. I only wonder at the percentages regarding its validity.

The First Methodist Church (UMC) in my city of about 300,000, a large downtown church with a choir of well over a hundred people as indicative of the total membership, was riven asunder some three or so years ago over an issue instigated by a terrible misjudgment by the pastor that could have been mitigated virtually overnight by the district superintendent, who refused to touch it and passed it on to the bishop, who erred overwhelmingly, stubbornly refusing to simply do the sensible thing, easily recognized by anyone. Practically overnight (using the same measure of support as above), the choir numbered 15. People pulled out of the church in droves, notwithstanding being in the midst of a huge, ambitious building program, now in abeyance, and simply formed their own church – not Methodist, at least in name and not a part of the denomination. With the UMC hierarchy in place, the players are at the mercy of a handful of operatives who hold the “keys to the kingdom.” That pastor has been promoted hierarchically and demoted financially. He’s long-gone and the church stumbles along…too little, too late. How did the “call” play a part, if at all? I have intimate, inside knowledge of this affair.

This same thing happened to probably the largest Southern Baptist church in the city (and one of the largest in the state, for that matter). Three hundred of probably its most steadfast members pulled out in the late 90s, met in a college building for a while, built their own church and campus (still very much Southern Baptist), and the new church thrives. The initial church is still there and apparently strong, now looking for a pastor, but I don’t know what its actual condition is. What kind of “call” did all these people get? So…my cynicism remains, and I wish quite frankly that the business of “call” would simply be banished, lest God be made to look bad in the process.

[Tim Bonney]

Jim, all I can say is that there is no perfect system. You just have to choose the system that you feel best fits your gifts, ministry, and theology. I've been extremely pleased with the wisdom and foresight of my Bishop and District Superintendent and I know by reputation many other very fine people in similar positions.

As you say, "call" is an elusive thing to define. But IMHO the best way you get a good call in a Baptist system is if everyone is completely honest about who they are, what they want, and what they believe. My experience (from the preacher side) is that search committees seldom know what they want, seldom are willing to tell you the whole truth about a church, and seldom really know what their congregation needs. (as opposed to "wants.") In pastoring a total of four Baptist churches I feel like I got a fair shake about 50% of the time. One church just out right lied to me by omission not telling me of the church's serious financial and internal issues. Another search committee knew what they wanted but actually didn't know what the church needed and really didn't represent the whole church. So they managed to deceive me and themselves without knowing it at the time. All four church search committees I am sure thought they were doing the right thing but none of them had any training for the work they were doing.

It may not work this way for everyone. But for me the appointment system takes ambition out of the system and makes it a matter of ministry. And it puts the decision in the hands of people who actually have training and experience to match pastors with churches that fit them. For every story I hear of a UMC pastor who had a bad match I hear five who tell me that the DS and Bishop have always given them the right placement at the right time in their ministry. And even when there were struggles it was where they were supposed to be.

Again, you got to follow God where God leads whatever the system.

[Gene Scarborough]

The average church member / pastor uses that term "call" as a stamp by God on things God does not necessarily have anything to do with! I heard one preacher constantly say, "God told me this..." when it was obvious his computer disc covering the scriptures was the source. The recent introductions of new SBC leaders of the EC / NAMB / IMB were preceeded by the same bull.

If they would be more honest is would be: "I sense God's leading in this." If God is truely leading in something, then it would produce the Fruits of the Spirit = love, joy, peace, longsuffering, etc. If it produces fussing and fighting, I would have to question it strongly. I see far too much of the holy talk without an equally holy walk by those involved.

This "God-called man" stuff started seriously while my father was Assistant DOM of the Atlanta Baptist Association. He would hear from Pastor Search Committees of how 3 different prominent Conservative Pastors from Texas / Mississippi / etc. had sent letters or made personal calls by phone to recommend the same "Man of God." When he asked, "Have you heard of the airport meeting being done in recent years?" they would raise their eyebrows and respond, "What!!!" Naively they thought the pressure to put conservatives in pulpits across the SBC was "of God."

Any time someone starts using too much "God talk" to defend his position, I raise my eyebrows and start looking closely for the Fruits of the Spirit attached to the decision / person / program. God has given me direction many times along life's pathway, but I have realized from early on that there are "spiritual voices" equally possible from Satan disguising his spirit as God's Spirit.

The real measure for me has become whether Spiritual Fruits accompany the directions and begin to become apparant as I try to follow that "calling."

[Stephen Fox]

[Stephen Fox]

Adrian Rogers son David is one of 18 comments on William Thornton's blog about ousting female pastors in an association.

I think it is clear David Rogers is a place his father could never go; at the same time tacking a little to the right of Thornton, who may be on the way to becoming a SBINO; Southern Baptist in name only he is getting so liberal on us recently

Howell Scott another influential SBC blogger is part of the discussion as well.

http://sbcplodder.blogspot.com/2011/08/ ... -with.html

Thornton is carving out new territory for himself, distinguishing himself from among others, Glynn Stone, a Jerry Vines successor at West Rome, BC who led the fight to oust the North Broad CoPastors from the Floyd County Baptist Association circa 2002.
I drove over and witnessed that deliberation with my own eyes.

[Gene Scarborough]

Now, let me play Stephen and suggest he broach the issues here.

I think we would all profit from his input. Several blogs and comment streams keep us from appreciating the positions of those only participating in other places.

Since you spend much of the day browsing blogs, maybe you can bring some of this together here, Stephen. I would appreciate it so very much!

[Stephen Fox]

And his comment line on this blog that is getting lot of attention.

No need for distraction here. Get to interlibrary loan in North Carolina and get your hands on the Williams book, God's Own Party.

Now let the rest of us get on to exploration of the implications of Thornton's tacking on the Rogers/Vines/Sehested/complementarian/Mohler/Associational spectrum