Baptists, Gays, and A-29 - What a Day!

Yesterday was quite the full day! I had two major appointments - The Georgia Baptist Convention North of Atlanta for what turned out to be a round table discussion with 8 church planters from the state and several leaders from the GBC, followed by a panel discussion at Mercer University on the subject of Gays and Religion. Thanks for all of the prayers and questions about how things went - for those who want to know - here's the rundown...

GBC and A-29

GBC will continue to welcome churches who desire to be both A-29 and Georgia Baptists.

Churches who desire to receive funding from the GBC or SBC (Southern Bapt Convention) will sign a statement saying that they do not drink alcohol and hold a position of abstinence. The possibility exists that an A-29 church plant who agrees with the abstinence policy of the GBC/SBC and agrees with the ecclesiology statement of the GBC/SBC and who desires to be Southern Baptist MAY (as in - maybe, might, possibly) be eligible for GBC/SBC funding as any other GBC/SBC church plant would be.

Also

I had a great discussion with Butch Butcher the GBC head of church planting about the fact that each Acts 29 church is independent and not all Acts 29 churches are the same. So each church should not be judged based on Mars Hill or Mark Driscoll. Likewise just because some Acts 29 churches take a moderation approach to alcohol, doesn't mean that all do - many take an abstinence approach. Therefore churches should be considered individually when partnering with the GBC and should not be automatically viewed in a negative light because they are Acts 29.

There seems to have been good, honest dialog and there is a mutual respect for one another even though there are differences on secondary issues (though alcohol remains a primary issue for most in the SBC/GBC).

J Robert White, the GBC Executive Director stated that he would like very much to meet again and continue the dialogs. A couple of guys from the GBC church planting team said they would like to come and visit me and New City soon.

Gays and God

(I think that is what the evening was called)

I was a late invite to the table, but gladly accepted the invitation. The panel was made of 8 - 4 Conservative / 4 Liberal

Conservatives: Myself, Eric Ashley (Associate Pastor at First Pres Macon), Chris Fuller (Bapt College Ministry leader at Mercer), Dominique Johnson (local word of faith preacher/minister)

Liberals: Camile Hegg (Rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church), Dennis Meredith (Pastor of Tabernacle Bapt in ATL), Chris (Prof of History at Mercer), a Mercer student who is gay

questions:

What is your church's faith tradition and how has it historically viewed homosexuality?

How does your church view membership of homosexuals and their full participation in the church?

How will your church address / respond to the growing acceptance of gay marriage - especially if Gay marriage were to become legalized in GA?

Each panelist answered the question and then other panelists may add to, comment, or question those responses.

I am very thankful to have had an opportunity to participate in the discussion - I learned a great deal. There were a couple of tense moments, but all remained civil and no one yelled - a good night on such a difficult subject. So here are a few observations:

1) The 4 conservatives relied on Scripture - because Scripture holds such a high value to us. We all quoted Scripture and repeatedly expressed that our opinions were not based on feelings, or fears, but on what the Bible says.

All 4 liberals relied on feelings, psychology, and opinion. They gave no Scriptural references and stated that the Bible is important but should not be taken as literal. It is best to take the teachings of the Bible along with modern psychology and a good understanding of culture. Rector Hegg said that we should understand that the Bible is really just stories of people from long ago trying to make sense of life and understand how God was a loving God. (What the #@!!% are you talking about!!!!!?????? - sorry, mental flashback on my part)

2) The most humble people speaking were the conservatives (maybe excluding myself - I wasn't always humble). The liberals in the room were at times arrogant making statements like: the conservative reactions come from fear - homophobia. That statement was made multiple times - I reacted on the 1st occasion by raising my hand and stating - I am NOT a homophobe. I am not afraid of those of you who are gay. The second time I said that the Rector was making gross misstatements of me and other conservatives by saying that we react in fear. The truth is that our position is held based on our theology and based on the teachings of Scripture. Another statement - the problem with them (looking at the conservatives on the panel) is that they are unwilling to look at the findings of doctors, sociologists, and psychologists. There were other statements as well. The conservatives over and over and over presented themselves as broken and dependent on Jesus.

3) I never heard the gospel - in any form - from the liberals. Every answer and discussion by conservatives went back to the gospel - our common need for a redeemer - and Jesus being that redeemer.

4) Without a common view of Scripture - there will never be agreement between liberals and conservatives.

Most outrageous statements of the night:

1) You are not broken or sinful - you are good, just like you are - you are the image of God.

(Who needs to know what the Bible says about you???? Just ask Prof. Chris!)

2) God created me in his image. I am gay. Therefore a part of God must be gay as well.

3) The statement above by the Rector - that the Bible is really just stories of people from long ago trying to make sense of life and understand how God was a loving God.

All in all, a great night - much learned - Jesus was highly exalted. I probably don't have many new gay friends - but that wasn't the hope of the night - sharing the gospel with boldness in love and kindness was... I think that happened.

I Should Learn This One!

Saw this on Rick Warren's twitter - he follows me, the least I could do was follow back!

RT @RickWarren B.Graham's counsel on false attacks: "Rick, if you wrestle with a pig, both of you will get dirty, but only 1of u will like it." Pr26:4

I should learn this lesson! Recently I have spent too much time and energy arguing with SBC guys on incorrect info posted about A-29. And then there are those who want to accuse me of not loving our homeless community downtown. Now I learn that there are others questioning me indirectly - not based on Scripture but based on a church culture's religious construct.

Write this 100 times:

I will not wrestle with pigs, I will not wrestle with pigs, I will not wrestle with pigs, I will not wrestle with pigs, I will not wrestle with pigs...

Acts 29 and the GBC

Recently, Jason Martin, lead pastor at the Journey Church in Atlanta shared with me that the local Baptist association is discussing steps to remove the Journey from their association of churches - the West Metro Baptist Association. The concern from the Baptist association is the Journey's affiliation with the Acts 29 network and their position concerning the consumption of alcoholic beverages (that the Bible teaches moderation not abstinence).

As a result of the conversation with the local association leader, Jason scheduled a time to talk with the Georgia Baptist Convention's (GBC) New Church Development leader, Butch Butcher. Jason's discussion with Mr. Butcher was described by Jason as gracious, but not good as far as the Journey's future with the GBC. According to Jason he was informed that the GBC will no longer support new churches that plan to affiliate with the Georgia Baptist Association and the Acts 29 Network. Current church plants receiving funding from the GBC who are affiliated with Acts 29 will continue to receive any promised funding, but no new churches will be added with dual affiliation. (New City does NOT receive funding from the GBC). Neither will they (the GBC) partner in events with Acts 29 churches.

The statements made seem to possibly flow from controversy in the Missouri Baptist Convention as well as fundamentalists rumblings in the Southern Baptist Convention. Some of those rumblings were voiced as proposed resolutions at the SBC's recent annual meeting in Louisville, KY. Those resolutions were:

that “all SBC entities should monitor” funds spent in “activities related to or cooperative efforts with Mark Driscoll and/or the Acts 29 organization” and entity heads should submit a report of expenditures to appear in the 2010 Book of Reports, submitted by Kent Cochran, a messenger from Calvary Baptist Church in Republic, Mo.

that SBC entities avoid “inviting event speakers” who “are known for publicly exhibiting unregenerate behavior ... such as cursing and sexual vulgarity, immorality, or who publicly state their support for the consumption or production of alcohol,” submitted by Ida South, a messenger from First Baptist Church in Mathiston, Miss

that author Mark Driscoll’s books be removed from LifeWay Christian Bookstores because of his “reputation for abusive and ungodly language and ... promotions of sex toys on his church web site,” submitted by Jim Wilson, pastor, First Baptist Church in Seneca, Mo.

While the resolutions did not pass, they do demonstrate the conflict within the denomination. New City is affiliated with the Macon Baptist Association, which also affiliates us with the Georgia Baptist Convention, and the Southern Baptist Convention and we are 100% Acts 29.

What if...?

I was talking with one of our guys this week about the 567 and all that could be headed our way. We are both really excited about the potential. Then came the "what if...". A few needed "what ifs."
What if someone someone comes in with an alcoholic beverage?
Well, that will almost certainly happen! During First Fridays downtown the street drinking laws are suspended. So people come and go from shop to shop and store to store drinking alcoholic beverages. Our official stand as a church is that the Bible does not prohibit drinking, but drunkenness is a sin. (see below)

OK, then. What if someone who comes to the 567 is drunk?
discussion, discussion, discussion (just keeping it short)
We didn't recall that Jesus ever ran a drunk off - not even late into the wedding celebration where he had turned water into wine - GOOD wine.
So, we concluded that as long as a person was not a danger to himself or anyone else, and as long as he was not disruptive, what we would do is - nothing. If they are disruptive or unsafe, we will simply ask them to leave or escort them out. This, by the way is the same policy that we have for Sunday mornings at the theater. (you never know who might show up for a service)

If you haven't read our official position on alcohol - here it is, adopted from the Acts 29 Network.

First, we believe that all drunkenness is a sin (Deuteronomy 21:20; Ecclesiastes 10:17; Matthew 24:29; Luke 12:45; 21:34; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 5:11, 6:10; Ephesians 5:18; 1 Peter 4:3).

Secondly, we believe that many horrendous sins are affiliated with drunkenness. Therefore, getting drunk is a sin that can lead to other sins, such as incest (Genesis 19:32–35), violence (Proverbs 4:17), adultery (Revelation 17:2), mockery and brawling (Proverbs 20:1), poverty (Proverbs 21:17), late night and early morning drinking (Isaiah 5:11–12), hallucinations (Isaiah 28:7), foolish behavior (Isaiah 5:22;
Jeremiah 51:39), murder (2 Samuel 11:13), vomiting (Jeremiah 25:27; 48:26; Isaiah 19:14), staggering (Jeremiah 25:27; Psalm 107:27; Job 12:25), madness (Jeremiah 51:7), shameful nakedness (Habakkuk 2:15; Lamentations 4:21), sloth (Joel 1:5), escapism (Hosea 4:11), and depression (Luke 21:34). In summary, sin leads to death and the sin of drunkenness produces only death and misery.

Thirdly, we believe that Christian leaders are to live their lives in such a way as to set a positive example of holiness for others to emulate (Hebrews 13:7). This includes elders, the male senior leaders in the church, who are not to be drunkards (1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7).

Fourthly, we do believe that all Christians must at varying times and in varying ways give up some of their Christian liberties in order to love people of weaker conscience. Christians must make every effort to not lead them into sin by exercising freedoms in their presence (Romans 14:21; 1 Corinthians 10:31–32).

Missouri Baptists Cut Ties With Acts 29

I have been watching this one for a few days in silence - waiting to see what would happen. It saddens me to see what the Missouri Baptist Convention is doing. Here's the story in part:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (BP)--The Executive Board of the Missouri Baptist Convention met Dec. 10 in part to discuss their concerns about alcohol use and alcohol-based evangelism strategies within the greater Missouri Baptist family. They concluded by taking significant action on the issue. In an historic move members of the board voted by a nearly 3-1 margin to cut off state convention Cooperative Program support to Acts 29 Network churches/church plants in Missouri. The vote does not impact MBC churches who, on their own, are assisting Acts 29 churches.The controversy over Acts 29 began when one church, The Journey, started holding regular discussion sessions in a bar where some participants drank alcohol. The "Theology at the Bottleworks" (the name of the bar) sessions were the focus of a handful of secular media reports, including one on NBC's "Today" show. Acts 29 is a nationwide non-denominational organization that receives funding from multiple denominations...

The result is that all Acts 29 church plants, not just those with barroom ministries, are being de-funded. And the decision was not tied to just one issue. Board Member Vic Borden of Kansas City broadened the debate beyond alcohol by stating he is even more offended by The Journey's movie ministry that includes R-rated films."There is becoming more and more of an abuse of Christian liberty, and it is most prevalent in the churches that have been connected with the Acts 29 Network," said Marr, who was part of a theological study committee that examined this issue from February through July. "That's why this motion is stated this way."...
(full story)

The events that led to these actions in Mo took place at one church. As a result, 9 churches will lose funding. One new church is set to lose $12,000 in support for the pastor and his family in 2008. The MBC voted to go back on their pledge to support 8 churches and pastor's because one church apparently did not fully keep its pledge.

I ask again, where would Jesus be in all of this? A recent post should answer that for us! He wasn't called a friend of sinners, a drunkard and a glutton because he lived life apart from "such evils." Jesus should be our model.

A Sound Position on Alcohol

I checked the Acts 29 Network's written position on alcohol. I figured it was probably sound, biblical and well written. I was right. So, why re-write!? Here it is in part (or the whole) :

First, we believe that all drunkenness is a sin (Deuteronomy 21:20; Ecclesiastes 10:17; Matthew 24:29; Luke 12:45; 21:34; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 5:11, 6:10; Ephesians 5:18; 1 Peter 4:3).

Secondly, we believe that many horrendous sins are affiliated with drunkenness. Therefore, getting drunk is a sin that can lead to other sins, such as incest (Genesis 19:32–35), violence (Proverbs 4:17), adultery (Revelation 17:2), mockery and brawling (Proverbs 20:1), poverty (Proverbs 21:17), late night and early morning drinking (Isaiah 5:11–12), hallucinations (Isaiah 28:7), foolish behavior (Isaiah 5:22; Jeremiah 51:39), murder (2 Samuel 11:13), vomiting (Jeremiah 25:27; 48:26; Isaiah 19:14), staggering (Jeremiah 25:27; Psalm 107:27; Job 12:25), madness (Jeremiah 51:7), shameful nakedness (Habakkuk 2:15; Lamentations 4:21), sloth (Joel 1:5), escapism (Hosea 4:11), and depression (Luke 21:34). In summary, sin leads to death and the sin of drunkenness produces only death and misery.

Thirdly, we believe that Christian leaders are to live their lives in such a way as to set a positive example of holiness for others to emulate (Hebrews 13:7). This includes elders, the male senior leaders in the church, who are not to be drunkards (1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7).

Fourthly, we do believe that all Christians must at varying times and in varying ways give up some of their Christian liberties in order to love people of weaker conscience. Christians must make every effort to not lead them into sin by exercising freedoms in their presence (Romans 14:21; 1 Corinthians 10:31–32).

The Brewing Battle...

Is is right to insist on "rules" that are not biblical? Should we (as a church) impose man made "do's" and "don'ts" on those around us? I am not suggesting that we don't follow the laws of the land, neither am I suggesting that we toss out clear biblical teaching. I am referring to the question surrounding The Journey Church and their "Theology at the Bottleworks."
The following article is from Christianity Today:

Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra posted 6/29/2007 08:55AM
Church planters who receive
money from the Missouri Baptist Convention (MBC) must now teach alcohol abstinence. The policy change was sparked by the Journey, a growing interdenominational church that borrowed $200,000 from the MBC to renovate a church two years ago. One of the Journey's outreach groups meets in a St. Louis microbrewery. Related articles and links

"Theology at the Bottleworks was started to reach people who are actively opposed to Christianity, by discussing contemporary cultural issues in a neutral environment," explained Darrin Patrick, founding pastor of the Journey, which attracts about 1,500 people weekly to three sites. Those who attend Theology at the Bottleworks grab a beer and discuss political or spiritual topics, such as the role of women in society, the legal system, or animal rights.

The outreach caught the MBC off guard, said interim executive director David Tolliver. "We need to engage the culture, but without compromising our biblical, traditional Baptist values," Tolliver said. "For me, that includes abstinence from alcohol."

Patrick said that the Journey adheres to the same theological confessions as the MBC, the state division of the Southern Baptist Convention. Because the Journey received the money by loan, not by grant, the new policy does not affect the church. But future borrowers will be scrutinized more closely, Tolliver said. Previously, church planters were asked to sign a statement agreeing to abstain from alcohol. Now they must teach "the strong biblical warnings" against drinking beer and wine. Though the Bible does not expressly forbid alcohol consumption, the new policy states that alcohol consumption is not wise.

The policy addresses an ongoing SBC debate. Baptists have championed alcohol abstinence since the late 1800s, but a growing number want the SBC to reexamine the issue, said Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School.
"There is growing discontent, people saying that we shouldn't be mandating things that aren't spoken clearly about in Scripture," George said. "It's hard to argue that the Bible requires total abstinence."

After heated arguments at the annual SBC meeting in June 2006, messengers passed a resolution affirming abstinence. Mark DeVine, professor at Midwest Baptist Theological Seminary, sees the new MBC policy as part of a struggle between traditional churches and the young "emerging" church. The Journey's Patrick serves as vice president of Acts 29, a church-planting network led by Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll. Driscoll describes Acts 29 as "theologically conservative and culturally liberal." About one-quarter of Acts 29 churches affiliate with the SBC.

The controversy may not stop with alcohol. MBC executive board member Michael Knight, who chairs the theological study committee, has proposed that the MBC sever all contact, financial and otherwise, with Acts 29.
Copyright © 2007 Christianity Today.

I believe there are a lot of good reasons for a person to abstain from alcohol. Similarly there are a lot of good reasons to abstain from a lot of other things. The real question is, should we enforce as a "law" within a denomination something that cannot be biblically supported? Then, should we disassociate with those who do not follow our "law" or withdraw support from them? I think I am just tired of such garbage. I know it is a controversial issue in SBC circles, but only because WE have made "biblical" something that isn't.

Guilt by Association and Being Missional

Growing up I remember being told that people often make decisions about you and your character based on who you associate with. It is true. Guilt by association we call it. Sometimes this causes us to withdraw from people and places out of fear that we might be associated with them and thus be guilty as they are - our character, our reputation, even our "witness" is destroyed. I remember as well, receiving that teaching in the church. "Don't go to places like that," or "don't hang around people like that or your Christian witness will be destroyed."
There may be very good reasons to be careful of where we go and who we hang out with - but our "witness" is not one of them. In fact, if Jesus is our model, and the New Testament teaching our guide - then the opposite is true.

Consider Jesus, our model:
Who did Jesus hang out with? Tax Gatherers, Harlots, literally a couple of thieves...
Where was Jesus seen? Having meals with the dreaded, despicable, lowly sinners; at a wedding party turning water into wine because there wasn't enough to go around. He was known to touch those believed to be cursed by God and heal them - even those who were unclean.
In Matthew 11:19 we read, The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'
Jesus didn't ruin His "witness," that was his witness! He came to those who needed him, not those who didn't. He came to seek and save the lost.

Consider Paul's writing in I Corinthians 5:10. Let me set the stage. There was gross immorality going on in the church. The people of the church knew about it and were even arrogant or prideful of it. Paul tells them that it needed to be addressed. He told them that such an immoral believer should be "delivered to Satan" and should not be associated with. I wrote you a letter, Paul said, and told you not to associate with such immoral people. Then verse 10: 10not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
That reminds me very much of Jesus' prayer in John 17:15, I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but keep them from the evil."
Paul said, don't associate with those in your church who profess Christ, but live as if they don't - the immoral, covetous, idolatrous, drunkards... BUT it seems quite right that association with the "world" outside of the church takes place.
Paul's approach seems to mirror that of Jesus. So should ours.

In light of this, with Jesus as our model, and the apostle Paul (and the NT) as our guide - I should think we would desire Guilt by Association, not flee from it - that is Being Missional - not for sake of a label, or a name to be achieved (look he's "a friend of sinners") - but for the sake of the Gospel, the good of people, and the glory of God.

That is why our vision at New City Church reads:
It is our dream that New City church downtown be a people engaging its culture at work, at play, and in worship.
We dream of a church that shapes culture, not runs from it or chases after it.
We dream of a church that celebrates the arts and looks for creative ways to engage our culture, a church willing to cross traditional lines and take significant risks to bring Jesus into the public square.
We dream of a church whose people are a multiplying movement of disciples of Jesus Christ, disciples who look like Jesus, love like Jesus, live like Jesus.
(for more on New City's Mission and Vision)

What did Jesus do?

This article was sent to me from a friend - it's a little long, but read it!

Let me know your thoughts. Probably from the title of this post you can guess mine!

And here's a little Baptist history for you.

Here's another good rant on the subject with some nice links - check out Caleb Land's take.