Very Disturbing
To hear some people put it, we are the only association that fights. At least we are one state association and not three like the Southern Baptist Convention in Texas (this statement is not intended to hurt them either, just factual). Most associations as ours (conventions, fellowships, etc.) fight. They argue and debate on what needs to be done. This is how, many times, things are accomplished. So, while maybe not everything was perfect in Hillsboro, I do see the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. Things are happening. People are changing. Churches are growing. BUT it is going to take time. While I'm not the most patient person, I do see the need for patience in this area. Do not give up; keep fighting the fight.
However, there is one item of business that really disturbs me. There was a letter sent out to certain pastors talking about certain events and individuals in Hillsboro. While I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with a person sending such a letter and not signing their name! And yes, I probably know this person, but I would advise that you sign your name and not send an anonymous letter. However, for all interested in the letter, I have re-typed it below (All spelling mistakes, errors, etc. were left in the passage below on purpose. I have tried to be as true to the original letter as possible).
The Letter:
"Dear Pastors,
This letter is being sent to 30 Texas pastors. I have been a Landmark Missionary Baptist Pastor for 29 years. During these years, I have watched my son, grandson, two nephews, three men in the churches I have pastored and a brother leave the ABA Fellowship and serve as pastors in the BMA, BBF, SBC and Independent Baptist Churches. Last week in Hillsboro I went into the Ladies Auxiliary Meeting and counted 12 ladies under the age of 40 in attendance. In the pastor's meeting, I counted 23 men under the age of 40 in attendance. I may be wrong a little in my count but you will agree that we are getting older in the MBA of Texas. QUESTION? Where are the young men going? They are leaving because of similar situations that happened at Hillsboro last week. The vast majority was disappointed in the Moderator's Address. It was his opinion and the opinion of what Ray Brooks thinks about the MBA of Texas. The majority was disappointed when a pastor was allowed to call another pastor (not once but three times a liar) and he did nothing. The body was waiting for the Moderator to call the man out of order but never did. Several pastors told me it would be a long time before they return to another meeting. One pastor who had not attended in five years said he thought things may have changed but they haven't and it will be a long time before he returns. There was so much unchristian actions see at this associational meeting that many will not attend again and some pastor will leave the ABA.
I pastor in South Texas and I was stymied by what the South Texas pastor did. I will not mention a man's name but he is a member of Fellowship MBC, talked to be me about Brother Ellision. The man told me that Brother Ellison was taking half of their church to start a new church like Rick Warren's church. Brother Ellison should have told the church first what his plans were before talking to anyone. He said Fellowship MBC was not going to pay Brother Ellison like they said they would. I listen and didn't say anything, because I knew this man was upset with his pastor and his conversion with me would be the end of his complaining. I later learn this same conversation was shared at the Heritage Baptist Institute and with other South Texas pastors. Brother Jesus was asked to oppose Brother Ellison because he was a member of Fellowship MBC. The brother that started all this didn't want to speak at the Associational Meeting because everyone knows he doesn't like Brother Ellison and others may say they are airing their personal dislikes.
We are divided over the Awana program, KJ only, divorce, support missions not churches and many other issues. Our Mexican work is divided. Now from South Texas comes this teaching that we should not plant churches but plant missions that later become churches. We all should study our Bible about early churches and what they did.
With the unchristian attitudes and actions that are being shown by pastors in the ABA many more young men are going to leave the ABA. I will stay at my church until God moves me but I have asked the Lord not to lead me to another ABA church and this is hard. I am a fourth generation of Missionary Baptists.
Until our leaders starting acting like they are saved and become more like Christ in the actions MBA is in trouble. A good example is at Walnut Street MBC in Hillsboro. I held two revivals in that church during Brother Paul's ministry and I was shocked to see they only have 40 in SS. I remember when Fellowship MBC had many more members.
There needs to be some repentance and public apologies to several people. If Christ like actions are not seen in our leaders we are in trouble.
Ashamed to be a part of such an unchristian associations. My son was with me (never again) and he said dad, it's not changed since I left. Our fellowship my disagree but never become so unchristian toward each other.
I can't sign my name because I would be treated with much anger and unchristian acts like I have seen used on other pastors. Help us leaders!!!!!!"
My response:
What?!?
First - proof read your letter. It makes it much easier for the reader to understand what you are trying to say. Second - sign your name! To me it seems awful unchristian to say these things and not sign your name. Third - Bro. Britton gave his opinion in the Moderator's address because that is what a Moderator's address is. It's a time for him to speak to the concerns that he has within a certain organization. (It's not supposed to be a sermon...) Fourth - instead of running from the problems, tackle them "head on." Fifth - if the moderator did not call "point of order" like you think he should have concerning Bro. Ellison, then why didn't you?!?
There are many more responses I would like to post, but calling the MBA of Texas unchristian is a bit much for me. More will come later.
Posts
In other words, ubiquitous carapace
12 hours ago
20 comments:
I'd like to comment as a completely unbiased party who has not seen the actions, nor been there to witness what took place. I can respond only to what I see. I am not even a member in a Texas church, and so my opinion matters little. Yet I'd like to respond as one Christian brother to others.
Response to the letter:
I don't believe anyone would disagree all unchristian actions are to be condemned and avoided. Yet, in any large group of people with widely varied opinions, and some who feel strongly about issues (especially those they feel to be God's ultimatums) will certainly argue. Discussion and even organized debate is good to clear the air. The Bible is to be used for not only teaching love, but other things as found in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
It is used for reproof, to show what is wrong. It is then used for correction of those wrongs. Young Timothy was encouraged to do these things.
2 Timothy 4:2 "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine."
While this applies as a pastor to His church, certainly the overall principle of helping people to see their sin, and helping them in love to change from that (even if that love requires difficult rebuke) sin so they might be able to grow. We must offer hands love backed by arms of strength.
I encourage you, if you believe in the ABA doctrine, please do not leave over something that happened, sin or no. People in EVERY work will sin. And if most leave the ABA, what will be left?
Love in Christ,
james
I'd like to comment as a completely unbiased party who has not seen the actions, nor been there to witness what took place. I can respond only to what I see. I am not even a member in a Texas church, and so my opinion matters little. Yet I'd like to respond as one Christian brother to others.
Response to the letter:
I don't believe anyone would disagree all unchristian actions are to be condemned and avoided. Yet, in any large group of people with widely varied opinions, and some who feel strongly about issues (especially those they feel to be God's ultimatums) will certainly argue. Discussion and even organized debate is good to clear the air. The Bible is to be used for not only teaching love, but other things as found in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
It is used for reproof, to show what is wrong. It is then used for correction of those wrongs. Young Timothy was encouraged to do these things.
2 Timothy 4:2 "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine."
While this applies as a pastor to His church, certainly the overall principle of helping people to see their sin, and helping them in love to change from that (even if that love requires difficult rebuke) sin so they might be able to grow. We must offer hands love backed by arms of strength.
I encourage you, if you believe in the ABA doctrine, please do not leave over something that happened, sin or no. People in EVERY work will sin. And if most leave the ABA, what will be left?
Love in Christ,
james
Hey guys....Matt, I believe that you are right about one main thing....If all the guys that wanted to see changes made had stuck around over the years we wouldn't have the problem we have today.
That being said....A guy can only hit his head against a brick wall so many times before it cracks( I'm not talking about the wall):-)
Here are some things that these guys are finding out.
1. Even though the SBC has a mission board and is incorporated each missionary coming to the board must have a sponsoring church, endorsed by the church of their membership. In effect making it the churches that are doing the sending.
2. That many SBC churches in fact start churches without ever going through the boards.
3. That the SBC have purged themselves of a vast majority of the liberals that the liberals have started their own seminaries.
4. Key leadership in the SBC boards and its Seminaries are now Landmarkers that hold to a local church only position.
5. The SBC does not enforce their doctrinal statement and holds the autonomy of each church as supreme.
6. Landmarkers are being sent out of SBC churches through the boards and are being permitted because their churches hold that doctrine and the boards uphold the churches autonomy.
7. The SBC has stopped saying that they plant churches but have adopted a new slogan which comes from ED Stetzers book. "churches planting churches"
8. SBC churches do have proper authority...if they don't then we don't.
9. The freedom to minister as they feel led and the amount of resources available is amazing.
10. In North Texas alone....last year the SBC (conservatives) started 87 new churches.
I think that these are just a few reasons why young doctrinally sound guys are flocking to the SBC.
Hey Matt, why do we think its unchristian to not sign your name to something you write. We allow the news media to protect informants....so that they will not be unduly harrassed. Truth is truth whether it come from a named informant or an unnamed informant. The duty is on the part of the one receiving the information to make sure it is true. I think this idea that not signing your name has become a control mechanism in our work rather than anything spiritual. That's just my opinion. What do you think? The problem is that us preachers too often just believe everything we hear espescially if it comes from a pastor buddy....you know what I mean. We are worse than junior high girls sometimes..."Well if my bff said it I believe it"
My goodness a lot of the writers in the bible did it :-) ? Things that make you go hmmmm
I'm just sad that I didn't get a copy. :(
Jonathon,
You're correct that many times we believe something just because "so and so" said it. That should never be the case. However, I personally disagree with not signing your name when accusations are made. We're not dealing with a criminal investigation (although, maybe to some people we are...ha!). Anyway, I think not signing your name does nothing but foster problems. Oh well...that's just some thoughts.
I know that Bro. Brooks gets lots of letters and articles that people might want put in the monitor or just for him to read and he says that if you don't sign it its not worthy to be read....As editor in chief he is allowed that opinion and he doesn't have to put anything in the monitor he doesn't want to. But does that make it wrong to not sign something. In the media outlets with their editor in chief when they get letters or information they are suppose to check it out. If they want to put it in their paper because they believe it to be true then they have that right. But to say it is wrong to share information or news and not put your name on it is a little beyond. I respect Bro. Brooks and love him! But I don't agree with it being wrong....long term it fosters more problems than it eliminates. Most people are going to put their name on stuff but the times that they don't its because they don't want harrassed or marked or labeled....so what happens we have a culture in our work where people are somewhat afraid of saying anything that is outside the bounds of acceptable rhetoric. A culture of fear!
It may not be the intention but it has become a control mechanism.
If you got to drudgereport.com which gets about 15-20 million hits a day( it's probably the number 1 internet news sight) they have a place where they ask people to send them anonymous tips and news information.
Wow look at all the comments, must be a record! I think mine makes 12. That must have been a pain to type that letter and leave the mistakes in it.
-Chris
Just wanted to make it odd...
okay, we're even
I've never thought about this idea of a control mechanism, but that does seem to make sense when applied to speaking outside the bounds of acceptable rhetoric. For instance: start a mission, or start a church? If you choose to write something promoting one position, you may be labeled. If you choose the opposite position, you may be labeled. So what's wrong with writing anonymously? What do you do? In my opinion (worth nothing, mind you), if you choose not to write it because you know there will be a backlash directed at you, you've been silenced. It's a great tool to silence people, I suppose. Ends debates before they start. ;-)
Having said all that, I have a problem with the letter Matt posted. While it may be acceptable for the media to protect sources (some do, some don't; some webpages have a link to the reporter on every article), I see perhaps another reason for the lack of a name, namely what seems to me to be a stab at Bro. Britton and Bro. Brooks. Did anyone see an implication that Bro. Don was like a puppet, or was that just me reading into it? And calling the association unchristian? The entire association? Or just the half that didn't vote the way I wanted them to vote? Or do I label the entire body of messengers based on a few? Matt, you're the logician here...does this make sense? Anyway...puhleezee. I personally know many of the people who read and post to this blog and they are part of the association and not unchristian people. It's a lil' extreme.
It seems to me like, at least in this case, not signing was not done in good faith. To call you guys unchristian and direct a few stabs at this man or that man and then proclaim, "By the way, I can't sign because I'm afraid" is over the top.
And I too sat under Bro. Brooks, who always told us never to think anything just because that's what he thought/taught. :)
By the way, Bro. Tommy has always been odd.
I can't sign my name because I'm scared.
Just kidding.
Bro. Bobby
Read my blogs, enjoy my webpages, let's be friends, and don't bother me.
Just to throw another idea into the mix. Being a member of one of the churches attacked; If personal attacks are made, as they were, I think that that removes your "anonymous" privelege. Should you also make those who you are commenting negatively about anonymous as well? "this guy I know", "one brother there", "i noticed about one churches attendece . . ." Would that be okay?
By the way, we got our Visas and we are going to France - woohoo!
Jason
I would disagree with you Jason. In a free society a person can write anything that they want without sharing their personal information.....the key here is the editor...Just like Bro. Brooks decides what goes in the Monitor so Matt can decide which comments he will leave on this blog and which ones he will take off. We have to remember that even though we think that it is less virtuous and lacks Christian Character to not attach a name to what you wrote doesn't change the fact that we live in a free society. The bottom line is that God knows who writes everything and God knows the intentions of every human heart. Those that have done wrong will one day be judged. If an editor chooses to publish something that is not claimed by the writer that is the choice of the editor. Now if editors start to do this they will either alienate their readers for lack of substantiation or if they don't do it they will alienate sources that have given them great info in the past. There is a balancing act that editors must walk. Some choose to not walk it and say "I won't publish anything that is anonymous." Bro. Brooks and others go further and say "it is wrong to write anything that is anonymous." This is an overstepping. The intention is what is right or wrong not the act. It's called legalism.
Making fun of people that don't write their name by saying "I can't sign my name because I'm scared" in a mocking manner is actually another control mechanism.
In Junior High we used to call it peer pressure. This tactic and the afore mentioned are all methods employed on larger scales to keep people from speaking the truth in communist countries and dictatorships. It's amazing to me how far we have gone even among baptists from understanding the principles of freedom as it applies to speech.
If someone has been offended by the editor allowing an anonymous post of article then that person should go to the editor. If something is found to be untrue and/or slanderous the issue should be taken to the editors church to be dealt with. This would be how scripture says for Christians to deal with the issue. To say it is "wrong not to sign your name to something" is in effect wrong.
Jonathan,
-Making fun of people that don't write their name by saying "I can't sign my name because I'm scared" in a mocking manner is actually another control mechanism.-
I enjoy reading your thoughts.
Except, interpretation being limited by cold technology (computer screen/no contact) and even more limited by us non-omniscient humans who don't know the thoughts and intents of the heart, that (closing) remark was made in a lighthearted rather than a mocking manner, or that was the intent. Eventually I recognized it as a potential flame and almost deleted it, but decided to play the troll instead. :) This mode of communication is limited; I figured it would be someone I don't know who would respond.
Also, I've always heard "What's one man's trash is another man's treasure." To call attention to what appears to be something of a verbal attack on several people, churches, and an association and then to write "I can't sign because..." might appear to you to be mocking, but I intended for it to illustrate the absurdity of making such comments and then claiming fear of retribution which may be well deserved, hence "I won't sign my name." Bank robbers enter banks wearing ski masks because they also fear retribution (justice): they know they are doing something wrong, not acceptable to society, the group, whatever. Plus, peer pressure and control mechanisms are not automatically a bad thing.
Anyway, now that the straw man has been knocked down, I still generally agree with Matt, and (jokingly not mocking; wine is a mocker, not Bobby) naming the blog owner is not an attempt at a control mechanism. I question the intention of the original, unsigned letter based on how I interpret its contents.
Back to that original letter, I also judged it without the benefit of omniscience. It is also true that God only knows the thoughts and intents of the heart. But, that being said, it can be inferred that the thoughts and intents are not always pure, or why bother to remind sinners that God knows them? And, if not signing one's name comes from impure thoughts or intentions (sin), it is quite simply wrong no matter how humans interpret or appeal to the principles of free speech (which I have not studied as much as you apparently have). If this is true, it soundly defeats for all time any and all suggestions that it's always acceptable to be anonymous.
If I use anonymity as my excuse to disassociate myself from some sinful action of mine, so that I may remain undiscovered, it is sin. Sudden flash of insight: someone ought to start posting chapter/verse in this dry exchange.
Merry Christmas to everyone,
Bobby
Oh, using my post to illustrate a control mechanism is in itself a control mechanism employed so that I will conform.
Keep your shirt on, I'm just kidding.
Post a Comment