SBC: Soiled By Compromise
May 31, 2007
From Watcher’s Lamp & Apprising Ministries:
Pastor Ken Silva “calls a spade a spade” regarding the condition of the SBC…
BAPTIST MEGACHURCH PREPARES FOR FEMALE SENIOR PASTOR
It’s simply a matter of time when an organization lacks real men in leadership. And here’s more drift toward apostasy for the SBC (Soiled By Compromise) as it continues licking the feet of its idol of autonomy. Christian Post reports:
A Baptist megachurch in Decatur, Ga., is preparing to take the rare step of calling a female pastor to lead its congregation.
First Baptist is affiliated with Cooperative Baptist Fellowship – a moderate splinter group of the Southern Baptist Convention – but still maintains ties with the SBC.
Isn’t there one SBC leader with any spiritual guts to speak up?
Revelation 18
4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
It’s also noteworthy that Julie Pennington-Russell (the candidate for Pastor) will be in attendance at the New Baptist Covenant in Atlanta. This is a meeting of mostly liberal Baptist with notable personalities Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore also in attendance at this convention. — Shane Trammel
Posted in Apostacy, Modern Gospel, New Baptist Covenant, Social Gospel
content rss
May 31st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Shane,
Nice job fellow soldier. Your addendum at the end is very insightful.
The Lord be praised!
May 31st, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Shane…I agree with Pastor Ken…It seems we are approaching the point in time when the following question should be asked:
Will the real Southern Baptist Convention please stand up?
Keep contending
Jim
May 31st, 2007 at 8:04 pm
BEWARE of hyphenated names!!!! This should be our first clue that this woman is on the left side of the galley.. Hey Julie Pennington-Russell is just the beginning of what is to come from women taking on the roles of men. Hey men, step up to the plate and take the role that you should be taking as a MAN of God. thanks Shane for the article.
Shawn
August 7th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Regardless of whether I agree or not with Rev. Julie Pennington-Russell being a pastor or not, I think this blog entry lacks some depth and understanding of the historical roots and identity of Baptists worldwide. The words “continues licking the feet of its idol of autonomy” form the clearest example. One of the characteristics of Baptists is the autonomy of the local church. This is strongly connected with two other characteristics: the priesthood of the believer and the competency of the soul. This does NOT mean any believer can interpret the Scripture according to his liking. What it does mean is that every believer is to sincerely seek along with his fellow believers for the true meaning of Scripture. Do not forget that when the Baptists emerged in 17th-century England, they were considered radicals because the Church of England expected everyone to believe as they were told. Moreover, the British monarch was the head of the Church of England and could make his subjects do and believe anything he wanted. The Baptists gathered at the risk of losing their lives. Partly as a reaction against the hierarchical rule of the church and because they saw in Scripture that Christ was the only head of the church, Baptists decided each local church was autonomous and did not have to submit to a synod or any other overarching church council. This did not mean that they became strongly individualistic (as it has sometimes been interpreted in American culture due to the emphasis in American culture on the individual). Rather, when a believer joined a Baptist church he professed his faith, was baptized upon his confession of faith, and he covenanted with the believers in that church (and they with him) to earnestly seek God’s will. In other words, the covenant was with God and with his fellow believers. This is the context in which autonomy and priesthood of the believer needs to be viewed, even today (granted, many Baptist churches do not practice these characteristics like the first Baptists did). What does that mean for Baptist churches and the Southern Baptist Convention (or Soiled By Compromise as you sneeringly refer to the SBC) today? It means that the only thing the SBC can do with regard to this Baptist church in Georgia is withdraw fellowship. Other than that, it cannot do anything since the SBC does not have anything to say about a local Baptist church. It seems, however, that some of the (former) convention leaders are trying to dictate what local Baptist churches ought to and ought not do. This is a serious deviation from what the Baptists are about. Of course, this would be a separate discussion.
August 11th, 2007 at 1:57 am
Kirsten,
Thank you for you comments. Now let me clear up a few things. This is not really about the SBC (only). Its more about the clear command in Jude 3 to contend for the faith. Its not the faith of the SBC, the AOG, UMC, PCUSA, etc. but the FAITH. That is, the faith all true Christians should hold and put into practice.
Its also important that you understand this post was primarily a reference to the opinions found at other blogs. To be sure, I would not have pointed to them had I not had similar concerns. My concerns have less to do with the SBC in particular and more to do with the Church. That’s not to say that Ken Silva for example does not have concerns beyond his own denomination (SBC).
It is also very inappropriate on your part to assume this post comes without considerable study in areas of Historical Theology, Systematic Theology, Practical Theology, Bible Study, Popular Literature, Church History, and Prayer. I can speak for myself and those representing the other blogs when I say many hours have been invested in study, reflection, and prayer regarding issues like the one this post covers.
It should also be said that ‘Church Tradition’ or ‘Church History’ has a place in light of this and other issues, but the Word of God is where we must develop our understanding of how we should live out our faith. I know you would agree, but your comment spends a considerable amount of time in Church History. We have talked before about the ‘Radical Reformers’ and they did in several areas have a clearer understanding of scripture. Not only a clearer understanding, but in some cases, the only true understanding of scripture. So, this should drive us to the real reason I even created this particular post.
The purpose of the post was to try and persuade people to look for truth, not make the bible say what they want it to say. Specifically in this case, from a biblical perspective, should women take on the role of pastor/bishop/elder/overseeer. As you well know, there are numerous volumes covering this specific issue, and almost as many opinions.
I am thankful for your comment, but it seems to have moved of topic. Please feal free to come back any time and share your thoughts, they are welcome.
– Shane Trammel