Month: February 2006

IMB disagreement not all bad news for SBC

Wade Burleson and the International Mission Board trustees have made the headlines recently in Baptist life. It is amazing how Baptists can raise a ruckus. Disagreements turn off some folks. I have found it somewhat refreshing, though. Let me explain.

For too long I have been deafened by the silence of doctrinal debate in Southern Baptist life. We struggled for 20 years to establish the basis of our belief concerning the nature of Scripture. Southern Baptists settled the discussion by saying the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. We had little time to discuss other doctrinal issues.

Now some who advocated biblical inerrancy seemingly fail to see the reality of biblical sufficiency. If we have an inerrant Bible then there are specific doctrines the Bible teaches. I am not going to argue the details of the IMB rhubarb, but I would like to use the two doctrinal issues as a case in point for doctrinal debate.

Regardless of the position you take on speaking in tongues, the practice has never been widespread in Baptist churches. Pentecostalism at the turn of the 20th century and the charismatic movement in the 1970s popularized tongue speaking, but neither made it biblical. Whether you are a closed dispensationalist or require tongue speaking to conform to rules found in 1 Corinthians chapters 12 through 14, the modern practice in American churches does not qualify as scripturally authentic. There is more I could say but I find the baptism controversy even more intriguing.

Liberalism, neo-orthodoxy and existentialism had an impact on how many people approach the practice of Christianity. This approach would place the highest value on the individual’s experience and personal opinion. You see baptism is not a personal issue. It is not about “how I feel about my baptism.” It is not just the sincerity of the candidate. It is about scriptural authority. The question is whether baptismal authority is individual or congregational.

Jesus gave the commission to baptize to the local church. If the commission were given to every believer then any 9-year-old girl who was a Christian could baptize her convert in the backyard swimming pool. Jesus vested the authority to baptize in the church. The Baptist Faith and Message says baptism is a church ordinance. The local church is the custodian of the ordinances. Only a New Testament church can administer scriptural baptism. There are a few identifying marks of a New Testament church. Are all Baptist churches, New Testament churches? Probably not! Are there New Testament churches that are not Baptist churches? Sure, because what makes a New Testament church is what it teaches, not the name over the door. By the way, one of the identifying marks is that a New Testament church will teach security of the believer.

Of course those who want individual autonomy on the practice of baptism have started name-calling. They will say if you believe in local church authority for baptism you are a “Landmarker.” Those of us who stood for inerrancy were called “Norrisites.” When someone cannot defend his position he usually attacks the other person.

Southern Baptists had better be careful about walking down the path of Neo-Ecumenism. Cooperating with Catholics, Assemblies of God and other denominations in the areas of social and moral concerns is biblical and mentioned in the Baptist Faith and Message, Article 15. However, Neo-Ecumenism in ecclesiology and missiology will produce dysfunctional, confusing and contradictory results. If some churches wish to be “non-denominational,” God bless them, but they should not masquerade under the guise of being Baptists.

Doctrine does matter. It is not too late to raise the banner of doctrinal sufficiency of the Scriptures and reclaim our heritage as people of the Book.

REVIEW: Pastoral search book misses the mark

“In Search of a Leader” is a book by Robert W. Dingman that was recommended recently to the SBTC Minister-Church Relations office as a resource for churches seeking a pastor. Upon reading it, I do not recommend it. Dingman states the book is a “practical handbook” providing “valuable guidance” to churches, educational institutions, parachurch organizations, and professional search personnel.

Dingman fails to achieve that objective.

Overall, the book is unhelpful for search committees and is inconsistent in its assertions with the doctrinal position of the SBTC and the Southern Baptist Convention.

To be fair, despite its conspicuous weak points, it covers the following topics well:

The importance of keeping the church informed on the progress of the search;

The family, and job description, but leaves out what is the most important factor for the success of a search committee.

Furthermore, two items that are alarmingly absent are the importance of checking the Constitution and Bylaws of the church, and conducting background checks. Dingman does mention a charter (page 47), but his mention of it concerns the ground rules the committee sets for itself and records in its minutes.
Moreover, the omission of conducting background checks is perplexing. It would seem that someone who has worked with search committees for 25 years (as he indicates he has) would understand the importance of conducting background checks.

Finally, the book neglects to point out the crucial function of the search committee in helping the new pastor establish himself in his new position and community.

In addition to some of the book’s obvious deficiencies, there are other areas with which I strongly disagree.

Dingman asserts that ideally, there would be no interim period after a pastor leaves. This is hardly ever the case. The role of interim pastor is critical for allowing the congregation to heal from the loss of its former pastor and prepare for the arrival of the next.

In dealing with divorce, infidelity, other sexual sins or integrity issues, Dingman seems to fundamentally confuse forgiveness with the privilege of pastoral ministry and fails to adequately deal with the consequences of such sin.

The author advocates many reasons for termination. His list appears both careless and callous and does not allow for communication, reconciliation, training, or mediation.

Dingman doesn’t believe God will lead a search committee to one and only one candidate, and seems to suggest that he doesn’t even think God should.

Some stereotypical generalizations in the book?evangelists can’t be effective pastors, great communicators can’t be good administrators, 65-year-olds cannot be founding pastors?seem simplistic and restricting.

Dingman has a very low, pessimistic view of employees or leaders in Christian organizations.

He is open to women as pastors or co-pastors, (suggesting that excluding them is discrimination), and is, at best, unclear on his opinion as to whether committees should consider homosexual candidates.

He tries to make the book generic for all denominations and Christian organizations, which generally renders it of less value for all.

And most flagrant, Dingman believes that the only real reason for praying as a search committee is that by prayer, “they are more likely to be building the needed trust and basis for cooperation.” He states that prayer “should precede and conclude the meetings. An appropriate prayer that ends a bruising committee meeting can go a long way toward restoring a spirit of cooperation.” He does not believe that by praying, God will lead a committee to the candidate he desires for them. Prayer is reduced to a good luck charm.
There are many helpful resources that pastor search committees can use to aid them in their role. LifeWay’s “Pastor Search Committee Handbook” is an invaluable tool that no search committee should be without. The appendixes in this book are the most valuable I have seen in any work. The SBTC has also produced a booklet, “The Pastor Search Handbook.” Many churches across the state and country have used this resource, now in its third edition.he importance of an ethical search committee or “team”;

The importance of realistic expectations placed by a committee on a candidate;

The necessity of holiness on the part of the minister.

Also, there were some helpful suggestions on how to find resumes, questions for the candidate and the
church to consider, interviewing and follow-up etiquette, and helpful appendixes.

But, as stated, the book’s weak points are conspicuous.

First, Dingman is anemic on his covering the visionary influence of a pastor. He sees the “board” as the custodians of the church’s vision; the role of the pastor is to “energize it.”

Second, the book inadequately covers the important process of narrowing a large stack of resumes to a more manageable number (only three brief paragraphs are given to this topic). In this same section on narrowing the list of potential candidates, Dingman never mentions the role of prayer. He lists credentials, money, background, skills, education, family, and job description, but leaves out what is the most important factor for the success of a search committee.

Furthermore, two items that are alarmingly absent are the importance of checking the Constitution and Bylaws of the church, and conducting background checks. Dingman does mention a charter (page 47), but his mention of it concerns the ground rules the committee sets for itself and records in its minutes.

Moreover, the omission of conducting background checks is perplexing. It would seem that someone who has worked with search committees for 25 years (as he indicates he has) would understand the importance of conducting background checks.

Finally, the book neglects to point out the crucial function of the search committee in helping the new pastor establish himself in his new position and community.

In addition to some of the book’s obvious deficiencies, there are other areas with which I strongly disagree.