Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz...

...it's the most remarkable word I've ever seen. It's amazing that this alphabet contains just 26 letters, but they can be put together in ways that can make people respond with such emotion. Here are some of the most powerful arrangements of letters that I've seen, especially over the past few months:

b-a-p-t-i-s-m

a-l-c-o-h-o-l

C-a-l-v-i-n-i-s-m

W-a-d-e B-u-r-l-e-s-o-n

e-m-e-r-g-e-n-t

P-a-i-g-e P-a-t-t-e-r-s-o-n

b-l-o-g-g-e-r-s

r-e-s-u-r-g-e-n-c-e

Spell each of these words on a computer screen or in a state baptist paper and a lot of people immediately react with anger, even bordering on rage. Should these words make us angry? Are there any words that should make us angry? Or have we failed to exercise the spiritual gift of self-control and let ourselves instead be controlled by fickle emotions. The SBC seemed very concerned that we "...be not drunk with wine...but be filled with the Spirit." But it seems that the greater danger is not that we are controlled by alcohol, but that we are controlled by anger. To paraphrase James, "Behold how great a mind is enraged by such a few letters."

Dave

A world without mirrors

It has always been sad to me (not surprising, but sad nonetheless) to see how eager we are to preach violently against the things we are not guilty of. Or we hear a convicting sermon and immediately think of all the other people who need to hear it. And it's not as though we don't have enough faults to occupy our time. We could spend from now until the Lord returns examining ourselves and asking God to expose our sinful habits, actions, motives, thoughts, attitudes, etc. and we'd never finish. Scripture is full of admonitions to examine ourselves and yet we are much more content to seek out and publicly expose the failings of others. We pass a resolution condemning the secular alcohol industry and reject one calling us as a convention to account for unregenerate membership and inflated rolls. It's like we live in a world where we can see everyone else but have no means of looking at ourselves. Why is this?

Maybe it's just easier to expose the faults of others. If we look at ourselves we are the ones then responsible to deal with those things. It takes time and work. When we point out others' failings, our job is done. They are the ones who bear the task of having to work on them and we can go on our way.

Maybe it helps to distract and deflect attention from our blame. When we know we are guilty and certainly worthy of criticism, we can avoid that by pointing at someone whose sin is either more public or more socially reprehensible or culturally demonized. And then maybe people will forget about the sin we've committed.

Maybe it makes us think we've actually done something. We can vote, for instance, to prohibit alcohol consumption and feel that we have improved our churches and our communities and strangthened the moral fiber of our land. And in fact, we may have done nothing at all...or less than nothing.

Maybe self-examination doesn't make for good reading. I'll admit that I'm guilty. I go searching the blogs and my morbid curiosity hopes for a new exposee or accusation. When I see a blogger's personal confessions and admissions, there aren't quite as many comments. Self-examination just isn't exciting and attractive.

I've seen a lot of this type of behavior in my life and especially over the past few months. And I'm not saying that we can't respond to people or that we can't bring to light things that honestly need to be exposed. It just seems that so many times I am much more eager to sit in the chair of the judge than I am to sit in the chair of the defendant. May God help us all to not just confess, but REMOVE our beams before we deal with the specks of others.

Dave

Call me curious...

Why is it generally acceptable for non-Calvinists to publicly impugn, misrepresent, and malign Calvinists without anyone calling them to account in the same forum?

Why are any number of self-professed non-Calvinists free to write what THEY understand Calvinists to believe in state Baptist papers or to caricature Calvinists from the platform of the Annual Meeting without any rebuttal or counterpoint?

Why are Calvinists not given the opporunity through SBC channels to clearly state what they actually believe without having to be in a "balanced" context like the Patterson/Mohler discussion?

Why isn't a capable, recognizable 5-point Calvinist approached by BP or ABP to articulate the doctrines of grace from one who actually holds to them?

Why are Calvinists the ones who are characterized as militant, aggresive, and angry?

There seems to be a double standard among Southern Baptists.

One final thought, many non-Calvinists are seemingly upset at being labeled "Arminian." But following the logic of some, anyone who holds to the 5 points is a "Hyper-Calvinist." That means that to be simply a "Calvinist" you would have to hold to only 3 or 4 of the points (I'm not sure who gets to define which points those might be). Following that same logic, you would not have to hold to all 5 points of the Remonstrance to be considered an Arminian. Claiming all 5 would make you a "Hyper-Arminian." So if a person claims to agree only with the "P" of the TULIP (and therefore affirm the other 4 points of the Remonstrance), why would he object to being called an Arminian? Hmm.

Dave

" I have a lot of problems with you people..."

For those who may not recognize the above quote, it was spoken by Frank Costanza on the television show Seinfeld. Forced by rampant consumerism to boycott Christmas, Mr. Costanza creates a new holiday, Festivus. Key elements of Festivus are the Festivus Pole (a simple metal pole to replace the gaudy Christmas tree with all its tinsel), feats of strength (in which family members may challenge one another to various displays of brawn) and the airing of grievances (in which family members are free to "get it all out").

Well I don't know if he has dragged the pole out of the crawl space or not, but for Florida Baptist Witness editor, James A. Smith, Sr., Festivus has come early. Upon reading his latest editorial, Three Cheers for the Alcohol Resolution, Smith seems to have a lot of problems with some people and it has come the time for the airing of grievances . He is harsh towards Wiley Drake, saying,

"it was sad that the Convention elected a man more known for his microphone-hogging, self-indulgent and almost always out-of-order motions than for his serious support for the work of the Convention through the Cooperative Program. But, we laughed, and that’s what seemed to be the most important qualification for this office."

He seems to have a bone to pick with bloggers (and the secular media). He says,

"I could write about the often overstated role of the so-called “bloggers,” the Internet diarists/activists/politicians who indeed impacted this year’s meeting — especially the introduction of motions, the Resolutions Committee debate and less clearly the presidential election. The bloggers are eagerly pointing to The New York Times and TIME Magazine stories crediting the movement with the new president’s election, even though the secular media — as in this occasion — are almost always wrong in their evaluations of SBC annual meetings."

He seems to paint bloggers as self-congratulatory and delusional as to their actual influence, and yet he spends an entire paragraph touting the "front and center" leadership of Florida Baptists, saying that they are the SBC'c "best and brightest." Triumphalism is certainly within his rights, I suppose, but not immediately after criticizing the inflated self-worth of others.

But he saves his most expansive criticism for those who spoke against Resolution #5, or the Resolution Against Alcohol, especially Pastor Ben Cole. While he says he sympathizes with those who opposed the resolution, he says he finds the debate "bewildering" and can't seem to fathom how anyone could argue against such a "wise, thoughtful resolution." In an effort to help Mr. Smith understand, the way one argues against an (at best) un-biblical or (at worst) anti-biblical resolution is by turning to God's inerrant, sufficient Word. I think Daniel Whitfield does a fine job of that here:
Alcohol and the Bible.

To his credit, Mr. Smith recognizes that Scripture does not prohibit alcohol use, only alcohol abuse. And yet he still feels compelled to defend the mandate for total abstinence. He borrows the oft used defenses or prohibition, including the "weaker brother" argument and the assumption that alcohol, like polygamy and slavery, is somehow inherently immoral, dangerous, and destructive. He even quotes a pamphlet from the SBERLC which states, "Additionally, the Bible encourages Christians, as salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16), to deliver society from alcohol’s devastating personal and social effects.” Really? REALLY?! Who knew?

He takes a final parting shot at Ben Cole, Wade Burleson, and all the others who both oppose this resolution and oppose the overly-restrictive new IMB policies when he rails,

So, this is the kind of Christian liberty that is desired of missionaries and other leaders in Southern Baptists life — the right to drink booze, speak in tongues and hold as valid baptisms at churches believing in baptismal regeneration? I cannot imagine that the vast majority of grassroots Southern Baptists agree with this notion of Christian liberty.

Dishonest. Mischaracterization. Straw man. Pick one.

I guess I may be simple minded, but I fail to see how we can label unwise what the Bible does not. It seems so clear, biblically, that the ABUSE of alcohol is what Scripture warns of. And please save the "weaker brother" argument. In 1 Corinthians, the possibility of causing a weaker brother to stumble does not result in a blanket prohibition of meat. They were encouraged to act in love toward the weaker brother and then the matter was left TO THE INDIVIDUAL'S CONSCIENCE.

To be honest, there is more biblical warrant to issue a resolution on speeding than on alcohol use. Speeding is dangerous. Speeding causes accidents. Speeding kills people. And speeding is against the law. And why don't we have a resolution prohibiting the watching of television for entertainment? One could argue that it's not wise and leads to sloth, as well as exposing us to various evils. Why don't we pass a resolution against busyness? God calls us to sabbath. Overworking tears families apart. Why alcohol and not these resolutions? Because this is a resolution that makes us feel like we are making a difference, and most of us won't have to change a thing.

In closing, I am a little curious as to the final words in the quote by Dr. Paige Patterson. He says, "Positively, the resolution was adopted by 90 percent of the messengers, a critically important resolution in light of some pastors who now openly boast of imbibing alcohol.” I am interested if he knows these pastors or if he's only been told of this phenomenon. I bet I know where they are. They're probably out boozing it up with the hyper-calvinists and half of the 16 million SBCers. Someone let me know if you find them.

Dave

Testing, testing...is this thing on? Can everyone hear me?

Well here goes. I have tried to deny my inner blogger for several months now, but I am weary and can't fight any more. So let's rumble. I have to admit, the main reason I've hesitated entering the blogosphere is pride and selfishness. I've been a lurker on countless blogs and have seen the ways the comments are often used to attack both the blogger and other commenters. Since my earliest memories, my greatest fear has been the criticism and unfavorable opinions of others. When I know people don't like me or don't approve of me it eats at my insides and keeps me up at night. So I suppose this exercise will be partly thereapeutic in exposing me to that which I fear the most. It's kind of like taking an agoraphobic to a shopping mall or taking a Florida State Seminole to a Policeman's Ball. So really, the title of my blog, "Nothing to Prove, Nothing to Lose" is less a reflection of my current disposition than it is a longing...an attitude I hope to cultivate. Feel free to stop by often. Leave your comments. Be honest. Be gentle. I can't promise that you'll find anything groundbreaking or mindblowing. But hopefully you'll hear the ramblings, humor, and thoughts of a guy who lives by the immortal words of a legendary animated presidential candidate, "We most move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom."

Dave