Early this week I received word from a friend that the SBC convention was underway. So I watched part of it, sometimes via archives, sometimes streaming.
These people are crazy. Seriously. They're worse than fundamentalists. Or, at least, they are just bad as fundamentalists. They embrace a kind of pseudo-conservatism, but it ends up being really silly in the end. Their preaching is endemic of the most revivalistic types within fundamentalism. All they did was sing the praises of the SBC and its mysterious second person "the Cooperative Program." I think their meeting can be essentially reduced to:
Praise the SBC. Glory to the SBC.
Praise be to the SBC and to the Cooperative Program and to the President of the SBC. World without end. Amen.
I don't need to argue this point. All you need to do is watch for yourself. This is the beauty of this post. It argues itself. Their convention is not edifying; it's entertaining. It's all entertainment. Don't watch a movie this weekend, watch the SBC Convention. It's a hoot. Here are some highlights:
- They clap for everything.
- They have baptisms (lots of minorities!).
- They have Baptist commercials about soul-winning and the Cooperative Program.
- They have plenty of worship-frenzy.
You could spend hours at the archives, so I will highlight a particular session: the Wednesday evening session. To watch, you can either click "Wednesday evening" session at the archives, or you can follow these instructions:
- Copy the thread embedded here (right click and select "copy link location").
- Open Windows Media Player and hit Ctrl-U.
- Paste the thread into the box that appears.
- Hit "okay."
The evening begins with some outstanding and exemplary youth leading in a native call to worship. This may be the most edifying part of the whole convention. Evidently, garbage cans are now accepted instruments for Christian liturgy. The Word of Christ was dwelling richly here. The evil spirits being called among the presence of the Baptists, a very excited and passionate elderly man, young beyond his years, begins to lead them in some "great old hymns": "Since Jesus Came Into My Heart," and "He Keeps Me Singing." Some good looking people are singing behind him, each holding their own microphone. I have no idea why. Then there's the choir. The choir has more people than a small village (they say over 1600 people). The Southern Baptists, while maybe not emphasizing quality, sure have the corner on the quantity market.
After they appease the older folks with the "hymns," they get down to business. The frenzy begins here. They start singing something about God. I am not really sure what it means. Something about God being great. I got that, at least. They have some kind of 600 gallon crown sitting in the middle of the stage. I have no idea why. The second song is something about preparing the Lord's way. I have no idea what they are the saying. The Lord is riding or something. About half-way through is where it gets really good. They start chanting "There's no God like Jehovah," just like the children of Israel did at the foot of Mt. Sinai before the golden calf. Then this guy in a yellow sport coat starts coming out and hopping all over the stage and yelling a lot. No kidding. That's about all I could take.
If you're feeling up to it, you can also watch their "celebration of God and country" (follow the instructions I gave above). They begin by singing about Jesus' blood. But it's after about 37 minutes when they start singing about the 4th person of the Quadrinity, the USA. This is really, really, really bad. They forget the words, and they are off-key. Did I mention this was bad? The quartet that follows is even worse. No really. BAD. BAD. BAD. Following all the worship of America, they have a fitting conclusion: baptisms.
Of course, I am only skimming the surface here. There are many other worthy highlights that because of time I must forego. Like I said, the SBC has issues.
Immoderate 
Pingback: SharperIron » “They have plenty of worship-frenzy.”
Check out the bit by Rick Warren.
I would rather wander for a week in a Bosch landscape.
Wow. Thanks for that. Or, no thanks.
Rick Warren: “Jesus says the antidote to stress is to be gentle and humble. . . . The more humble you are the more your stress goes down, the more your satisfaction goes up in life and ministry.”
Rick Warren: “[Americans] they’re living their life for things. That’s dumb. Jesus said a man’s life doesn’t consist in the abundance of things because time is far more important than things.”
And then he lectures the pastors on how to live simply and not love money and about how his giving “stretches his faith.”
“Your ministry is not about materialism.” All in advocating “simplicity.” The Quakers would have been proud.
“You want God to bless your life? Look at your giving. . . . Pastor, you want your church to become generous? They will when you are.”
Here’s a couple other gems:
“Jesus knew his priorities. He lived a Purpose-Driven LifeTM.”
“When God finds a person who’s willing to live like this, there’s almost nothing that God won’t do for that person. Almost nothing. You will be amazed at what God does in your life when you begin to live–not perfectly–but intentionally.”
I have to say I didn’t see the things you saw. I didn’t come there for edification or entertainment. It is a business meeting first and foremost. But I found Mohler & Patterson on election to be edifying, as was Dever on church discipline. I don’t remember any of the congregation songs you mentioned- I was probably downstairs or with my family at the time. I remember singing “Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing” and similiar songs.
I especially didn’t hear anyone worshipping the president or the Cooperative Program. Of course, they discussed the Cooperative Program, since administering the $350 million a year missions board is the whole purpose of the Annual Meeting. People go to the Annual Meeting because it is the business meeting of a missions organization named “The Cooperative Program.” Of course, they elected a president, and those who nominated candidates spoke highly of the candidates. I don’t know what you expect at a business meeting. Maybe something like “Hello, our missions program is terrible, all our candidates are pathetic, we should just give up and go home” would suit your fancy? Or perhaps they should have spent all their time running down other denominations?
What I did see is a business meeting that allowed everyone a chance to speak. I saw debates occur where everyone was treated with charity and respect. Even the political pot-shots that a few people made were very, very toned-down. I saw the Convention stop to pray for a man’s family after he made a deeply personal motion. I saw prayer rooms scattered around the Greensboro Convention Center, with people praying inside. I even saw separation in real time: there was a motion to deny a seat to a non-denominational church that had snuck into the SBC unawares.
But I will grant you, that the last hour or so of the last night was a big let-down. After watching rival pastors treat each other with dignity, and singing old hymns, I was treated to the spectacle of Casting Crowns jamming out while groupies crowded below the Billy Graham statue. THAT was discouraging and not the least bit funny.
Ryan,
My comments above were not focused at the actual business of the SBC Convention, though, as I hinted, I did think the nomination speeches were a little over the top. And I had heard enough of the Cooperative Program in rather short order. I am not asking them to diss their missions program or candidates. I am saying that the cheesy commercials and canned testimonials of the glories of the Cooperative Program be done away with.
Why were you there?
Did you have press credentials or represent a group?
Are you a member of an SBC church?
I have been to business meetings of fundamental groups that were nasty and vicious? Should I separate from those believers?
Why were you there?
I was not there. As I wrote above, I watched the event streaming on-line.
Did you have press credentials or represent a group?
I have no press credentials. I represent no group.
Are you a member of an SBC church?
No. And, after watching the Convention, have no certain plans of ever becoming a member of one.
I have been to business meetings of fundamental groups that were nasty and vicious? Should I separate from those believers?
I am assuming that you meant to end the first sentence with a period, not a question mark. Assuming that is true, in answer to your second question, I would say that you should certainly do something, perhaps even, depending upon the situation, separate.
Ryan-
I am just struck by your insinuation that we worshipped the CP. The actual tone of the Convention was quite different. Many times speakers on the platform directly said that the SBC has serious issues. Of course, everyone has a different idea of how to fix it and so you had many different agendas vying for attention. I think the CP infomercials served to remind us why we were there, and to encourage people who otherwise felt down about the missions agencies.
I’m also not sure how saying “There’s no God like Jehovah” can be taken as idol worship. That’s a pretty specific and exclusive worship statement. I’m not confused as to Whom they were worshipping. I wasn’t there for that song, and I’m glad, because I hate it. But the golden calves wouldn’t come to my mind.
Perhaps I tuned in at the wrong time, then, though I watched a good deal of the convention.
In response to your second paragraph, I had this Exodus 32 account in mind:
In Ryan M’s defense, even Southern Baptists are talking post-convention about the CP as an idol. Roy Hargrave, an SBC pastor, preached a sermon along these lines (not sure whether it addressed the CP directly) a couple years ago:
http://www.riverbendchurch.com/wma/2004/101704p.wma
In Ryan D’s defense, this year’s Convention has been described by some in the know as unique because it did deal with substantive issues. If you would have watched last year, Ryan (I did not), I suspect you would have seen less substance, fewer good candidates, and fewer reasons for optimism. The SBC reformation has a long way to go, but it is still in process. Only time will tell how long it continues and how far it goes.
Ryan M.,
It’s really sad to hear such a vicious diatribe against true worshippers of Christ, because they sing repetitively of the greatness of God. Even if you see their worship as illegitimate (for whatever reason I am unable to determine), do you really think that your writing is geared to be helpful to these believers who are, in your analysis confused on worship issues? Are you honestly loving and trying to help them?
Just wondering.
Pitchford
“Vicious diatribe”?
??
“True worshippers of Christ”??
?????
Perhaps you didn’t watch the video.
I guess Dispensationalism is the only evil for which we are justified in condemning our brothers. Pitchford, with respect, it appears to me that you are questioning my affection for God because I am questioning their love for God.
Ryan,
Your point is well-taken, and I stand rebuked. Although we may see different realities as constituting threats to the love and worship of God, I must suppose that our motive is basically the same in treating the threats that we perceive (i.e., seeing God glorified and our brothers edified). I had no right to insinuate otherwise.
I hope I’m not out of place to say it, but when someone (e.g. a Southern Baptist) who holds to a viewpoint that you see as illegitimate reads a post of this nature, simply by virtue of the fact that he disagrees about what constitutes worship, etc., he will be inclined (whether right or wrong) categorically to dismiss your reasonings as a personal attack — and so the chance for an edifying interaction may be lost on him. If you made explicit the motivation for your writing, he would not have the excuse to dismiss your content because of a motive that he has thrust upon you.
In Christ,
Pitchford
I watched the same archive feed as you and while I agree the quality of the mass choir was not real good but may have been very edifying for those singing and listening live. And for you to pretend you could not understand the gist of the words sounds wholly disengenuiness to me. Sounds to me like you only want to complain. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
I was not looking to find fault with the SBC. As I said, I was invited by a friend. Would it help if I found some good points? It does appear that many “common” persons were able to raise and debate issues on the fllor. I found it impressive that the convention passed a resolution against the consumption of alcohol, even with a last-second ammendment strongly discouraging the leadership of the SBC from the use of any alcohol. I am impressed that Mark Dever got as many votes as he did for Vice-President.
My primary complaint is not the size of the choir. My primary complaint is not the quality of the choir. Nor is it the lack of intelligibility in the words. My primary complaint is that the worship I linked was a circus. It was irreverent. I make no apologies for this statement. Were I a member of that association, I would be terribly ashamed, and wonder just how much fellowship I have these people.
The bellowing man leading the “worship” was dancing around wearing a yellow sport coat.
I’ll venture to comment one more time, even though I have serious misgivings, and rather doubt that this will fall out to anything profitable.
I’m assuming that your claim is legitimate, and that your primary motivation is to expose that which is sacrilege when it poses as worship. If your analysis is indeed true (as I would have been inclined to think it was true a few years ago), then it is a serious issue indeed, and ought to be confronted sternly. Whether or not you were looking for something positive is irrelevant to the altogether appropriate circumstance that, when you found something which you perceived as irreligious, you were concerned to address it. That’s only reasonable.
However, I suspect that the “bellowing man leading the ‘worship'” not only failed to see his conduct as irreligious; but more than that, he may see “worship” which refuses to be exuberant as irreligious in that it fails to reflect the joy of beholding God in scripturally-exemplified ways (as, for instance, David’s exuberant dancing before the ark). Others may see true worship as that which originates in the heart, and find little import in the narrow means that it takes, as long as the scripturally-explicit broader means are employed (e.g. the Bible explicitly commands that singing be engaged in; but any scriptural mandates regarding style are tenuous at best). The view you have, that exuberance, dancing, drumbeats, etc., are by their nature irreverent and thus unsuited for worship, as far as I can tell, is a philosophical idea imported into the texts you use to exclude certain styles from worship. I have been convinced of no legitimate textual bases for holding to the irreverent-circus argument against contemporary worship. For position two, I immediately think of such textual support as Psalm 150, which commands believers to praise the Lord with all manner of musical instruments (resounding percussion of various forms included), and even — dare I say it — with dance. In support of the third, granting the point to which I trust we would both subscribe, that even within that which is formally legitimate for worship, the genuineness of the worshipper’s heart is a non-negotiable component for true worship — granting that point, and granting the point that music and singing is expressly commanded, I would suggest that any subset of a commanded thing which falls outside the command must be expressly delineated — or else the entire set must be legitimate. Unless, that is, one can reasonably demonstrate that a subset of the commanded thing is, by its very nature, linked to a quality which is mandated against. But given the nature of the case, that the subset which you hold in question seems to be that which is positively commanded in certain of the Psalms, I remain skeptical that any proof will be forthcoming. Unless it is proof which arises from a philosophical ideal and not a thoroughly scriptural framework.
In summary: if you’re right in your assessment, then you are to be commended for speaking aginst contemporary worship; but in speaking against it, you are taking upon yourself the obligation to show scripturally why you are right.
Pitchford, I have provided a response to your questions here.
Pichford is much more eloquent and dare I say more charitable than I. The fact thnat you mention the yellow sportcoat at least 2 or 3 times tells me you are more biased than thoughtful. Are you upset that the “yellow” sportscoat is too bright to be used in worship? Sounds trivial to ask I know but people actually worry about such nonsense. Methinks you are looking for things to criticize and only brought up something positive when pressed to do so.
As for calling the worship time a circus…..well, that is YOUR interpretation most undoubtedly based on personal preference and bias. That is not what I gleaned from it. I dare say that the vast majority of the thousands of people there did not view it as a “circus”. If you think the dude in the yellow sportsjacket “dancing” around” was profane or irreverent I can only laugh. I did not even notice him “dancing”. (But then again, I really would not have ahd a problem if he did).
As for the crown thing, it was tied in at the lat part of the service.
Do I agree with everything? Of course not, but I don’t look first for the disagreeable items and come out blasting. Rather, I try to focus on the fact that Jesus said “they will know you are Christians by your love”. That allows for much charity in my book.
Charity, it appears, except for those who are deeply offended at that demonstration.
Pichford is much more eloquent and dare I say more charitable than I. … I try to focus on the fact that Jesus said “they will know you are Christians by your love”. That allows for much charity in my book.
Pardon me, Ryan, but this was simply too good for me to pass up.
I hope John will come back and give us scriptural mandates on when we should “allow for much charity” and when we should allow others to be “more charitable than I.” Apparently being known as a Christian by our love is more important at some times than at others.
LOL. Yep, I saw that as soon as I posted, along wiht a few typos. Perhaps you will be charitable to me. 🙂
But in reality, Pichford was very gentle in his words and seeking to find comity I think. I don’t think I was uncharitable but not as nice as Pichford. After reading it again I did not say anything mean or nasty.
So I have to ask….where you really “deeply offended” by the “demonstration” of the guy in the yellow sportscoat or is that more of a term given to hyperbole for discussion sake? I ask in all seriousness because I never gave it a thought until I read your comment about it and then thought back and did not remember anything that would offend me certainly. Granted we all have our tolerances. I would ask that you show chapter and verse for anything you thought more a Biblical imperative vs. a personal preference.
I didn’t read real closely either one of you, though I read both quickly. I didn’t either one was particularly rude or out of line. It just made me laugh to see the beginning and end of your comment.
I haven’t seen anything that Ryan was posting about. I don’t have high speed access so I generally don’t pursue a lot of things like that. I just found a little humor in it.
Yes, I find it offensive that that demonstration passes for worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
When you “ask that you show chapter and verse for anything you thought more a Biblical imperative vs. a personal preference,” all I can tell you is to peruse my archives. You should find that question answered several times over. Seriously.
Pingback: My Mind’s Musings » Why I am Southern Baptist
I grew up Southern Baptist, left the SBC in the late 70s because of liberal theology. I pastor an independent Baptist church. I commend & appreciate those in the SBC who have turned the Convention to a somewhat more conservative direction. Yet at least 2 issues will ruin what Bible-believing Southern Baptists have accomplished:
1. An unwillingness to face the compromise of Billy Graham’s ministry philosophy
2. The deterioration of music in the SBC.
Preaching in SBC churches is often very good. However, the music that precedes the preaching ruins the message of the Word.
The music “issue” is not an issue of “style”. It is an issue of understanding Biblical parameters concerning worship and music and, quite frankly, a lack of good taste and common sense. Unhealthy music and healthy preaching cannot exist in tension. One or the other will have to change.
I thank you for your comment.
Wow. I’m perplexed. I have grown in my short time in ministry to appreciate the diversity of an SBC church, or any church for that matter. They’re not cookie cutter by design; each fellowship has its own fingerprint, and I’ve yet to find another denomination or doctrinal group with a greater appreciation for such diversity. However, in many cases, I will concede that we have “agreed to disagree” to a fault.
I’m hurt when our churches are “graded.” I couldn’t begin to know what goes on behind closed doors when no one else is watching, and THAT is what makes a true church what it should be. It frustrates me to know that there are those who call themselves believers in Christ who take pleasure in parading as Pharisees – willing to quickly point out the wrongs in others with no regard for the fact that their opinions are rarely justified or biblical. So often it comes down to personal preference instead of biblical reproof… and the fact that we feel we deserve to operate that way without consequences is alarming.
Perhaps one day the New Testament Church that Christ died to save will quit cursing each other while we’re down. Despite the illusions, we are operating in a POST-CHRISTIAN ERA, and we have so much work to do. God bless each and every one of you.