Let me first say that this is not an attack on Dr. Akin. I personally think that Dr. Akin is a great guy. I truly believe that he wants what he thinks is best for all Christians/Southern Baptists. This critique of his email is merely an attempt to put out a different perspective. My perspective might be seen as liberal, or dangerous, but I believe it is the most biblical perspective.

Dr. Akin and I agree that integrity is an important thing when choosing our leaders (1 Timothy 3). My main question regarding this essay is, what is integrity? Integrity isn’t avoiding unusual situations, it is what you do when you’re in an unusual situation. Dr. Akin himself admits that he has been accused of being a Pharisee, legalist, sexist and Neanderthal but then says that he has never been accused of adultery. What does this tell us? Nothing. The people who are closest to Dr. Akin, those who know him best, have seen him accused of these other things – but they know him well enough to either realize that they are not true, or perhaps realize that they are. I personally feel that if Dr. Akin was alone with another woman, he would not cheat on his wife. In other words, I feel that Dr. Akin does have integrity, not because he refuses to be with another woman alone, but because of who Dr. Akin is, what I know about him, etc. By the way, Dr. Akin has two secretaries in an enclosed office (window on the main door), I could be wrong, but I doubt that he has another male in the room with him at all times. Regardless, I have never thought that he was having a three-way with his secretaries or sending one off to run an errand so he could be with the other.

You see, the Saddleback Ten Commandments, do not mean that the staff of Saddleback have integrity. These rules only give the appearance of integrity. There is a huge difference between integrity and the appearance of integrity. If I wanted to give someone the appearance of integrity, I would make rules that seemed to be noble and then sneak around behind those rules (many cult leaders do this). If I moved to Saddleback and was hired as their staff, how would they know that I had integrity? They wouldn’t, they don’t who I am, what I truly believe, etc. (perhaps you can find some other applications here).

Consider this fragment of scripture as an example of what Jesus did when he was in the face of unusual circumstance:

Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again for Galilee. And he had to pass through Samaria. So he came to a town of Samaria called Sychar, near the field that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Jacob’s well was there; so Jesus, wearied as he was from his journey, was sitting beside the well. It was about the sixth hour. There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her, “I am a man of integrity and I cannot be seen with a harlot like you.” Immediately, Jesus left that place and protected his integrity. – John 4:1-7

You probably won’t find any examples in scripture of Jesus protecting his integrity, you’ll probably find that Jesus did things a little differently. It seemed like he didn’t care about what the world thought about him. Jesus had integrity and only a man of true integrity can chat with a prostitute about the Kingdom of God without worrying about what others will say. I think I will follow Jesus’ example this time. Even if it means that I open myself up for attack from pharisees, non-Christians, and the like.

What do you think?

Last week I emailed my friend, Benjamin (the associate pastor of the church I meet with). I emailed him to ask him his position on the subject of church covenants. The bi-vocational pastor of this church just finished up a four week sermon series from the church covenant, and I took issue with it. I ended up having a conversation with Benjamin about church covenants. I asked for his permission to post the emails here and he graciously obliged. I have decided to break up each post into two emails; an email to Benjamin and then his reply. This will lighten the burden of those interested in reading this correspondence. So, without further ado, I give you the last set of two emails…

From me (reply in-line… green text):

Hey Benjamin,

Sorry for the late reply, yesterday was way too busy. I will reply to you inline, to make things more smoothly since you did the same…

On 8/29/07, bq2 <> wrote:

You’re right, they often do turn into un-civil conversations. I appreciate a good thought-provoking discussion where we can agree to disagree at times.

I replied to your email below amidst your text due to time constraints at work.

————– Original message ————–
From: “Lew A” <>
Hey Benjamin,

Thanks again for the quick response – you’re right this is a good discussion. I am glad we are having it. I enjoy getting the opportunity to civilly discuss these things – they so often turn into uncivil conversations.

I can see that signing the covenant is similar to the seminary profs signing the abstract and bfm2k – the only difference being that it is a “test of orthodoxy” to be employed at the agency. Rather than a “test of orthodoxy” to be a “member” of the church agency (like seminaries, this is beside the point but true). I am not sure if we both agree, but as I see it, church-membership is a man-made institution. Being a card-carrying member of Holly Grove Baptist Church neither affirms nor negates my being a member in the Church (Body of Christ) (yes). Thus, and furt her, being a “member” only means I have the right to vote at business meetings – hardly a concept found in scripture. I wonder, if being a “church member” actually means that we are saved believers in Christ’s church (body), is there really such thing as “unregenerate church membership”? (Here is, I think, where we are seeing things differently. Being a “church member” certainly does not grant salvation, but does/should represent one who claims to be regenerate. We both agree that there is a Universal Church Body which supercedes our local congregation, but the difference is that we don’t/can’t know who is and is not a part of that universal Body. So, what we can do at the local level is committ to one another and implement some accountability…such as a church covenant. Now, in regards to what is contained within the covenant I would rank theological issues as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order issues (admittedly the distinctions between these are debatable) and keep the issues addressed in the covenant at the 1st and 2nd order level.

I agree, if the church does decide to make a list of people (i.e. members) who they consider to be saved than that list should only include those who are saved. Regarding the Universal Church/Local Church distinction you have made. Why have you made such a distinction? Do you find this distinction in Scripture? 1 Corinthians 12:13 reads, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” Paul was writing specifically to the Corinthians in this letter. According to your understanding is Paul talking about the “local church” or the “universal church”? I think you have made a leap in your logic. You said that we cannot know who is and is not part of the “Universal Church” therefore we need to implement something on the “local level” (I assume you mean local church). The leap is that the local is part of the universal. So If we cannot know anything about the universal, by definition we cannot know anything about the local. I also think your claim that we cannot know who is and who is not part of the universal church is unfounded. Jesus told his disciples “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” John told us, “By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.” It seems like we have at least one test to determine who is actually part of the church. But perhaps it is not our duty to determine who is or who is not part of the church, but rather to accept their confession of Christ as Lord and then hold them accountable to that confession according to Scriptural mandates, rather than covenantal mandates. Afterall, we do not get our responsibility or authority from covenants, but from God.

You said, “If we are truly committed we should have no problem acknowledging the covenant, and can rejoice together in that unity.” Again, I have to ask some questions. What if a saved member/potential-member of the church-agency disagrees with something in the covenant? Say it is 1 to 99 vote but what he disagrees on is not a biblical issue at all. Would this promote unity or promote disunity? What if the issue is Biblical, but not really clear (such as end times beliefs)? It seems to me that the “church covenant” might have to be very, very broad and abstract to allow for wiggle room. *As a side note, I do not think that Holly Grove’s is as abstract as it might need to be. (Granted, this does place much weight on the issues addressed in the covenant. Again, keep them at the 1st and 2nd order levels–like the BFM 2000 and arguably the Abstract of P’s–a nd this eliminates many potential problems. It will need to be broad, but is nevertheless necessary.)

Necessary is a very strong word to use. You may want to reconsider using it in such a way. Especially in areas where Scripture is silent.

You also said, “I suppose if they will not there would be no need for formal church discipline as the person is technically no longer a member.” Do you think the Bible makes a distinction of those who can be in church discipline? Meaning, do you think that we only have a responsibility (according to Scripture) to only discipline people who are card-carrying members of our local body? Further, does failure to sign the covenant remove the responsibility of the person who needs discipline to listen to his brothers and more importantly the Holy Spirit? (Once again, your questions are valid but it is impossible to know who are truly members of the Universal Church. Thus, we are responsible for those who are a part of our local congregation. If one does not sign the covenant it is the church’s responsibility to pursue the brother/sister and i mplore why they didn’t sign be it moral issues or theological. I think this answers the question, but maybe I’m misinterpreting)

If an older believer started to meet with everyone at Holly Grove, but decided he did not want to become a member, but wanted to share in fellowship with everyone. It was clear that he was a Christian because of his love for his other brothers and sisters and his obvious love for God. Would it be necessary to question why he would not sign a covenant? Would his failure to do so mean that we would doubt his salvation or refuse to fellowship with him?

Ultimately I think you are right, the “church covenant” does promote unity – but not the type of unity Christ calls for. Rather it is usually the type of unity we receive when we have cut off everyone who disagrees with us, which is hardly unity at all. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not promoting Ecumenicalism… I don’t like those kind of labels anyway). (What type of unity, then, is Christ calling for?)

I think Christ is calling us to unite in love for one another, and more importantly in love for him. Love includes discipline, discipleship, edification, etc. I am in no way promoting an affirmation of open sin, but I am affirming building relationships with Christ’s church. “So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. Beyond all these things {put on} love, which is the perfect bond of unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful.” – Colossians 3:12-15

For what it is worth, Kati and I do not meet the current Holly Grove church covenant standards. This does not upset me because I do not believe in church covenants, and frankly, I do not believe in church membership (apart from the membership that we have as Christ’s church). We’re also not planning on signing the covenant either because those standards do not line up with what God has asked of us. (I don’t know if Lee is moving toward a signing of the covenant for members, but if he is I support it though I understand your position.)

That’s fine, I wouldn’t ask you to go against your beliefs. Just wanted to have a discussions about them. It is good to get different perspectives, helps challenge us and really look to scripture rather than tradition or man-teaching. By the way, I would love to post all of these emails on my blog. With your permissions of course. I will not edit any of it and will start from the first to the very last email. I think the people who read my blog would benefit from reading both of our positions. If you wish to be anonymous I would remove your name. But if you do not want me to, then I won’t post any of them – it’s up to you. Thanks again for the great conversation and sorry for the late reply. God’s Glory, Lew

From Benjamin (reply in-line… red text):

Last week I emailed my friend, Benjamin (the associate pastor of the church I meet with). I emailed him to ask him his position on the subject of church covenants. The bi-vocational pastor of this church just finished up a four week sermon series from the church covenant, and I took issue with it. I ended up having a conversation with Benjamin about church covenants. I asked for his permission to post the emails here and he graciously obliged. I have decided to break up each post into two emails; an email to Benjamin and then his reply. This will lighten the burden of those interested in reading this correspondence. So, without further ado, I give you the third set of two emails…

From Me:

Hey Benjamin,

Thanks again for the quick response – you’re right this is a good discussion. I am glad we are having it. I enjoy getting the opportunity to civilly discuss these things – they so often turn into uncivil conversations.

I can see that signing the covenant is similar to the seminary profs signing the abstract and bfm2k – the only difference being that it is a “test of orthodoxy” to be employed at the agency. Rather than a “test of orthodoxy” to be a “member” of the church agency. I am not sure if we both agree, but as I see it, church-membership is a man-made institution. Being a card-carrying member of Holly Grove Baptist Church neither affirms nor negates my being a member in the Church (Body of Christ). Thus, and further, being a “member” only means I have the right to vote at business meetings – hardly a concept found in scripture. I wonder, if being a “church member” actually means that we are saved believers in Christ’s church (body), is there really such thing as “unregenerate church membership”?

You said, “If we are truly committed we should have no problem acknowledging the covenant, and can rejoice together in that unity.” Again, I have to ask some questions. What if a saved member/potential-member of the church-agency disagrees with something in the covenant? Say it is 1 to 99 vote but what he disagrees on is not a biblical issue at all. Would this promote unity or promote disunity? What if the issue is Biblical, but not really clear (such as end times beliefs)? It seems to me that the “church covenant” might have to be very, very broad and abstract to allow for wiggle room. *As a side note, I do not think that Holly Grove’s is as abstract as it might need to be.

You also said, “I suppose if they will not there would be no need for formal church discipline as the person is technically no longer a member.” Do you think the Bible makes a distinction of those who can be in church discipline? Meaning, do you think that we only have a responsibility (according to Scripture) to only discipline people who are card-carrying members of our local body? Further, does failure to sign the covenant remove the responsibility of the person who needs discipline to listen to his brothers and more importantly the Holy Spirit?

Ultimately I think you are right, the “church covenant” does promote unity – but not the type of unity Christ calls for. Rather it is usually the type of unity we receive when we have cut off everyone who disagrees with us, which is hardly unity at all. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not promoting Ecumenicalism… I don’t like those kind of labels anyway).

For what it is worth, Kati and I do not meet the current Holly Grove church covenant standards. This does not upset me because I do not believe in church covenants, and frankly, I do not believe in church membership (apart from the membership that we have as Christ’s church). We’re also not planning on signing the covenant either because those standards do not line up with what God has asked of us.

Thoughts?

Lew

From Benjamin (reply in-line using red text):

You’re right, they often do turn into un-civil conversations. I appreciate a good thought-provoking discussion where we can agree to disagree at times.

I replied to your email below amidst your text due to time constraints at work.

————– Original message ————–
From: “Lew A”
Hey Benjamin,

Thanks again for the quick response – you’re right this is a good discussion. I am glad we are having it. I enjoy getting the opportunity to civilly discuss these things – they so often turn into uncivil conversations.

I can see that signing the covenant is similar to the seminary profs signing the abstract and bfm2k – the only difference being that it is a “test of orthodoxy” to be employed at the agency. Rather than a “test of orthodoxy” to be a “member” of the church agency (like seminaries, this is beside the point but true). I am not sure if we both agree, but as I see it, church-membership is a man-made institution. Being a card-carrying member of Holly Grove Baptist Church neither affirms nor negates my being a member in the Church (Body of Christ) (yes). Thus, and furt her, being a “member” only means I have the right to vote at business meetings – hardly a concept found in scripture. I wonder, if being a “church member” actually means that we are saved believers in Christ’s church (body), is there really such thing as “unregenerate church membership”? (Here is, I think, where we are seeing things differently. Being a “church member” certainly does not grant salvation, but does/should represent one who claims to be regenerate. We both agree that there is a Universal Church Body which supercedes our local congregation, but the difference is that we don’t/can’t know who is and is not a part of that universal Body. So, what we can do at the local level is committ to one another and implement some accountability…such as a church covenant. Now, in regards to what is contained within the covenant I would rank theological issues as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order issues (admittedly the distinctions between these are debatable) and keep the issues addressed in the covenant at the 1st and 2nd order level.

You said, “If we are truly committed we should have no problem acknowledging the covenant, and can rejoice together in that unity.” Again, I have to ask some questions. What if a saved member/potential-member of the church-agency disagrees with something in the covenant? Say it is 1 to 99 vote but what he disagrees on is not a biblical issue at all. Would this promote unity or promote disunity? What if the issue is Biblical, but not really clear (such as end times beliefs)? It seems to me that the “church covenant” might have to be very, very broad and abstract to allow for wiggle room. *As a side note, I do not think that Holly Grove’s is as abstract as it might need to be. (Granted, this does place much weight on the issues addressed in the covenant. Again, keep them at the 1st and 2nd order levels–like the BFM 2000 and arguably the Abstract of P’s–a nd this eliminates many potential problems. It will need to be broad, but is nevertheless necessary.)

You also said, “I suppose if they will not there would be no need for formal church discipline as the person is technically no longer a member.” Do you think the Bible makes a distinction of those who can be in church discipline? Meaning, do you think that we only have a responsibility (according to Scripture) to only discipline people who are card-carrying members of our local body? Further, does failure to sign the covenant remove the responsibility of the person who needs discipline to listen to his brothers and more importantly the Holy Spirit? (Once again, your questions are valid but it is impossible to know who are truly members of the Universal Church. Thus, we are responsible for those who are a part of our local congregation. If one does not sign the covenant it is the church’s responsibility to pursue the brother/sister and i mplore why they didn’t sign be it moral issues or theological. I think this answers the question, but maybe I’m misinterpreting)

Ultimately I think you are right, the “church covenant” does promote unity – but not the type of unity Christ calls for. Rather it is usually the type of unity we receive when we have cut off everyone who disagrees with us, which is hardly unity at all. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not promoting Ecumenicalism… I don’t like those kind of labels anyway). (What type of unity, then, is Christ calling for?)

For what it is worth, Kati and I do not meet the current Holly Grove church covenant standards. This does not upset me because I do not believe in church covenants, and frankly, I do not believe in church membership (apart from the membership that we have as Christ’s church). We’re also not planning on signing the covenant either because those standards do not line up with what God has asked of us. (I don’t know if Lee is moving toward a signing of the covenant for members, but if he is I support it though I understand your position.)

Last week I emailed my friend, Benjamin (the associate pastor of the church I meet with). I emailed him to ask him his position on the subject of church covenants. The bi-vocational pastor of this church just finished up a four week sermon series from the church covenant, and I took issue with it. I ended up having a conversation with Benjamin about church covenants. I asked for his permission to post the emails here and he graciously obliged. I have decided to break up each post into two emails; an email to Benjamin and then his reply. This will lighten the burden of those interested in reading this correspondence. So, without further ado, I give you the second set of two emails…

From me:

Hey Benjamin,

Thanks for sharing your point of view. I wonder, in regards to your statement “I think they are a good thing so long as they serve to reinforce clear Biblical teaching.” If it is “clear Biblical teaching” why do we need to go through the extra burden of repeating it/signing it/etc.? Hammett’s teachings are interesting, I do not think I have ever heard anything like that before. Although they still seem burdensome to me. I wonder, do we actually believe that signing a piece of paper makes us more accountable to the church and its ministry? I would think that true trust in God makes us accountable and man-made devices only get in the way of that trust. I also foresee the potential for whether or not some has or has not signed the church covenant becoming a stumbling block, for other brothers and sister to gossip, slander, etc. Which ultimately would not happen if they were trusting in God.

Does Hammett touch on what happens to those who “forfeit [their] membership”? Do the other members no longer have a Biblical responsibility to that brother/sister? Has that member lost his salvation? Is he no longer welcome to fellowship with the church? Is he placed under church discipline? etc.

I think these are some important questions we can ask regarding this issue. There are probably dozens more too.

Your thoughts?

Lew

From Benjamin:

Good questions, I see signing the covenant of the church much like the profs at seminary signing the abstract of principles and bfm 2000. Of course we are all reading and studying the same Bible, but it is helpful, if not vital, that we clarify our positions on important doctrines and publicly commit to uphold them. Similarly, in the church it is necessary to, not burden the people, but clarify our committements to the church. If we are truly committed we should have no problem acknowledging the covenant, and can rejoice together in that unity. As for the potential encouragment to gossip, slander, etc., I don’t think that adds any more danger than doing nothing to safeguard regenerate church membership.

Safeguarding regenerate membership is the “biggy” for Dr. Hammett. He argues that the moving away from a serious committment to churches (such as a covenant) led to the neglect of church discipline and ultimately to the many problems we have with unregenerate members today. Hammett also argues that an existing church who wants to again get serious about regenerate membership would be wise to move toward adopting a church covenant (or recommitting to and if needed, revamping an old one) and ultimately ask the congregation to sign it. I think this is a brilliant strategy toward the redemption of churches who have neglected discipline and accountability. Hammett spells this out in Chapter 5 of his book. Chapter 4 lays the groundwork arguing for regenerate church membership and 5 discusses covenants specifically. As to those who do not sign the covenant, I’m working from memory, but I think Hammett would say that the church should pursue th at person in love encouraging them to sign the covenant and/or find out why they will not. I suppose if they will not there would be no need for formal church discipline as the person is technically no longer a member.

Hammett spoke in chapel last semester on this issue. It was a great lecture. I’m sure its on the website. Thanks for the questions, bro. Its good to discuss

Unashamed,

BQ2

Last week I emailed my friend, Benjamin (the associate pastor of the church I meet with). I emailed him to ask him his position on the subject of church covenants. The bi-vocational pastor of this church just finished up a four week sermon series from the church covenant, and I took issue with it. I ended up having a conversation with Benjamin about church covenants. I asked for his permission to post the emails here and he graciously obliged. I have decided to break up each post into two emails; an email to Benjamin and then his reply. This will lighten the burden of those interested in reading this correspondence. So, without further ado, I give you the first two emails…

Hey Benjamin,

Lee already knows my position on the church covenant thing. I talked to him about it over lunch after the first weekend he taught from the covenant. To catch you up, I think church covenants are adding rules and regulations where God is silent. I sense that using them pretty much goes against what Paul teaches (esp. in Galatians). I also sense that a church covenant is a good way to prevent people from relying on God.

I was curious, what is your position?

Thanks,
Lew

I see your point. Church Cov’s certainly can be adding unnecessary and unhealthy rules. But, I think they are a good thing so long as they serve to reinforce clear Biblical teaching (not dogmatic soapboxes) and not in any way add to it. I really like the way Dr. Hammett explains the importance and proper use of Church Cov’s in his book. He suggests that cov’s should be resigned every year by the congregation as a way of publicly committing oneself annually to the church and its ministry. It also helps with accountability for members who may have gone wayward during the year. According to Hammett, if you don’t sign the covenant, you forfeit your membership. This, I think, falls in line with Baptist teaching of regenerate church membership and Believer’s baptism.

Unashamed,

BQ2