I do not plan to spend the rest of the month addressing things I am against. I would much prefer to do things in a positive way and discuss things I am for. I knew there would be some who would look for anything negative to say about me and I guess that goes with the territory. Therefore, I am going to answer three questions being raised about my beliefs and my leadership as a pastor. This will be my only foray into answering negative charges.
1. I do not support paedobaptism. I believe that believer's baptism by immersion is the only proper method of baptism. I completely affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
2. I do not support covenant theology. I completely affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
3. In regard to CP, I am a huge supporter of the Cooperative Program. When I arrived at my church in 2005, they were giving 5% to CP. In 2007, we increased that percentage to 6%. In 2008, we have increased our CP percentage to 8%. Currently, it is our plan to increase CP percentage in 2009 to 10%. The church where I pastor is a wonderful church. Our people are some of the sweetest and kindest people you will ever meet. Unfortunately, prior pastoral leadership was not very attentive to CP giving. We are adjusting our giving percentages to meet our new goal of 10% CP giving. Thank you, Lewisville Baptist Church, for your positive response to supporting the Cooperative Program.
Now if anyone has any questions about what I support instead of what I am against, I will gladly answer such questions.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
37 comments:
Hi Les, you'd have my vote if I were going to the convention, and that's where my question comes from.
Would you support bringing the SBC convention to more churches and pastors like me through teleconferences in regions or other means that would let those of us who serve smaller congregations be involved in a more cost effective way?
Thank you and Godspeed,
David W,
It sounds like I have a lot of supporters of people not going to the convention. :) Just joking.
I absolutely do support some sort of distance attendance of the SBC annual meeting. Whether it is online, via teleconference, or some other technology, I believe it's time for us to search for the technology to make this happen.
Thanks for the positive question.
Les
Les,
Do you like grits?
David :)
Les, Do you believe that the SBC is in trouble? And if so, what would you seek to do about it?
BTW, I will be in Indy...
Les Puryear, I wish I had read your blog before I made my comments on another blog. Thank you. You'd have my vote, if I had one to give.
Les,
Thanks for addressing the questions we raised at my site. You really cleared up the CP thing. I'm glad.
What you failed to deal with, however, was the most significant point we raised--your recent flirtation with baptizing babies and your possible joining of the PCA.
I think it would be good if you addressed that head-on rather than ignore it. But that's just me.
Grace. With that, I am...
Peter
David,
Yes, if they're creamy. I don't like them lumpy (no pun intended). :)
Les
Dave,
I am alarmed at the research that indicates our baptisms are down. I am not so much concerned with the reduction in "Total Members." That stat doesn't mean a lot anyway as our membership rolls haven't been scrubbed in a long time.
As I indicated in an earlier post,
I believe the entire SBC needs to repent of our apathy for evangelism and missions. This trend is not going to change until we are broken by God to reach the lost.
Les
Les,
Good morning. Trust your sleep a restful one. Would you mind scanning the question I asked earlier and offer a response? Thanks.
With that, I am...
Peter
Peter,
Hmmm...I thought I did but I see it isn't here. Perhaps I placed it in a different thread. I'll repeat here.
I believe I answered the questions with my response of numbers 1 and 2. I do not hold to paedobaptism nor covenant theology. Because I had a friend who moved from SBC to PCA I investigated it, read several books about, and ultimately rejected it.
In my post which you referred I believe I stated that I could sympathize with their beliefs. Perhaps a more clear statement would be that I can understand why they believe what they believe, but I do not hold those beliefs.
I am glad I read books on covenant theology because before I did not understand it and could not intelligently discuss it. Now I can.
Is this helpful?
Les
Les,
It's helpful to know you are now repudiating baby baptism. It is not helpful, Les, to the actual words you wrote.
Here you say: "I could sympathize with their beliefs. Perhaps a more clear statement would be that I can understand why they believe what they believe, but I do not hold those beliefs...I am glad I read books on covenant theology because before I did not understand it and could not intelligently discuss it. Now I can."
However, Les, this is not at all like the words I documented:
"You see, personally, I am finding myself more and more amenable to Covenant Theology, including the practice of paedobaptism. I have taken the time to read several books about these beliefs and I find myself nodding my head in agreement with what I am reading. Where does that place me theologically? Right now, I'm not quite sure. I feel like I'm somewhere in a demilitarized zone between baptist and presbyterian."
Les, your explanation just doesn't add up. A year ago you were "amenable to Covenant Theology, including the practice of paedobaptism" and "nodding [your] your head in agreement with what [you were] reading" making you somewhere between "baptist and presbyterian".
Now you state you were just studying CT to "understand it better".
In addition, you wrote this on an earlier thread in response to SelahV:
"Les: PCA? Perfect Christian Anomaly? What's PCA? sorry, I told ya I didn't know all these abbreviations. You funnin' with me? selahV
March 22, 2007 3:26 PM
Les Puryear said...
Selah,
Sorry for the acronyms. PCA stands for Presbyterian Church in America. It is a conservative Presbyterian group. Yes, I am considering it.
Regards,
Les"
Were you or were you not, Les, seriously considering leaving the SBC for a PCA church? Please be carful how you answer, Les. I beg you.
Grace. With that, I am...
Peter
Les,
Thank you for your honest, forthright answers. I appreciate it. And, yes, you cleared up it up for me.
But, Bro., I'm sorry I cant vote for you in Indy. For one thing, you didnt mention about putting butter on the grits. For another, well, I believe that Johnny Hunt or Frank Cox better fits the direction that I'd like to see the SBC go. I hope that you can understand that, and that it wont cause you to look sternly at me the next time I see you...maybe in Indy.
David
Les,
I have to join with Peter and request that you actually address these issues. You have not done so to this point. Since you have decided to allow your name to be placed for President of the SBC, Southern Baptists deserve to know if you were considering leaving for the PCA and if you were "amenable to Covenant Theology, including the practice of paedobaptism" .
As a blogger and as a pastor of local autonomous church, you do not have to answer. But as a potential nominee for President of the SBC, you must give a full accounting for these statements that you have made.
Ron P.
This is really illustrating why the SBC is bleeding people. We never stop cutting each other down.
Sad.
Everything a person reads and considers throughout a lifetime, even pauses to consider if God is at work in that, does not disqualify them from future service. In fact, I endorse people who are open enough to the Spirit to be open to the possibility that He works both within and outside the SBC occasionally.
Full disclosure - I went to 5 VBS's in 1962 and only one was SBC.
David,
Your criticism is unwarranted. No one is cutting Les down. However, Les, as a potential nominee for President of the SBC has stated that he is "amenable to Covenant Theology, including the practice of paedobaptism" and that he was considering leaving the SBC for the PCA.
These are legitimate questions to ask of someone wanting to lead the SBC as President. I say again, that if he were not being nominated, it would be of no real importance, except to dialog concerning said beliefs. But as a nominee for President of the SBC, these are pertinent questions that must be answered by Les. No one has attacked him or cut him down. We just want him to explain himself.
I as well as many other Southern Baptists see God's work in the lives on non SBCers. No one I know has ever propogated that belief (except those accusing others because they do not want to address issues). That does mean that I do not want someone who was thinking of leaving the SBC, or amenable to CT and paedobaptism to be President of the SBC. I say that without malice and with respect for Les and his right to hold such non-Baptist views.
Ron P.
So anyone who has ever thought about leaving the SBC should not think of holding leadership in it?
Groupthink isn't pretty.
In reading the thread from the beginning, it appeared to me that Les has stated in the negative on both the questions your are asking him.
"1. I do not support paedobaptism. I believe that believer's baptism by immersion is the only proper method of baptism. I completely affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
2. I do not support covenant theology. I completely affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000."
Inquiry is not heresy.
If Les states he investigated both those doctrines, but he now is fully behind what I quoted above, I'm good. I want people to be able to articulate why they are SBC beyond "I've just always been one." Far too many can't.
David,
No one has suggested that inquiry is heresy. Les has made contradictory statements that warrant further inquiry by Southern Baptists. So far, he has refused to answer the questions that Peter has asked of him. His statements that you quote, do not address the earlier statements that Les made and Peter quoted.
I think I can speak for Peter here when I say that we would surely welcome some articulation from Les on these very important issues.
Ron P.
Guys,
My, My, sometimes it is hard to get y'all away from the tree even when the 'coon is already dead and in the sack.
Les is a Southern Baptist and a legitimate candidate for president of the SBC.
We will all know in a few weeks who will get the nod.
"Till then, why don't you leave Les with enough skin on his bones so he can walk upright into the convention center.
Save your ammo for the great herd of nuts&flakes who are going to attack in full force during the plenary sessions.
cb
First, let me state that I really like the fact that a "small church" pastor is in the running for the presidency. I especially like that Les is the one running because he has shown that he has a tremendous heart for the small church and has done a great deal in strengthening the "average" churches of our denomination.
Second, I appreciate that Peter Lumpkins stepped over here to ask Les some follow-up questions related to the "Elmo" post.
Third, for someone who is entering the SBC presidential contest, theological questions (particularly pertinent ones related to public statements regarding paedobaptism, etc.) are well within the bounds of "fairness" and reasonable inquiry.
Fourth, Les - I appreciate your comments to help clarify the issue related to your views of paedobaptism, etc. They have helped me to better understand your consideration of the issue. I believe your previous statements (quoted by Peter) could have been clearer than they were. With that in mind, I would ask that you would consider providing further clarification on this issue if so requested.
Fifth, David Wilson is right... inquiry is not heresy. Just a reminder, not calling anyone on the carpet - graciousness and mercy are in order for everyone in discussing this matter, regardless of their support or non-support for Les as SBC president.
"His statements that you quote, do not address the earlier statements that Les made and Peter quoted."
I must be missing something. Declarative statements given after those "earlier statements" would seem to indicate to me our brother Les has made his decision about those issues very plain.
Are you interested in the how he moved through the inquiry or what?
David,
I think Ron & James have answered well the curious suggestion that somehow we are demanding more than is expected. Nor do I think anything and everything a man inquires into stands as grounds of disclosure. For me, it is absurb to suggest what we have asked here is such.
Evidently, Les inquired enough into the PCA to the point of seriously contemplating leaving the SBC for a PCA church--and that, only roughly a year ago. If what I am understanding is misinformed, Les needs to say so explicitly and forthrightly and I will be glad to stand down.
If not, I will continue to ask the question and will not be shamed or bullied into relenting. Southern Baptists deserve to know this of their potential President. It's that simple.
The SBC is a confusing community right now. This particular conversation is enlightening: the "Baptist Identity" boyz have more insight than their critics allow.
Here we are on this thread debating whether or not believer's baptism by immersion only stands as a valid criteria by which to rule out a candidate for the President of the SBC. Congradulations brothers: we've just made history.
With that, I am...
Peter
David,
His declarative statement is a contradiction of his comment that he is "amenable to Covenant Theology, including the practice of paedobaptism". An adequate explanation of the contradictions is warranted as it has not been satisfactorily been answered. Paedobaptism is not some minor theological issue that can be glossed over by one wanting to become President of the SBC.
Secondly, he is quoted as saying that he, at the time of the quote (less than two months ago), was considering leaving for the PCA. He has not answered that question at all.
Peter, well said. There can not be any relenting on pursuing these questions for one wanting to lead the SBC.
Ron P.
Correction: that should read less than fourteen months not two months regarding Les' apparent contemplation of leaving the SBC for the PCA.
Ron P.
"Here we are on this thread debating whether or not believer's baptism by immersion only stands as a valid criteria by which to rule out a candidate for the President of the SBC. Congratulations brothers: we've just made history."
Really? Where is that happening? Nice spin there Peter.
So in essence, you are not interested in what Les has plainly said he believes now, or believed before the period of time you reference as of interest. Because Les took a look over the hedge he's verboten.
Okay. I think I see where you are coming from.
David,
If you can show from my words your charge of "spin", get it on. However, know I have no intention of spinning squat. Nor does your "spin" charge stick just because you make it.
Hey, I know! Take a look at some of your "defenses" of Les' words and see if they stand the test of "spin". Maybe, I'll do that a bit later this evening :^)
If you cannot see the blatant inconsistency here in Les' words without one iota of explanation, cool. Keep right on believing such.
Nor will I stop just because you continue to insinuate I am the one with the problem. Sorry. I'm just not scared away that easily, Brother.
With that, I am...
Peter
David Wilson,
I don’t know how long you have been reading Blogs?
I can tell you there are a Few Masters of Spin and Boastfulness (Excessively proud statement: something you say or write that praises yourself, or arrogantly refers to your possessions or achievements) on these Blogs.
Peter, just Happens to Be the King of Spin and a Word Smith in his wrtings.
Some of Peters Posts go Poof and Disappear. At least Brother Les is Honest and Truthful in all Things and has a HEART for Jesus Christ.
Wayne
Peter stated, "Here we are on this thread debating whether or not believer's baptism by immersion only stands as a valid criteria by which to rule out a candidate for the President of the SBC. Congradulations [sic] brothers: we've just made history."
Not quite. We're not debating that point at all. If you want to say something to the effect that you are concerned that Les was struggling with this issue recently, and therefore have reservations regarding his suitability for serving as the SBC president, that's all fair and fine. Nobody here is saying that it's okay for a paedobaptist to serve as the SBC president. That, Peter, would be ludicrous.
Let's not forget that Les has stated, by the way, that he does *not* embrace paedobaptism - but believer's baptism - and that he affirms the BFM 2000.
James,
"Not quite" pertaining to what? To the contrary, James, what is at stake here is whether or not embracing believer's baptism by immersion is a valid criteria for a presidential candidate of the SBC or being President of the SBC.
To nod one's head in agreement with baby baptism, to seriously consider pastoring a PCA church--neither of which appear to bother some of Les' defenders here--and you suggest it's not about the criteria I mentioned??
Sorry, brother. I don't buy it.
In addition, I think we are making history here. You are an historian, James, perhaps you can inform me: Has there ever been a candidate for President of the SBC who, one year before accepting the nomination, was "nodding his head" in agreement with baby baptism and had, after study, become "amenable" to CT? (Only, of course, to cast it off later without one peep until it was mentioned).
How about one who was seriously considering becoming a presbyterian? I would really like to know.
With that, I am...
Peter
Wayne,
By the way, Thanks!
With that, I am...
Peter
Hit Man Pete,
The "Machine" must have had at least three full-time "blog-thread combers" to fish out the thread information to "relay" to you! :D
Pete, you've missed your calling . . . you should have been a CIA agent!
Pete, you are the only person I know who claims to be a non-calvinist/non-arminian; maybe you should throw your hat into the ring at INDY . . . even better, why don't you get VolFanny to nominate you!!! I would pay money to see that!!! :D
a proud Covenant CREDO-BAPTIST after the line of Gill & Spurgeon,
chadwick
Peter,
If Dr John Piper or Dr Wayne Grudem were running for President of the SBC, Would you Hound them like you are doing to Les Puryear and continue to Hound them after they answered you as Les has.
Wayne
Brother Les,
Thank you for answering the questions forthrightly and without reservation. I too appreciate that you have investigated the “paedobaptism” arguments. It simply makes can make you a stronger SBC defender. There are a great deal of Baptist pastors that would not know how to defend biblical “baptism” in light of the PCA doctrine.
It is important to note that you have not moved to PCA, nor have you endorsed paedobaptism. There are a lot of pastors in the crowd that actually believe baptism gains a person “privileges” in the church. That type of belief or conviction is actually in line with “paedobaptism”….so it pays to understand the doctrine of baptism and then commit to a decision. It sounds like you have by your actions.
2 Timothy 2:15 “ Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”
I hope the best for your endeavors in Indy my friend,
Blessings,
Chris
Les,
You can know a man by his friends, and his critics.
When I look at some of the people who are harrassing you, it makes me think you must have some pretty good credentials.
Chadwick,
No fishing for quotes for me. I've already gone through this with Les before at SBCToday.
Interesting, though: on the thread at SBCToday, the impression one gets is that Les was not investigating in order to find out and understand CT; rather as a "growth process". That was a mere 8 mos ago :^)
So, 6 mos. after a theological "growth process", where he was "nodding his head" in agreement with baptizing babies and "being "amenable" to "Covenant Theology" Les Puryear wants to be President of the SBC and that's not a big deal? I fear we have very different definitions of precisely what constitutes a big deal.
Even more, he was apparently seriously considering leaving the SBC for the PCA and when I make this a point to question his credentials, I'm "quote-mining"?
Chadwick, you do better, my brother, at spoofs. Better go create one...
Wayne, et al
So, I'm "hounding" Les and "harrassing [sic]" Les and "spinning" Les and "fish-combing" Les--and that all because a guy placed his name in the running for President of the SBC who refuses to explain a basic contradiction in words for position a) and position b)--the positions of which strike the core of Baptist faith. That's just terrific! Handy dandy, I'd say.
If someone mentioned, a year ago today, I'd be defending as criteria for President of the SBC a strong, unshakable conviction that believer's baptism by immersion stands at the core of who we are as Baptists, I'd have said "No way. We've got some issues. But that's not among them." Oh my...
Well, speak as you wish of my "hounding," harassing," my "quote-mining". I'm unconcerned about that. I am concerned that Southern Baptists know that one of their candidates for President of the SBC seriously entertained baby baptizing and pastoring a PCA church as little as 8mos ago.
Grace. With that, I am...
Peter
For Pete's sake, Lumpkins!
You are not "defending as criteria" credobaptism as a non-negotiable for the SBC. There isn't one candidate who denies credobaptism. All candidates have in common an affirmation of believer's baptism. Had Les forsaken credobaptism and embraced paedobaptism, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now because Les would no longer be Baptist.
You are however, "concerned that Southern Baptists know that one of their candidates for President of the SBC seriously entertained baby baptizing and pastoring a PCA church as little as 8mos ago." Fair enough. Please keep it to what it is.
Brother Peter,
You bring up valid questions, but you seem to think they have not been answered. How much conviction is enough conviction to warrant action?
Your right to want to know his deepest conviction…and he should respond with his deepest conviction through teaching,….that is his responsibility. I had a similiar conversation a few years ago with another Pastor, and he acted as though if someone thought differently than he at any one moment in time, the other guy was tainted goods for life whether he actually followed through or not in those thoughts. That Pastor’s words about the man’s presumptive failure was… “His convictions are no longer valid”. He took to the “double-minded” man scenario to a “new” level in his own superciliousness. Please don’t think I am aiming arrogance at you Peter, I have read you enough to know that is not your intent.
Are you asking Les if he nodded, what would make him nod? Or if he was thinking about leaving the SBC, what would make him think about leaving?
It might be more interesting to hear what he teaches about baptism? After all he is able to teach and is aspiring to lead a bunch of folks that know bits and pieces about that wonderful command of our Lord. I would be more interested to know what he would teach about the command, than the level of his conviction some months ago about doing something he never did do.
1 Timothy 3:1-2 "It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. (2) An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,"
Blessings,
Chris
To all,
Thanks for your vigorous discussion on this topic but I think we have exhausted its value.
I have fully and completely answered the questions raised by Peter. Whether or not he accepts my answers as truthful or not is up to him. I do wonder why my candidacy seems to be such a threat to Peter. Perhaps my chances are better than even I thought. :)
I am leaving Richmond and returning to my mother's house to stay overnight. Unfortunately, my mother has no Internet access therefore I will be unable to communicate with you until Friday evening. I am turning on comment moderation while I am unable to communicate with you. See you Friday night.
Les
Post a Comment