Presenter to Baptist Group Questions The Deity of Christ

I know that I have expressed frustration toward the SBC leadership on this blog more than a few times. But, let me say how glad I am that the SBC was rescued from going the route of theological liberalism that is being expressed by this theologian as he presents his views on the Bible to a group of Baptists.  The views were presented in a workshop at the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship's (CBF) General Assembly. There is a disclaimer that the CBF does not hold to all the views of all their speakers for their workshops, but I am really wondering why this type of perspective would be articulated if there was not some sympathy with it. John Killinger, theologian in residence at Marle Collegiate Church in New York City said such things as:

• "Now we are reevaluating and we're approaching everything with a humbler perspective and seeing God's hand working in Christ, but not necessarily as the incarnate God in our midst,"
• "Doctrine isn't the driving force to many people today" except "to the fundamentalists who insist on it, But doctrine is a thing of the past now religiously."
• "I find from pastors a greater and greater reluctance to preach from the Gospel of John, which used to be the greatest pleasure for most preachers because John was so assertive about the incarnation and the role of Christ" versus "the tendency to go back to Mark and Matthew and Luke to see the more human side of Jesus, who was anointed at the time of His baptism to be the savior of Israel, but not necessarily to be the preexistent one that we find in John."
• "Jesus Himself has had a lot of things said in His behalf that He never intended. This is one of the things that's going on today in biblical studies -- and I think is much more promising than some of the fundamentalists will allow -- is that we are questioning whether Jesus Himself said this or whether an institutional church that grew up in Jesus' wake said this. This was the purpose of the so-called Jesus Seminar,
• "The scholars almost all admit Daniel fibbed a lot because, as a book, it was actually written in one time and set back in time to make it look as if the prophecies it made came true," Killinger said. "That would validate other prophecies it was going to include, you see. So that's cheating a bit."

I am very well aware of what liberal theology proclaims. It is a mess. I don't normally focus on such things here at Downshoredrift, but I think that it is important to remember that in a world where the Bible is doubted and Jesus is marginalized, we must remember that God is real and His Word is true. Many will try and take that away from us by saying that scholarship has proven this or that. In reality, scholarship keeps revising its views every few years because they cannot settle on anything and they have never, not once, disproved anything that Scripture has asserted. Theologians like John Killinger consistently look for ways to reinvent Christianity after their own liking, and they fall in line with promoting the false Christs that we talked about in the last post. But, they are just much more up front about it. In reality, this type of thinking does not liberate people. It sets them adrift on a sea of confusion and hopelessness.

I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I also believe that the Bible is God's Word and that it is inerrant and true. I don't think that Daniel fibbed because I believe that God can give prophecy to people and tell them what is going to happen. I've looked at a lot of different philosophies, religious teachers, and religions and none of them compare to Jesus as He is presented in Scripture. It is my prayer that more and more people come to know the God of the Bible instead of the gods of their imagination.

Comments

[Big Daddy Weave]

First, let me say I think David Roach is one of the worst reporters that I've ever encountered. His stories have the General Sessions of CBF have always been less than fair and balanced - a couple times downright dishonest. I've written about that before and so have many others. However, while Roach may have put his own spin on this story, I'd be willing to bet that he got his facts correct.

John Killinger is not a CBFer. I suspect Killinger was invited to speak because he is John Killinger, a well known academic who has authored dozens of books and pastored several historic Baptist, Presbyterian and Congregationalist churches. But Killinger definitely shouldn't have been invited. Someone screwed up and they screwed up royally.

All those involved in CBF life know that CBFers don't deny the deity of Christ. We don't embrace liberal theology (as it has been defined throughout the decades by scholars). Even folks like Nathan Finn would and has acknowledged a similar point. I can't name a CBFer who has denied the deity.

I was in New York City last month with my dad. We were doing the tourist thing and had tickets to the Yankees-Mets series. We visited some historic churches and passed Killinger's church. My dad mentioned that in recent years Killinger had taken a sharp jerk to the left theologically. He's at the CBF now. When I talked to him tonight, he said he was completely surprised that Killinger's name was on the presenter list. I suspect Killinger was primarily invited to give his talk tomorrow on "My Life With Jerry Falwell."

Nonetheless, I'm truly disappointed that Killinger was a presenter, that he said what he said. He even comes across as an elitist snob when espousing his liberalism. He has a higher understanding of the Gospel? Please. He even endorsed the Jesus Seminar. YUCK.

Someone messed up big time. This stuff isn't taught at seminaries and these aren't views espoused by pastors from the pulpit or in the writings of moderate professors.

Thankfully, there probably weren't more than 20 people attending Killinger's workshop.

[Alan Cross]

Thanks, Big Daddy. I thought I might hear from you on this. I tried to be fair to the CBF by pointing to their disclaimer, but it still caused me to question why they would even have him there. You are right, someone messed up big time. Has there been any statement by the CBF to disavow this teaching? Maybe they don't do that type of thing, but it does bring a lot of confusion.

And yes, I was not surprised to see BP jump all over this. I am sure that they were very happy to print this type of story to prove a point. Still, it is a major problem.

Thanks for your insight into the situation. It is helpful.

[Harold M.]

Alan,
I had a lunch conversation with a lady who works for me this week and just happened to discuss the CBF of which her church is a member. I told that I avoid the CBF like the black plague and I think I hurt her feelings. When she I asked why, I told her that too many CBF's tend to associate with those who hold a low view of scripture. Then I read this story on Baptist Press last night. I didn't know that I was a prophet.

[Robert Dando (UK)]

i appreciate both that the deity of Christ is an absolute fundamental truth in the Christian faith, and i appreciate the particular sensitivities that people in the SBC have to identifying the faults in the CBF. Should however, it not cause you more concern that in a Lifeway study for Kentucky Baptists published in November 2007, of a group of 223 people attending Southern Baptist churches, the following doctrinal were perspectives identified

Jesus may have committed sins while in human form on earth (65% Disagree strongly or somewhat) - 35% of the sample people attending SBC churches in Kentucky didn't disagree with this statement

Christians must continually work toward their salvation, or risk losing it (49% Disagree strongly or somewhat) - 51% of the sample people attending SBC churches in Kentucky didn't disagree with this statement

If a person is sincerely seeking God, he/she can obtain eternal life through religions other than Christianity (45% Disagree strongly or somewhat) - 55% of the sample people attending SBC churches in Kentucky didn't disagree with this statement.

The views you identified as expressed at a CBF event are not acceptable, and there is a massive plank to be removed from other eyes too!

with Prayers for all our USA Baptist brothers and sisters

[Chris Hilliard]

It is interesting that when some of the most recent debates have arisen in the SBC, that CBFers rose up to say, "See, we told you this would happen. We told you that the infighting would continue. The conservatives will eventually eat their own." To which the SBCers get all up in arms and defend themselves.

And then on the flip side, you have the CBF allowing more and more liberal influence in its halls. And the SBCers rise up and say, "See, we told you this would happen. We told you that more and more liberal theology and morality will take over." And the CBFers (Big Daddy for example) get up in arms and defend themselves.

Seems like both sides have some things to work on.

[Charley]

I find all of this discussion very interesting. I think that what we must be concerned with is that the condfidence among believers in the fundamentals of the Faith is eroding in all points of the Evangelical compass. I do think the watchers on the walls ( that would be you all) should fire a warning shot when you see or hear those who are promoting the erosion. Unfortunately firing warning shots are often not received as a warning but a shot intended to do harm. Lord give us discernment to know the difference.

[Terry Leap]

Thanks Alan for the post. I posted a similar article yesterday on my blog highlighting this very issue and how problematic it is for me personally. I also appreciate Big Daddy's perspective. I too am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that many/ most? CBF folks do not embrace this radical a theology. But my questions are three-fold.

1. Why has no CBF leadership publicly renounced this guy's teaching and apologized for having him speak? At least none that I have found yet... It seems that if they wanted to distance themselves and make a stand for orthodoxy, they would have jumped on this opportunity?

2. Why did Killinger say himself (in the article I believe he is quoted loosely as saying...) that "Many CBF pastors agree with his views of salvation, Killinger said, citing an experience at a gathering of pastors in South Carolina. When he asked them what salvation meant to them, they all talked about self-fulfillment and love rather than doctrine, Killinger said."

3. I understand that we are all discussing his views on Christ, but why is no-one referencing his equally disturbing views of John's gospel? He outright denies any divine value to the gospel of John except for "mystical" values... Isn't that also disturbing?

I am not accusing anyone of anything here, so please folks, don't jump all over me. I am also not "rejoicing" that this happened to the CBF, somehow implying that it makes us stronger as SBs when the CBF goes this direction. This is damaging to the cause of Christ...period...regardless of where it comes from. I am just trying to make sense of this muddled situation. I really would like to hear from one CBF leader who would stand up and renounce this guy's theology and apologize for having him speak at a gathering of Baptists. I appreciate academia, and believe in the value of knowing and understanding heresy in order to combat it. I appreciate the value of the free exchange of ideas, but that is not what this was. This seems to be a situation in which a group of Baptists is endorsing this theology, not rejecting it or merely trying to understand it for apologetic value.

Maybe Big Daddy is right...someone screwed up royally. But I don't see anyone from the CBF rushing to clarify that.

Terry

[Robin Foster]

Alan

Thanks.

Robin